Just received a CD and two DVDs.

The CD features performances by Paulena Carter and is titled, 97 Keys. I have an old LP of this, my introduction to classical music and concert pianists. A wonderful start. Can be had via Amazon for only 12.98. Glass breaking highs, thundering lows. Paulena played with the Los Angles Symphony and famous conductor Walter Bruno during her career. Back of album cover says it's a Bechstein piano and yet no one ever heard of a Bechstein with 97 keys. Perhaps a typo and is really a Bosendorfer

One DVD features Gyorgy Cziffra, his improvisation and several other pieces. This DVD also contains performances by Jorge Bolet and Benno Moiseiwitsch. Have not yet listened to these last two pianists. The improvisation portion by Cziffra warrants buying this DVD!

The other DVD features performances by Artur Rubinstein, The legendary Moscow recital, 1 Oct. 1964. Sampled this one, great sound. Believe he was about 72 yrs old here. My first and only recording of Rubinstein's and don't believe I could have done better.

Some recordings you might want to experience. All from Amazon.

Bech

I love getting new CDs or Dvds. The last DVD I got was "Piotr Anderszewski: Unquiet Traveler", which is fabulous. Unfortunately, since I started college a couple years ago, I have really had to watch my pennies.

I have the CD. It was interesting that he included several Chopin etudes. I don't know if he made any studio recordings of the etudes. If Hank reads this, he would probably know. If you liked that, you may be interested in THIS thread. Awesome pianist!

Damon,

Thanks for the thread. Very nice of the OP to go to all that trouble.

Damon, doesn't Rubinstein have the record for number of recordings by a concert pianist?

Enjoy his interviews on YouTube. He had truly been there, done that. What a career.

I read that he was not all that impressed with Horowitz's octaves. Ha! Overall believe they got along pretty well.

Bech

Gould was not impressed either. He said Horowitz cheated by omitting notes.

horowitz added as many notes as he omitted, so i guess it all balances out in the end

I think the record belongs to Ashkenazy or Gould. This was discussed some time ago and these two names stuck in my memory. On the last point I think, if you seek out some early Rubinstein, you will find Rubinstein's treatment of octaves to be entirely by choice. I hear plenty of evidence that he could rip through them if he wanted, but objected to it as a matter of style.

Ashkenazy, is easily the most recorded of the two. Many of those Gould recordings you see are repackaged reissues, but Ashkenazy, has touched on practically the entire core repertoire.

Well, don't stop there!

He was born in 1887, so he was a bit older then than you guessed.


He recorded Op. 10 No. 4 (on two occasions), Op. 10 No. 5 (once), Op. 25 No. 5 (two occasions), and the Trous Nouvelles Etudes (again, on two occasions).

At least this is what's listed in the enormous RCA collection of nearly 100 CDs.

I'm not familiar with Rubinstein's live performances, and wonder which other ones were in his repertoire. I would have loved to hear him play Op. 25 No. 7, among many others ... Well, the whole lot, actually.

Don't you just hate it when people misspell his last name 'Rubenstein'? It makes me think of Paul Reubens -- whom I love! -- but I still hate the misspelling.

Misspelling names. That's an easy mistake to make. Can't be any worse than missed notes--and there's plenty of them. The perfect speller and perfect pianist don't exist.

Bech

Ashkenazy is the most recorded pianist? I figured it would be Richter, Rubinstein, or Horowitz. But I don't know for sure.

'Perfect' anything doesn't exist! But unless there are variants for famous names like Rachmaninoff or Scriabin -- and those 'variants' exist because of specific linguistic reasons -- a name has only one correct spelling.

i keep on discovering more and more Ashkenazy recordings the more i explore. He really has played a ton (especially for someone who doesn't play atonal music or Liszt :P) think about it -- he has recorded (off the top of my head) Beethoven sonata and concerto cycles, a Mozart concerto cycle, Rach prelude and MM cycles, Chopin solo works cycle, WTC, at least two Rach concerto cycles, at least two Brahms concerto cycles, plus tons of 4-hand and chamber rep. I think that's where the three you mentioned fall short (especially Horowitz), they never really recorded a lot of "complete" sets, nor do any of them have an especially large chamber selection.

Perhaps if more old Horowitz recordings and live concert documents surface from the vaults he may eventually have a larger recorded discography. that being said, I have no idea who holds the title now, but to be honest it's probably some budget-label pianist who's made slipshod recordings of everything under the sun like Idil Biret.

