Thanks for the effort ter.
One noticed Brendel did not venture too far into German/ Austro Lizst territory, especially the more difficult repertiore. Can you imagine him trying the Grand Galop at a speed like like a Czriffa !!!
Indeed, speed-wise he isn't Cziffra, but not many other people are. Now there's the question about the difficulty of a work - what is more difficult to play, an
Etude d'exécution transcendante or the
Sonata in B minor which he recorded as well ? I am a great fan of this sonata and most pianists I have heard bored me to death, Richter having delivered the only acceptable (well actually sublime) interpretation of it, Horowitz' first version being good too. It seems very difficult to underline the cohesion between the different sequences of the sonata, showing its Chaconne-like spiritual immensity. I haven't heard Brendel's account of the sonata so I can't say it's good, but at least he recorded it. I own his
Années de Pélerinage and it is so good I never thought I needed any other version.
Where's his Chopin, or anything much from the French or Russian schools. The Ravel, the Debussy, Prokofiev, Rachmaninioff, Medtner, Shostakovich for starters.
Right, ter, and he might have done a great job in Debussy. But German and French piano music are something radically different in essence, the elusive nature and
frivolité of French music being difficult to nail down for a German pianist who is much better trained at dealing with complex structures essential to German music - Gieseking figures pretty much as an exception here and he was of French descent. And after all Alfred Brendel may just not like French music.
As for the other composers you mentioned, see post #14. Brendel would have banged his head against a wall called Horowitz/Richter/Gilels/Sofronitzki/Kissin/ Argerich/Moisewitsch/Cherkassky and many others. Which is already a lot, I say to myself that Brendel's input wasn't needed really.
Richter for instance played all of Brendel's composers and all those others abovementioned
Richter played indeed a huge number of composers but he limited himself to a few works each, usually lesser known ones. He never recorded 'completed works' like the Beethoven/Mozart sonatas/concertos, or even sonata cycles of composers he felt very close to - unless someone tells me otherwise there isn't even a complete cycle of Prokofiev sonatas available. By the way, in a concert hall he was one of the most erratic players ever, very much unlike Brendel, and a lot of his interpretations were simply a disgrace - I heard him once, his utterly heavy-handed Chopin Polonaises caused a lot of people to flee during the break, a bad idea because the following Scriabin set was sublime. Richter was an immense artist in his own right (and yes, my favourite pianist besides Lipatti) but his achievement and artistic approach can't be compared to Brendel's in the slightest.
What do I miss in his playing ?
I know what you mean, Brendel has no 'signature' like Horowitz' bell sound, Richters intensity, Rubinsteins joyfulness, Argerichs incandescence or Kempffs aristocracy. Brendel is a mix of it all, he is very reliable in pretty everything he chooses to play and he never tries to show off anything apart from what he thinks the composer intended.
That unexpectancy, that 'surprise' from a thrill
That's Richters or Kempffs domain IMO. A fair point ter, but it doesn't mean that a Brendel recital can't be moment of immense beauty as a whole.
No one could question or doubt Brendel's particular form of preparation.. Limited number of composers, studied and re studied. Performance careful, methodical, fussy but clean and relatively unobjectionable. BUT.... that is the big problem to me. Music is about danger, being brazen, risk, daring, instant spontaneity, a natural flexibility to adjust to the surge of the music, involvement with real connected emotion, a sense of a living breathing temperament feeling, challenging and interacting with chords, notes and various passages inside and during the real time duration of a work. In short, 'communication' with the actual listener! A pianist does what they have 'to perform' the work. A great pianist does what they feel 'they MUST do or feel compelled to do'.
Fair enough.
I cannot get or feel an emotional fix on a Brendel performance. I sense a inner terrifying skittishness to just play the work according 'to the book' in the most self effacing 'non risky' way. No possible opportunity for areas of criticism or conjecture will be left open or added to the interpretation 'mix' equation. It is squeaky clean and sterile.
Finally, it looks like you have indeed listened to some Brendel before writing your comments, that's what I wanted to know because it didn't look that way in your first posts. I wouldn't have written the word 'sterile' though. So each to his own.
