advertisement


Janos Starker

Mullardman

Mullardman

Moderately extreme...
In concert (excuse the pun) with wine, I don't know much about classical but I know what I like.

A while back I picked up the Hi-Q Supercuts re-press of Janos Starker's Dvorak Cello.

I have finally got round to a listen and I am , as they say.. 'well impressed'.

Thing is I'm not at all sure about Starker himself. Clearly very good, but a very different interpretation to the Tortelier and Du Pre I also have. Also, what sound like a few stumbles, or 'hesitances' ( is that even a word? :) ) in the first movement especially.

Yet, I love it. As an overall performance, as a production and a recording it is marvellous. Air, space, dynamics, texture etc., all there.

Just sayin' .... :)

Mull
 
Mullardman said:
In concert (excuse the pun) with wine, I don't know much about classical but I know what I like.

A while back I picked up the Hi-Q Supercuts re-press of Janos Starker's Dvorak Cello.

I have finally got round to a listen and I am , as they say.. 'well impressed'.

Thing is I'm not at all sure about Starker himself. Clearly very good, but a very different interpretation to the Tortelier and Du Pre I also have. Also, what sound like a few stumbles, or 'hesitances' ( is that even a word? :) ) in the first movement especially.

Yet, I love it. As an overall performance, as a production and a recording it is marvellous. Air, space, dynamics, texture etc., all there.

Just sayin' .... :)

Mull
Click to expand...

Janos Starker is a most accomplished 'cellist of unusually wide musical experienvce. I'm not familiar with his performance of the Dvorak work but you are corect in observing an approach different from that of Du Pre or Tortellier who took a very much more emotional view of things.

Perhaps this is why I prefer Starker's recordings, particularly his last collection, to any others of the 'Cello Suites.
 
By coincidence, yesterday I was trying to decide between his Mercury Living Presence and later RCA (1992, released 1997) recordings of Bach's suites for solo cello. Obviously the correct answer is get both, but it was interesting to read that the latter, while not perhaps as technically proficient, reflected the additional years of studying this work and was the one to get.

Dan
 
dan m said:
By coincidence, yesterday I was trying to decide between his Mercury Living Presence and later RCA (1992, released 1997) recordings of Bach's suites for solo cello. Obviously the correct answer is get both, but it was interesting to read that the latter, while not perhaps as technically proficient, reflected the additional years of studying this work and was the one to get.

Dan
Click to expand...

An interesting observation with which I agree.

Comparisons of the differences between the dates of recording rather cruelly show the seemingly inevitable mutual exclusivity between the technical prowess of the younger man and the matured wisdom of the older. I think the '92 recording has caught the right balance of both. Starker himself in later years has referred to the "limited" period available for a cellist to be at his peak compared with that of, say, a pianist. Virtuoso 'cello performances do require a surprising amount of physical strength.

I particularly like his recorded performance of the David Popper pieces, accompanied by Shigeo Neriki (piano). Do you know it?
 
Interesting. I have the Mercury Living Presence Bach, in fact I have it on the long deleted and now collectable SACD issue, but I had no idea there was a much later RCA issue, in fact there seem to be two variants; here, and here. I may well have to grab a copy of that! What is the recording quality like? The Mercury is great, but a bit too much 'room' ambience/reverb for my taste, the acoustics kind of distract me from the playing a bit too much.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Tony L said:
Interesting. I have the Mercury Living Presence Bach, in fact I have it on the long deleted and now collectable SACD issue, but I had no idea there was a much later RCA issue, in fact there seem to be two variants; here, and here. I may well have to grab a copy of that! What is the recording quality like? The Mercury is great, but a bit too much 'room' ambience/reverb for my taste, the acoustics kind of distract me from the playing a bit too much.
Click to expand...

From a technical standpoint, in my view the '92 offering was a better recording. My wife thinks it is a little "arid" but I don't agree. (Although I have not dared to say so!)

However, despite a perception of "middle age" beginning to take the edge off Starker's technique in the trickier passages as compared with the Mercury recording, I still prefer the later (and what Starker thought would be his last) recording.

I think Dan m is correct - to get the full picture, you need to have both sets. But what a picture!

Incidentally, I don't know if it is still available but the English 'cellist Orlando Joplin made an excellent recording of the Suites a few years ago. It's well worth a listen if you can find a copy.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Tony L said:
Interesting. I have the Mercury Living Presence Bach, in fact I have it on the long deleted and now collectable SACD issue, but I had no idea there was a much later RCA issue, in fact there seem to be two variants; here, and here. I may well have to grab a copy of that! What is the recording quality like? The Mercury is great, but a bit too much 'room' ambience/reverb for my taste, the acoustics kind of distract me from the playing a bit too much.
Click to expand...