Is there a Rubinstein DVD that's superior in sound and picture quality to the one I mentioned?

If so I'd like to buy it.

I sometimes, initially at least, get a little carried away with my enthusiasm although I'm listening to Rubinstein's Moscow recital at this time and enjoying it.

Yes, my math was wrong. He was very close to 77 yrs old when he did this performance. On the back of this DVD "container" they say: "....shows Rubinstein at his prime...." Well.... Still, he does a great job. Probably better than I can fully appreciate.

Bech

some of his 1970s recordings, perhaps? i have a (color) dvd of him playing Beethoven 3, Brahms 1, (i think) and some assorted other works, that's in pretty decent quality. I think there might be one of him doing the Grieg Am as well. Check around on Amazon.

fwiw, Naxos (Biret's label) is excellent, and has lots of first-rate performers and performances. I'm not saying anything about Biret's playing; just that the impugning of this particular "budget-label" is unwarranted.

-J

Ah, I love that film. The very idea of a piano on a train strikes a chord (ha) in me; riding on trains and playing pianos are possibly my two favorites things to do! I really need to pick up some of his CDs, what I heard in the movie was excellent - except for that Brahms. Major bummer, IMHO. The Mozart was epic, though!



Richter, maybe, but I think Horowitz had a remarkably small repertoire. Chopin, Liszt, assorted Russian concerti and big pieces, assorted shorter virtuosic works, plus a smattering of the three B's, Clementi, and Scarlatti to appease the critics. It feels small to me at least... eh, I'd settle for it! =D

Anybody who's seen Rubinstein's suitcase-sized box set from RCA could also be disappointed by the size of his recorded repertoire.

For die-hard fans it has depth (sometimes numerous recordings of the same piece from various stages of career or, in the case of concertos and chamber works, with different orchestras and ensembles) -- but the lack of breadth was surprising, at least to me.

Major works by major composers -- Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt -- are simply missing. For an artist of his stature, his actual recorded legacy is in my opinion both very conservative in range and very disappointing.

I didn't say he's the most recorded pianist (though he may well be). I said he's the more recorded than the pianists mentioned. As I said he's recorded practically the entire core repertoire and if you were to throw in his recordings as a conductor (which I know don't count here) he'd be by far the most recorded.

Sorry to be dense, but are you talking about Rubinstein??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rubinstein_discography

Or Horowitz??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Horowitz_discography

Plenty of major works here - primarily from the Romantic era and early 20th century. One might argue that the repertoire of both pianists was conservative in range...but disappointing?

I referred to Rubinstein. I’ve never really been a fan of Horowitz (but of the age group that invariably held allegiance to one of the two men, but not usually both), so I’m barely familiar with Horowitz’s discography at all.

The box-set I mentioned comes with a deluxe hardbound book (in English, French and German) of biographical information, interviews and reminiscences -- and also contains an index (track listing) of the CDs in numerical order and by composer. (If the Wikipedia article had the data in a sortable table, my point about depth at the expense of breadth might be easier to see.)

I’ll try to list some of what, to me, are such notable omissions as to be severely disappointing. Of course, I don’t know that many of these works were in Rubinstein’s active repertoire, so maybe I’m not being fair. But considering his very long life and number of years in which he was very actively performing and recording, I think that many of them should have been!

