I am about a third of the way through the Kempff 1950s Beethoven cycle. There are some portions I am not quite a fan of (he can be brisk in parts where I prefer not to and he doesn't play with the power or playing a bit too light for some more demanding portions), overall a fine cycle and his phrasing lends credence that he certainly understands Beethoven, just personally not something I'd listen to often. It's been years since I played the 60s cycle, I think this is what I felt with it as well which is probably why I didn't play it much. Another recent discovery is Bruce Hungerford playing Beethoven, these are magnificent recordings! Deep meditative playing and another pianist that is completely in tune with Beethoven.
On-the-go listening: Tchaikovsky 4th conducted by Mravinsky, stereo version on DG. Source: “The Originals” CD.
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about Kempff's Beethoven. I am mixed on other composers that he plays as well, except Bach. I think his Bach is great. Hungerford I need to revisit. I bought his LvB CDs when I was in a LvB craze.
I believe Kempff is more for those curious about a more “individualistic” and personal approach. I wouldn’t count his as a definitive approach that puts the compositions to the fore. He can be very rewarding, though, as an addition to other interpreters. Having said that, I am a big fan of his Beethoven concertos and have both mono and stereo cycles on LP. I heartily recommend Paul Lewis’s sonata cycle. His approach is very warm and thoughtful, and tempi are not at all as brisk as one would expect from a modern reading. To me, he strikes the perfect balance between sentimentalism and clarity.
I held onto the Kempff LvB sonatas because his was the only set I had that brought out the beauty in the music. Since then, I have picked up the Lucchesini set, which has plenty of beauty, but an excitement level that Kempff does not achieve. His Beethoven sounds "younger" and the music is all the better for it.
Funny, my feelings are exactly the opposite - I like Kempff's lyrical approach very much, for me he's an antidote to pianists with a heavier touch, though it's true that he's best listened to in smaller doses. I'd rather not comment on Paul Lewis' cycle other than this: bought it, listened to it, didn't like it at all and sold it, re-bought it after a while, having read a few rather positive reviews, listened to it again and didn't change my mind. Not for me. Lucchesini is indeed very good but hard to find, I was lucky to get a copy.
Agreeing with many of your points, I did enjoy his phrasing and lyricism without being too romantic. I was playing nothing but these discs over a few days so re-visiting individual works is probably the way to go. I also don't think these are individualist in the sense that Kempff is letting his ego get in the way of the music ala Kissin playing Beethoven. I do have some issues with the piano sound, it doesn't sound like a high caliber piano. I will listen to them more throughout the year before I elevate them to reference level. I have greatly enjoyed them. Also looking forward to the upcoming big Arrau set, I will have to sell my Beethoven and Mozart smaller boxes before that. I hope this box gets a more deluxe treatment with a hardbound book.
I contacted critic Jed Distler, who is an expert on piano recordings, about the upcoming Claudio Arrau set; he proofread the big Universal Sviatoslav Richter box before it was released to make sure it was indeed complete and I hope he'll be able to do the same with the Arrau box.
By all accounts, it seems that Kempff was trying to play a grand piano more in the style/sound of a piano from the days of Beethoven. Unfortunately, as a result, the grander, more aggressive moments in the music are greatly underpowered. To me, Kempff is a lot like Rubinstein. Both are incredibly reliable, play a variety of composers well, but fail to really stand out against the competition. An exception would be Rubinstein's earliest recordings, which show a great deal more imagination and spontaneity than his later, stereo recordings. Hank Drake wrote that if you have only heard Rubinstein's stereo recordings, you really haven't heard Rubinstein. I fully agree. I just pulled mine of the shelf and plan to check them out once my new speakers are broken in. It certainly deserves it. Myself, I will be passing on the set, having a significant amount of it already - and having run out of space on my shelves.
Now enjoying the above (the CD I have includes the Schumann Quintet as well), via the big Serkin box.
For me that would be Ashkenazy Besides his Scriabin there is very little else I feel that makes me want to reach for his playing even though he was so prolific with his recording.
It's funny, I almost included him with the other two, but then I thought of his solo Rachmaninoff, his Scriabin and his Chopin etudes.
Nice I just listened to this symphony a couple nights ago. My version is Jansons and the Oslo Philharmonic on Chandos CD.
IMHO I found his Rachmaninov a bit flat Now listening to Brigitte Engerer playing the early Chopin Nocturnes Absolutely fabulous performances.
I didn't care for her Schumann, so I haven't tried more. I do love the Nocturnes, though. And Ashkenazy isn't flashy, but I like his depth and poetic beauty in Rachmaninoff.
I agree. I like both the performances and the recording quality of the Jansons/ Oslo set. I own them all except the 6th in their original CD releases. Now that I think of it I may try to track down a copy of Symphony No. 6 to complete my set!
I owned most of the original releases and then bought the box set for three of CDs I did not have thinking the remasters would sound better. Waste of money. I should have kept the original CDs since they sounded better than the remasters. Plus the original covers had some neat artwork.