Prokofiev For Two and a Half

Why the title, "Prokofiev for Two and a Half," for a Deutsche Grammophon recording on which Martha Argerich and Sergei Babayan play Babayan's two-piano transcriptions of music from Prokofiev's ballet Romeo & Juliet and four of his operas? Because any recording that features the outsized pianism of the great Argerich immediately becomes one of extraordinary importance for artistic resources that are inherently doubled by at least 50%.

Okay. I may have engaged in a bit of hyperbole here. But the importance of Prokofiev for Two is highlighted by the fact that DG has released it in three formats: CD, vinyl, and digital hi-rez. Auditioned in 24/44.1 file format, courtesy of Universal Music Group, it is such a musical knockout—just listen to the opening "Prologue" (mistitled) on the YouTube link below—that the recording's sonic shortcomings should stop no one who loves this music from going to their favorite outlet and grabbing a copy.

Let's deal with those shortcomings first. How much the sampling rate of 44.1kHz is responsible for this effort's disappointingly narrow soundstage and lack of depth and resonance, I do not know. What is incontrovertible, however, is that Murray Perahia's recent Beethoven recital on DG, which was recorded in a different venue than Prokofiev for Two's Schloss Elmau, offers a far larger soundstage and more resonant acoustic. This new recording also lacks the left/right two piano spacing, air, distance, and subtle colors that distinguish Marc-André Hamelin and Leif Ove Andsnes's recent four-hand recording for Hyperion of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring.

If you can move beyond all that, however, what Prokofiev for Two offers in terms of realistic piano tone, dynamic range, and emotional swings is tremendous. You just have to accept how incessantly percussive these tour-de-force piano transcriptions can be.

If the ballet's Prologue isn't enough to convince you of Argerich & Babayan's collective brilliance, check out the immense authority and dynamic contrasts of "Dance of the Knights;" the conflicting emotions of "Morning Dance," the delightfully happy scampering of "Juliet as a Young Girl," the charming delicacy, grace, and captivating sweetness of "Morning Serenade," the madcap "Dance of Five Couples," the sweet sadness and eventual drama of "Romeo and Juliet Before Departure," and the hyper-dramatic concluding "Death of Tybalt."

That final movement includes runs so fast that many a pianist, both major and aspiring, may hyperventilate while pondering how anyone could play like this. The movement's four-minutes includes violent clashes that are conveyed in truly horrible blocks of sound. Argerich and Babayan pound so hard that, seated on a vintage, spring-supported couch 12' away, I could literally feel the vibrations through the multiple-LP–sized box that I use as a makeshift desk while taking notes.

Just as you think that Argerich & Babayan have reached their technical limits, they grow even louder at the movement's close. OMG and then some.

Truth be told, as lovely as much of Prokofiev's music can be, he is not a composer known for his subtlety and restraint. Some years back, when I attended a week-long Prokofiev Festival at San Francisco Symphony where Vladimir Feltsman and perhaps others played all of Prokofiev's five Piano Concertos, I had so many notes thrown at me with such rapidity that I was ready to wave the white flag. You may thus wish to take a break before partaking in four-hand transcriptions of music from Eugene Onegin, Hamlet, The Queen of Spades, and War and Peace.

Once you've come up for air, however, don't miss the low racket in "The Ghost of Hamlet's Father." Listening made me wonder if either Argerich or Babayan wore earplugs during the recording session. Thank goodness, the subsequent Mazurka is lovely, and the Polka madcap in a most enjoyable sense. When you get to the end of the Polonaise, listen for the "whew" exhalation, presumably from one of the artists, as the music dies down.

The concluding "Idée fixe" from the Film Music to The Queen of Spades is alternately crazy, adorable, and a tease and a half. It's a perfect close to a recording that will either leave you staggering, or cheering, or both.

COMMENTS
volvic's picture

It is Martha Argerich, will be buying this on CD and vinyl.

wozwoz's picture

Selling 44.1kHz recordings as 'hi-res downloads" is unacceptable: it is the type of misleading conduct that gives hi-res music (and downloads) a bad name. It rather beggars belief that they could not have found a decent 96 kHz 24 bit kit to record someone of her stature.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

I've compared 16/44.1 to 24/44.1 and 24/48, and there is definitely an audible difference. Ditto for 16/44.1 and 16/88.2 or 16/96. I think it's fair to call them hi-rez, even if it's half-ass hi-rez.

