I have many recordings of the powerful, massive, intense and severly underrated Piano Concerto by Max Reger. I think the classic Rudolf Serkin Columbia version with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra is the best recording of this thorny masterpiece. Serkin is probably the only pianist who finds the sunny humor in the delightful finale.8)
What do you think of this work? Which versions do you prefer?
P.S. I would suggest that Marc-Andre Hamelin would be the perfect contemporary virtuoso to record this great concerto and it should be in the supurb Hyperion Romantic Piano Concerto series. Any comments about my suggestion? :)
The slow movement of Reger's PC in particular is absolutely sublime; I find much of the rest somewhat indigestible, but realise that this may be my fault. I prefer Reger's VC simply because I find I can cope with the composer's flights of harmonic daring coming from a violin pitted against an orchestra more easily than from a piano.
Marc is recording it and coupling it with the Strauss Burleske for release next year I believe.
Rob
I googled and found this:
Mr. Hamelin has recorded more than 35 CDs for Hyperion, and has received eight Grammy nominations. He records the Strauss Burleske and Max Reger Piano Concerto with the Berlin Radio Symphony for Hyperion this season...
http://newswire.scena.org/2010/06/marc-andre-hamelin-plays-shostakovich.html (http://newswire.scena.org/2010/06/marc-andre-hamelin-plays-shostakovich.html)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 02 August 2010, 00:23
The slow movement of Reger's PC in particular is absolutely sublime; I find much of the rest somewhat indigestible (...)
I would have to agree, although I too realise this may be my fault. Every now and again I give it another try, but it may very well be that this piece is "too Reger" for me - I find myself actually almost physically exhausted after listening to it, which I don't experience with his other orchestral works or his chamber music.
I own the recordings by Derwinger on BIS and by Webersinke on Berlin - the recent CPO recording with Korstick is still on my list, but I might wait and go for the Hamelin on Hyperion straight away...
By the way, I didn't even know that there are that many recordings!
When I was a kid the Santa Monica Library had the Serkin LP in its collection. I listened to it once. I had to ask myself "what is this s**t?" It sounded like nothing but cacaphony to my young ears. I've heard other performances partially on the radio since then. Well, one thing can be said for it: once heard, never forgotten. Reger's use of harmonic instability renders his melodic lines unintelligible to me. Even the slow movement isn't immune. And I'm able to listen to quite a bit of atonal music with aplomb. I actually rather like Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra. Maybe I'll give the Reger PC another college try. Hamelin is certainly the right guy for the Strauss Burleske, though.
Oh good, another one for the wishlist. :)
I have Serkin's recording (coupled with Prokofiev's 4th) and really like the work, it was the second piece of Reger that i ever heard and inspired me to listen out for more.
Had the privilege once of enjoying at close quarters (onstage, perhaps 2 meters away) Serkin performing the Variations on a theme of Mozart. I was not ready for this work, but the enthusiasm with which he threw himself into this performance (with Horowitzian risk-taking) has inspired me ever since. Should any of his Reger performances have been videotaped, they would be well worth watching.
Quote from: Kriton on Monday 02 August 2010, 14:08
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 02 August 2010, 00:23
The slow movement of Reger's PC in particular is absolutely sublime; I find much of the rest somewhat indigestible (...)
I would have to agree, although I too realise this may be my fault. Every now and again I give it another try, but it may very well be that this piece is "too Reger" for me - I find myself actually almost physically exhausted after listening to it, which I don't experience with his other orchestral works or his chamber music.
I own the recordings by Derwinger on BIS and by Webersinke on Berlin - the recent CPO recording with Korstick is still on my list, but I might wait and go for the Hamelin on Hyperion straight away...
By the way, I didn't even know that there are that many recordings!
Its the Heavy countrapuntal writing on top of the Rich and lush (and NOT always clear) orchestration that makes this work so tyring...even though there are moments of beauty, overall the feeling is that of being lost in a vast blanket of harmonic experiments .
I believe the Hemalin release is Volume 53 Reger and Strauss right after the Goetz and J. Wieniawski, so I'm thinking sometime Jan 2011
Quote from: JimL on Monday 02 August 2010, 15:18
Hamelin is certainly the right guy for the Strauss Burleske, though.
I wouldn't bet too much on him...(Sorry but DEEPLY personal opinion!!!!). Look what he did to Rubinstein no 4. All technicaly fine but the poetry is lost under his steel fingers (Banowitz wins hands down there!!!!) And try listening to the scharwenka No 1 by Earl Wild. The Henselt by Ponty would have been better had it not been for the atrocious Orchestra!!!!
A couple of days ago i finished listening to the Romantisches Klavierkonzert by Marx played by David Lively. Much more expansive then Hemalin(who seems to be in a wee bit of hurry here!!!) If you dont believe me you could always try the 1976 performance - Jorge Bolet version with Zubin Mehta.
Quote from: FBerwald on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 10:31
A couple of days ago i finished listening to the Romantisches Klavierkonzert by Marx played by David Lively. Much more expansive then Hemalin(who seems to be in a wee bit of hurry here!!!) If you dont believe me you could always try the 1976 performance - Jorge Bolet version with Zubin Mehta.
