[dirtcheapii]

are they good?

 

[DanG]

The best rendition of all of Chopin's works I own or have heard. I'd recommend it in a heartbeat.

Be aware, though, that a number of the recordings are in mono in case that throws you off.

 

[Tyson]

Many people love this set (I did at one point). However, I think that Ashkanazy does an overall better job in most of the pieces. I'll probably be burned at the stake for saying that, but that's how I feel

 

[zowie]

Put it on your chopin liszt.

 

[dirtcheapii]

thank you for reply

 

[danaa]

Most Rubinstein, while the performances can be great, are pretty poor sound quality affairs. I don't mind sometimes when dealing with certain artists. If this is a factor, check out Ivan Moravec who is superb and the sound quality is very good, or check out Tyson's suggestion.

 

[DanG]

I haven't heard every Chopin recording by Ashkenazy but what I have heard is very good. You can't go wrong with either pianist.

 

[daycart1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by danaa Most Rubinstein, while the performances can be great, are pretty poor sound quality affairs. I don't mind sometimes when dealing with certain artists. If this is a factor, check out Ivan Moravec who is superb and the sound quality is very good, or check out Tyson's suggestion.

Moravec is my #1. But the Rubinstein performances constitute a kind of reference. He actually recorded most of the stuff three times. Many think the earliest are the best performances, but the sound from 78s is pretty lame. The monos from the 40s and early 50s also have their adherents. The later stereo recordings tend to be quite straight and rather quick--quite close to the scores.

I, too, enjoy Ashkenazy's Chopin quite a lot--I don't understand all the negative internet buzz on him.