add to wish list | library


4 of 8 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
amazon.com
amazon.de
 
amazon.fr
amazon.it
 
jpc

Discussion: Schumann: Piano Concerto - Zacharias

Posts: 4

Post by wehecht December 5, 2006 (1 of 4)
Since I have heard only the DVD-A version of this disc I don't feel able to submit an alternative review, but a discussion seems appropriate. In his review John stated clearly why he believes this is a bad release, and I'll try to state just as clearly why I think it's a good one. My comments apply primarily to the concerto, since I am not familiar enough with the two concert pieces to have anything meaningful to say. I am familiar with the concerto, though, from numerous live performances and recordings of various interpretive points of view ranging from Cortot to Argerich. I've relistened to portions of six different recordings since reading John's review (unfortunately not including the Perahia/Abbado he cites for comparison). Zacharias' performance, as I hear it, is one of contrasts: on the one hand energetic, loaded with rythmic point and drive where appropriate, and on the other serene, inviting repose as needed. Highlights for me include a powerful first movement cadenza followed by a coda that lends a sense of inevitability to the movement, and a number of pianistic embellishments in the second and third movements that serve to remind me that this pianist is best known for his wonderful Mozart. And perhaps that is the core of our different views. This is very Apollonian, elegant Schumann, reflective of the artist's overall sensibility and even platform manner. Well nigh perfect to my mind, but certainly not to everyone's taste. And of course the LCO will not be mistaken for the BPO anytime soon, a fact which might weigh more in the LCO's favor were the recording slightly less reverberant. If I'd been reviewing I'd have given 4.5 stars for performance and 4 stars for MC sound.

I've inquired of MDG whether Zacharias' more recent Mozart and Chopin concerto discs will be forthcoming on SACD, but have not received a response. Perhaps Zeus knows.

Post by ramesh December 5, 2006 (2 of 4)
wehecht said:

Zacharias' performance, as I hear it, is one of contrasts: on the one hand energetic, loaded with rythmic point and drive where appropriate, and on the other serene, inviting repose as needed. Highlights for me include a powerful first movement cadenza followed by a coda that lends a sense of inevitability to the movement, and a number of pianistic embellishments in the second and third movements that serve to remind me that this pianist is best known for his wonderful Mozart.

I've seen and heard British critics refer to the 'masculine' and 'feminine' aspects of this work several times. I'm not condoning this rather sexist and dated terminology, but demonstrating where the critical divergence lies.
The above assessments of 'masculine' and 'feminine' were invoked to justify the divergent interpretations of two 1970s favourites of the Grieg and Schumann piano concertos, those by Lupu and Bishop-Kovacevich. Both of these are on Japanese stereo SACD.

Presumably, 'masculine' referred to sections such as the driving, arpeggiated theme in the first movement, and feminine, the quieter, flattened, more introverted sections. I think it was the old Penguin record guide which didn't rate Lupu's Schumann over Kovacevich's, with some effete and pat phrase along the lines of, 'failing to reconcile the masculine and feminine elements'. On the other hand, those critics who preferred Lupu over Kovacevich said approvingly, 'Lupu has a wider emotional range' than Kovacevich.

So, if the pianist plays up the contrast between the moods and themes, the approbatory term is, 'wide emotional range' or 'full compass of the work's divergent extremes'. Disapproval means, 'failure to integrate masculine and feminine elements', or 'disjointed sense of architecture'!

Post by Windsurfer December 6, 2006 (3 of 4)
ramesh said:

if the pianist plays up the contrast between the moods and themes, the approbatory term is, 'wide emotional range' or 'full compass of the work's divergent extremes'. Disapproval means, 'failure to integrate masculine and feminine elements', or 'disjointed sense of architecture'!

Isn't it interesting that the user has to develop interpretive skills to make sense of critical nonsense ?

Post by andrewb December 8, 2006 (4 of 4)
After listening to the Piano Concerto on this SACD around half-a-dozen times I have found the performance enjoyable but not without flaws. Its major advantage is in the use of a chamber orchestra, which I feel all of Schumann's orchestral music needs; Schumann's textures are much too dense, so much so that I find it difficult to clearly hear the individual threads when played by a large orchestra. This performance has considerable transparency in this respect and is most enjoyable for that reason.

The playing of Zacharias is good but there are occasions when the playing within the orchestra is lacking in confidence, and the orchestral soloist lines are occasionaly played in an almost faltering manner. This maybe a fault of the orchestra or a perhaps a failure of Zacharias to lead and inspire as conductor, which or both of these, I do not know. Perhaps a separate conductor would have helped.

Unfortunately the performance is not helped by a poor multi-channel recording, it is much too reverberant and gives a very narrow image between the front speakers. This reverberance annoyingly clouds some of the transparency achieved by using a small orchestra. Recorded in 2000 MDG should have re-edited the recording to produce a new master for SACD, instead they seem to have just processed the same master used for DVD-A into DSD to make an SACD release. But our knowledge and expectation of what SACD can achieve are now much higher than 5 years ago, and this relatively early multi-channel recording is not acceptable in its present form. One can improve matters by substantially reducing the rear channel output but the result is still not good by todays SACD recording standards. The stereo sound is OK but no better than that.

When I have lived with this disc for a few more weeks, and listened carefully to the other works, I may put the above into a proper review but it would be a little premature to do so now. Currently I would rate the performance a 4 with the MC sound a 3 and the stereo 3.5 or maybe 4.

Closed