Schumann Piano Concerto In A-minor, Opus 54 96 versions evaluated (Last updated: November, 2012) Recommended Recordings What the Reviewers are Saying Interpretive Analysis Comparative Survey © Graham Reid 2014. All Rights Reserved www.PianoEnthusiast.com Schumann Piano Concerto Recommended Recordings Piano Enthusiast Reference Recording Ivan Moravec Moravec’ years of performance experience have polished this gem to perfection. Live performance, 1992, with Eduardo Mata and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Dorian CD 90172, paired with the Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1, Opus 15. Alternative Choices: Evgeny Kissin Angela Hewitt Pianist and conductor both find infinite degrees of A more intimately conceived rendering, lovingly played by nuance that perfectly balance bold outline with deep, Hewitt, and recorded with sumptuous sound quality. 2010 poetic expression. Studio Recording, 2006, with Sir Colin performance with Hannu Lintu and the Deutsches Davis and the London Symphony Orchestra. EMI CD Symphonie Orchester, Berlin. Hyperion CD 67885, 82879, paired with the Mozart Concerto No. 24, K.491 paired with Schumann Op. 92 and Opus 134. www.PianoEnthusiast.com Other Noteworthy Performances for the Collector: Murray Perahia with Claudio Abbado and Berlin Phil. Sony 64577 Martha Argerich with Nikolaus Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe. Now available at budget price on Teldec’s budget label: Apex 256477161 (generally $8.00 or less) Historic Performances of Note: Emil von Sauer with Wilhelm Mengelberg and the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. (1940) Arbiter CD 114 Walter Gieseking with Günther Wand and the Kölner Rundfunk. (1951) Medici CD 0172 Solomon Cutner with Herbert Menges and the Philharmonia Orch. (1950’S) EMI’s Icon series specially-priced set. Wilhelm Backhaus with Günther Wand and the Vienna Philharmonic. (1960) Decca CD 433899 Budget Pick: Louis Lortie with Neemi Jarvi and the Philharmonia Orchestra. Chandos 10603 (generally $10 or less) www.PianoEnthusiast.com Schumann Piano Concerto: What the Reviewers are Saying Gramophone’s top pick was for Grimaud and Esa-Pekka Salonen on DG, making a point of noting that this performance has dethroned their previous long-standing crown holder, the Perahia/Abbado performance on Sony. The reviewer says “she’s a drink of fresh water. Even if you’ve heard this oft- played piece once too often she imbues each note and phrase with fresh life.” Meanwhile, Penguin gave a rarely-awarded Rosette to the Leif Ove Andsnes/Jansons performance on EMI. Neither of those performances tickled my fancy (I won’t reiterate here; read the reviews below). However, the BBC survey cited three “Top Choice” performances: Kissin/Davis (best modern version), the 1942 Gieseking/Furtwangler (best historic version), and Staier/Herreweghe (best authentic instruments version). I tend to agree with the BBC that their three selections are all noteworthy. I would only amend their citation about the Gieseking to reflect a newly-released live concert performance from 1951 which has all the characteristics of the ’42 performance but even more ravishing tone color from the pianist. But the ’42 is also worth having in its incredible new re-master by Rudolf Ondrich. Amateur diatribes continue unabated on Amazon customer reviews and YouTube postings. The problem with opening up commentary to anybody who has five minutes to send a thoughtless blast of opinion into cyberspace is that these listeners rarely have a comprehensive basis for their opinions, and tend not to see the validity of differing opinions. It is clear that the innate psychological disposition of listeners who prefer Arrau and listeners who prefer Argerich are vastly different, yet these rabid fans view their favorite as the only one worth listening to. Hence the ALL BOLD CAPS followed by six exclamation points!!!!!! I talk about extreme points of view and intolerance in the essay, Listener Psychology: How We Perceive Music. In another essay, The Relevance of Music Criticism, I talk about the limitations of proscribed reviewing formats. In other words, I firmly believe that a one-off review of Angela Hewitt’s new recording of the Schumann Concerto is worthless, unless it compares the performance to other performances that may be recognized by the reader. To say that it sounds poetic, or invigorating, or sounds good, begs the question: “compared to what?” That is why I believe comparative surveys are really the only valid form of review. In times past I used to avidly read the repertoire overviews in the American Record Guide, and I also liked the BBC surveys because they take the time to outline the methodology and disposition of the reviewers so that you can determine whether or not you agree with the stated criterion used to make these evaluations. Anything else just captures fleeting impressions at best. I have personally known a few music writers for major newspapers who have only a few performances of each work to refer to as a basis for their