I wish I could answer the question as to why this one is 44.1. I've noticed this with a number of new releases from DG. Sample rates vary.

monetschemist's picture

Maybe this should be called "somewhat higher res" or SHR for the acronymically inclined.

NeilS's picture

"...How much the sampling rate of 44.1kHz is responsible for this effort's disappointingly narrow soundstage and lack of depth and resonance, I do not know..."

Why would (or how could) a Redbook-standard 44.1 kHz sample rate be responsible for perceived "sonic shortcomings" on "soundstage", "depth", or "resonance"?

That said, I certainly agree that Argerich and Babayan have produced a "musical knockout" with this recording.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

How sad ........ 16/44.1 would not be suitable for MQA encoding :-) ..............

dalethorn's picture

Presto Classical has a "CD quality FLAC" for $13, and a "Hi-Res FLAC" (lossless 44.1/24) for $17.50

I wasn't aware that "CD quality FLAC" was anything less than a lossless FLAC equivalent of a 16/44 CD, but maybe someone can explain.

The 44.1/24 is quite good - it carries with it everything I would hope to hear.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

CD quality FLAC = 16/44.1 FLAC.

The notion of changing speaker position or speakers to generate a bigger soundstage than a recording naturally provides makes no sense. The recording has a narrow soundstage.

dalethorn's picture

Adding to the above, what I hear (for example, Folk Dance and Gavotte) sounds spacious with reasonable depth, but for reasons I don't know, the spaciousness (soundstage) seems to diminish a lot during the loud intense passages.

This is an excellent album in my opinion, but if I weren't convinced about the soundstage etc., I might be inclined to different speaker positions or even different speakers for this music.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

I am listening to the album via headphones ............ It sounds fabulous ..........

dalethorn's picture

I did something with this album that I don't usually do with classical music albums - I added a few of the tracks to my playlist and excluded a few others. Purists would probably object, but the half-full glass is delicious. Specifically, the tracks I kept sound fairly spacious with decent depth, but those I excluded were the most intense allegro-pace playing (mostly both pianos at once), which tended to sound dense, thick, whatever is the opposite of well-delineated tones.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

It depends on what type of playback equipment you are using .......... For headphone playback, I am using Mac book pro + Chord Hugo2 + Audeze Lcd-Mx4 ........ YMMV :-) ............

dalethorn's picture

Not so much on the gear but on what sonic properties you're listening for. My gear covers the appropriate gamuts of small hi-fi, but my brain doesn't like to be crowded the way I hear in the denser part of this recording. I've heard only one headphone that can out-resolve all the others (dynamics and planars at least) when it comes to instrument separation with accurate tonality in complex passages - the Sennheiser HD800. But for other reasons I gave that one up. And it wouldn't have made a significant difference here.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

From what you are describing, it appears to be due to IMD ............ Audeze planars are pretty good at reducing (low) IMD .......... JA describes this in his review of Audeze Lcd-X in Stereophile ...........

dalethorn's picture

Planars, with their broad surfaces, just can't do what the ring radiator does in an HD800. Now the electrostatics are another thing altogether.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Did you read the JA's review in the Stereophile? .......... Also check the reviews of the Audeze headphones (by Tyll) in the Innerfidelity ........... Also, Focal Utopias (which I have) are very good at low IMD ...........

Bogolu Haranath's picture

To add to the above ......... Recent recommendation on Stereophile "Utopias" album is a good example of what Audeze planar headphones can do .............

dalethorn's picture

I know what the LCD-2 'Fazor' edition can do, and while the freq. response is very neutral, the overall sound is "flat" in the sense of a beer that's been sitting open for hours and lost its fizz.

