Classical artists blind comparison thread #8 (Scriabin: Etude in d-Sharp op. 8 #12)

Looks as if we've now had 10 sets downloaded!

I'll be in touch about this via PM--I hope nobody else has had a similar experience. If so, please let me know.

 

this one is really hard. I was almost ready to call it an 11 way tie. How does one measure insanity that is Scriabin?

 

Voted by PM.

 

I voted by PM.

 

I am stumped. I have gone through five different top choices.

 

I voted by PM and made a mess of it

 

For once, I was almost on the verge on giving up on it just one or two performances from the end, as several of the performances sounded so similar (and very good), but somehow I managed to overcome the final hurdle.

 

You are a better man than me. By the way Yuja is in your neck of the woods tomorrow night.

 

Unfortunately, she appears to be entirely sold out.

 

This poll closes in a few minutes, but I think, based on the Mediafire download stats, that we still have some lurkers out there. I'm going to refrain from posting any results until later in the day to give a bit more time for those who are running a bit behind. To address those, however: if you are planning to post and need a bit of an extension, please reply here to let me know! If I haven't heard from anyone by, say, noon US Eastern, I'll assume that everyone who wants to post has done so.

 

Have gotten word that at least one more set of votes will be coming in this evening, so I'm putting of the reveal until I receive them. I figure we'd all prefer more participants over a hard and fast deadline. If anybody who's already submitted has second thoughts or elaborations to add, I'm open to those, too....

 

David, I would like to thank you in advance. This little exercise has eliminated my long delayed exploration into Scriabin.

 

I am just about to listen to these tracks.

 

Glad if I could spark some interest. I'm thinking I need to do the same--this piece was really the first Scriabin I'd ever really paid much attention myself.

Great! Thanks for letting us know; I'll continue keeping the reveal in a holding pattern until you and our other voter have finished.

 

OK, here are my thoughts. As we're really pressed for time I'll give my vote with just a few comments. I also did not deliberate over this sufficiently. But it's good to get in on one of these things again, so here goes.

Spoiler

In general I think this piece requires quality sound. In some of these older recordings the left hand is lost in the murk.

This is also a piece I associate indelibly with Horowitz. He made many recordings of it, and each, as best I can tell, is at least slightly different from the others. None of these recordings actually struck me as one of his I recognize, with both the ritard right before the second statement of the first theme and the stronger restatement of that theme the second appearance. Although I can't imagine he isn't in here somewhere. Perhaps no. 6? It's not one I recognize. Can't say for sure.

OK, my votes -- candidly, some of this is near-random ordering. Keeping track of 11 versions is really hard. Except I can say with the most confidence that no. 3 is clearly the worst. It's a recording that would not even be released today -- they would send the guy back for another take. After practicing. Except I doubt he can practice anymore, because he's probably dead.

8 - probably all around the most well-judged
6 - one of my two favorites
9 - decent
7 - strong LH
11 - decent but a bit weak, needs more strength
5 - good bu gets too hairy when the first theme returns
4 - tendency to rush in B section (what I would call the B section, at least, there's no indication in the score I have)
10 - rocking feel in LH at start is off-putting
2 - I dislike how this pianist plays the first two chords in that introductory figure, it sounds like ker-plunk
1 - choppy, not to my liking
3 - terrible

 

Here is pianist Stephen Coombs on the alternative version of this piece. This is taken from the liner notes to his "Early Scriabin," available on Hyperion (a terrific disc IMO):

I would agree it is less predictable in its harmonic and melodic progressions -- some sound surprising, though maybe that's because of how accustomed we are now to the predominant version -- but darker and more brooding? That would be an interesting discussion.

 

Spoiler

Interesting to see how we agree on a few things; glad you really liked #8 (my favourite as well!) and #6 (my 3rd best). Of your upper rankings, #11 was my 2nd favourite.