opinions. How can you say anything about any Beethoven Ninth Symphony when you’ve only ever heard ten different recordings and attended a few live concerts? So, you say you like the Karajan best, but have never even heard the Furtwangler?? I believe I have over a hundred Beethoven Ninths and some 140 versions of the Liszt Sonata in my library, and that gives me a very good basis to make comparative recommendations. But if somebody came along who had 160 versions, and arrived at different conclusions than I had, especially if they ended up recommending a performance I was unfamiliar with, I’d pay very careful attention to what they had to say, and probably make a point of getting that recording right away. But before I did that, I’d probably look for commentary on performances that I knew and see if we were arriving at the same conclusions. Somebody that’s only heard a half a dozen, and proclaims one of them their favorite, is not someone whom I’m going to pay serious attention to. I also know that radio station program managers often rely on reference guides to target specific playtime for recordings that are considered reference standards, but these guides, Penguin, www.PianoEnthusiast.com Gramophone, NPR, only recommend recordings that are currently available. But what if you’ve had a CD on your shelf for twenty years and wonder how it compares with some new performance? Plus, based on demand, companies are always repackaging and re-releasing older recordings. My comprehensive comparisons consider not only currently unavailable recordings (commercially anyway, things come and go on YouTube all the time), but also professional sound recordings from radio and television broadcasts, which given sufficient attention may end up being released by a commercial label, especially if “marketable” artists are involved. How many recordings I’ve heard is not as important as having experienced the fullest range of variation in performance. For example, the last eight recordings I evaluated to complete this survey of the Schumann Concerto did not contribute any further understanding of the score, and none of them ended up being recommended. So in a way, I wasted so many hours for nothing; no further understanding, minimal enjoyment. But one never knows when something unexpected lays just around the corner. What is important for any reviewer to come to grips with is knowing why a certain performance may appeal to one listener yet be off-putting to another. I do like to recommend, and enjoy myself, performances with distinct points of view, Argerich/Harnoncourt for example. But I also selected carefully from among Argerich’s numerous versions to find the one that would appeal to the core fan base looking for excitement and vitality and sparkle, while minimizing the characteristics which aggravate other listeners, namely, the manic and sometimes incoherent tendencies evidenced in some of the live concert renditions. And even though her finale may not be what I consider the finest “reference standard,” when I’m driving a long stretch of road, hers is the kind of performance that enlivens the spirit and makes me arrive at my destination with a smile. www.PianoEnthusiast.com Schumann Piano Concerto: Interpretive Analysis I want to emphasize that this interpretive analysis is not about pointing to any one best solution, but about showing how some ways (often multiple ways) are more likely to succeed, while others are tricky to pull off, and still others demonstrate internal incongruences both psychologically and from a hermeneutical-expressive viewpoint. The performances that I end up recommending demonstrate the highest percentage of interpretive decisions that are consistent and convincing, with the fewest lapses and unconvincing interpretive choices. One thing is for sure, the most compelling versions tell a story or convey a mood, and are less concerned with “notes.” Literal –obsessive and pedantic performances don’t get high marks by me. The Opening Salvo. Measures 1-4. This cadential flourish did not appear in the first edition. It was added later at Clara Schumann’s suggestion. My thought is that if it is purely a rhetorical flourish (like the opening of the Grieg Concerto that is not in any way thematic) then the tempo should be consistent until the final V-I resolution. Rubato here seems out of place, yet many take liberties already in this seemingly straight-away passage. Some, like Arrau, start vigorous and then immediately put on the brakes for a heavy dose of gravitas. Agogic emphasis on the final cadence seems reasonable, although many pianists play it without any agogic emphasis and this already indicates a psychological tendency for metric propulsion and restless energy. As for articulation, there are varying degrees of how sharply the dotted rhythms are rendered, and whether or not pedal should be employed. Then, of course, we have Cortot playing a low E bass octave with the orchestra on the first note so that the upper treble chords have some anchoring harmonic foundation and don’t sound as brittle.