Thanks for honouring my curiosity about Claudio Arrau, Dave! I always admire Claudio’s seriousness and his attention to the tone. I think it’s an utmost treasure to the musical world which deserves much more attention than it ever gets. On the side way, I think your seriousness to the musical critics, alone with your expertise is an utmost treasure, too. I honestly think you shouldn’t pay the level of attention as you did to those who have trashed your honesty and perspective and the spirit of free speech. To me, they deserve nothing more than two words: f**k off! Please keep going and concentrate with your wonderful work, Dave! Lots of love from Australia
I remember reading all those positive reviews when these recordings came out. But it took me a long time to warm up to them. I found them deficient in strength, sinew, dramatic tension and sheer pianistic brilliance, at least when compared to Gilels's earlier effort with Reiner in No. 2, and Fleisher/Szell in No. 1. Eventually I came round to appreciating them for their warmth and subtlety, but I still find the Brahmsian passions muted. Among many other versions of hallowed memory we should not forget Rubinstein, first with Krips then with Leinsdorf and the BSO. Rubinstein was a formidable Brahmsian, and it shows in all his recordings of that composer.
I second your endorsement of Rubinstein playing Brahms--after all, at age 11 he was an accompanist in Joachim's violin class, so he basically got lessons in Brahmsian style from Brahm's best friend. I particularly like the recording of of the First piano concerto that Rubinstein did with Reiner and Chicago in 1955. The sound is good, early stereo, and the performance is excellent. Rubinstein also recorded No. 2 with Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orch. about 1970. It is a bit on the mellow side, but overall very nice to hear.
And 50+ years later, despite numerous other excellent sets recorded, this set remains unsurpassed. Absolutely worthy of the status as Reference Recordings for these 2 masterpieces by Brahms.
I think it was NEVER unsurpassed. As a set, Fleisher/Szell and the stereo Serkin/Ormandy have more to offer. And Gilels/Reiner in Brahms 2 is a much stronger, less draggy performance than Gilels/Jachum.
@@poturbg8698 Its a matter of taste. The Fleisher/Szell don't impress me at all. I do greatly admire the Serkin/ Omamdy and, yes, the Gilels/ Reiner no 2 is surely more exciting than the Gilels / Jochum. But I do not find the later draggy at all. For me what they do fits the music perfectly. As for which is the better of Gilels' two recordings of no.2 - for me both are! There simply is no single way in which these masterpieces can be performed. I have both Gilels no.2's and enjoy both equally, loving the both Gilels more exciting/intense (with Reiner) and his more serious/intense (with Jochum) readings. I therefore stand with my original comment, knowing that others may feel different. Good then that there are other recordings to also please different tastes.
@@MD-md4th If your bleeding eardrums come from the Gilels/Reiner Brahms 2, you might check out one of the remastered versions that have dramatically improved the sound.
Being European, the Gilels/Jochum set was indeed the reference and hence the first I knew, and it was depressing insofar as I couldn't seem to "get" the 1st, to the extent where I kept wondering if something was wrong with me. Then I heard Fleisher with Szell, and after all those years, the penny dropped instantly, in fact, that first movement in particular may have become my favorite piano concerto recording of anything whatsoever, setting me on a journey of collecting recordings of the 1st, love it to bits, along with, of course, the 2nd. Anyway, the process of getting to know the Brahms Piano Concerti in this manner was a weird experience. What I'm trying to say is there's an intimidation factor to "reference recordings" that can make one second-guess one's tastes in interpretation and performance, and this to me was the recording that made me overcome this sense of trepidation. As you've mentioned in several other videos of this "reference recordings" series, there are ones you don't much like either, and they are what they are so we have something to refer to talking about our favorites.
Dear Mr Hurwitz, with Pollini's passing, maybe you should mention the "standard" he established in late Beethoven or some Chopin cycles. I love Gilels choice. Sometimes, I wonder what his reputation (and contracts) would be if he weren't overshadowed by Richter as "second" Russian pianist.
I agree. I'm 70 and remember when Gilels/Jochum appeared. In UK (meaning Gramophone, I fear), up to that point the references were Curzon/Szell for 1 and Backhaus/Boehm for 2. The latter baffled me, I must say. The orchestral playing and sound quality were superb, but old Backhaus (who was fine when at his best in his 30s and 50s recordings) rambles vaguely through, with the odd grand moment. Thanks also for comments on Arrau. I 'learnt' these pieces from his records with Giulini (EMI), so different from the Gilels, and was one of the people who could never make out why they were ignored. (I prefer them to his Haitink ones.)
I imprinted on the Pollini recordings, and I still go back to his performances. RIP, Maestro. (I agree with your statement that having two different conductors somehow diminishes the Pollini set. Nonsense.)
I've bought recently a set of these Piano Concertos by Dimitris Sgouros (pn)/Sofia Philharmonic Orchestra/Emil Tabakov (label: Capriccio). I think they're lovely and i would recommend a srious listen. Of course i have the traditional ones which i like a lot: Gilels/Jochum, Freire/Chailly, Arrau/Giulini, Serkin/Ormandy or Szell. You can't go wrong with these!
