Thanks for listening! And I appreciate your being enthused by my playing of this piece.
Yes, the late romantic piano literature is my favorite of all time. It's been a pleasure to play the music of severa these composers, some not as well known as others. I believe that the late romantics, carrying on the traditions of the earlier romantic composers, wisely ignored the modernists, composed extraordinary music, and conclusively proved that the possibilities of romanticism had not been exhausted, and supposedly leaving that genre bankrupt. Not at all! I am disappointed, however, by today's neo-romantics. I continue to seek out these composers to see if I can be inspired to play their piano music. Not much luck so far.
Back to Faure... I remember when I prepared this barcarolle and first played it for my teacher at the time, I told him to trust me that I had the correct notes. Because Faure's tonal centers shift very often, thereby affecting accidentals, I tried hard to avoid note reading errors. I also, at the end of my learning process, listened to Collard play it to see if any different notes jarred my ears, but his rendition didn't reveal any. There might have been a very few finger slips in my recording which were unintentional.
On the pedaling, I believe I did a pretty good job in that department overall. I'm glad it struck you the same way. Analog recording back then was different. I'm thinking that the third mic behind the two stereo mics (used to capture ambient sound) might have created the "swimming" sound that Monica mentioned.
Page turns--when I've tried to fix those, my edits are even worse!
[Yes, it´s a performance of "good old school" and that´s exactly what it makes so unique and valuable (especially in times of today)!]
I've given this some thought lately. Today there seems to be a fixation with correct notes. Of course, we all want the notes to be played correctly. But that seems to have been elevated to an art form, and has become the #1 priority of younger pianists (the recent Cliburn Competition being a good illustration). The old school great pianists like Serkin, Horowitz, Cortot, Rubinstein and Richter valued correct notes, but they also took big risks which often succeeded, but sometimes with the dropping of a note or two. Individuality and personality were integral of those performances. Today so much playing sounds like plain vanilla. Pianists often sound alike. My theory: 1) There is now a worship of the correct notes over all other elements of musicality and artistry. 2) The rise of the urtext edition has obliterated imaginative playing. Today pianists all buy and read from the same urtexts. In the 1900s there were many editions available which varied in terms of quality of editing. Some were more heavily edited than others, and the editing skills stretched from one end of the spectrum to the other. Not everyone was a Rafael Joseffy in editing Liszt, or Emil von Sauer in editing Brahms, or those who did the Paderewski Chopin editions. There were many editions to choose from then, and as a result, pianists sounded differently when they played. And going beyond that, pianists also allowed themselves to take a liberty in their interpretations now and then. Nowadays, it seems the urtext is the urtext--despite the fact that not one urtext edition has yet to be proven and pronounced flawless. I don't believe that making note perfection the highest priority and giving ourselves over to the urtexts does much for individuality in the performing art. I'm not advocating that we use poor editions; rather, that we know the good editions from the not so good. Otherwise, I cannot bring myself to believe that these existing trends will reverse already declining audience numbers and/or impel young people to attend piano recitals. Safe, plain vanilla renditions that don't highlight the emotional content of the music are boring.