Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner A different take on La Campanella

I came across this gentleman's performance and detailed explanation of why he is playing this renowned piece so uniquely. I've gotta say that I like both his performance and the explanation he gives. Please see what you think:
a toatally different approach to La Campanella

P.S.- I also very much enjoy the sound of his piano for this piece.

I wish most pianists were as thoughtful.

For my ears the piece has lost all of its sparkling fire in this interpretation

I have a slow recording of Bolet at 5:12, which is very contemplative, but witty and crystal-clear, and with an infinite variety of dynamics and touch. These qualities are almost completely missing in this guy's recording (sorry to compare him with the masters, but if he claims all masters to be wrong, this is what he asks for...Richard Kastle syndrome?).

Ironically, he justifies his approach with faithfulness to Liszt's intentions. However, it should be noted that La Campanella certainly has an uninterrupted and very dense performance tradition. For example, I have a (Welte-Mignon) recording of Busoni (who could still hear Liszt playing in person), clocking in at 4:29, faster than many contemporary pianists.

Allegretto is not a mathematical description, but a feeling, and it refers to the basic pulse. This guy's playing sounds more like a march. Also, Liszt did nowhere indicate that the piece should be played robotic, without life and passion and with the same touch and dynamics throughout.

Very nice! Thanks for sharing CC2; this actually sounds like I could play it.

And great piano tone, too.

Remember that this guy made a disclaimer that he was not presuming to be better than the virtuosi:

That said, his complete rejection of rubato makes it a little too dry.

Feux Follets[1] is marked allegretto too

As pianovirus notes above, allegretto is more a style than a tempo marking. Charles Rosen remarks in his book on the Beethoven Piano Sonatas that even during his (LvB that is) lifetime, the speed of allegretti seemed to increase. He also makes the point that the 2nd movement of Op.54 (so marked) is nearly always played too fast, such that it loses its graceful character and the initial additional indications of dolce (which has more connotations that just piano) are lost too.

I can see this youtube pianist's point, and think it has a lot of validity. However his somewhat metronomic and expressionless playing did mean that even the allegretto feel was a bit lost to my ears. Perhaps in the hands of a different pianist an interpretation of this piece at a slower than conventional tempo would be more effective.

Michael B.
[1] Compare Arrau's appreciably slower recording compared to many others. However he still retains the playful, mischievous and cheerful feel that the composer undoubtable sought by the title, etc.

It doesn't sound like an etude to me at that tempo. I think I listened to some of this pianists other recordings and they all sounded wrong to me.

Of course, it's *possible* that it's just that one becomes used to hearing a piece at a certain tempo.

I've looked into Cory Hall's (BachScholar) work regarding tempo in J.S. Bach's music before. Though I haven't read all of his documents on the matter, I have some concerns that some of the interpretations about the music might be fixed up to suit the claims. Music is not my specialty, so I don't have some of the necessary background to look into his ideas more thoroughly. Does anybody want to look into some of his work and post about it?

-Matt

I always considered such things to be relative.

A thoughtful approach, perhaps, but as the proof is in the pudding, the results don't work for me in this performance. While other performers may surpass the Allegretto indication in the score to excess - which, as others have said, is relative - this performance has lost impetus and sparkle that this Etude needs.

It may not need (much of) an increase in tempo, but it certainly needs to come alive a little more. It needs to plod a little less at a rather steady, stodgy three-to-the-bar 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, and become more 1 2, 3, 1 2, 3.

It needs the three L's : lightness, lilt and life!

Regards,

I rather like Gavrilov\'s Brutal Performance.
I particularly like the militant, rhythmic conclusion.

For me that sounded a little rushed. I prefer Kissin's or Yundi Li's(both around 4'30" vs. Gavrilov's 4'00"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y9Wiqsd9xY

A little off topic, but this is Gould playing too slow! (Can you beleive this?)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R54fHB8Zny8

Came across this recently, i really like this version. Kemal Gekic.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DtS8Yrw12QQ

Kissin is 4 minutes actually... 5 seconds slower than Gavrilov.

BTW, those 2 performances are my favorite.

Kind of takes the life out of it at that speed. Can't really produce those 'ringing tones'. I like Rubinstein and Kissin best for their balance between technical precision/speed & expression.

My sadistic pleasure in the Gavrilov is much like the Pogorelich Gaspard De La Nuit. (Not on youtube). Complete, total ownage. No respect for Ravel's markings, but what incredible playing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwc-nmyPm4I

Lisitsa is 4:11 - and I really like her clarity.


M.

For a nice sound, also have look at

"La Campanella" played by Alicia de Larrocha available on youtube.

Yes, I forgot to include the announcing of the encore and bow at the end. I think Gavrilov played the first statement of the theme a little faster than Kissin and that's what made me think he rushed it a little even though the times are virtually equal.