I don't agree that #3 was the worst though - I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt as it was obviously an old recording in terms of both SQ and performing style, but even so it was a pretty messy and unfocused performance with loads of mi**** notes and needless changes of tempo. But I thought it got better as the piece went on, with some nice use of contrasting dynamics and the left hand was a lot stronger and more pronounced in the final dramatic reprise. #2 was my worst and major disagreement with #9 (2nd worst) - both of them, while technically competent, were just too smoothly played without any real edge (sounded more like fast nocturnes) and lacked sufficient dynamic variation, and in #2 the pianist seemed to have a real problem bringing out some of the notes, especially in the left hand. On the whole though, I thought it was a very good set; even down to my 8th best, all the performances had a lot going for them and I look forward to seeing who's who!

I'll leave drh to later reveal my full rankings and original comments, but feel free to PM me, if you're dying to know before then - but I think that'll be very soon anyway...

 

Thanks for the votes, and I'm enjoying the ensuing discussion.

Spoiler

Not in any way contradicting the underwhelmed response to no. 3, but one thing to bear in mind with all the 78 RPM-derived recordings: in those days before tape, no editing was possible. If you didn't like something that you'd done on a 78 side, you redid the whole thing, start to finish. That's true for every one of the 78 performers here. I can also safely tell you, I think, that no. 3 was released by a label so obscure that I doubt most *78* collectors are aware of it. Chances are, retakes were not in the budget and it was recorded in a home, not a studio--or, at best, in the home studio of the performer. 'Nuff said--probably more than 'nuff.

 

Spoiler

Simon, I think we heard these in very much the same way -- which I don't mind admitting is pleasing to me, as I respect your judgment! I probably ought to have posted all of my notes on no. 3: "Oddly enough he's better in the third section." I just couldn't get past the mi**** notes the first time through and actually didn't even hear all of it until going back to it a second time.

Re no. 2, it was one of my worst as well -- I can't see now what I wrote about it above, but looking at my notes I wrote, "balance LH/RH not to my liking," which is akin to your pointing out his problem in bringing out the LH.

Spoiler

Totally understandable . . . I assumed it was one and done! I can't wait to get the info on these tracks now, especially this obscure one.

And thank you for doing this, David. When I first started the downloads, I thought, "Eleven tracks? How am I going to . . ." But now I'm glad to have heard them all.

 

Thanks for the kind words! I've enjoyed it famously and look forward to reactions at the reveal. Incidentally, I'd not have included so many had the work been longer than 2 minutes, but I figured at that short length the larger number of samples would be manageable. Glad you enjoyed them!

 

Final votes are in! Give me a few minutes to add them to the omnibus listing, and I'll post the results and performers' identities.

 

Past my bedtime, but I think I'll wait up.

 

OK, here are the Scriabin performers:

1) Alexander Brailowsky (1896-1976) counted among his teachers both Leschetitzky and Busoni. He was recognized first and foremost as a Chopin specialist, having given the first complete cycle of the composer's works in recital, partly on the composer's own piano, in 1924. This performance comes from one of his Polydor 78 RPM records of around 1930, issued in the United States as Brunswick 90050; conventional wisdom has it that they are preferable to his later ones for HMV/Victor and then Columbia, although I nurture a fondness for his account of the Saint-Saens 4th Concerto with Charles Munch and his complete traversal of the Chopin etudes for Victor, on LP and 78s respectively.

2) Peter Schmalfuss (1937-2008), a student of Walter Gieseking, was another Chopin specialist and also championed Weber; as far as I know, this German pianist was not particularly recognized as an interpreter of Scriabin. I put together a somewhat sketchy Wikipedia bio of Schmalfuss that drew this charming tidbit from an editor of the corresponding German site: “at least here (in Darmstadt) he was well known both for his occasional concerts and for his -sometimes - very strange outfit with straw hat, suit and shrill cravat.” The recording, like most of this artist (at least as released in the United States), is from a bargain-basement issue, one of those drab Pilz “Vienna Masters Series” CDs, no. 160332-2.

