The live 1965 Paris concerts(转发)

The obvious point of comparison here is the live recording of the same repertoire that Fournier made with Kempff some six years later, also for DG––and currently available at mid-price ((CD) 423 297-2GCM2). And there are major differences between the two. Firstly, Fournier's contribution is both sweeter and surer in the earlier recording; secondly, his instrument was far better recorded in 1959––the live 1965 Paris concerts lend him (at least in the remasterings as sampled) a cavernous tone that partially obscures the subtler aspects of his playing; and thirdly, Kempff's jewelled but fanciful pianism (try the magical downward scale in the eleventh Handel variation––track 17) is in vivid contrast to Gulda's more forthright but ultimately less spontaneous studio manner. There's a fourth main difference, too: the observation of Op. 69's first movement repeat by Gulda, which Kempff (or Fournier) saw fit to omit.

However, when it comes to making a choice between the two, I have to say that I prefer this earlier set. Although less loose-limbed than Kempff, Gulda plays with greater concentration (on this occasion it is Kempff who sounds as if he might have one foot in the jazz camp); he also has the benefit of a fuller, more resilient piano tone, a quality which pays dividends where the music needs it most, i.e. in the first movements of Op. 102 Nos. 1 and 2. And there's no denying that where long-breathed solo lines predominate, the advantage of having a cellist very much in the peak of technical condition (as Fournier is with Gulda) is a further advantage. Not that he fails Kempff (on the contrary, there are some instances where Fournier, too, shows an extra spark of spontaneity); it's just that six years witnessed a slight deterioration in his tone.

The competition isn't exactly overwhelming. In mid-price terms, it is dominated by Serkin and Casals (Sony Classical (CD) CD45682 and CD46725), a tougher, grainier, more technically fallible alternative, less well recorded than either DG set, but with its own special charisma. However, if you need a quality library recommendation, and don't crave digital technology, then Gulda and Fournier have my vote.'