Yes, this is exactly what I expected. I bought them in the 1980s on cassette because reviews suggested they were the best, and was not disappointed. Good to know the background. Incidentally, it seems we are the same age.
I think I've listened to every recording of Piano Concerto No. 2 there is and none can touch Richter/Leinsdorf/CSO. I think Freire & Chially recent recording gives an idea of how even more extraordinary the Richter/Leinsdorf might have sounded like if it were recorded with today's studio technology. There's enough great recordings of Piano Concerto No. 2, it's hard to pick a favorite.
I got the original box set (2 LP) when it was released after hearing an excellent comment on Radio Canada FM at the time. It has always been my favorite version. The entrance of the piano at the beginning of the first movement of the first concerto is magnificent. In the original box set note we can read that this recording was made at the request of many music lovers who had loved Gilels in his recording of works by Brahms for solo piano on DG
Thank you very much for your insightful and erudite commentary. I’m so very glad to have discovered your channel. Maurizio Pollini’s passing put me in the mind to ask whether you might consider a series of talks on pianists, especially living ones. I’ve often wondered, for instance, what you think of artists like Evgeny Kissin and Daniel Trifonov. Thanks again.
Gilels is a fine choice and the historical circumstances were just right for this. The other interesting case is that of Fleisher/Szell, not only because it was highly revered at the time, but Fleisher's subsequent injury led to so many students and fans revisiting all of his earlier stuff creating a new resurgence in interest in his playing. Both great sets!
I’ll have to check out this set. I only own individual recordings. I don’t dislike the first concerto, but the second…Oh my!! My two favorite recordings of it are by Cliburn and Watts.
Three things blow me away about these recordings. According to ROs account of the sessions in Records and Recording - Jochum said that there is more magic in the Brahms concerti than the symphonies - I think he’s right - that’s how he conducts them. Second - Gilels never played the first concerto in public - in fact these session were the only occasion he played it. The Berlin Phil and DG people were the only people who heard it. Finally Gilels delivers performance of the First concerto which seems to me to be a pinnacle recording of the Romantic period/movement/sensibility. I find it thrilling and terrifying.
Actually my favorite recording of the Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1 is the 1954 one by Artur Rubinstein and the Chicago Symphony under Fritz Reiner. It's the all-time greatest (in my humble opinion) and the one I'd play for anyone who dismisses Brahms as a neo-classical bore. Unfortunately, Rubinstein couldn't stand Reiner and he made his later concerto recordings with a more complaisant conductor, Josef Krips.
The story (by Richard Mohr) is that Rubinstein and Reiner got along just fine until they recorded Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. It's a tricky piece, and Rubinstein, near the end of the session, asked for a retake. This would have taken them into over-time. Reiner bluntly said "We do not do overtime in Chicago." Rubinstein, feeling slighted, was off the piano bench and off the stage before you could blink, and he never worked with Reiner again. This speaks to Rubinstein's strong self-preservation instincts--he was not going to continue working with a conductor who would not accommodate his best efforts. It also speaks to Reiner watching his pocketbook--apparently his contract stated that he had to pay for recording overtime out of his own pocket.
@@2leftfield This encounter occurred in 1956, two years after the 1954 Brahms concerto. Thank you for capturing the situation. The memory of witnessing the legendary pianist head for the exits must have stayed in the orchestra players' memories for some time.
Just discovered your channel, very interesting! I would suggest Michael Korstick's newly released Brahms Concerto CD (German Hänssler), you will not be disappointed!
I would be content if Jochum and Gilel’s Brahms 2nd piano concerto was the final piece I heard on this earth. What do you think of Zimerman and Bernstein’s Brahms 2nd?
Half-way apropos: What a great irony that Bernstein publicly distanced himself from Gould's slow tempos (in No.1, granted) only to re-record the two concertos... even slower, with Zimerman.
Hello dave, any plans to do Pollini's complete dg box? Fair to say he is a bit divisive so it'll be interesting to see your take on his work disc by disc. I'd also be interested in a video on Serkin's sony box or maybe Arrau's big decca/philips box, two really wonderful pianists who did lots of great stuff. Big fan of your work, keep up!
@@PG-zt9nw I think this was Dave's "however" choice when he did the concerto cycle countdown so I immediately found it to listen to. It is great, however I felt like the piano was a bit recessed sounding compared to the Jochum set which I couldn't get past fully.
The Best Brahms concerto no 1 players are Really Radu Lupu with the Finnish Radio Symphony video from 1996!Radu Lupu had the most colorful piano sound for Brahms no 1! Radu Lupu More relax than Arrau or Freire! Maria Grinberg had the most fire and passion for Brahms no 1 from 1963! The Best Brahms no 2 are Sviatoslav Richter with The Paris Orchestra from 1969 Richter the most monumental and Best structure! Grigory Sokolov his Brahms no 2 had the Best piano sound! Sokolov his rhythmic vitalness is unbeatable!! Sokolov the most Tiranic! Edwin Fischer from 1942 Fischer the Genius!!