3) Vladimir Drozdov (1882-1960) was also known as a composer; his brother Anatoly likewise was a pianist/composer and appears to have been the more significant of two relatively obscure musicians. Vladimir studied with Anna Essipova in St. Petersburg, as did his wife Anna. The couple came to the United States from Russia in 1918 and established a teaching studio in Manhattan. He made this recording for a vanishingly minor American label, Paraclete, formed around 1940 by pianist Samuel Yaffe, an early Scriabin specialist, to issue the first comprehensive record series devoted to Scriabin. Why Yaffe assigned this work to Drozdov rather than performing it himself—as he did a number of works on other Paraclete records and, for that matter, the flip side of this one—I don't know. The present artist's name appears on the label as “V. Drosdoff”; the catalogue number is Paraclete MD 4A.

4) Alexander Scriabin, the composer of our present music. The performance derives from a Welte reproducing piano roll made in 1910, issued by the Musical Heritage Society on LP as MHS 4159, licensed from Melodiya C 01949.

5) Simon Barere (1896-1951) was, like Vladimir Horowitz, born in the Ukraine and a student of Felix Blumenfeld. He was recognized as among the supreme technicians of his day, capable of amazing feats of presto-digitation, but he also commanded considerable poetry when he wished. He has achieved lasting fame for an unfortunate reason: he dropped dead of a cerebral hemorrhage in the midst of performing Grieg's piano concerto with Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra in Carnegie Hall. Unlike Horowitz, Barere made rather few records. This one, a 78 recorded on July 12, 1934 for HMV, was never issued in England but did appear in the United States as Victor 1721, the form in which I have it. The label gives the performer's name as “Barer”; he added the final “e” in 1942 to ensure that his name would not be mispronounced.

6) Victor Merzhanov was born in the Soviet Union in 1919. His teachers included Samuil Feinberg. In 1945 he shared first prize with Sviatoslav Richter in the third All-Soviet Union Piano Competition, and his name appears with those of Scriabin and Rachmaninoff inscribed in a marble wall at the Moscow Conservatory, where he became a professor in 1947. Prokofiev chose him to give the premiere of the sixth piano sonata. Angel released this recording as part of LP issue SR-40176, a complete traversal of Scriabin's op. 8 derived from masters taken down by Melodiya in 1969.

7) Friedrich Wuhrer (1900-1975) is remembered today, to the extent that he is remembered at all, primarily for his accounts of the Viennese classics, particularly Schubert. In his earlier years, however, he was associated with contemporary music, including that of his teacher Franz Schmidt (of whose left-hand compositions Wuhrer made two-hand arrangements, supposedly with the composer's blessing but over objections of Paul Wittgenstein, who had commissioned them); Max Reger; Schoenberg and his circle; and Bartok, Prokofiev, Hindemith, and Stravinsky. His very few records from the 78 era include two short works by Reger and four by Scriabin, including this one, which HMV released on a 10” disk as E.G. 6224.

8) Vladimir Horowitz (1903-1989) requires no elaboration here save to note that the selected recording was issued on Columbia LP as no. MS-6411.

9) Alexander Scriabin again. OK, I hope you'll forgive me for having a bit of educational fun. Some of you may recall that over in the main Classical Music Corner thread on a couple of occasions I warned of the inherent unreliability of piano roll recordings. Here's an example of the problems. This is the same Welte roll as in selection no. 4, but this time it's as presented in Classics Record Library SWV 6633, a set of three LPs purporting to give us various great pianists in modern sound via reproducing piano. Note how the playback speeds chosen for the roll make each presentation seem like an entirely different performance and also that there's no way of knowing whether either choice reflects what Scriabin actually played. There are worse things than surface noise. (Unfortunately, we have no other way to hear the composer in this music; Scriabin, like a number of important musicians including Teresa Carreno and Gustav Mahler, left only reproducing rolls and no phonograph records.)