• Bach - There’s nothing, except for the Toccata, Adagio and Fugue (BWV 564) and the Chaconne (BWV 1004) (both arranged by Busoni). Want Partitas? So sorry.
• Beethoven - No late piano sonatas (‘Les Adieux’ is the latest opus number); no variations; no cello sonatas.
• Chopin - No etudes except those already mentioned; the Op. 2 Variations, Op. 4 Sonata, Op. 12 Variations, Op. 14 Krakowiak, Op. 46 Allegro de Concert and all four Rondos went unrecorded as well. The biggest disappointment may be the omission of the Cello Sonata and the Piano Trio, even though Rubinstein collaborated with Piatigorsky and Heifetz on a number of other projects.
• Debussy - Five of the Preludes were recorded five times each, but no others were recorded at all and this composer is underrepresented otherwise as well.
• Fauré - There are two recordings each of Nocturne No. 3 and Piano Quartet No. 1, and nothing else at all.
• Haydn - There’s the Andante & Variations in F minor, and nothing else.
• Liszt - No Transcendentals, no Paganinis, no Concerto No. 2; underrepresented except for a handful of the most ‘popular’ pieces.
• Mendelssohn - There’s the ‘Spinning Song’ and Piano Trio No. 1, and nothing else.
• Mozart - Nothing except a handful of the best-known late concertos, piano quartets 1 and 2, and the Rondo K. 511.
• Prokofiev - Nothing except the ‘Visions Fugitives’ and the March from ‘Love of Three Oranges’; no sonatas, no concertos.
• Rachmaninoff - There are multiple recordings of Piano Concerto No. 2, the ‘Prelude in C-Sharp Minor’ and the Paganini Rhapsody. That’s it! No Rach 3, not one other Prelude, no Etudes-Tableaux.
• Ravel - Very little representation, and certainly no ‘Gaspard’.
• Saint-Saëns - There are 3 recordings of Concerto No. 2 and nothing else.
• Schubert - There’s the ‘Wanderer’ Fantasy, two Impropmptus from Op. 90, two Piano Sonatas (D. 894 and 960), two piano trios, and nothing else.
• Schumann - no Toccata or any other piano music published before ‘Carnaval’, and spotty otherwise: no Humoreske, no Faschingsschwank, neither of the late Allegros for piano and orchestra, incomplete Noveletten, and just one piece each from the Kinderszenen, Nachstücke and Waldszenen

And don’t look for anything whatsoever by Hummel, Scarlatti, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Stravinsky or Weber (among many other familiar names), though a number of Spanish composers (Albéniz, de Falla, Granados and Mompou) are represented and there are a few pieces by non-top-tier composers (Chabrier, Milhaud, Rubinstein, Szymanowski, Villa-Lobos).

You know, in the time it’s taken to type out this list I’ve become even more disappointed than ever -- disillusioned, even! -- as I even wonder (for the first time in my life!) just what Rubinstein’s mystique and reputation relied upon. I idolized him in my youth, and was already in my mid-20s when he died. I’ve never been disappointed in anything I heard him play or, especially, in any performance I saw on video. I absolutely loved the passion and delicacy of his music and how it was belied by the ‘coolness’ and reserve he projected at the piano.

For his Chopin, I've never known a more consistently satisfying interpreter -- and yet a Chopin completist would be disappointed by what’s missing. (But even though his strongest musical association was probably with Chopin, his favorite composer was actually Brahms!)

And sure, lots of what’s missing is relatively insiginificant or reflects idiosyncratic priorities. But no late Beethoven? Come on, that’s positively glaring. And the downside, to me, of such a long list of works that could have been recorded but weren’t is that there really are 3, 4, even 5 different versions of all the warhorse stuff -- enough to fill almost 100 CDs.

I’m sure that makes a Rubinstein completist satisfied ... but it just leaves me wanting more variety -- wondering how he could have managed to have such a long, successful and critically acclaimed career by just skimming the surface of piano repertoire with mostly guaranteed-to-please crowd-pleasers. (Only the significant amount of chamber music that’s included seems to defy that description.)

If times have changed, and tastes have changed, and we expect more -- more breadth, more depth, more technical prowess -- from our modern piano titans, I think it’s really for the best.

Horowitz's recorded repertoire may appear tiny as well as what he publicly performed, but it was known that he knew a whole lot of other stuff which he never bothered to play publicly. Drawing from Schonberg's biography, he know most -if not all - of the 32 sonatas by Beethoven, a lot of Medtner, Clementi, his own Wagner transcriptions....as well as significantly more Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff and Scriabin than he had ever performed publicly.

Doesn't this answer itself?

Only when you consider my conclusion -- that times, tastes and expectations have changed, even as the perceived interest in and audience for classical music is perceived to have shrunk.

I think we do expect more now, and I don't think it would fly today.

I remember reading that Horowitz liked to familiarize himself with the entire works of any composer whose music he played a selection of. His recorded repertoire does come across as being a little skimpy, but he's made definitive recordings of so many of the pieces he played.
I wish he had recorded Gaspard (even without reading memoirs of private performances of the piece, just thinking about what Horowitz playing Gaspard *might* sound like gives me chills), and the Liszt Dante Sonata, among other things that are confirmed to have been in his rep. a Horowitz Hammerklavier would also probably be mind-blowing.

It may not play today because the only people left listening, are players. It's also much easier to record a wider variety today.