I like the Lively recording, but I think no poetry whatsoever is lost in the Hamelin version of the Marx 1st concerto - on the contrary, his use of rubato throughout the 1st movement is amazing and never exaggerated; musical quicksilver. Funny how you say Hamelin might be in a "wee bit of hurry" - my idea is that Lively just isn't enough of a virtuoso to take Hamelin's tempo neatly, even though Lively's is the version I got to know first. Anyway, the differences in tempo between the recordings are so extreme, that I thankfully have no problem enjoying either version.
But please tell me how/where to get this 1976 Bolet recording - I didn't know there was a 3rd performance available! Very interesting!
Not very sure about the year but...the recording was LIVE with comentry ...I believe it was the premier performance. I found the link quite by accident about 3 or 4 yrs ago. dont think the link is still active. I still dont know where one can find that recording!!!
As for the Hamelin I guess its personal taste matter. I still cant stomach Hemalin's version of any of the classical or most of the Romantic. The modern he is SPOT on!!!!!
Agree that Liveli is not a Virtuoso like Hemalin but his treatment of material in spite of this is what makes me prefer it!!! Eben Banovitz shows some clumsy handling of the 3rd movement in the Rubinstein No. 4, but its his touch and approach of the material that mekes me chose it over the NOTE PERFECT CLYNICAL Hamelin!!!
Quote from: FBerwald on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 10:31
Quote from: JimL on Monday 02 August 2010, 15:18
Hamelin is certainly the right guy for the Strauss Burleske, though.
I wouldn't bet too much on him...(Sorry but DEEPLY personal opinion!!!!). Look what he did to Rubinstein no 4. All technicaly fine but the poetry is lost under his steel fingers (Banowitz wins hands down there!!!!) And try listening to the scharwenka No 1 by Earl Wild. The Henselt by Ponty would have been better had it not been for the atrocious Orchestra!!!!
A couple of days ago i finished listening to the Romantisches Klavierkonzert by Marx played by David Lively. Much more expansive then Hemalin(who seems to be in a wee bit of hurry here!!!) If you dont believe me you could always try the 1976 performance - Jorge Bolet version with Zubin Mehta.
Hamelin seems to have this reputation for being note-perfect - but - poetry-and-passionless. Not the impression I get from his recordings subjectively (and as to the note-perfect part, there was much more passion than perfection in his Alkan in a live performance I caught in Ithaca a few years back. Maybe it's a live thing, of course.)
Eric
I agree with you Eric, he is far from passionless in his recordings. I heard him live a few years ago and he was note perfect as well!! On that occasion, he played Liszt's transcriptions of 3 of the piano duet marches at the Wigmore plus something else I can't remember just now.
I have most of his CDs and think he is excellent, especially in Alkan, Liszt and Godowsky.
Quote from: Jonathan on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 18:25
I agree with you Eric, he is far from passionless in his recordings. I heard him live a few years ago and he was note perfect as well!! On that occasion, he played Liszt's transcriptions of 3 of the piano duet marches at the Wigmore plus something else I can't remember just now.
I have most of his CDs and think he is excellent, especially in Alkan, Liszt and Godowsky.
Well, in the concert in Ithaca, he performed 4 really difficult works (in my opinion; one was a work of his own which I had not heard before, unsurprisingly) with only a brief intermission. Leaving the op. 39 symphony (after Bach/Busoni, Schumann, and then his own work, iirc) for last may have been throwing caution to the winds :) I was very glad to have gone, if I left any question!
Only my personal opinion, but the Hamelin CD of Rubinstein and Scharwenka PC's was an excellent example of how to play a romantic concerto unromantically.
Henselt concerto was a little better, but Ponti in my opinion is preferable. Reger/Telemann variations left me emotionally blank whilst Bolet fully revealed the genius of the composition.
No doubt he is a great pianist, but I can understand why some think he can be without emotion.
Thal
I find Shura Cherkassky's performance of Rubinstein's 4th PC the most persuasive. He chose it for his farewell concert in the UK, at which I was lucky to be present. His playing really added status to the old war horse and I found many passages were transformed into something fresh and new - at least, to my ears.
Quote from: thalbergmad on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 20:58
Only my personal opinion, but the Hamelin CD of Rubinstein and Scharwenka PC's was an excellent example of how to play a romantic concerto unromantically.
Henselt concerto was a little better, but Ponti in my opinion is preferable. Reger/Telemann variations left me emotionally blank whilst Bolet fully revealed the genius of the composition.
No doubt he is a great pianist, but I can understand why some think he can be without emotion.
Thal
Finally... Thank You. I was afraid I was the only one who felt so.
For the record I have no dislike for Hamelin but when I heard his version of Liszt's 2nd Rhapsody I was outraged. I actually felt he had gone too far...
I'm with you, FB and Thal. Hamelin's destruction of Rachmaninoff was most not only tasteless, but boring -- an exercise in virtuosity without poetry.
I think we're getting off-topic a bit here. Let's not get into a protracted debate about the merits or otherwise of Hamelin in general.
I have all the existing recordings of the Reger PC and have listened to them more than once. It is not among my favorites, but I'm becoming more attuned to it over time. I think Hamelin would do fine with a piece like this, since it is more a modern piece than a deeply romantic one. Better than Serkin, Douglas or Derwinger? I don't know. The Douglas came out not so long ago, with good audio, so the need for a new recording is not pressing for me.
I agree. Douglas is spectacularly good in this work.