
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Simon Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >>How is the mono Kempff different from the stereo? In grand outlines. (Or >>in fussy detail, if you prefer. :) ) >I would prefer to do the latter, but it's been so long since I ditched the >stereo set I can't do more than say my recollection is that it's a sort of >paler, blander version of the earlier set, its virtues - such as they are - >muted, its vices (and they're unappealing vices, unfortunately) amplified. Thanks; well, it does sound like I have the wrong Kempff set. These days I have a strangely uncommitted attitude to Kempff. While I think he makes fine sounds and has undeniable virtues, I have a feeling that I don't fully understand what he's trying to aim for here (since my view of the score is pretty different from his). So I'm in some territory of mild neutral confusion with him. I have the same feeling of bemused bafflement when looking at a piece of flourless chocolate cake. >I >keep the mono set on the off-chance that my tastes change so radically that I >actually like it - but if that happens I might be faced with the prospect of >not liking anything else in my collection.... Hilarious. But if you do unexpectedly one day become what Ray calls "discerning," you'll have to dump it all for Bax and Delius in any case. :) Lena
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |