La Campanella

Me, when I have to listen to a piece by Liszt, whether because I have to study it or because I need to get to know it, the order of performers I usually look for is Michelangeli, Cziffra, Zimerman, Berman, Volodos and Campanella .. the others are also very good, but these few, as far as Liszt is concerned, are my favorites.. Perhaps one of their versions of La Campanella will surprise you!

Let's just say that I definitely prefer this one

In my opinion, it perfectly embodies the spirit of this piece.

Open content (youtube)

@ pianothor: I found Cziffra's performance. I liked it. Do you know if Michelangeli played this piece and, if so, where to find the recording?

@Frank: I had listened to Kissin's performance (very young, I believe). I think there are some imperfections. But perhaps that is not the truly relevant and essential thing.

For example, some time ago Nancy pointed out to me how an Argerich performance (although "not impeccable") of Chopin's Heroic was musically more appreciable compared to Lang's "technically perfect" one.

However, I would like to understand what you mean by "embodying the spirit of the piece." Perhaps conformity to the score and therefore to the composer's idea?

In this light, Gilels' performance seems truly dissonant to me. In some passages, the notes actually "played" appear different to me compared to all other pianists (I confess I do not know the score. I am still at Beyer... you understand).

Thank you for your contributions

PS. But do you pianists consider it a challenging piece?

Hi Fulvio, it's not my understanding that Michelangeli ever had Campanella in his repertoire.

The piece is certainly demanding but, I assure you, there is much worse:)

Played like this... I would say that... it can be nothing else! This is... the little bell.

I don't know... original, breezy, luminescent, a bit cheeky, constantly in rhythmic tension and also... because no... playful and fun.

The only note I can make (if one can even speak of notes) perhaps the ostentation of technique (in certain passages on the scales, in which one senses a constant tension of an almost maniacal search for a precise and "square" sound, I am speaking in an aesthetic/rhythmic sense) takes away a bit of interest toward the "globality" of the piece, how to say... it distracts us from the initial atmosphere, as if to bring us back into a track that would otherwise be unmanageable... but.... one knows.. whoever has so many resources.. can also afford a few luxuries, every now and then.

Fulvio wrote:

PS. But do you pianists consider it a challenging piece?

In my opinion, it is a challenging piece from both a technical and musical point of view. Probably not as cumbersome as others, but not everyone can afford it.

Fulvio wrote:

I would like to understand, however, what you mean by "embodying the spirit of the piece".

This is a fun piece; as such, a credible interpretation should preserve this character.

Technically, the Mephisto Waltz is much more difficult if that is the reason. Michelangeli never recorded it, which is why you cannot find his interpretation. All in all, Michelangeli had read a lot of things, but his concert repertoire was very limited since he used to focus on a few pieces to try to make them perfect both in terms of errors and in terms of interpretation and sound.

Michelangeli was a true jeweler. He refined pieces to the point of exasperation, so much so as to transform them into diamonds. He also canceled various concerts with an audience in the hall (according to what is told) because there was too much humidity... or the famous "cricket" on the plants placed near the piano... ha ha. Great man.

What one doesn't do when they don't feel like playing...ahahahah

Ha ha...really...if I'm not mistaken in the Vatican, he had all the plants arranged to create a bit of decor moved, since a cricket that kept singing was hiding right among the foliage...