10) Simon Barere again. The artist had second thoughts. He made the record appearing as no. 5 in 1934, but after its issue he was dissatisfied and on October 15, 1935 made this re-recording. This second recording appeared on HMV in England under the same number assigned to the first, which was never actually issued there; as far as I know, only the earlier take was issued in the United States. The present dub is from an LP reissue, Archive Piano Recordings APR 7001.

11) Inna Heifetz—like Barere, Horowitz, and Brailowsky—is Ukrainian, born in Odessa in 1961. She is a student of Oxana Yablonskaya, Gary Graffman, and Russell Sherman. She has toured in Europe and performed recitals in the United States, her New York debut having taken place at Alice Tully Hall in 1988. She records for Boston-based Sonora Productions (not to be confused with the American Sonora label of the 78 era), which released this performance on CD no. S022562CD.

 

Here are the participant comments and rankings:
[second try]

John S.

Scriabin Etude

Here we go, from best to worst:

#6 [Merzhanov] Impeccable technique, phrasing and especially dynamics make this an outstanding performance. The soul of this little piece is transparent in this pianist’s hands. The slower tempo helps.

#8 [Horowitz] The tone here says Romantic. Excellent in the quiet middle section, with impressive, seemingly effortless facility with the octave runs. The playing demands and gets your attention.

#4 [Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya] This was an "also ran" for me at first, but for some reason I kept going back to it. The inexorable forward motion is addicting and exciting. Some of the chording here is revelatory, exposing layers not obvious in other performances. I’m still not crazy about the staccato ending, but maybe that’s what the ghost in this machine demanded. A welcome echo from the past.

#9 [Scriabin-CRL] This could use more dynamic contrast, but the pleasant slower tempo combined with the hesitation-free playing gives this a nice flow to this admirable version. The final chords should have more sustain, but in all it’s very compelling.

#11 [I. Heifetz] Very nicely played with very welcome dynamics. I probably should have ranked this higher.

#1 [Brailowsky] A very old – and very good – performance. Very nice dynamics, beginning at bar 17. This sounds like an important piece of history.

#10 [Barere 1935] Another old recording, offering good dynamics and overall flow. Technically just about perfect.

#7 [Wuhrer] Excellent playing here, especially with the right hand octave runs. Here’s another important historical document. This is another version that could and should be ranked higher.

#2 [Schmalfuss] Here’s another that says Romantic. The cohesion and the ebb and flow of the phrasing is interesting. Nice playing for sure, but for me not as memorable as it could be.

#5 [Barere 1934] The overall sound is muddy, caused either by the pianist or the old recording itself. As a result, the music lacks focus. Even so, the dynamics are admirable.

#3 [Drozdov] Lacks the effortless flow this piece needs, due mostly to the many split second hesitations throughout. Sounds like forced labor.


Tangledupinblue:



Here are my comments on the individual performances, all done after one take each! I'm just going to write up my thoughts in the message box, and then decide on the rankings based on the following assessments.

#1 A bit sloppy and unpolished with a few mi**** notes and chords, but overall a performance full of fire and dramatic vigour with an impressive technique; right hand octaves for the most part were cleanly articulated with a lot of passionate emotion.

#2 Smoothly played, but overpedalled, and a bit too polite and lacking the required edge and aggression, with very little dynamic variation (seemed to be mostly in mf with the occasional f throughout) - also some notes, especially in the left hand were barely audible if played at all. All in all, not a very inspired performance.

#3 Rather untidy playing, with lots of mi**** notes and over-exaggerated rubato. Seemed a bit unfocused at the start, with not enough vigour in the left hand, being played more like a fast barcarolle. However dynamic contrasts were brought out well, and performance improved during the course of the piece, with a finely judged dramatic reprise benefitting from a much stronger left hand.

