Classical music reviews

There's some rather rare pieces on this CD--including the wonderful cakewalk Novelette in Fourths. Gershwin wrote some wonderful jazz-style preludes for piano, but usually only three are recorded. There are a number of other short piano works that are delightful and practically impossible to find on CD. Fortunately, they are here, along with some favorites from Porgy and Bess and other piano arrangements of Gershwin songs such as the virtuoso "I Got Rhythm" variations.

What's really great is that Fazil Say plays these with humor and lightness. No heavy, pseudo-scholarly seriousness here. He makes the most of his pianistic skill and yet retains the spirit of Gershwin's playfulness and fun. This is definitely a must-have if you love Gershwin.

Fazil Say demonstrates his familiarity with Gershwin's music in this excellent Teldec CD. Unlike other classically trained pianists who have opted to play Gerswhin as though it was traditional classical music, Say instead performs these scores as the lively, danceable jazz tunes that they are. He does a fine job emphasizing the connections between Gershwin's music and earlier forms of jazz such as ragtime. Indeed Say demonstrates not only his familiarity with Gershwin's scores, but shows he's having much fun playing them. So do the classical musicians who accompany him on several arrangements. Kurt Masur and the New York Philharmonic accompany Say on "Rhapsody in Blue" and the variations on "I Got Rhythm" with excellent performances of their own. Without question, this is one of the finest CDs I've heard of Gershwin's music performed by classically trained musicians.

Although everything on this disc is also heavily recorded by others, Fazil Say has indeed found new arrangements to the songs and pieces, which made George Gershwin famous. Maybe The Rapsody in Blue is the one that has been recorded most, by any standard. But nevertheless the comparison between versions is always interesting, mostly due to the work itself. Fazil Say has a more jazzy approach than let's say, Michael Tilson Thomas or even Alicia Zizzo (the latter is better than that of Tilson Thomas). With Fazil Say you hear that Gershwins music is firmly rooted in ragtime and music hall, the piano being the one they use in a bar, in most other interpretations there is the tendency to use a grand piano, typically concertlike. Although Gershwin craved to be a concertcomposer (he even went to Paris to ask Ravel to teach him), his strength laid in jazzy, vaudeville-like sharpness, and above all, syncopated music. It was music to dance to. His songs mostly transcend the lightness of musical (music hall) songs, which he wrote together with his brother Ira. In addition, especially Porgy and Bess, which is an opera true to the word, is simultaneously impressing and touching, though halfheartedly unemancipating in its use of so called Negro language. However, Fazil Say has nothing to do with that, and his interpretations are wonderful, in the songs his piano really sings, you do not miss the voice of the singer. In addition, I will not forget to mention the New York Philharmonic under Kurt Masur, who gives an outstanding performance, surprising and full of the necessary rhythm and drive.

The sound quality is excellent, especially brass and percussion. The quintet that accompanies Say in the first four numbers is up to its job and more. The sound of the piano is very well captured.

Pianist Liz Story has been a mainstay in the Windham Hill label due to her emense talents and wide musical appeal. Her first releases in the 80's - like the dreamy song, "Wedding Rain" -showcased a fresh talent that bathed the listener in delicate, emotionally-rich atmospheres of lovely tonal colorations. But with such lumanescent textures is a corresponding musical intelligence that only comes from an accomplished composer and performer (she writes most her music). This classically-trained talent allows her music to rise above the more superficial "nice sounding background piano music" of this genre. Her style is reminicent at times of the French classical masters Debussy or Ravel for its emphasis on tonal beauty and serene, cascading effects. To me her music has always exuded something special ... something very deep and resonant ... something tangibly spiritual and with a sense of celebration of life.

Story brings these same qualities to her seasonal collection, fittingly titled, "The Gift." In a world riddled with too many cheesy and trite holiday recordings, Story's "Gift" here is a true treasure and sanctuary for music lovers who appreciate good music and true talent. Its essence and "spirit" is similar to George Winston's legenday recording, "Winter" in the way it creates a sense of solace, warmth and comfort. Liz Story's performances here radiate a superb musical artisty and elegance that rise far and above the many other "quiet seasonal CD's" out there. Probably the piece that best exudes this sensitive playing is her magical rendition of the beloved English song, "Greensleeves" (track 4) in which she creates a fleeting, transcendent mood through her seamless playing, feathery touch and delicately evocative effects. This piece is emmensely beautiful and moving to hear, transporting you to imaginative vistas and memories. Especially when doing the more well-known seasonal pieces, it takes tremendous talent to find the true, spiritual core of the music to avoid a trite-sounding result - and she finds this core and reveals its depth to us as her gift. Holiday CD's come and go, but certain ones and certain songs are timeless such as those performed here by Liz Story. The sound quality is excellent with a most-fitting resonance that brings out the rich harmonic overtones of her piano. A most lovely recording with gorgeous artistry that finds a true depth expression and a quiet, inner joy of the season.

I love every track on this CD, just like I love every track on all the Liz Story CDs I own. It's a permanent part of my holiday season.

I never heard Liz until the disk arrived. She can both play and interpret. Put this one on, follow it with C. Chesnut's Christmas disk and the Holiday's meaning becomes clear.

This recital, actually recorded in San Francisco, is one of the true great CDs you could EVER buy by Di Stefano. Ah, 1950, what a year! Tebaldi's duet on Butterfly, and his with Lily Pons, are especially thrilling to hear. His third act TOSCA aria, is DEADLY! For those who want to experiment, and listen to perhaps the BEST live performance of his TOSCA, try the Opera D'Orio TWO CD set for under ten bucks. Di Stefano's incredible performance, even gets Tebaldi to act as she never did before. But THIS CD is worth having for the sheer perfection, and the sound has been remastered very well, not hurting your ears at all, as many operatic performances, particularly live, DO. All his trademarks are here, A MUST HAVE!

This rare CD shows "Pippo" Di Stefano at his very best. The "Salut, demeure chaste et pure" as well as "E lucevan le stelle" and "Parmi veder le lagrime" are great, regarding both interpretation and unmatched vocal skills. In a shape like this, Di Stefano just deserves to be hailed as the "tenor of the century" (or at least the second half of it). This recital (actually recorded in San Francisco) is the top of classical vocal art - just forget Del Monaco, Corelli or Bergonzi: Di Stefano was the king!

if you love tenors,you must buy this cd.the sheer beauty of voice is unmatched,the timbre is unmistakeable,and the interpretation is often copied but never equalled.before being afflicted with asthma in the late 1950,s,DiStefano was the tenor's tenor.ignore the critics,and listen to what his peers said:Jussi Bjorling:"DiStefano will be greater than all of us";Pavarotti:"if i have to choose a favorite,i will choose DiStefano ";Domingo:"DiStefano was the most impressive i ever saw";Carreras:"he was my idol"

Sergey Schepkin was born in St Petersburg and has studied with Russell Sherman at the New England Conservatory. His debut CD recording boldly tackles the Goldberg Variations. I am still reeling from the encounter with it, and I mean that largely as a compliment.

To start with, Schepkin's technical command makes even famous colleagues sound labored in comparison. He can play some of the most difficult variations without sounding stretched, even at exceptionally fast speeds, so that he is free to concentrate on musical expression (which is, after all, what virtuosity is about). At the same time, he takes such fast tempos rarely, and for specific purposes, and not as a sort of general velocity credential.

The actual sounds he draws from his (unspecified) instrument are often ravishing, and they cover a wide range of character and color--compare the incisive authority of the very first variation with the velvety evocation of the harpsichord's buff stop in the repeats of Variation 21.

Beyond all this, as his remarkably intelligent comments in the booklet interview underline, he has been at once bold and dedicated enough to reimagine the entire work from the ground up. All repeats are taken, and they are varied and embellished with an imagination that is at times outrageous but more often revelatory and always consistent in a validly baroque way.

One of Schepkin's tactics is to put the melody an octave up in the repeat of several variations. On the face of it, this is a perfectly defensible practice--it makes a sound foreign to Bach's world, but the piano does that anyway, and it is the meaning conveyed by the sound that is paramount. Here, however, I confess to mixed feelings, and for two reasons. One is that the device pays diminishing returns with repetition, and I think Schepkin uses it at least one time too many. The other is that, as recorded, it combines with the only small blemish in an otherwise admirable recorded sound--an area of somewhat excessive resonance around the G above the treble stave--to produce an inappropriately New-Age-ish effect as of mystical chimes.

I hope this blemish can be eradicated in the succeeding Bach recordings promised in the biographical note. On any number of points of rhythm, articulation, or tempo I could take issue with Schepkin. But he has given us a Goldberg of rare richness and beauty, and it will be a part of my view of the work from now on.

Okay, to admit that both of Glenn Gould's recordings of the Goldberg have a vertiginous ectasy about them--performed with a jaw-dropping pianism and surgeon-like articulation. If one is looking for a penultimate version of the Goldberg, indulge in one of the Gouldian versions first. (The 1955 version is my personal favorite but the one recorded for CBS Masterworks 27 years later is also quite special) But this version...wow, wow and thrice wow! Schepkin is definitely in the same realm as Gould. There is none of the typical sloppy keyboard work camouflaged with heavy pedalling, no ponderous Liberace-esque galumphing and histrionics. Exceptional talent and ability speak for themselves and is made evident without all the marketing and fluff--all the tangential and extraneous dramatugy that tries to make the mediocre seem larger than it really is. If you are someone loves the Goldberg and enjoys the aesthetic delineations that come from listening to different versions of the same recording, then I strongely urge you to partake of Sergey Schepkin's magisterial talent. You will not be disappointed.

This is the greatest recording of the Goldbergs I've ever heard (and I've heard many: Gould, Rosen, Feltsman, Tureck, Schiff, Lifschitz, etc.). Schepkin plays with just incredible panache, plasticity, and spontaneity, seemingly re-creating the work rather than merely giving it another run-through. But at the same time, he doesn't distort the music in any way or get in its way--that kind of balancing act makes for the magic of a great performance. The ornaments Schepkin adds fit in perfectly and are an authentic part of the period's style, and the way he differentiates the repeats makes the variations that much more exciting. On top of that, he's one of the few people to play this work whose dexterity truly is in Gould's league. But you don't get any extraneous noises here to distract from the performance--and you do get all the repeats.

Schepkin was a pupil of Grigory Sokolov (perhaps the world's greatest living pianist--wish he'd make some more recordings!), and he belongs to the great tradition of Russian pianism. This debut disc, even more than his excellent later Bach recordings, is a real knock-out. I've bought copies for many of my friends, and all of them have been deeply impressed by this recording.

I too, confess that I was a band geek in my youth. I played euphonium in High School and loved the fact that the Holst suites feature some wonderful parts for euphonium. As soon as I found this recording I snapped it up...and have played it over and over. I put it on my MP3 player and is with me wherever I go walking. This recording encouraged me to buy a euphonium and join my local community band...after 30 years of separation from band! This month we are performing one of these Holst suites in concert, so I've been practicing along with this CD. The recording is A440 tuned so you can do that...of course, IF you can keep up with the virtuoso performance! It is really inspiring! I agree that this would be a bargain at 5-times this price!

I'm not the only reviewer here who spent a musical youth performing this music; Holst's Suites No. 1 and 2 (esp. the latter) were on the program every summer and I never tired of them. Indeed, I became so familiar with them that this CD -- which I never tire of playing now -- serves as a convenient way for me to test stereo stores' sound systems. I also grew up hearing of the reputation of Frederick Fennell, and this album, recorded in Severence Hall's acoustics, is the conjunction of a great composer, a great ensemble, a great recording forum and a great director. A brilliant album, matched only by Fennell's "Stars and Stripes" recording of similar music.

I bought this recording 20 years ago, in the fall of 1984. That was the day I bought my first CD player. Being an old "band nerd," I hustled home to hook the player up to my amplifier's auxiliary inputs. Well, what I heard was just miraculous. Terrific wind players and percussionists, playing their hearts out. And all of the sound came blasting at me through my slightly upscale equipment. I had never felt a bass drum whomp in my belly before on a recording. Well, this recording did it for me. The amazing thing is that it sounds as good today as it did in '84, when I was a mere 30 years old and had brown, not gray, hair.

Buy this. It is an historically significant recording. And it is worth five times the asking price.

His Chopin, there is a little bit of mannerism and too spontaneou. Well, even Liszt himself was a showman after all. Horowitz had to earn his living by concertizing before he was emotionally ready, and then having to flee from his motherland and later losing his only child and then the onset of horror for the stage... these all help to explain his demonic, which is so daring and sometimes even at the expense of the necessary emotional import, sometimes more amusing than touching...

Horowitz is unique, too sensual perhaps, but never dry. Here Horowitz gave his best keeping the balance between mannerism and dryness. Better than most of his middle age recordings. First rate, no question about that. What is more, the audio sound here is excellent. Recommended.

One of Horowitz's most rewarding discs. I don't like the remastering work here much either, but it's still a first-rate recording. The first issue had a more authentic sound. Audiophile concerns, however, are the least important aspect attending a recording like this. The playing is stupendous in every way - magisterial and lighthearted at once! For all his natural Russian bluff (something essential to his art, and hardly a disparaged excess), Horowitz is ultimately a color man, and a singer when he plays; his Scarlatti in fact owes everything to the opera, so layered with detail, and delight of the 'first' voices. When I hear Horowitz's Chopin, I often think of Guiomar Novaes- not the same movement of sound, but the same ideal of singing in the playing. The 'L'Adieu' is perfect art here, the kind Horowitz never failed to honor with his Chopin. A good deal of what we truly love about Horowitz's playing is of course the pianos he uses, why not say it?! HE would! This recording at the Met illustrates that principle in beautiful proportions; the sound of the instrument (I suspect it's the one from his home?) is a constant joy throughout the recording, especially on the first issue CD. The second half of the program here is both ambitious and safe (I think the programming finer on the Moscow concert), but it's the Scarlatti that means the most; those sonatas like a row of little jewelled houses living under the sun are each a testament to the greatness of this man's pianistic art. Not only that, Horowitz was an enormously cultured man of constant individuality; the elegance of a legacy comprised of uncompromising musical taste and consummate daring speaks louder than the shadow of an almost savant facility. I think he was one of music's rare beings - this recording so testifies. Don't wait.

The original release of Horowitz at the Met was one of the first CDs I bought when I got my first player in 1986. The clarity and beauty of sounds were nothing short of astonishing back then. RCA has remastered the recording using the latest technology and for me the results are varied: The dynamic range is dramatically increased, but the hall ambiance seems to have been almost eliminated.

Whatever one's opinion of the sound, the recording captures Horowitz in his autumnal prime in works he was obviously comfortable with. Horowitz almost single handedly ressurected Scarlatti, and his approach to these elusive works consistenly illuminates. He almost never embellished the text, but provides more than enough variety with an endless pallette of tone colors.

Horowitz seemed more at home in Chopin's Ballade #4 than he did in the first Ballade. The phrasing, dynamics, and dramatic build up are just so "right" here, that one can scarcely imagine a better performance--even with the occasional minor slip of finger.

Liszt's Ballade is more bombastic than anything else. Horowitz fills the work with such epic "mad-scientist" fury, one can actually take the work seriously, at least until the track ends.

The Chopin Waltz combines both--very different--editions of Chopin's text, with perhaps a dash of Horowitz' melancholy.

The Rachmaninoff Prelude has a swinging beat that one seldom hears from this piece. The central section is as sexily voiced as a siren's song. The applause at the end is most welcome.

I am writing in to disagree a bit with the previous reviewer who dismissed this recording and Horowitz's playing in general. I would agree that this is not Horowitz's greatest recital. It may be better remembered for its historical significance than as a representative sampling of Horowitz's art. For me, much of the repertoire in this recital could be called "ill-chosen." The pieces such as the Schumann Fantasie, the opening Bach piece, and Chopin's g minor Ballade do not really show Horowitz at his best -- and not just because they're "big" pieces that "require interpretation." Aside from the Chopin Ballade, these are not pieces that one would typically hear at a Horowitz recital, and I do wish that he had not insisted on repeatedly performing and recording the g minor Ballade. I agree that his bombastic, episodic approach never worked with that piece. I tend to favor the pieces on this album that were recorded in the 1966 recitals, including the Chopin Polonaise-Fantasie dismissed by the previous reviewer. Yes, the ending is too bombastic, but there is so much beautiful, gorgeous piano playing in this performance. The way Horowitz could layer the sound and produce such a beautiful, expressive, vocal melodic line can perhaps be fully appreciated only by real connoisseurs of piano playing. Horowitz was not just a pianist for the "masses." He was also a pianist for connoisseurs.

