Thread: Fav cellist

We're always talking about violinists, maybe we've neglected cellists, eh?
Who's yr fav cellist?
And do u prefer YoYo Ma's epitomised style of playing- clean and clear,
or u think the cello sounds betterm, more emotional, with those down to earth scratchy sounds? For instance, Jacqueline D' Pru's manner of playing. Actually she's one of my personl fav, very talented cellist..A pity she died so young. I love her pasison and the way she pushed her instrument to the limit each time. Her playing is really 1 of a kind, so intensely beautiful.
Her Elgar and Betthoven Concerto recordings speak of emotions like no other. And having watched the movie : Hilary and Jackie just made me adore her even more.

I love Casals (so a heartful playing), Dupres of course, Leonard Rose, Feuermann. Rhostropovich has a strong bowing . Maisky hm, don't like him that much. Yo yo is really amazing, but actually i didn't listen to much of his recordings

I love Casals also...I think when it comes to cello...everyone will prefer soulful playing more to agressive manner.
I don't like Rostropovich ..He's too agressive for me.

my favourite would definitely be Fournier.

he is never agressive (french ),

his technique is perfect (even better than rostropovich, my evidence: rostropovich confessed that he had a lot of trouble playing the arpeggione sonata, while you get young fournier playing it at twice the tempo rostropovich was playing at, without any mistakes :mellow,

his style is the extremely refined and elegant (nicknames: prince of the cello, the aristocrat of cellists)

and he has some of the best bowing ever (the unique high-elbow-technique), which every cellist has envied. (tortelier once confessed to him that he really wished he had fournier's right arm).

and last of all, the tone, if you hear fournier's cello suites you'll understand, while something in rostropovich's tone always puts me off (what the linear notes proudly referred to as "depth of tone"), fournier's tone is unobtrusive (the cellistic equivalent of Backhaus), extremely bassy , and reminds me of oranges :blink: (maybe his cello has orange varnish).

I do adore casals though (so heart-felt)

haven't heard du Pré (that sounds horrible, I know)

not a fan of yo yo ma (heard a bit of his bach, unimpressed :mellow: )

never heard Rose.

Feuermann was nice, but I haven't heard enough of him.

Shafran was wonderful. (to those who don't know him, russian cellist, middle generaton between Knushevitsky (oistrakh trio ) and Rostropovich.

I am severely intrigued by Knushevitsky, he is supposed to be one of the greatest (ever), all I have is his beethoven triple (with oistrakh and oborin). the mic placement is horrible, the tone seems distant and week. (remind me to kill the engineers, well, old recording, so they're probably already dead.

oh my, what a long post

he is never agressive (french ),

Yes, I agree. I think most frenchs like and play their music this way...refined and silvery.
This is an interesting reply oistrach...I'm going to check out all the artists that u mentioned...whom some I've not heard b4.

and he has some of the best bowing ever (the unique high-elbow-technique), which every cellist has envied.

This is hard to get, but produces very open tone, and extremely good bite.

fournier's tone is unobtrusive (the cellistic equivalent of Backhaus),

Really? Then I must check him out. :P
Daniil Shafran was a legend, he is considered as one of the all time great masters of the cello on a level with Casals and Cassado. If u like Casals, u'll like Shafran. He has this very clean and velvety way of playing. I like his Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky recordings , but I'll still hang on to Du Pre for Beethoven( He's too gentle for Beethoven, I think. ) :blink:

I am seriously going to start looking for some shafran and du Pré

if you really want to look into this fournier guy, I suggest the bach suites, perhaps not as much feeling as casals, but some people argue for his approach (some people even want them dryer... dry bach :blink: ). as I said to daniel the other day, I prefer a wet sound , that goes for pianos (boesendorfer), cellos, violins (oistrakh), and picked instruments (oud ). although that doesn&#39;t work with singers <_<


The sound is wonderful, although I am not at liberty to say this about the new "originals" remastering. I have the old (from the 70&#39;s) issue, which was made before I was born. (lucky me, nobody in lebanon buys these things).

I prefer a wet sound , that goes for pianos (boesendorfer), cellos, violins (oistrakh), and picked instruments (oud ). although that doesn&#39;t work with singers

For me Boesendorfer is really dry against Steinway (hehehehehehe ).....oistrakh for violin, hehe who else

(lucky me, nobody in lebanon buys these things).

indeed lucky you, so you are the EXCLUSIVE buyer

boesie is dry against steinway? :huh:


first time I hear that :unsure:

In serious now, yes for me its more dry than Steinway, its more crystallic (which isn&#39;t a negative argument), Steinway is more soft and warm.

in the upper register it does sound a bit crystalline (on the new models)

but I have alot of recordings on boesendorfer, and steinways, I can say for sure, the middle and lower register are very much "wet"

daniel, I didn&#39;t say soft and warm as opposed to hard and crystalline, I said dry and wet, which is a different thing.

any way, this is very subjective, and I don&#39;t think there is a point in arguing about such a thing, not to mention that we should be talking about cellists :blink:

Ok...
Here&#39;s what I think...
It depends on your defination of wet and dry.
Alot of people associate wet and dry with other elements also, such as tonal depth and like what Daniel said &#39;body&#39; of sound( warm...).
But if yr talking about &#39;pure&#39; wetness alone, I think Pianos with very heavy tone and deep &#39;ring&#39; tends to be more wet.
So, for me boesendorfer is more wet,esp. the middle and bass registers, just like Bluthner and Feurich.
But there&#39;s no doubt in the world that Steinway is the best piano... if you&#39;re talking about overall acoustic wetness...Steinway&#39;s balanced and round tone somewhat seems more wet than boesendorfer, but refinedly wet, if u asked me. It&#39;s wetness of a different kind... :blink: But if you really exterminate all the other factors...than I would have to say that Boesendorfer is really wet, heavily wet. Steinway&#39;s reflex is too crisp to classify under that kind of wetness.
I think the 2 of u are talking about 2 different kind of wetness...or maybe have very different opinions of wetness.
Nobody&#39;s right, nobody&#39;s wrong. It&#39;s all a matter of perspective.

Nobody&#39;s right, nobody&#39;s wrong. It&#39;s all a matter of perspective.

That&#39;s true....But maybe it is my misundertanding of the meaning of "wet"...english speaking people know it better than I, even because you don&#39;t learn any musical vocabulary in school