Classical Artists Blind Comparison Thread #5 (Chopin's Berceuse)

In case you haven't noticed, I am not inclined to rank the samples in these threads. I'd much rather say what I like (or don't like) about each of them. I wouldn't own so many different interpretations of so many different piano works if I thought just one or two got it right. In the prior threads, I once got overwhelmed as you describe. I don't like that feeling either. Rather than rack my brain, I concentrated on the first minute or so of each and that helped me narrow things down.

Having said that, I think I could easily place half of these in a "great" category and the other half in a "not as great" category.

My goal isn't to show you the worst to the best range, but rather turn you onto different interpretations or better yet - interpretive styles - of a bygone era. Only 3 of the samples here were recorded after 1938, so most of this stuff hasn't been heard by many of the folks on this site. I find that very exciting. So far the emails have been great!

 

That was the major problem for me; it's really best if you can to do the whole lot in one take, otherwise you just become over-critical, constantly changing your mind over and over like the waxing and waning of the moon. Case in point - I listened to the first half of the set yesterday and had just written up my thoughts in my PM to George, only to somehow hit F5 (refresh) instead of 5 while editing and wipe out my entire message in the process! As I'd already forgotten some of the stuff I'd written I had to listen to all five performances again. It turned out I'd been a bit too nitpicky with certain aspects of one of them, concentrating too much on little details that didn't really matter, so I ended up playing it for a third time to decide whether my first or second impression was more "accurate". In this case, I went for the more favourable impression so that key slip turned out to be a blessing in disguise, but this stuff can end up taking a lot of your time if you become too OCD about it.

Anyway my main purpose was to say I've just voted and also to bring this back up as half way through this installment I'm still only the second person to take part!

 

Thanks for sticking it out! I am not concerned about the amount of people who participate, FWIW. I prefer quality over quantity.

 

Spoiler

I just listened to my top three choices again (#8, #7, #9) and I'm still not sure whether I was right. Let's just call it a draw!

 

Spoiler

One of those 3 was my favorite of all 10 and one of the other two is one of my favorite Chopin pianists. And the third one is one that was recommended to me by a few people when I was on the hunt for Berceuses a year or so ago. So you picked three winners, I think.

 

This is clearly a plot to get children of the digital age comfortable with surface noise....

 

Guilty as charged.

 

Hey, maybe we should all start "mix pasting" a track of 78 surface noise in behind all our rips to give them that vintage feel!

Uh, maybe not.

 

OK George – all berceused out here .
I started out with some instant dislikes which faded on repeat playings as the ‘reference’ in my head got put aside. I realize this can be played as straight variation or lullaby, and both approaches seem represented in this set. Personally I prefer the lullaby, but not a somnambulistic lullaby. For me, I think this music can express a childlike wonderment, a hesitant playfulness – and that is what I looked for in my ranking. I like to hear the bass ostinato come through clearly, rocking the cradle –so to speak. None of them quite got it all, although my first two picks were very close.

Spoiler

So in reverse, bottom to top,
Least liked 5 and 2. Not that these were bad by any means, but they play the variation rather than the lullaby. 5 was my clear least favourite, just too fast - pretty, but completely un-involving.
Moving up – group of 7,6,1. Found the opening to 7 a bit plodding, but overall a more relaxed interpretation than 1 and 6. 1 has very nice touch in places.
Further up the ladder – group of 3,8,4. 8 is the ultimate lullaby version, instant soft sleep – lovely playing, but extremely even and too samey in the end to top my list. Sleepy, but lost the wonderment. 3 was just too quick in places, but the right playfulness.
And at the top. 9 and 10. Close to the right balance of lullaby and childhood wonderment for me – floating along curiously, in and out, up and down, and then to sleep.
So that makes it 9,10,3,8,4,7,6,1,2,5
I notice my selection more or less orders them by time.

So that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it – til tomorrow at least.

 

I voted by PM

 

Now I'm going to look at the spoilers!!!!!

 

Poll closes tomorrow evening, but I won't be able to do the results until Friday evening, so you actually can vote until Friday at 4:00pm.

I am also thnking that it would be easier to comment on each others votes if we individually post at that time, rather than me posting them all in one post. I can still try to compile the votes to show the results. (BTW, how have you guys been ranking them? 10 points for a #1 pick, 9 for a #2, etc?) What do you guys think about this? What I can do (if it's OK with you guys) is send you your PM vote back and you can post it on Friday after 4:00pm. Let me know.

 

I can certainly post my results Friday at 4:00. I may even have some additional comments.

Once again, unlike others, it did take me several listens to each interpretation to draw my conclusions which varied pretty far from my initial reactions. I guess my brain works differently and it takes time for me to digest the performances and extract the things that ultimately make one preferable to another for me in the long term.