Is it possible to acknowledge the shortcomings in Horowitz's technique and interpretive ability pointed out by the previous reviewer and to still be a great fan and admirer of his playing? Yes, it is. I know that many listeners who hear the shortcomings in Horowitz's playing feel that Horowitz's admirers must lack discrimination, and I think that in some cases this is true. In fact, I sometimes think that critical reaction to Horowitz can be roughly divided into three categories:

The first category would be for unconditional admirers of Horowitz who feel that he could do no wrong. I would say that this represents the least perceptive evaluation of Horowitz's playing.

The second category would be for people who are aware of the shortcomings in Horowitz's technique and musicality and who feel justified in dismissing Horowitz because of these shortcomings. I think that this view represents a somewhat more perceptive evaluation of Horowitz, and I think that the previoius reviewer would fall into this category.

The third category would be for people who are aware of the shortcomings in Horowitz's technique and musicality and who still feel that he was one of the greatest pianists in history. In my opinion, this is the most perceptive evaluation of Horowitz's playing.

I, too have listened to all of Horowitz's recordings, and have come to a different conclusion about his playing than the previous reviewer. For me, this recording is certainly worth having, mostly for the 1966 recordings.

This is not a review per se. My review is posted under the "Live and Unedited" version of the 1965 concert. But I wanted to correct a few errors which have been circulated in regard to this recording.

First, the corrections used on the original version of "Horowitz at Carnegie Hall" were not made at a "patch session at Carnegie a few days" after the concert. Columbia's engineers had already recorded Horowitz's rehearsals and used that material for the editing.

Second, the editing in the album was neither as extensive as some have suggested, nor as insignificant as others state.

Here is a (mostly) complete list of the patches on the original album, which have been removed from "Live and Unedited":

Bach-Busoni: Preludio: Measures 2-12 and parts of the coda (Horowitz, by the way, does not play the ossias at bars 8, 10, and 12); Intermezzo: Small patches at bars 7 and 11; Fugue: Several edits between bars 97 and 110, and again in the coda.

Schumann Fantasy: 1st Movement: patches at 7:32 and 10:21; 2nd Movement: small patches at 2:44 and 4:32, and a series of patches in the coda 6:58-7:39; 3rd Movement: No edits.

Scriabin: Sonata No 9: No Edits. Poem in F-sharp: Patch from 2:16-2:26

Chopin: Mazurka: Small edit at 2:02; Etude: Patched sections from 1:27-1:33 and 2:15-2:20; Ballade: Small edits at 2:04 and 4:52, at least four patches in the coda.

None of the encores were edited.

It should be pointed out that the editing of supposedly "live" recordings is more commonplace than the recording industry will admit. Although not generally aknowledged, Arthur Rubinstein's 1961 Carnegie Hall Highlights album was patched, and most live recordings today are actually compilations from several performances.

Whether you choose this patched version, or "Live and Unedited" the 1965 return concert contains some stunning piano playing. Can anyone imagine the pressure Horowitz was under on that day? To prove you have not just retained your original greatness, but have deepened and become even greater cannot have been easy. The new, unedited version of the concert is not a revelation, but serves as a reminder of Horowitz's all too human frailty.

There's an interesting debate going on in the reviews below about Horowitz's technical and musical ability in general. Do yourself a favor and read through these reviews. It'll show you that Horowitz's ability to engender strong positions and fairly heated exchanges continues undiminished, more than eleven years after his death. What this proves, of course, is his uniquely important position in 20th century piano playing. No other classical pianist was as influential, no one's style was copied as much, no one was as frequently and thoroughly misunderstood (mere technician, mere dazzler, mere showman). What you have to understand in listening to these recordings is that he was a complete professional, totally devoted to his craft to the exclusion of just about any other interests in his life - a tremendously one-sided person. But within the art of piano playing he reigned supreme. His oddly introverted, unmoveable, purely efficiency-oriented appearance during performance (he never moved anythying but his hands - no facial contortions, no head shakes, no swaying body, and even his hands were super-efficient) contrasted oddly with the extreme extrovertedness of his playing. He knew so much more about the sound possibilities of the instrument than anyone else that listening to him was downright frightening for other pianists. I remember a well-known pianist during intermission at a Horowitz recital in Hamburg in 1986 laughing and crying at the same time, shaking his head and saying over and over again, "it's impossible. That was impossible. That can't be done" (he was talking about Horowitz's rendition of a Schubert-Liszt transacription).