#4 This piece was played like one long accelerando, with a relatively slow, but beautifully lyrical start with the underlying tension gradually rising to the surface and the drama continuously building towards the frenzied race to the finish. The rhythmic liberties captured well the improvisatory nature of the piece; arguably it was a bit too wild at times, but that didn't detract too much from an exciting performance that really came from the heart.

#5 Fine, dramatic but disciplined performance, with a really strong and expressive right hand with every note powerfully standing out with some wonderful attention to dynamics and harmonic colour. Reprise was a bit too fast though for my full liking, blurring important details and needed to breathe a bit more, but overall very good.

#6 A performance in a more tragic and introspective vein than others, favouring a relatively moderate tempo throughout. If not exactly edge-of-the-seat stuff like something like #4, this was a very solid, full-bodied and perfectly articulated interpretation, with deep but subtly stated emotion, with the drama carefully held in check until the closing pages.

#7 One of the faster interpretations that didn't go overboard in terms of changing tempo or speeding up, and overall a fine all-round performance that had the discipline and expressive qualities of #5 and #6, even if it didn't quite hit the heights of the latter or the less polished #1 and #4. Would have liked a bit more dynamic contrast though.

#8 Wow, maybe we have a winner here? While taken at a similar tempo to #6, this had a more dramatic edge to it with a better balance between aggression and pathos, with the bass notes really brought out and a crisply articulated melody that benefited from just the right amount of pedalling. A performance that didn't need wild fluctuations in tempo and dynamics or breakneck speeds to get the message across, just allowing the power and beauty of Scriabin's music through the performer's high technical and interpretive skills to speak for itself, which it did superbly.

#9 Too slow for the most part and similar to #2 had too much legato which deprived the piece of its required edge. Rubato was awkwardly judged, and even when the piece did speed up, it lacked the sufficient excitement to really grip the listener - the so-called ff in the reprise hardly sounded any louder than at the start. Technically sound, but a pretty insipid interpretation overall.

#10 Again, a performance with plenty of fire and vigour, with in particular a very strong, well-controlled right hand and an exciting finale, precipitous without being rushed, even if it didn't pay that much attention to Scriabin's dynamics. Probably middling in a strong set.

#11 Really good, well controlled performance with the dramatic, recitative-like right hand melody and more legato left hand accompaniment superbly balanced with every note clearly brought out. And how refreshing to hear a reprise that didn't speed up (however exciting that was in some of the other performances), as Scriabin actually intended it to be played, whilst still retaining the passion and energy that the best interpretations should always bring out.

OK, these are my rankings based on the above observations:

#8 [Horowitz]
#11 [I. Heifetz]
#6 [Merzhanov]
#5 [Barere 1934]
#4 [Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya]
#1 [Brailowsky]
#10 [Barere 1935]
#7 [Wuhrer]
#3 [Drozdov]
#9 [Scriabin-CRL]
#2 [Schmalfuss]

I have to say ranking all this was really tough - it was a case of picking the top and bottom three or four first before deciding on the rest. The middle is pretty much random (all of the performances down to even the 8th best had a lot to enjoy and commend about them, even if they weren't all flawless) so you may have to take much of that list with a slight dose of NaCl..


konut:


Even without looking at the score its pretty obvious that this is a difficult
work to play. What struck me immediately was how difficult it was for the
left hand to sound like something other than how it might be like to hear
someone who was having an epileptic seizure. The better renditions made sense
of the left hand.

1. 10th Too fast.Left hand uneven. Not enough dynamics.

2. 9th Left hand uneven.

3. 11th Worst left hand. Choppy.

4. 8th Left hand too dominant and choppy. Good dynamics.

5. 7th Left hand choppy. Delicate mid section. Good dynamics.

6. 5th Very coherent but uninspired.

7. 6th Nothing stands out.

8. 1st Very dramatic and coherent. Liked it best except for the ending.

9. 4th Could use a bit more dynamics. Did not care for abrupt ending.

