Alexis Weissenberg

1. Maybe this is what you mean. Some pianists "tune in" to the vibrations of the notes so that they can precisely align every sound. When every note is aligned something magical happens. To do this your everything right but he has a bad attitude. 2. I think Weissenberg is difficult to classify as "a good musician bad pianist type" because in some respects his pianism is phenomenal. (Brendel might fit that designation better.) Weissenberg's polyphonic control and dynamic range are excellent by any standards. In his case I cannot be sure whether the punchy and percussive sound is an aesthetic or a deficiency that he somehow missed. 3. I think you are referring to the same phenomenon that Horowitz did when he said that the younger generation cannot "sing." 4. My point has been this. Karajan had an amazing ear for legato and tone and he loved Weissenberg's playing. So I do not see how my admiration for Weissenberg can only be due to a lack of aural sensitivity.

I bought Weissenberg's CD of the Rachmaninoff Preludes many years ago, as one of the first CDs I owned. In many ways, my taste for the style in Rachmaninoff was shaped by his approach and I do feel there's something about it that I'd sooner hear than a lot of modern Rachmaninoff players. However, I recently went back and heard his recording of the D major Prelude. I like the flowing tempo and the relative simplicity of how the music progresses. It never plods, like most performances do. In a way, I find his default playing to be rather similar to Rachmaninoff. However, what makes Rachmaninoff's playing really special was just missing. Rachmaninoff typically has a long stretch of plain simplicity, but then he does a really special moment of rubato, typically with some extreme tenuto effects in the melody (and maybe a stretched out spread of a chord), before moving on again. With Weissenberg, there are no such moments that stand out. He just keeps going on and on- frequently pushing into ugliness in the moments where I'd expect Rachmaninoff to open up and do something really special. He just drives even harder into the moments where Rachmaninoff would yield.

Kannan725, I really do thank you for your gracious reply. I appreciate your willingness to really discuss and consider this 'without prejudice.' And I would agree with your evaluation of things, I think that's a really accurate assessment of what's going on. One thing about Karajan's admiration for Weissenberg: with the orchestra, Weissenberg's brilliant sound would be good at cutting through the lush wash of orchestral sound Karajan loved to revel in. Remember Horowitz constantly demanding a more and more brilliant sound from his tuner Fritz Mohr for his orchestral appearances in the 70's. Perhaps there was a nice contrast between Weissenberg's brilliance and the orchestra's warmth that made the whole thing work. Thank you Andrew for your evaluation as well which is another valuable way of describing the Weissenbereg phenomenon. And we must thank Alexis for playing which, no matter how negatively or positively we respond to it (remember, he does have some Scarlatti performances that I like a lot), provokes, intrigues, and causes us to really think. AFF