Well, then. Like Miss Clairol, we're not getting older ... we're getting better!

I think you guys would agree, the famous pianists who were active for many years probably knew more and could play more than we'd think. Horowitz's "off-time" was more than inactive depression--he learned a lot during those periods.

Rubinstein probably knew what his fans liked best and gave it to them. Several others also probably did this. If you played the pieces you liked but most of the public didn't you'd have no success in a general and material sense.

Bech

An excellent post. THANKS for taking the time to further explain your position!!

I assume that Rubinstein's choice of repertoire was consistent with that of many concert pianists in the early 20th century. While it would be interesting to hear him interpret a late Beethoven sonata, Liszt Transcendental, or Prokofiev sonata, I don't think any less of him for not attempting any of those works. He was probably painfully aware of his strengths and limitations - and programmed accordingly. Wise man.

But, yes, I agree with your assertion that present day expectations for concert artists are indeed for the better.

It does play today - Argerich's limited rep being Exhibit A. With a few exceptions, Perahia is apparently unable to deal with anything written since 1850. Kissin doesn't have a very broad repertoire. And those are just a few off the top of my head.

I'm not really persuaded. I would wager that anyone deeply familiar with the active performing and recorded repertoire of the current (or recent) generation of performing artists could produce a list at least as long, if not longer, than your 'Exhibit A'.

The point was supposedly that such a limited repertoire wouldn't be viable today. The point of my little list is that it clearly is viable, not that there are no well-known performers around with larger repertoires today. That was even true in the Horowitz and Rubinstein era.

Plus ça change, then, I suppose.

The basis for my perception is that there was a time when Rubinstein and Horowitz enjoyed (and shared) a dominant status in the realm of classical pianists. They were, to my knowledge, unrivaled in stature -- and that seems at odds now with their limited repertoires. Sure, other pianists of their generation may have had far bigger repertoires -- but they didn’t enjoy that kind of ‘stardom’.

So who today enjoys the pre-eminent stature that was once accorded to Horowitz and Rubinstein? I don’t think anybody does, and certainly not Kissin, Perahia or even Argerich. It seems to me that there’s a wider and more level playing field of super-talented pianists. And if some of them do have limited repertoires, I think there’s a heightened expectation that plenty of others will have repertoires that are broad and deep. In a nutshell, the level of glory seems lower and more evenly spread now -- and popular expectation of a wider range of artistry in general seem, at the same time, more widespread as well.

That was my point, and I expect you see it differently. Hey, different people have different perceptions! Plus ça change. It’s déjà vu all over again!

Should there be a correlation between their stature as pianists and the number of pieces they recorded? I know of no other artists of their generation that played as well.

I don't know.

On the one hand, I guess there shouldn't be any such correlation (although I know that many people would dispute your second sentence, and claim that many artists of their generation did in fact play as well or better).

On the other hand, though, I expect more from 'artists' (and I think you and I both use that word in the same sense). For both men, their fame, fan base and recording contracts were secure. Now I'm not saying that they sat on their laurels by any means, but I do think that they could have chosen to do more had they wanted to. They had the means to do so, but took few risks outside of a narrow comfort zone.

That said, though, I acknowledge that Horowitz championed the music of Clementi and Scriabin when neither was in fashion -- and Rubinstein, as I mentioned, seems to have had an affinity for Spanish composers.

I just wanted more from them, and in a 'perfect world' there would have been.

I can agree with that! So much so, that for me it only applies to these two artists.

Perhaps their dominant status was due, in part, to the fact that they outlived many of their pianist peers - and continued to concertize almost to the very end.

Their "peers" included Hofmann, Lhevinne, Rachmaninof, Schnabel, Backhaus, Gieseking, Cortot, Haskil and Casadeus - all of whom died between 1942 and 1969.

Actually, neither of them is my top choice for, well, much of anything!

Dinu Lipatti's Schumann knocks Rubinstein's out of the water; Kapell's Rachmaninoff recording are some of the most powerful and gorgeous recordings... ever. They were part of the "dying in the 50s" thing, however. Among those that lived longer, Richter, and Gilels are both higher on my list than either Horowitz and Rubinstein. Gilels had the most unbelievable Brahms concerti ever recorded, IMHO.

Horowitz has his visceral charm, and Rubinstein has a different and excellent touch, but neither had the breadth... others just speak to me more. I'm not sure why.