Anyway, his mastery of the instrument far beyond all other humans' capacity has persistently clouded people's perception of Horowitz and made an assessment of his artistic merits much more difficult. Undoubtedly he had clear limitations as an artist (Beethoven, for example, was just not part of his artistc world). But we have to keep in mind that, unlike practically all classical musicians today, who are trained to be universalists and to assemble a vast variety of styles, Horowitz came out of a strong and idiosyncratic musical tradition - that of Scriabin and Rachmaninov. That tradition was his world, his artistic home, and he always explored other musical traditions from the vantage point of his particular musical identity. In all of this he proved extremely flexible (playing, for example, Scarlatti, Clementi and Czerny to great critical acclaim), but since he never aspired to neutrality and objectivity (like, for example, Pollini or Arrau), it always was obvious when he played music that didn't fit with who he was.

So the debate about Horowitz's musical merits that goes on in the reviews below is as old as his career. What's curious, though, is that a couple of reviewers believe to have found TECHNICAL shortcomings in his playing. That is new in Horowitz criticism. All his career he reigned as the supreme master of piano technique, acknowledged as such first and foremost by most famous pianists (Rubinstein, Argerich, Pollini, Perahia, and many others have rhapsodized - or expressed their jealousy - about Horowitz's technique publicly and at length). When speed and power decreased due to old age, he transferred his technical accomplishments to polyphony, to shadings, colors, multi-layered pianissimi unimagined before or after. In the present recordings from the mid-60s, there was no noticeable decrease in speed and power yet, but his development toward more sophisticated sound effects was well underway. In other words, the questioning of Horowitz's technical abilities in some of the reviews below is utter and complete nonsense. I can only surmise that the authors of these reviews are people raised on the bland, impersonal mechanical functioning displayed by so many contemporary pianists that Horowitz's edginess, his constantly going to extremes (of speed, of clarity, of softness, of bel canto, etc.) irritates them somehow. One thing Horowitz was never after was a polished surface. If you want pleasant, comforting stuff that you can play happily in the background while doing the dishes, Horowitz is not the artist for you. He demands total concentration. But he'll reward that concentration tenfold. Even if you don't agree or don't like what he does in a particular piece, you'll learn a ton about music listening to him. He's a very musically opinionated guy, and some of his work may irritate you a great deal, but he will never, ever bore you.

I agree that this is a wonerful Mahler Fourth, for all the reasons already given. But it wasn't right to have a boy soprano sing the last movement. If Mahler had wanted an uncultivated voice, he would have asked for one--the Third Sym. has children sisnging in the fourth movement. Here he wanted the sophisticated effect of faux-naive, a woman singing to evoke a child's vision of heaven. An actual child is too artless to convey this effect--the boy soprano here simply sounds like he's struggling to get all the notes out on pitch without losing energy.

This is a pretty bright and spirited performance...I like it overall...but no matter who's version you prefer, buy it, run out and buy it if only for the last movement's boy soprano. It is hands down one of the most bone-chilling, hair-standing-on-end, tear-jerking, ethereal sounds you will ever fill your soul with. Ignore the person who wrote that Wittek was "struggling with intonation"--nitpicking at a very talented youngster is besides the point and does not do justice to the heart of the matter. We should be so lucky to hear a boy soprano--let alone an unnervingly musically mature one--as they are almost entirely an extinct art form. I have trouble hearing this one performed by mature singers now as I have been ruined by the sweetness, innocence, soul, and musicality of this performace. It's a breath of fresh air.

I have listened to the Szell and the Abaddo performances of this symphony. I remember as a child being turned off by this performance.
Now I am grown up! When I heard the boy soprano Wittek do the last movement, I had to stop my car on the side of the street and listen without moving. I was totally turned on by this performance. It is true that in other recordings the soprano (usually female) generally has a more operatic voice then this young boy. However, this performance is daring and took my breath away.
The other movements (1-3) are equally brilliant. Bernstein makes this work into an absolute masterpiece.
The Szell performance is also phenomenal. I would recommend getting both performances. The Szell is a wonderful performance, and this Bernstein performance is an emotional experience.
I can understand why some people might find it hard to hear this performance with the boy singing the fourth movement. However, I think that an open mind will help these people realize what a brilliant idea it was to use this soprano. The whole experience was overwhelming for me.