10. 3rd Good uniformity and dynamics.

11. 2nd Best rhythmically. Not very dynamic. Good ending.


8 and 11 were a very close 1st and 2nd. Could have gone either way.

[summarizing:

8 (Horowitz)
11 (I. Heifetz)
10 (Barere 1935)
9 (Scriabin-CRL)
6 (Merzhanov)
7 (Wuhrer)
5 (Barere 1934)
4 (Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya)
2 (Schmalfuss)
1 (Brailowsky)
3 (Drozdov)]


Adam9:

2 [Schmalfuss]
1 [Brailowsky]
8 [Horowitz]
11 [I. Heifetz]
3 [Drozdov]
6 [Merzhanov]
7 [Wuhrer]
9 [Scriabin-CRL]
10 [Barere 1935]
5 [Barere 1934]
4 [Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya]

Very difficult to rank these. I like the RH in #2. Some (probably all) were very close. A few flips near the end.

Thanks for running this.

Scott Wheeler:





listened again and again and again today given the extension. So here is my new vote with a clear list from 1 to 11.

1. #9 [Scriabin-CRL] ended up being taken by the sense of melody.
2. #8 [Horowitz] a couple phrasing issues but otherwise a very nuanced performance.
3. #2 [Schmalfuss] Just like it
4. #1 [Brailowsky] Tells a good story
5. #5 [Barere 1934] excellent but a bit rushed
6. #11 [I. Heifetz] Phrasing not my favorite adn a little lacking in drama
7. #6 [Merzhanov] a little jagged sounding
8. #4 [Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya] Wierd sound. The rhythms were odd. not sure if that is the performance or the recording though. so this one was handicapped
9. #7 [Wuhrer] dramatically flat compared to others and the phrasing was a little mushed
10. #10 [Barere 1935] strange dynamic accents for my taste
11. #3 [Drozdov] Didn't like the sense of rhythm and felt there were some mist steps compared to the other performances.

SBurke:

OK, here are my thoughts. As we're really pressed for time I'll give my vote with just a few comments. I also did not deliberate over this sufficiently. But it's good to get in on one of these things again, so here goes.

In general I think this piece requires quality sound. In some of these older recordings the left hand is lost in the murk.

This is also a piece I associate indelibly with Horowitz. He made many recordings of it, and each, as best I can tell, is at least slightly different from the others. None of these recordings actually struck me as one of his I recognize, with both the ritard right before the second statement of the first theme and the stronger restatement of that theme the second appearance. Although I can't imagine he isn't in here somewhere. Perhaps no. 6? It's not one I recognize. Can't say for sure.

OK, my votes -- candidly, some of this is near-random ordering. Keeping track of 11 versions is really hard. Except I can say with the most confidence that no. 3 is clearly the worst. It's a recording that would not even be released today -- they would send the guy back for another take. After practicing. Except I doubt he can practice anymore, because he's probably dead.

8 [Horowitz] - probably all around the most well-judged
6 [Merzhanov] - one of my two favorites
9 [Scriabin-CRL] - decent
7 [Wuhrer] - strong LH
11 [I. Heifetz] - decent but a bit weak, needs more strength
5 [Barere 1934] - good bu gets too hairy when the first theme returns
4 [Scriabin MHS/Melodiya] - tendency to rush in B section (what I would call the B section, at least, there's no indication in the score I have)
10 [Barere 1935] - rocking feel in LH at start is off-putting
2 [Schmalfuss] - I dislike how this pianist plays the first two chords in that introductory figure, it sounds like ker-plunk
1 [Brailowsky] - choppy, not to my liking
3 [Drozdov] – terrible

John DeAngelis

Here's how I ranked them

2 [Schmalfuss]
8 [Horowitz]
9 [Scriabin-CRL]
6 [Merzhanov]
11 [I. Heifetz]
10 [Barere 1935]
5 [Barere 1934]
7 [Wuhrer]
3 [Drozdov]
4 [Scriabin-MHS/Melodiya]
1 [Brailowsky]

Thanks!

