"Throughout my entire life, in every aspect, at all times by all means I will serve only one objective: the benefit of the Hungarian Nation and the Hungarian homeland." /Bartók Béla/
Irs not too bad but (in my opinion) there is not any rythm change between "A" and "B" theme, they is typical for nocturnes and moato of the A-B-A music
The best ever and forever is and will always be Horowitz. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kYAS0GlY810.htmlsi=iTRw0TNsgbaDyMpV And that's without any discussion.
Agreed wholeheartedly. He makes too much of a point of going for a heldentenor interpretation, and it's completely incongruous, in my opinion, with the rest of the piece. But even with a Wagnerian bent in mind, that dreaded wobble is just too heavy-handed, as you said. You know the saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I think the rest of the performance sans Chorus Mysticus makes up for it, though. This is one of those compositions (like the b-minor Sonata) in which if you don't get the pacing and the tempi right, it shatters into a million pieces (hence why none of the famous performances of this symphony convinced me thus far, e.g. Bernstein, Solti, Noseda, Masur, etc...)
I'm glad to hear these, but the transfers seem "overprocessed". Granted, there's considerable surface noise reduction, but upper frequencies are lost when that is pushed too far. Myself, I can live with surface noise if the piano sound has more "zing". Acoustical recording has a limited frequency range to begin with, and lopping off the top - which contains most of the "sizzle" that bothers people not accustomed to early recordings - actually limits the bottom frequencies as well, which the process caught in, at best, a restricted way as well. Hearing Chaminade's discs largely "untreated", except for stylus size and minimal noise reduction, is rather astonishing and much more impressive than what is presented here. For one thing, they are piano recordings _from 1901_ that are quite vivid, thanks to the original engineering by the Gramophone & Typewriter Company's Will Gaisberg. (The company, later HMV, was only 2 years old at this point.) Chaminade's articulations are not only clearer, but the tone she pulls from the instrument is distinctive. What's more, the piano was an upright! - that was all they had at G&T's Maiden Lane studio, where Chaminade recorded (they moved premises in 1902), and it was placed with its soundboard quite close to the recording horn. The upright must have been a very good one, because Chaminade's characteristically French "pearly" touch registers well and in her more aggressive passages the bass has good resonance. She seems to have made no allowances to the recording equipment in terms of either delicacy or power - she just played as she would anywhere, and that speaks volumes for the original equipment and Gaisberg's expertise. I'd like to hear these sides in a way that is less restricted by sonic alterations that unduly adulterate the original recordings.
You have a great point. The only way to remove the surface noise is with EQ; even high-end denoising equipment today that purports to be cutting-edge is just cleverly disguised EQ (or so my audio engineer friend says). It’s a zero-sum game still. Unfortunately for us, the only way to hear these recordings as they were at the turn of the century is to obtain an original 78rpm shellac disc because the only digital transfer of these records (AFAIK) is the one I uploaded (made by Pierian Recording Society).
It's only a small hall in Baden-Baden with a capacity of 200-300 spectators, that's why the applause is so big...However, the "peché" of the piano performance art was created here and then, the most perfect Liszt replica of this piece. I am convinced that only a Hungarian artist can perform a Liszt piece authentically. Kocsis, as a 4th-generation Liszt student and descendant, carries Liszt's genes in his genes, which makes a Hungarian pianist's Liszt performance inimitable. They can be called Horovitz, Richter, Rubinstein, etc., but they lack this "plus", everything is written in the sheet music, everything can be perfectly learned, but the inner state of mind required for the performance of the piece formulated by Liszt cannot be described in the sheet music. It either comes from within or it doesn't. That's all...
Good catch! However, there are some misprints in some of the French editions of Debussy's works. That repeated B-flat at the beginning of the Suite Bergamasque is the most notorious. This may be one of them. The new Henle urtext places the flat in brackets, and the first edition (Choudens) doesn't feature it at all. The reprint was also issued in Debussy's lifetime and does feature a flat, so I guess this is one of those occasions where you can make up your mind about what version you like best.
@@Kris9kris In bar number 11 there is basically the same music and Kocsis played the D flat, so it doesn't make sense to play a D natural in the later repetition. Moreover it sounds much more beautiful with D flat, and it sounds weird with D natural because of what comes next in that part.
This is beautiful, the interpretation could be slower and more serious, but still a beautiful transcription and performance. It sheds some lights on how this piece should be interpreted as a piano music.
