Dave wrote:

>... for me, the performer just isn't of paramount importance ...

One of greatest pleasures of reading this list messages is finding opinions
extremely opposite to mine.  This is one of them.  I would pay all my money
for Clara Haskil's recording of anything.  I like Solomon's recordings very
much *because* they are almost transparent and I can almost touch the notes
written by Beethoven.  I like Argerich's recordings *because* she is always
there and I can almost touch her.

>... For me, Schnabel's performances are also marred by metric imprecision.
>Way back in my high school and college playing days, I realized that I'm
>especially sensitive to rhythmic idiosyncrasies ...

So am I.  But I would never call Schnabel's performances 'marred by
metric imprecision'.  His Beethoven's Sonatas and Diabelli Variations
seem to me extremely precise.  He knows everything about time!  None of
his 'not hitting the beat precisely' is random or meaningless.  There are
no 'third-rank notes' for him, no 'joins', no 'ornaments'.  Everything is
important and everything is performed.  When I am listening to him, I feel
these works can be played his way only.  (But don't think I listen to his
recordings only.  Solomon's Beethoven's late sonatas make the same
impression on me.  This is magic.)

>... Gould's interpretation
>is always "in the moment", and as such I rarely hear evidence that he has
>a grand vision (if you will) of the work he's performing.  The "long line"
>is nowhere to be found - at least I usually can't find it.  It's almost
>like an action movie: the plot is absent, but you're still on the edge
>of your seat waiting for the next surprise.  This can be fun, and there's
>absolutely nothing wrong with fun, but ultimately I find it unsatisfying.
>Take the Goldbergs, for example.  I greatly admire his advocacy of Bach
>before it was fashionable (even though I rarely find Bach on a piano worth
>the time), but in his playing of the variations I hear a man who just can't
>wait to be done with it.  Here we go, as fast as we can, and, bam, we're
>done, wasn't that impressive?  This has a superficial excitement, but
>ultimately there's no there there.

Well, this can be easily written about Gould's 1955 GVs.  And what about
1981 recording? This experimental music, almost perfect example of 'long
line'? And what about English Suites Sarabandes with so global construction
and without any note misplaced? Dave's description is perhaps a good one
of young Gould, but I can't agree with it when we are talking about Gould
generally.

>... I haven't found a solo performance by Richter that
>left me anything but bored (his WTC is deathly dull) ...

Perhaps his WTC is a little too transparent and safe but I always come back
to it.  I've never been bored.  Are his Mussorgsky's Pictures boring? Or
Beethoven's early sonatas?

>...  I feel similarly about Argerich.  Her concertos are often exciting,
>but, without the moderation of an orchestra, I find her solo performances
>much less interesting.

I can't understand anything from Ravel's Gaspard unless she is playing.
Her Bach is electrifying.  Her Chopin's preludes almost killed me.  I
would say her solo performances are sometimes over-interesting.

>Our individual responses to music are as unique as our fingerprints.
>Our perceptions of this, the most abstract of art, are so personal I'm
>often amazed that we can talk about it at all.  For me, it's humbling as
>it is exhilarating.

It's magic. Thanks to Dave for this opportunity.

Krzysztof Lorentz
[log in to unmask]