[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

Personally I like Bavouzet's Debussy..and Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli of course.. I have to be in a certain mood though for impressionistic music..it's not really my thing most of the times..
 
Martha Argerich's Lizst B-minor sonata got me into classical music years ago..and I have a chronical soft spot for Schubert and Gould's Bach
 
These days i'm into Prokofiev..Lugansky's 6th is really good & Haydn (check out Buchbinder!)

I love your tastes
Liszt B minor for me is Cziffra. Liszt reincarnate!
 
Bach I leaned away from Gould tatiana nikolayeva and sokolov are both fantastic and Murray Perahia's recording is just wow

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

I haven't done too much listening to the Lim recording. I got an iTunes gift card and this was one of the downloads along with the Francois Chopin Etudes. The Etudes are very old recordings which lack the fidelity I look for, I gave the Lims a short listen but they didn't hold my interest. I have spent most of my time with FLacs. Incidentally, as well as Linn Records above, an excellent site for high fidelity downloads of classical music is eclassical.com.

I beg you please stay away from the Lim it's horrendous. During my first listen through.. It went form ok to wth to What to What IS THIS to I am sorry beethoven i apologise

 

[Quinto]

Quote:

I love your tastes
Liszt B minor for me is Cziffra. Liszt reincarnate!
 
Bach I leaned away from Gould tatiana nikolayeva and sokolov are both fantastic and Murray Perahia's recording is just wow

 
Funny, I don't like Murray Perahia at all

(to much pedal).... I loooove Sviatoslav Richter these days
 

 

[bigshot]

Perahia is best with Mozart.

 

[uchihaitachi]

Richter I find inconsistent but when he is on form WOW. Perahia too much pedal? What works are you referring to. Live he is electric.

 

[CaffeinatedX42]

Personally I've found non-concert setting piano recordings problematic, especially the well thought of high-fidelity ones.
 
It seems all of the "best" ones are recorded far too close to the piano, to the point that you can hear the dampers lifting and lowering.  This is the reason I far prefer older piano concerto recordings that were recorded with two microphones, both far enough away from the piano that it doesn't drown out the rest of the instruments.
 
The piano, especially the grand piano, is meant to be listened to from a distant of at least 15 feet away, preferably even a little farther.  The mechanical operations of the piano beyond the tones coming from the strings are not meant to be heard..  Yet 90% of the recordings I hear are taken less than two feet away, or even from inside the piano itself.
 
Even when taking distance out of the equation the piano is still notoriously difficult to record well.  Here is a great write up on the subject:
http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/196.html
 
I admit there are some wonderfully intimate"dirty" recordings that include mechanical noise and even the gruntings/weezings of the musician.  Thelonius Monks epic Straight No Chaser is a good example, especially Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.  However I find this to be the exception.
 
What are thoughts of the rest of you on this?  Do you enjoy, or even prefer, the close up "hear everything" nature of most modern solo piano recordings?

 

[bigshot]

That is less of a problem with recordings from the 50s and 60s. But a close miked piano is MUCH better than the way just about all solo harpsichord records are miked. WOW! Beecham described the sound of the harpsichord as "two skeletons making love in a wooden crate". That sure is true of recordings that capture every bump, thump and rap. I have yet to find a good harpsichord recording unless it is part of a group.