 

Here are my .02:


Broadly speaking, there seem to be two basic approaches to this music: bring the passion to the fore, or emphasize the poetry that may not be apparent on first acquaintance but that unquestionably is there for the mining. The two are not mutually exclusive; it's all a matter of emphasis. In the end, I tend to go more for those with the former orientation, but I certainly find the latter appealing as well; my ideal performance combines power in the outer sections with delicacy in the central passage. And so:

1) No. 5, Barere 1934. This one is positively ferocious in the outer sections and, for me, sweeps all before it, but then it shades beautifully into a central section of considerable tenderness before coming back with, if anything, even more power and passion. Barere's control of dynamics as he traverses this road is striking.

2) No. 8, Horowitz. He's emerging as the favorite among those who have voted as of this writing, and I can see why: his is, I'd say, far and away the most imaginative traversal of the score, passionate but teasing out and projecting dynamic contrasts in places where the others never think to look. Somehow, though, at the end of the day for me he just doesn't have that last ounce of ferocity that puts Barere over the top (words that I choose advisedly!).

3) No. 7, Wuhrer. Not really in the same league as the first two, but partaking of some virtues of each. Theodor Leschetizky is said to have assessed German pianists as follows: "The Germans he respects for their earnestness, their patient devotion to detail, their orderliness, and intense and humble love of their art. But their outlook is a little grey." In Schubert, Wuhrer's outlook, on the evidence of his records, was anything but grey; here, in comparison to the Russians, the critique may have a bit of justice. Still, this account strikes a good balance between power and poetry and makes quite an effective presentation of the score.

4) No. 10, Barere 1935. Here Barere shades more toward the Horowitz approach; Horowitz does it better, and it robs Barere of the elemental power that so captivated me in his earlier recording.

5) No. 1, Brailowsky. After the others, he seems a bit heavy, and he doesn’t get the contrast between sections that those above manage to bring out. He does, however, project admirable passion.

6) No. 6, Merzhanov. I find his slow tempo to sap the music a bit, although he certainly makes it work, and his tone is somewhat hard for my taste, particularly in contrast to the others. There’s no question, however, that he plays with authority.

7) No. 2, Schmalfuss. A basically lyrical approach, and very attractive, but ultimately it lacks the strong profile of the best foregoing versions. Which, of course, is just a highfalutin’ way of saying “kinda straight.” I like this artist’s Chopin better.

8) No. 11, I. Heifetz. This one seems a bit labored to me, possibly because of the detached chording. I’m not too keen on the piano tone, either.

9) No. 3, Drozdov. Sometimes, an old record is a treasure chest of rare delights, but sometimes an old record is just an old record. For those who, like me, enjoy passing hours along the byways of historic recordings, there's an ever-present danger of coming to equate antiquity with quality. Here's a useful antidote. Now, I'm not saying this performance is bad, but it just doesn't have the authority and fluency of the others, including those by the more obscure moderns. I probably was being unfair to the man putting him in this company. I suspect that his address to the keyboard was primarily as a teacher and that as a performer he very likely was at best a "society pianist"; the sole review of a Drozdov performance that turned up in a brief bit of Google research was in an obscure local rag emoting over how no other pianist had so pleased the audience at some yacht club in Florida. I'd be curious to know whether he taught Samuel Yaffe, on whose Paraclete label this recording was issued.

10) No. 9, Scriabin piano roll*(Classics Record Library transfer).

11) No. 4, Scriabin piano roll (MHS/Melodiya transfer). The two Scriabin transfers I rank last because, first, there's no way of knowing whether either is "correct," and, second, because they both have a whiff of that faintly mechanical air that so often afflicts reproducing roll recordings, including the clipped chords on which some other participants remarked. Of the two transfers, my ears tell me that the slower is probably closer to the mark.