 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-29 00:44
I thought I'd start a fresh thread since it is a slightly different issue than my objection to the CD booklet notes.
I'm curious as to what makes the Wright/Serkin recording the "definitive" version of Brahms in people's opinions. I find Wright's playing to be beautiful, though a little bland at times, particularly in the 1st Movement of the FMinor Sonata. My main problem with the CD is the piano playing. Just wandering what others think (and please spare me the "fools rush in.." garbage. No one ever learned anything by NOT asking questions).
The CD seems to have a lot of reverb, which may be responsible for some of what I'm hearing, but a lot of times it just sounds like Serkin is beating the piano to death. There are spots in the Fantasy Pieces where the piano is so bangy (particularly one spot in the last mov). The only other recording of Fantasy Pieces/Brahms Sonatas that I have is Stoltzman/Goode. I will gladly agree that Wright plays the pieces beautifully, but I think Goode is superior as a pianist. As another poster rightly pointed out, these pieces are as much for piano as clarinet, which makes Serkin's playing a major distraction at times (again, I realize some of this may be the reverb on the Wright/Serkin CD). It also seems like Stoltzman and Goode are more "in tune" (I'm not talking pitch frequency...) with each other than Serkin and Wright as far as phrasing and interpretation (whether or not you like HOW they interpret is an entirely different issue). Goode and Stoltzman sound like they are playing as a team... At times, I don't get this feeling from the Wright version.
I'm not arguing that the Stoltzman version is the best (it's the only one I've heard other than Wright's, so I couldn't really make that claim even if I wanted to)... but from a purely comparative standpoint, I think the ensemble aspects of Goode/Stoltzman's playing far exceed Wright/Serkin in many ways. It could also be that Stoltzman's is mixed better. Who knows...
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
Post Edited (2004-07-29 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-07-29 01:43
theclarinetist wrote:
> I'm curious as to what makes the Wright/Serkin recording the
> "definitive" version of Brahms in people's opinions.
I hardly think that there is a clear consensus on the "definitive version", as you will find that just as many people favor either the:
Kell/Rosen, De Peyer/Pryor, Stoltzman/Goode, or Leister/Oppitz
or one of my personal favorites: Berkes/Jando ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-29 02:24
I had heard more than a few people say that Wright's was the benchmark (which is why I purchased it). I'm curious to here Victoria Soames' version, but I can't find it on amazon.com, and I'm too lazy to type my credit card number into a different website. The Shifrin also looked interesting. I previewed the Berkes/Jando on amazon, but it sounded like it had too much reverb which is irritating (although the online streaming samples often don't have the same sound quality as the CD).
I think the Stoltzman version is sublime, but wanted some other to compare it against, since I know many people think he over does it. After hearing Wright's more subdued version, I think I prefer it over-done. Stoltzman's leaves me in awe. Wright's has left me lukewarm both times I've listened to it (I just got the CD a few days ago - so I'll listen to it several more times as things often grow on you after a while).
Interestingly, I also recently purchased Kashkashian's Viola version of the Sonatas. The are beautiful of viola and her playing is very passionate. Highly recommended for anyone who loves these pieces.
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2004-07-29 02:41
I happen to love the Wright/Serkin recordings. Yes, there are flaws, but I choose to listen to the beautiful musicianship I find present. I like to listen to both these bold performers and the more conservative types just to experience both extremes and know what I need to do (conservative) and what I can play with (bold) as far as musicality to find my own interpretation.
Anyway, this is the part where I have something worthwhile to say. I feel all this talk about "definitive" recordings is frankly- BS. How can you dictate what others should regard as the best example of such a subjective medium. Ofcourse, that's again another opinion-based comment. Oh well.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-29 06:15
Bradley,
I agree completely. I am usually suspicious of a recording being called "definitive", for the very reasons that you have listed. The fact that many recordings that have been called "definitive" by some (Goodman's Copland, Marcellus's Mozart, Wright's Brahms) seem a little bland to me makes the concept of a recording being "definitive" even more difficult to understand (since I'm assuming that "blandness" is not the ideal we're all striving for...)
Obviously, each individual person can decide for him or herself which performers they think plays a given piece "definitively", but when there appears to be a general consensus among many (with the Marcellus Mozart, for example), I would assume there must be something tangible there that people can explain. However, when you inquire, the response is usually either "you just have to feel it" or "how dare you ask that question!!". The latter is obviously of no use to any one. I think "you just have to feel it" is a pretty reasonable response, but appealing to the individual nature of music only works to weaken the concept of a recordings "definitiveness", not strengthen it.
I think when a performance (Wright's Brahms in this case) is rumored to be very good or definitive (though everyone obviously doesn't hold this view), I listen with higher expectations than if I just heard the performance with no prior knowledge of it's alleged "definitive-ness". This is probably why "definitive" pieces usually seem disappointing to me, because you tend to listen for mistakes. On the flip side, when listening to a piece that is supposedly bad or non-mainstream (like most things Stoltzman does), I tend to listen for the good things more. It's kind of interesting how the preconceived notions you have affect how you perceive something.
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-07-29 15:16
Artur Schnabel said that great music is greater than any one player can perform it.
You need more than one recording of the Brahms Sonatas, no matter how good any particular one is. Wright himself made two -- one with Peter Serkin and an earlier one with Harris Goldsmith. They're both very good, and very different. There are equally good recordings by Thea King, Bela Kovacs and others.
I love the Marcellus recording of the Mozart Concerto, but the early de Peyer recording is just as good, and brings out, for example, a "dance" feeling Marcellus doesn't. I also wouldn't be without Eric Hoeprich's recent recording on a reconstruction of Stadler's basset clarinet, or several others.
The Mozart Concerto has been recorded about 150 times, and I've probably listened to most of them. It's certainly possible to say that some are wonderful and others not so good, but I've never heard a recording that didn't add to my understanding and appreciation of the piece. I once went to a truly dreadful live performance by a college player who had no idea about how it should go, but I was hearing it go the right way so strongly in my head that I learned something even there.
The search for the "definite" recording of a masterpiece is a will-of-the-wisp. There's no such thing, and even if you found the best one for you, your understanding would be incomplete if that were all you every heard.
Best ergards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
