Performers who can only do one composer well

[IcedNote]

Are there any performers out there who you only enjoy listening to if they perform a certain composer...and nothing else? For example: "Pianist X plays the Schubert sonatas nearly better than anyone I've ever heard, but the rest of her performances are entirely lackluster!"

Maybe Gould and Bach could be one? Schnabel and Beethoven? Reaching here...based on my limited listening experience. Just trying to get the conversation started.

This kind of affinity interests me greatly.

Curious,

-G

[jserraglio]

not Schnabel--> Schubert, Mozart
not Gould--> Gibbons, Strauss, Hindemith, Schoenberg

----------------------

maybe . . .
Eric William Fenby - Delius
Gilbert Kaplan - Mahler 2
Stravinsky - Himself

[IcedNote]

not Schnabel--> Schubert, Mozart
not Gould--> Gibbons, Strauss, Hindemith, Schoenberg

----------------------

maybe . . .
Eric William Fenby - Delius
Gilbert Kaplan - Mahler 2
Stravinsky - Himself

Whoa...I honestly have zero idea who Gibbons is. Can you recommend something to check out?

-G

[jserraglio]

Gibbons: Fantasy in C


Orlando Gibbons: 'Lord of Salisbury' (Pavanne)
William Byrd: Sixth Galliard (04:02)
Arnold Schoenberg: Suite for Piano, Op. 25 (Intermezzo) (05:50)
Anton Webern: Variations for Piano (11:12)
Alban Berg: Sonata for Piano (14:56)

[Ted Quanrud]

Orlando Gibbons (1583-1625), a leading composer and keyboard performer of the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean eras.

[jserraglio]

[John F]

For me, the short answer is no. Any performer who can perform any music really well, can perform other music well too. jseraglio has responded about Schnabel and Gould. Anything Schnabel plays, I'd like to hear. Anything Gould plays, I'd just as soon not.

I do know some who are famous for performing one composer, indeed one piece: Gilbert Kaplan with Mahler 2, as jseraglio says, and David Helfgott with Rachmaninoff concerto #3. But as far as I'm concerned, they didn't perform their personal warhorses at all well, so they don't count.

[jserraglio]

I agree. I find that even a pianist like the Australian Leslie Howard, totally identified with Liszt for me, performed a slew of others presumably well enough to be recorded (I haven't heard any of those).

[IcedNote]

I agree. I find that even a pianist like the Australian Leslie Howard, totally identified with Liszt for me, performed a slew of others presumably well enough to be recorded (I haven't heard any of those).

I think that's what I'm after -- Great vs. Good. Sure, any number of competent pianists can perform many composers competently. But doing something truly special with more than just a few? Granted, there are obviously some luminary performers who contribute something worth hearing nearly every time they take the stage. But I have to believe there are a slew of other lesser performers who don't have such a range of greatness.

-G

[IcedNote]

Gibbons: Fantasy in C]

Thanks much! Yeah, I don't know composers from that period well at all, mostly because I've heard so few pieces that have truly drawn me in to want to explore more.

-G

[Lance]

This is a tough question because I also follow John Francis's concept on great artists who can perform just about anything well. So, I've come to this conclusion: one of my favourite pianists is the British-born [Cutner] Solomon, and it is his Beethoven performances more than anything else stand out in my mind as being his best work. Then there is the pianist Raymond Lewenthal whose performances of the music of Alkan have never really been surpassed. He recorded other works, but his Alkan reigns supreme. Alas, both artists are deceased.

[John F]

Solomon is indeed best known today for his Beethoven, as that's the music he recorded most of. But one of his first commercial recordings was the Tchaikovsky concerto, he also premiered and recorded the Bliss concerto, his Brahms was outstanding and includes the best version I know of the Handel variations, and he played some Chopin well enough to make Jan Holcman's discriminating list of the best recordings.

Raymond Lewenthal is likewise best known for his recordings of Alkan since they were the first and for a long time the only. But I remember he recorded quite a lot of music by other little-known Romantics such as Adolph von Henselt, he played Liszt well, and one of his first recordings was Beethoven's three best-known named sonatas for Westminster.

Those of us who know and experience classical music mainly through recordings, and that includes me, can easily make the mistake of supposing that they are a profile of the recorded artists, or even that they represent those artists at their best. But often that's not true. Even today, when it seems that every broadcast ever made of a concert or opera has been published on CD, there are major gaps in the discographies of famous and often-recorded musicians. Toscanini conducted the Italian premiere of "Pelléas et Mélisande," and I'l bet he did it well. While Furtwängler was music director of the Berlin Philharmonic in the 1920s and '30s, he conducted Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and many new works by now forgotten German composers while under no pressure other than his musical conscience. We may doubt he did them well, and maybe he didn't, but he went to the trouble to learn, rehearse, and perform them, some again and again. It was after the war that his repertoire narrowed to what we can now hear in recordings. I would give a lot for a Bruno Walter recording of Pfitzner's "Palestrina," which he premiered in Munich before World War I, or any complete Wagner opera. And so on.

