Vladimir Feltsman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw

Anatol Ugorski:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk

Anyone else at this level?

dk

> Anyone else at this level?

It depends on the meaning of 'level'. I prefer this one, despite the sound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEioTl5RMk

Henk

On 2023-05-06 4:29 a.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> Vladimir Feltsman:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
>
> Anatol Ugorski:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
>
> Anyone else at this level?
>
> dk
>
>
>
I've just been playing Kovacevich's Beethoven cycle including the Diabellis.
I like his somewhat aggressive approach.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 10:39:51 AM UTC-7, Graham wrote:
> On 2023-05-06 4:29 a.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> > Vladimir Feltsman:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> >
> > Anatol Ugorski:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> >
> > Anyone else at this level?
>
> I've just been playing Kovacevich's
> Beethoven cycle including the Diabellis.
> I like his somewhat aggressive approach.

Thanks for sharing. My ears do not
like Kovacevich, nor do they like
"aggressive" pianists in general.
They make the music sound
"driven".

Thx

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:25:39 AM UTC-7, HT wrote:
> > Anyone else at this level?
>
> It depends on the meaning of 'level'.

Meaning they can make pedantic FMV
sound like half decent entertainment.

> I prefer this one, despite the sound.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEioTl5RMk

Your excommunication letter is on
its way. ;-)

dk

On 2023-05-06 1:32 p.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 10:39:51 AM UTC-7, Graham wrote:
>> On 2023-05-06 4:29 a.m., Dan Koren wrote:
>>> Vladimir Feltsman:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
>>>
>>> Anatol Ugorski:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
>>>
>>> Anyone else at this level?
>>
>> I've just been playing Kovacevich's
>> Beethoven cycle including the Diabellis.
>> I like his somewhat aggressive approach.
>
> Thanks for sharing. My ears do not
> like Kovacevich, nor do they like
> "aggressive" pianists in general.
> They make the music sound
> "driven".
>
> Thx
>
>
The "driven" description often suits Beethoven's music I think:-)

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:42:34 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:
> On 2023-05-06 1:32 p.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 10:39:51 AM UTC-7, Graham wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-06 4:29 a.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> Vladimir Feltsman:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> >>>
> >>> Anatol Ugorski:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else at this level?
> >>
> >> I've just been playing Kovacevich's
> >> Beethoven cycle including the Diabellis.
> >> I like his somewhat aggressive approach.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing. My ears do not
> > like Kovacevich, nor do they like
> > "aggressive" pianists in general.
> > They make the music sound
> > "driven".
> >
> > Thx
> >
> >
> The "driven" description often suits Beethoven's music I think:-)

Not this late music.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:42:34 PM UTC-7, Graham wrote:
> On 2023-05-06 1:32 p.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 10:39:51 AM UTC-7, Graham wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-06 4:29 a.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> Vladimir Feltsman:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> >>>
> >>> Anatol Ugorski:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else at this level?
> >>
> >> I've just been playing Kovacevich's
> >> Beethoven cycle including the Diabellis.
> >> I like his somewhat aggressive approach.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing. My ears do not
> > like Kovacevich, nor do they like
> > "aggressive" pianists in general.
> > They make the music sound
> > "driven".
>
> The "driven" description often
> suits Beethoven's music I think:-)

Indeed. This is one of the reasons
I do not like his music in general.

I prefer music to "happen" rather
than to be "made".

dk

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:21:59 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:42:34 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:
> >
> > The "driven" description often
> > suits Beethoven's music I think:-)
>
> Not this late music.

True enough, however a lot of his
late music sounds meandering,
rambling and ruminative. Why
bother when one can listen to
Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Albeniz
and Rachmaninov?

dk

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:29:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Koren wrote:
> Vladimir Feltsman:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
>
> Anatol Ugorski:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
>
> Anyone else at this level?
>
> dk

Rabinovitch provides the most musical performance of the Diabelli's, and you'll agree once you've heard it. The live recording on Gallo is superb, but only the studio recording on Denon captures his tonal shading. The youtube upload skips important variations.

As for Ugorski, his Var. 23 is exemplary. Imagine for a moment that the big fat chords represent pure inert mass, and that the fleet notes represent pure velocity (sans mass). Then measures 5-8 show how mass and velocity are combined to produce *momentum*. And because of the repeat, the opening *inert* chord is transformed into an *impact* (the product of matter in motion). And that's why this otherwise stupid variation is actually brilliant. Ugorski conveys this transformation into momentum/impact better than anyone.

(The main purpose of several variations is to show how we tend to apply a kind of "physics" to music, derived from the real world. For instance, variation no. 2 demonstrates how we think of chords and motifs as having res extensa - i.e. as solid, unyielding entities. It brings this assumption to light by violating it.)

As for Feltsman, I recall that he, Peter Serkin, and George Lepauw are the only pianists (out of 150+) to hear a phrasing detail in Variation 30 that is crucial for understanding it, but I've forgotten the specifics.

But IMO the two best overall performances for conveying their meaning are Sokolov and George Lepauw on Spotify.