That's my call to record execs, or George Winston, or whoever, if they ever read these. I bought volume one, absolutely thrilled that finally, after 40 years of searching, I'd finally found slack key without singing. I don't hate the vocals, and the vocals on this CD are less annoying than a whole lot of the vocals I've heard in Hawaiian music (yes, I grew up there, and have gone back every year for the last 30 years, and I've heard a whole lot of Hawaiian music that I didn't exactly ask for.) I love finger-picked ukulele (NOT strummed), and I love the cheesy steel guitar, but if I never hear another vocal, it'll be too soon. So anyway: is everyone who ever published Hawaiian music confident that people like and expect vocals? I see other reviews here that could do without the vocals. I hereby swear that if Dancing Cat (or anybody) ever does another collection anywhere near as good as Vol. 1, without vocals, I will instantly buy it at a premium price. I promise!

This cd would be worth buying even if it only had one song on it - the version of "Pu'u Anahulu" with Martin Pahinui on vocals. I get chicken skin just listening to this song and how much he sounds like his father! Of course I love Gabby's version but always wondered what it would sound like without the cheesy strings; this is it. Unlike one other reviewer, I love the vocals.

This album won a Grammy in February 2006! And diservedly so...

Slack key has come into it's own, many prominent guitar players are following these talented Hawaiians around, learning their new tricks and their old traditional ways. (In song sample #8 of "Masters II", Amazon spelled Cyril Pahinui's name with a "g", come on, let's give the Hawaiian artists the respect they deserve.)

This is NOT a sequel to Slack Key MastersI, but a beautiful extension and addition. The voices as well as the strings are sublime, just right in fact.

All I can say is, MORE! MORE! MORE!

I purchased this recording awhile ago primarily for Honegger's Symphony No. 2, and quite frankly, though the recording quality is fine, Karajan's distant, cavernous-sounding version on this disc pales by comparison to my old vinyl of the passionate intensity and luscious strings of the Orchestre de Paris, conducted by Charles Munch (Angel, S-36585)- in fact, the last recordings made by Munch (1967), though that version has been issued on cd since then. For Symphony No.2,
go with the fiery rendition by Munch and the Orchestre de Paris,
which to my ears, is immensely more satisfying, even on vinyl.

I have this fabulous 3rd symphony (too bad the 5th ("Di Tre Re") wasn't also included in this set) with Baudo & the Czech Phil., and I prefer it a bit to this one (of course you can't get the Baudo anymore, probably). I agree with the many criticisms of von K. that he approaches much of his music in too refinedly a manner. Cf. his Sibelius symphonies, still available on DG CD. But, still, a beautiful performance of an outstanding symphony. Honegger was by far the most important of "Les Six" and I agree with the reviewer above who can't explain his limited popularity.

In his book THE SYMPHONY, Michael Steinberg says something to the effect that if you mention the name "Arthur Honegger" to most music lovers you will probably get "Hmm...Didn't he write the piece about the locomotive?". Sadly, this composer's notoriety today is wildly out of proportion with his worth and importance. I discovered Honegger largely through my interest in French music and LES SIX (the French "Group of Six"), of which Honegger was a part. Upon hearing the powerful LITURGIQUE symphony for the first time, I was amazed. Everything about the music - its polyphonic depth, its architecture, the incandescence of the instrumental colors, the expansiveness and poetry of the melodic line - proclaimed its composer one of the neglected geniuses of 20th-century music. Honegger's music synthesizes the shaded delicacy of Debussy, the kinetic energy and dissonance of Stravinsky, and the polyphonic-chorale tradition deriving from Bach into a dense, rich musical language of solidity, integrity, and eloquence. I vastly prefer Honegger to Bartok or Shostakovich (two composers that another reviewer mentioned as possible preambles to these symphonies), and I find it a scandal that he is not better known. It is fortunate that an important conductor such as Karajan chose to record these works. The church acoustic lends a spacious airiness to the recording, and the playing is of undeniable commitment, fullness, passionate virtuosity, and expressive depth. Karajan's readings of the magnificent adagio and the final andante of the LITURGIQUE stretch out their astonishing beauty. Symphony #2 for strings, which was new to me upon hearing this recording, is a moody, haunting work and every bit as fine as Symphony #3. No one should call himself well-rounded in 20th-century music without knowing Arthur Honegger's rich blend of French sensibility and German self-expression, and lovers of the symphony would be denying themselves much in ignoring these important contributions.