I have and like the Mercury, but I totally agree concerning the ambiance issue. I know lots of people rave about the quality of this recording, but I don't really agree. It almost sounds like some kind of primitive "hall" surround sound effect on my two-channel stereo and doesn't have enough of a center image for my taste.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Vinyl Giraffe said:
I have and like the Mercury, but I totally agree concerning the ambiance issue. I know lots of people rave about the quality of this recording, but I don't really agree. It almost sounds like some kind of primitive "hall" surround sound effect on my two-channel stereo and doesn't have enough of a center image for my taste.
Click to expand...

I find the Mercury recording is undone when listened to via electrostatics. The cello itself seems to be suddenly on its side. So whatever effect has been created would seem to be artificial. I can think of no mechanism that would create this seeming weirdness.

Prior to getting 'stats I rather liked the recording ambience. Although it is a bit "MTV Unplugged". Nowadays I'm a run of the mill Rostropovich man.
 
my favourite Starker Bach is from 1984, this one.

220117537127.jpg
 
I find this set on Hungaraton DVD rather fine to run alongside my favourite set on CD, the Fournier on DG.

71D85wm%2BQAL._SY445_.jpg


An old cello playing friend of mine always said that Starker was the best!

ATB from George
 
Do you play any of them on your double bass George?

I have that DVD, if you like Perenyi in baroque music I can let you have a concert recording of him doing the Bach gamba sonatas, with a cello and a piano. You’ve got to learn to download first though.

There are so many recordings of the cello suites, I try and listen to the ones that look interesting as they come out but there are so many good ones I end up forgetting.
 
Hello Mandryka,

I never really tried to play the Bach Cello Suites on the bass. I had the music, and had a try at some of the easier sections, but the bass is tuned in fourths and the cello in fifths so the string crossings that can be hard enough on the cello, become very much less convenient on the bass.

There are virtuoso double bass soloists who have performed the music, and even made records of it, but to my mind the best performances are done on the cello by really top flight musicians.

I have a big complete recorded edition of the JS Bach on Brilliant Classics. There is a huge amount that I either don't know at all or certainly cannot identify by name! So really my plan is to try to get to know as much of this music as I can before I can no longer learn music by study and listening ...

Of the Bach I know well, I often have more than one recording beside the Brilliant Classics set [about 150 CDs], and even when I had a major reduction in my recorded music earlier this year, I parted with only two Bach recordings, being the Klemperer Saint Matthew Passion and B Minor Mass sets [both] on EMI. Oh and the MC Alain organ cycle on Erato, which makes three. Not because these performances are not great, but because I have others that I prefer and seem to choose when I listen to the works concerned.

These days I am listening more and more to Radio Three, and if the music making does not quite please me, then I don't persist. Life is too short for listening to a live performance that seems not first rate.

All the best from George
 
What is it that gives Perenyi such a distinctive sound on that Bach dvd? I guess it must be a combination of instrument and touch, I like the sound he makes very much. You can tell Perenyi’s playing after one note!

I used to think that the interpretations lacked relief - in particular the tempos of allemandes and sarabandes seemed too close for comfort. But in fact on relistening to the second and the fifth suite last night I enjoyed it much more than I was expecting.
 
I agree that Perenyi has a wonderful timbre, and indeed that it is also rather individual - easily recognised.

I suspect that is down to his own touch and technique as much as the instrument, though that always has its effect ...

As for the interpretations on the Hunaraton DVDs, I rather welcome his flowing tempi. He does not underline the potential semi-stasis in the slow dances, and for me that is a relief. Fournier is just as interested in keeping the music moving and preserving the bigger picture rather than luxuriating in the moment at slower tempi. I know some will argue that there is a good potential in the music for sheer beauty of sound and dwelling on it.

The thing that I have found in both Fournier and Perenyi is that these recording have stayed fresh for me over many years. I used to have both EMI recordings of Tortelier and eventual found them less compelling. This had absolutely nothing to do with his technical quality, but rather that I found the music making less "within" the music. Hard to define, totally subjective - merely a personal opinion. But the subjective appeal of one recording or another is exactly why there are countless recordings from different artists, each of whom has their own personal response to the music, allowing for a wide range of readings.

Best wishes from George

PS: For those following this, here is Perenyi playing the First Suite by Bach.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top