Max

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:57:16 AM UTC+1, maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:29:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Koren wrote:
> > Vladimir Feltsman:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> >
> > Anatol Ugorski:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> >
> > Anyone else at this level?
> >
> > dk
> Rabinovitch provides the most musical performance of the Diabelli's, and you'll agree once you've heard it. The live recording on Gallo is superb, but only the studio recording on Denon captures his tonal shading. The youtube upload skips important variations.
>
> As for Ugorski, his Var. 23 is exemplary. Imagine for a moment that the big fat chords represent pure inert mass, and that the fleet notes represent pure velocity (sans mass). Then measures 5-8 show how mass and velocity are combined to produce *momentum*. And because of the repeat, the opening *inert* chord is transformed into an *impact* (the product of matter in motion). And that's why this otherwise stupid variation is actually brilliant. Ugorski conveys this transformation into momentum/impact better than anyone.
>
> (The main purpose of several variations is to show how we tend to apply a kind of "physics" to music, derived from the real world. For instance, variation no. 2 demonstrates how we think of chords and motifs as having res extensa - i.e. as solid, unyielding entities. It brings this assumption to light by violating it.)
>
> As for Feltsman, I recall that he, Peter Serkin, and George Lepauw are the only pianists (out of 150+) to hear a phrasing detail in Variation 30 that is crucial for understanding it, but I've forgotten the specifics.
>
> But IMO the two best overall performances for conveying their meaning are Sokolov and George Lepauw on Spotify.
>
> Max

Thanks I didn’t know about Rabinovitch’s Gallo recording, I know the Denon recording. Is the analysis (“musical physics”) etc your work or did you get it from someone else?

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:57:16 AM UTC+1, maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:29:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Koren wrote:
> > Vladimir Feltsman:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> >
> > Anatol Ugorski:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> >
> > Anyone else at this level?
> >
> > dk
> Rabinovitch provides the most musical performance of the Diabelli's, and you'll agree once you've heard it. The live recording on Gallo is superb, but only the studio recording on Denon captures his tonal shading. The youtube upload skips important variations.
>
> As for Ugorski, his Var. 23 is exemplary. Imagine for a moment that the big fat chords represent pure inert mass, and that the fleet notes represent pure velocity (sans mass). Then measures 5-8 show how mass and velocity are combined to produce *momentum*. And because of the repeat, the opening *inert* chord is transformed into an *impact* (the product of matter in motion). And that's why this otherwise stupid variation is actually brilliant. Ugorski conveys this transformation into momentum/impact better than anyone.
>
> (The main purpose of several variations is to show how we tend to apply a kind of "physics" to music, derived from the real world. For instance, variation no. 2 demonstrates how we think of chords and motifs as having res extensa - i.e. as solid, unyielding entities. It brings this assumption to light by violating it.)
>
> As for Feltsman, I recall that he, Peter Serkin, and George Lepauw are the only pianists (out of 150+) to hear a phrasing detail in Variation 30 that is crucial for understanding it, but I've forgotten the specifics.
>
> But IMO the two best overall performances for conveying their meaning are Sokolov and George Lepauw on Spotify.
>
> Max

Just such a provocative statement about meaning and Lepauw! I first came across him with WTC 2, and I have just discovered that his Beethoven has a similar vibe.

In article <949d9f90-ba65-4cbb-a723-e280d5cbc749n@googlegroups.com>,
Mandryka <howie.stone01@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just such a provocative statement about meaning and Lepauw!

I went & listened too.... I'm not often in the mood for Beethoven,
but today I guess. Ugorski is mid-Var. 32 as I'm typing this....

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:47:20 PM UTC+8, Mandryka wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:57:16 AM UTC+1, maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:29:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > Vladimir Feltsman:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_8Ie-9bBQ&list=OLAK5uy_lxI15B954moJDgJjwvPtqrDXeLbL3fkfw
> > >
> > > Anatol Ugorski:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nXyWTaIzLvQ_DEwx6md6sNfDAHDq-BMnk
> > >
> > > Anyone else at this level?
> > >
> > > dk
> > Rabinovitch provides the most musical performance of the Diabelli's, and you'll agree once you've heard it. The live recording on Gallo is superb, but only the studio recording on Denon captures his tonal shading. The youtube upload skips important variations.
> >
> > As for Ugorski, his Var. 23 is exemplary. Imagine for a moment that the big fat chords represent pure inert mass, and that the fleet notes represent pure velocity (sans mass). Then measures 5-8 show how mass and velocity are combined to produce *momentum*. And because of the repeat, the opening *inert* chord is transformed into an *impact* (the product of matter in motion). And that's why this otherwise stupid variation is actually brilliant. Ugorski conveys this transformation into momentum/impact better than anyone.
> >
> > (The main purpose of several variations is to show how we tend to apply a kind of "physics" to music, derived from the real world. For instance, variation no. 2 demonstrates how we think of chords and motifs as having res extensa - i.e. as solid, unyielding entities. It brings this assumption to light by violating it.)
> >
> > As for Feltsman, I recall that he, Peter Serkin, and George Lepauw are the only pianists (out of 150+) to hear a phrasing detail in Variation 30 that is crucial for understanding it, but I've forgotten the specifics.
> >
> > But IMO the two best overall performances for conveying their meaning are Sokolov and George Lepauw on Spotify.
> >
> > Max
> Thanks I didn’t know about Rabinovitch’s Gallo recording, I know the Denon recording. Is the analysis (“musical physics”) etc your work or did you get it from someone else?

I had a revelation about the variations 25 years ago that I've been trying to put into words ever sicne, and I rely heavily on pianists to convey their meaning. Mavericks tend to do best in this music.