Alexis Weissenberg

Here is another player that I think has a really potent physical approach to the piano. His spine really seems to soar. Sometimes he flattens his arch but i dont think thats a problem for him.

OK, some forum members know not to get me started but I guess you are still a bit new here... I think I have a stronger aversion to Weissenberg as a pianist and musician than just about anyone else. There is a recording of Rachmaninoff 1st Sonata which is just agonizing to listen to. It is steely, hard, relentlessly unromantic, ugly and soulless. I will grant that I've heard some Scarlatti of his that I like, but this Bach again - there is absolutely no softness to the sound whatsoever. In the Jesu Joy there is no dynamic difference between the episodes and the chorale theme. He's just pumping out "healthy tone" that has no expression or meaning. I don't care how good this man's hand arch is or is not... he puts it to anti-musical purposes anyway. Sorry to be so blunt, it's late at night here... But tomorrow I don't think I'm going to change my opinion either! AFF

I can understand why you are allergic to his playing, but I think it is unfair to call him "anti-musical." While I find his playing relentless and even brutal much of the time, these qualities are not necessarily anti-musical. I think he plays the Bach for the most part with real musical intention and shape. I find his rendering of the main idea poignant and well-designed. He also accumulates lots of energy in the episode where it goes into the minor (2:00 - 2:30), though the phrasing is a little perfunctory. I like the way he returns to the main idea though. Overall listening to it was an interesting experience. I think the extreme divergent reactions he gets suggest a strong, idiosyncratic musical personality. Some good musicians hate Glenn Gould's playing because of different idiosyncrasies. Weissenberg has a special energy that is evident in his physical approach to the instrument.

I stand by my opinion! Relentless and brutal might do for the Prokofiev Toccata for instance, but I suspect I would even cringe at Weissenberg performing that, because he wouldn't bring any other qualities to it! However I must confess that I did not even listen to the whole of the Chromatic Fantasy, my intolerance got the better of me! AFF

Hey Kennan725, I would be curious to know what you think of these interpretations by Edwin Fischer. They are interpreted very differently than most modern players but I think Fisher brings many fine qualities to his performance. Oh, and I saw your post about Kleiber... there is a fantastic performance of his of Brahms 4th symphony in youtube if your interested. 1. 2.

Hi, thanks for the links. There are so many interesting details here. I can only mention a few of them and some general thoughts. On the Fantasy and Fugue in A minor. The fantasy constantly alternates between a monumental chordal section and a busy contrapuntal working out of the basic ideas and Fischer connects these sections very organically. I think that the contrapuntal lines are very articulate and nuanced. The fugue cadences abrubtly at 5:21 and Bach introduces a new chromatic subject. Eventually the strands join together. In Fischer's hands the new subject grows seamlessly out of the cadence. On the Prelude and Fugue. Again, the Prelude is very nicely shaped. The interesting harmonic ideas, like what happens around 1:31, where things get really unstable before the cadence, are well articulated. Notice that he plays it weaker when he repeats the section. He uses the una corda pedal a lot in the Fugue. The subject seems to anchor the music while the counter-lines energize it. Then at 3:17, the subject is augmented and it is really magnificent the way he makes the line speak in the bass when he plays it again at 3:40. And the stretto entry at 4:00 is wonderful because he characterizes the voices so differently. There is no fake emotionality here; the musical events speak for themselves. If you are referring to the Kleiber Brahms Symphony from 1996, the same one where he does the Beethoven Coriolan Overture, I actually own the concert on DVD but I haven't seen the whole thing yet. What are your thoughts on his interpretation of the Brahms and/or the links I posted?

I don't like this rendition of Bach either. Certain phrases almost sound like he's an amateur. But his Tchaikovsky concerto, while definitely not anywhere close to the best, is at least an OK interpretation.

Yecch. Sorry.

You see, Jai is a , he's got good ears. I don't see how a person whose sound is unrelentingly steely can have a good interpretation. By what criteria? How can it be a good interpretation when the sheer sound makes you want to cringe and get as far away from it as possible? Respectfully submitted, AFF

Good musicians can dislike the playing of other good musicians. Nothing wrong with that. It is more a case of disliking someone's personality and aesthetic values than basic musicianship. Weissenberg has a superb pianistic capability and communicative gift, however repulsive you may find his personality. Herbert von Karajan was a with an excellent ear if there ever was one and he considered Weissenberg one of the all-time great pianists. Weissenberg's recording of the Rachmaninoff Preludes was one of his favorite recordings. I think you would agree that Hamelin also has got some pretty good ears and he has repeatedly stated his admiration for Weissenberg. These are just a few examples of the opposite case. There is so much more to musical interpretation than tonal beauty. I am not even sure that it is , many people might be justifiably put off. But that does not make the musical interpretation invalid at all.