 

I did that with the last poll. I think it should go 9 points for #1, 8 points for #2 and so on down to 0 for #10 only because I don't believe that the last place sample should get any points.

 

I just rank them #1 to #10. I don't give points and don't do tallys or declare winners. IMO whoever anyone picks is their winner. What is interesting is to see how we evaluate interpretations without the baggage of reputation and then see how others do the same thing.

 

I agree with Scott. Seeing the spread of preference between recordings is more interesting than establishing a 'winner'. I thought they were all good. I just preferred some over others when listened to side by side.

 

Did you or anyone else take notes while listening? That's the only way I could possibly rank the performances, otherwise especially with such a beautiful piece as this, one can almost instantly forget which performances were great and others not so great.

Also, unlike in previous blind comparisons, I did actually listen to most of the performances more than once, because there were more of them, and despite the very simple harmonic progressions, this piece is highly complex (not to mention very difficult like so much of Chopin's music) - it's a classic case of being more than meets the eye/ear.

 

I did take notes and then did an initial list of top to bottom. Then I listen in a different order and make any obvious moves in the ranking. Then I start doing individual comparisons. #10 v #9 #8 v #7 and so on. At this point I will inevitably start to really know the music better by hearing all the different interpretations. But yeah I take notes and then I amend the notes. My notes will kind of document the development of my impressions.

Without giving anything away my top choice this time around started in 6th position after the first round of listening.

I would liken it to the hifi effect. Something that sounds flashy in the show room may not give long term satisfaction while some of the best sounding gear takes a while to make it's excellence clear. But then it seems so obvious and so essential.

 

My method was basically to listen to the music while having the score on my screen, then having a pencil and paper handy to the right of my laptop to take notes. Only problem is, my handwriting is absolutely terrible these days (doing 99.9% of my writing at the computer means this has long since become a dying art for me) so often when it comes to writing up my thoughts, the main problem other than deciding which performances are best is deciphering my own virtually illegible scrawl! Occasionally I don't take notes and just listen to the music and then instantly type my thoughts into the message box in the PM I'm about to send, usually towards the end when I just want to get the damn thing over and done with.

 

I took notes as well. You're right, you can easily forget which performance was which.

 

After trying to load #7 repeatedly without success, I suppose I am ready to vote. #7 keeps giving me an “Error #2032”, but that’s OK, since the first two times I listened to the field I didn’t have that problem.

My vote, first to last, top to bottom is:

Spoiler

#10 The modern piano and sound don’t hurt, but beyond that the overall tone, tempo, and articulation is just about perfect.

#7 I would like to hear this one again but as I said this isn’t working. I thought the rubatos were perfect and the technique admirable.

#1 Very nice touch and articulation -- not much rubato but what’s there is welcome for a "cradle song" like this.

#4 Delicate (as it should be) with no slow down at the double trill point. I likee

#8 I was on the fence with this, but came down on the positive side. My notes are "nice somber and quiet tone, but not ponderous, simultaneously light and serious. Left hand figure is more constant while the right hand music floats above it nicely."

#9 The first half seems a bit robotic -- too perfect maybe -- but the second half of the variations draws me in.

#6 A bit brisk for a Berceuse Andente, but still very interesting as a historical document.

#3 Well played in the old-fashioned style.

#2 See comments for #6.

#5 One has to admire the the prodigious technique required to play this piece this fast. However it seems to me the pianist has one of two things in mind with this live performance: Either it’s "OK, this audience is boring me, so let’s get the obligatory encore over with so I can get my money." or it’s "Not asleep yet kid? Let me make sure that won’t happen by banging out a low D-flat on the last 10 or 12 bars. How do you like that?"......Rushed, insensitive, and ham-fisted.

 

Every time someone posts a new spoiler comment in here I always have to check my original ratings and comments just to see how they compare with the other poster's. Without intending to give anything away, I thought there were some really good performances there; my top three was pretty interchangeable and even down to #6 all the performances were wonderful in their fascinatingly different ways.

Easily the toughest blind comparison I've taken part in...

 

You're right, there was something wrong with #7, but I have deleted it and reuploaded it again (I tested it and it's working now):

#7 - http://www.4shared.com/mp3/CX5vJW91/file.html7.mp3

 

Listened to some of the selections again today including my last place pick. Dang if I didn't start liking it more and wondering if i was way off base with some of my choices.

 

Spoiler

Thanks George, on hearing #7 again, I think I may have ranked it a notch ot two too high, but that's OK, I still like the "music box" sound of the instrument and its player. A bit fast, but those hesitation points make up for it.

Agreed. They all had some good points, even my least favorite, which displayed mind-blowing keyboard technique. But this player missed the main point of this little piece.

#5=Josef Hofmann...maybe

This young Russian does a very nice job, imo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3P7JZ-EGmg