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

Oh, this fascinating! Two piano rolls! I should have known there would be some sneaky stuff in here . . .

I have to go back and hear Barere again, for sure. He really was a unique fiend. Had he not rushed a bit in no. 4 I'd have ranked that higher . . . 10 was off-putting at the start but on re-hearing is quite good afterwards.

Interesting that I ranked Horowitz first, without consciously recognizing this particular recording. What is the year of this one?

 

Thought you might get a kick out of unknowingly going for your favorite. I don't know the precise recording date, but according to the notes it was his "second recital on Columbia records," and the copyright date is 1963. The album title is "The Sound of Horowitz," and the record also contains Scriabin's Poem op. 32/1 and Etude op. 2/1; Schubert's Impromptu op. 90/3; Schuman's Kinderscenen and Toccata; and Scarlatti's sonatas L. 430, 483, and 209.

 

Fascinating revelations as always, drh. Once again I was interested to see how all those pianists fared according to all who took part (8 including yourself). Perhaps it's no surprise to see Horowitz comfortably top, but it was good to see my other top three choices do so well. After that, until you get to Drozdov it's pretty even stevens - the biggest surprises for me were seeing Schmalfuss in the top half (though he was the most controversial with two #1 picks, and four bottom 3s) and Scriabin's CRL 2nd from bottom - I thought it was a really good, fiery interpretation and I'd never have guessed that it was done on a piano-roll. Slightly surprised more people didn't pick Drozdov as last, but he still managed to finish easily bottom.

I enjoyed Fuhrer's performance and I was disappointed in the end I didn't rank him higher - no doubt you'll remember my enthusiastic ravings about his Schubert sonatas earlier this year. It's interesting that when I played those to my Dad, he commented on how much he sounded like an earlier Alfred Brendel, very disciplined and restrained compared to most pianists his generation, but without sacrificing any of the poetry and lyricism that's so important in Schubert; these same qualities worked well in Scriabin, even if it didn't have the same dramatic force as other pianists, as Scriabin was a late romantic whereas Schubert was still a classicist at heart, though with one arm and leg in the romantic era.

Right, here are the overall rankings and scores:

*8. Vladimir Horowitz 10.25*
6. Victor Merzhanov 7.75
11. Inna Heifetz 7.375
9. Alexander Scriabin - CRL 6.625
2. Peter Schmalfuss 5.75
5. Simon Barere 1934 5.75
7. Friedrich Wuhrer 5.375
1. Alexander Brailowsky 5.25
10. Simon Barere 1935 5.25
4. Alexander Scriabin - MHS/Melodiya 4.125
3. Vladimir Drozdov 2.5

 

On reflection, I find it interesting that so much electronic "ink" got spilled discussing poor Drozdov, maybe in the same spirit as how one is compelled to stare at a bad auto accident. A couple of points bear mentioning, I think. First, his birthdate was at least a good 10 years earlier than those of the others captured on phonograph records; his performance may seem more peculiar than it really is because we may be hearing a not-first-rate example of older tastes in performance practice. Moreover, we should remember that he made that record for a shoestring operation almost certainly as a labor of love, spreading the gospel for a composer who was barely known to audiences in the US. I can't imagine that Yaffe, Drozdov, and the other obscures who recorded for Paraclete ever expected to make anything from the venture, but they were trying to bring Scriabin's name before a wider public. Their execution may have been flawed, but their heart was in the right place.

Oh, and about the "would not be released today" point: you're undoubtedly right about that, but note that probably most of the greats of the Golden Age (among whom I emphatically do NOT include Drozdov!) would wash out of the preliminaries in any of our competitions today, where note accuracy and "historic style awareness" are paramount. The older generation hewed to different standards.

 

Indeed, there was a NYTimes article on that subject about a year ago. I'm not persnickety about a performance being note-perfect, though I thrill to athletic virtuosity, and there is probably some minimum threshold somewhere, which must be met to allow me to focus on what is good. I like Schnabel quite a bit, Cortot as well, two pianists renowned for interpretive quality as well as finger slips. In any event this was an interesting history lesson, which I appreciate almost as much as the music.

 

My just-received Horowitz plays Scriabin contains two versions of Op. 8 No. 2. The first version was recorded in 1968, and the second -- the same as in this blind comparison -- is listed as "Recorded on November 6, 13 & 29 and December 18, 1962."

Four days to record 2 minutes of music.

The 1968 version is slightly slower with more rubato and dynamics.

 

One thing I do not subscribe to(not saying you are expressing this idea here, just a natural segway) is the idea that one has to trade artistic excellence for technical excellence. I'm always looking for both and usually find both. This comparison along with all the others, show just how valid it is to have multiple interpretations of any given piece. Both the technical and interpretive virtues have weight for me and there does indeed come a point where the lack of technical merit becomes an issue for me. OTOH interpretive merit is so much more subjective.

 

Spot on! There is too much great talent out there to waste time on musicians who's technique is sub-standard. The standards have been raised due to a number of causes. The world is a smaller place than it was even 50 years ago. People are exposed to higher levels of talent so the bar has been raised to unprecedented heights.
I am curious as to whether its actually a different standard the older generation hewed to, or if a more pervasive awareness of virtuosity is prevalent today.
I'm sure there is also a degree of sentimentality at work with some older artists and recordings. I know that I have a soft spot for Toscanini, and the RCAs', 1952 Beethoven's 5th as its among my earliest memories.

 

I agree, completely; or maybe I would say technical skill is a component of artistic excellence. Probably just another way of saying it. And, not being a musician myself, I appreciate varying interpretations -- they offer a way of triangulating in on a work I can't really appreciate absent the performer-medium.

 

Similarly, I am coming around to the view -- this may sound scandalous to some of our friends here in these threads -- that today's pianists in many cases meet the artistic standards of their forerunners and in most if not nearly all cases exceed their technical standards. A few years ago I did not think this. But today we have an unbelievable wealth of talent among artists to admire, and an extraordinary range of repertoire accessible through recordings. This is not to say that the great recordings of the twentieth century are to be put aside, or kept only for sentimental value. More to acknowledge that one should not miss out on the performers and performances of one's own time. They are entirely worthy of our attention.

As to that notion of sentimental value -- and this is relevant to my approach to blind listening tests -- I've sometimes said, or conceded, as the case may be, that I am without question always influenced by extra-musical factors in appreciating performances. That this or that recording may have been made in such and such hall on a certain occasion has some meaning and value to me, as a listener -- so even do photographs of the performer in the notes -- it is never the case that I am only hearing a recording of notes in time abstracted from provenance. I make no pretense to listening objectivity. I suppose it all then has "sentimental" value of some kind, though without any pejorative connotation, in my mind.