[Lance]

Lance responds in bold red.

Solomon is indeed best known today for his Beethoven, as that's the music he recorded most of. But one of his first commercial recordings was the Tchaikovsky concerto, he also premiered and recorded the Bliss concerto, his Brahms was outstanding and includes the best version I know of the Handel variations, and he played some Chopin well enough to make Jan Holcman's discriminating list of the best recordings. [Indeed, I have been a follower of Solomon since I first collected recordings around age 16 or 17. Having all his available recordings, among all of them, the Beethoven was always beyond memorable. I was less enamored of his Tchaikovsky PC #1, which really, was his fare, but he offers quite a different interpretation [less bombastic] than pianists such as Horowitz.]

Raymond Lewenthal is likewise best known for his recordings of Alkan since they were the first and for a long time the only. But I remember he recorded quite a lot of music by other little-known Romantics such as Adolph von Henselt, he played Liszt well, and one of his first recordings was Beethoven's three best-known named sonatas for Westminster. [Here is another pianist whose recordings I have collected voraciously - inspired by his playing of Alkan. How well I recall those early Westminster recordings! I still have them. Lewenthal is probably credited the most for the pianistic Romantic Revival. He had a wonderful speaking voice, and his garb for covers made him look a bit like he just came out of Transylvania!]

Those of us who know and experience classical music mainly through recordings, and that includes me, can easily make the mistake of supposing that they are a profile of the recorded artists, or even that they represent those artists at their best. But often that's not true. Even today, when it seems that every broadcast ever made of a concert or opera has been published on CD, there are major gaps in the discographies of famous and often-recorded musicians. Toscanini conducted the Italian premiere of "Pelléas et Mélisande," and I'l bet he did it well. While Furtwängler was music director of the Berlin Philharmonic in the 1920s and '30s, he conducted Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and many new works by now forgotten German composers while under no pressure other than his musical conscience. We may doubt he did them well, and maybe he didn't, but he went to the trouble to learn, rehearse, and perform them, some again and again. It was after the war that his repertoire narrowed to what we can now hear in recordings. I would give a lot for a Bruno Walter recording of Pfitzner's "Palestrina," which he premiered in Munich before World War I, or any complete Wagner opera. And so on.

[Len_Z]

Evgeni Koroliov's Bach is absolutely sublime, while everything else by him is pedestrian at best. It's a true mystery to me, though, because in general I would agree with John F: a great artist should be interesting in any repertoire. Apparently, not the case with Mr. Koroliov. By the way, if you haven't heard his Bach I strongly recommend it: for me, he's the best Bach interpreter today.

[John F]

I haven't heard Koroliov or indeed heard of him, but perhaps I should listen to some of his Bach if only to see if I agree. Similar claims have been made of Glenn Gould, with good reason. The Wikipedia article about Koroliov says he is also "known for" his playing of other composers, and I should think that if he excels in the Well-Tempered Clavier, he should also know his way around the Shostakovich preludes and fugues.

[maestrob]

Arthur Rubinstein excelled in the standard repertoire at the time, as his recordings show, but there was something magical about his Chopin that draws me to him still, while other performers play (IMHO) the warhorses better nowadays. The only pianist I've heard that equals Rubinstein in Chopin today would be Ingrid Fliter, who has the same magical touch and sense of how to shape a phrase.

[IcedNote]

Evgeni Koroliov's Bach is absolutely sublime, while everything else by him is pedestrian at best. It's a true mystery to me, though, because in general I would agree with John F: a great artist should be interesting in any repertoire. Apparently, not the case with Mr. Koroliov. By the way, if you haven't heard his Bach I strongly recommend it: for me, he's the best Bach interpreter today.

Just listened to his Goldberg Variations. Really, really impressive. I'll definitely be checking out his other Bach. Thanks!

-G

[Ricordanza]

The only pianist I've heard that equals Rubinstein in Chopin today would be Ingrid Fliter, who has the same magical touch and sense of how to shape a phrase.

I'm hearing her for the first time in recital on May 10, and her scheduled program includes all 24 Chopin Preludes. Now I'm really looking forward to that!

[John F]

Arthur Rubinstein excelled in the standard repertoire at the time, as his recordings show, but there was something magical about his Chopin that draws me to him still, while other performers play (IMHO) the warhorses better nowadays. The only pianist I've heard that equals Rubinstein in Chopin today would be Ingrid Fliter, who has the same magical touch and sense of how to shape a phrase.