The Focal Utopia (as well as the Elear) have very high-excursion piston drivers, which are very different tech from planars. Unless the $4000 planars have special mods to their diaphragms to resolve details like the Senn HD800 does, they probably would not satisfy me for upper harmonic detail.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Ok ....... Do you have the Senn HD800 now? ............ If not, get them ............ Take the plunge ........

dalethorn's picture

I borrow them from a friend when I need to validate certain things, but I have no interest in using them day to day. I just dumped an AudioQuest NightOwl this morning. Nice physical design, but awful sound.

Looking back at prior purchases and reviews I've done, the headphones I've used that required little or no EQ make a very short list:

AKG K553
AKG K712
ATH ESW9a
Brainwavz HM5
FAD Pandora VI
Focal Spirit Pro
Koss PortaPro
Senal SMH1200
Sennheiser HD380 Pro
Thinksound On1/On2
Yamaha MT220

The Shure SRH1840 might belong on that list, but I don't have tests for it. None of these headphones are recommended necessarily for overall superior audiophile qualities, just for good enough neutrality to not require EQ on my part.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Did you evaluate this Prokofiev recording with HD800? ........... What headphones are you using for evaluation? .........

dalethorn's picture

I used the Senal 1200 unequalized, the AQ NightOwl EQ'd, the Thinksound On2 (lightly EQ'd), the Shinola EQ'd, Musical Fidelity MF200 (lightly EQ'd), Focal Listen Pro EQ'd, and several IEMs.

The idea wasn't to see how different they sounded with this music, because there wasn't much difference. Neither was I after ultimate resolution, although some IEMs get very close. The main idea was to get a sense of the music itself, and only use other headphones to make certain that what I was hearing was consistent and not a feature of a particular headphone.

When I listen to certain of these tracks, the sounds are amazing - not only the upfront sound of the main keys, but the background sound of lower-pitch keys played by (I dunno, must be the second player), and occasionally the strong hits on the very upper keys, which on the Radka Toneff album have a pitch but not much 'tone' - here they sound much better.

I grew up in a house with hand-me-down pianos that Billy Joel probably would have been OK with as props, and only got to the baby grand for recitals. Those cheap upright pianos never had a good sound on the uppermost keys, but these aren't bad on the Argerich album.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

My goodness, that many headphones and IEMs? ........... Ok ....... I rest my case :-) ............

dalethorn's picture

Look at my website - nearly 200 reviews, nearly all purchased by me (everything over $300 purchased by me). I've been exploring headphones since the 1970's, but only decided to do reviews in 2011, when Innerfidelity started.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

BTW ...... You must be one of those top 1% or top10% Tony Kaz talks about ......... just kidding :-) ..........

dalethorn's picture

One more point about this album - an example: Play the track Folk Dance, and at 0:11 into the track the background hand comes in in a lower register. The tonality of that almost subtle hand is rich enough, but the bit of weight it carries makes it actually palpable. I can't judge this music like a professional critic can, but to me this quality is unusual.

ok's picture

can be really awesome – provided one perceives what we call “sound” by his ears only..

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Like "for your eyes only" ......... "for your ears only" :-) ...........

dalethorn's picture

The tens of millions of youth running around with headphones makes the whole thing seem simple and mundane, but when you dig in with a stack of high quality music albums, you find out soon enough if you can relate to headphones in the hi-fi sense.

ok's picture

..the fact that qualities concerning sound, save for homonymous expressions like “boomy”, “ scratchy” etc, have all been named after qualities derived from other senses: high, low, hard, soft, sweet, warm, cold, dark, deep, bright, you name it – smell excluded.

tonykaz's picture

Nice Find

Thanks,

Tony in Michigan

tonykaz's picture

Seems very old School, an 18th Century item in an Antique Shop.

Sergei is much chubbier in real life ( and older than this Photo suggests ).

I think that these two have been playing together on one Piano for some time, she having the peddles.

Thank the Gods for DG

Tony in Michigan

JBLMVBC's picture

"Truth be told, as lovely as much of Prokofiev's music can be, he is not a composer known for his subtlety and restraint."
What an utterly uninformed comment. If anything Prokofiev's musical language is subtle, refined, deeply sensitive, intelligent and innovative.
He also lived in a very troubled period and reflected it in his works.

X