Considering the topic of the thread, "performers who can only do one composer well," it's weird to find Artur Rubinstein with his enormous repertoire and huge following in this thread. Especially since I'm not as fervent a fan of his Chopin as maestrob - he recorded nearly all of it twice, except the etudes, but the truly memorable recordings in both cycles are not as many as this achievement and maestrob's endorsement might lead one to expect. True, Rubinstein's Beethoven and Brahms are somewhat generic (and his Bach is nonexistent), but hardly on the level of incompetence that our topic implies.

Who are my top Chopin interpreters? That's off-topic, but relevant here. Artur Rubinstein for the polonaises and perhaps the scherzos, Alfred Cortot for the preludes and ballades, Dinu Lipatti for the waltzes and Sonata 3, Sergei Rachmaninoff for Sonata 2, Ignaz Friedman for the mazurkas he chose to record, the young Vladimir Ashkenzy for the etudes (not his remake for Decca), Josef Hofmann for the concertos and many individual pieces, and for that matter countless others old and new for individual works - Chopin's music does not lend himself to mass production, and Rubinstein does not play all those hours of music with equal imagination and commitment.

Ingrid Fliter's Chopin ranks ahead of all these great masters? I haven't heard as many of her recordings as maestrob doubtless has, but most of what I have heard is "poetic" in a generalized kind of way but not memorable (not for me anyway).

[jserraglio]

re: top Chopin interpreters. For me, it would be Ivan Moravec. Also his Debussy. His Connoisseur Society Lps/CDs are some of the best piano recordings I've ever heard.

[maestrob]

Arthur Rubinstein excelled in the standard repertoire at the time, as his recordings show, but there was something magical about his Chopin that draws me to him still, while other performers play (IMHO) the warhorses better nowadays. The only pianist I've heard that equals Rubinstein in Chopin today would be Ingrid Fliter, who has the same magical touch and sense of how to shape a phrase.

Considering the topic of the thread, "performers who can only do one composer well," it's weird to find Artur Rubinstein with his enormous repertoire and huge following in this thread. Especially since I'm not as fervent a fan of his Chopin as maestrob - he recorded nearly all of it twice, except the etudes, but the truly memorable recordings in both cycles are not as many as this achievement and maestrob's endorsement might lead one to expect. True, Rubinstein's Beethoven and Brahms are somewhat generic (and his Bach is nonexistent), but hardly on the level of incompetence that our topic implies.

Who are my top Chopin interpreters? That's off-topic, but relevant here. Artur Rubinstein for the polonaises and perhaps the scherzos, Alfred Cortot for the preludes and ballades, Dinu Lipatti for the waltzes and Sonata 3, Sergei Rachmaninoff for Sonata 2, Ignaz Friedman for the mazurkas he chose to record, the young Vladimir Ashkenzy for the etudes (not his remake for Decca), Josef Hofmann for the concertos and many individual pieces, and for that matter countless others old and new for individual works - Chopin's music does not lend himself to mass production, and Rubinstein does not play all those hours of music with equal imagination and commitment.

Ingrid Fliter's Chopin ranks ahead of all these great masters? I haven't heard as many of her recordings as maestrob doubtless has, but most of what I have heard is "poetic" in a generalized kind of way but not memorable (not for me anyway).

Hi, John.

You don't mention the Nocturnes, in which Rubinstein excelled, as he did in the concertos. Ingrid Fliter also excels in the concertos in her recent recording: for anyone reading this, it's well worth your time to explore her recording. Another excellent pianist in the Nocturnes (mono) is Guiomar Novaes, who also has what I call a magical touch.



jserraglio: Am currently listening to Moravec in the Preludes, and finding them excellent and very individual. Thanks for posting that. I have his studio recording of the Noctunes and find it less good, IMHO. I hope his live performance was better: I'll listen to that tomorrow. Love his Debussy, which I have: it's one of my favorite piano discs!

[Len_Z]

Am I the only one here who thinks that Arrau's Chopin was absolutely exquisite, especially his Nocturnes ((((:)))))

[maestrob]

Hi, Len_Z.

Forgive my ignorance, but Arrau's late recordings put me off him, and I haven't explored him much as an artist. I haven't heard his Nocturnes: are they earlier recordings? I have his Beethoven Sonatas, and find them mostly very good.

Would you be willing to post examples to support your opinion?

Thanks

[maestrob]

Speaking of Beethoven Sonatas, another artist that deserves mention in this thread is Russell Sherman, who has made a career by focusing on Beethoven's Sonatas and Concerti, with excellent results. I have no idea if he has performed other composers, but his Beethoven is extraordinary IMHO. (Thanks to cliftwood for introducing Sherman to me.).