Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1, Op. 11 (Emil Gilels, piano)

[ma18zel]

heaven, magic. wow. what a symphony of pure bliss

[georgepreda40]

adevarata muzica, adevarata interpretare

[josefkesselring]

I like this much better than Stockhausen.

[onepartofone]

most majestic!

[voland60]

Actually, tigerian's last comment makes sense to me. I don't want to acquire enemies, however. I wouldn't consider muscomap ignorant on this issue either. It takes a while when a musician can actually earn a solid reputation, and in the past people could convince (without complexity of their personality) the public of their musical wisdom and maturity. Gilels had a spark even when he won the famous competition. The majority of pianists that win now have nothing particularly interesting in them.

[greggy34]

Gilels owns this piece....having heard him play several times, i admit that not everything he played was equally masterful; however, his Chopin was never superseded by any pianist then alive. the tempi were insightful, nothing ever sounded forced or played for purely show. the most complex passages were made transparent, in short, everything in this concerto is "chopinesque".

[CaradhrasAiguo49]

@greggy34: indeed I am impressed by the great integrity of the tempi as it relates to the structure of the movement, and as always and am touched by his golden tone, which lends extra elegance here that so many performers only superficially display.

[MISHA1119]

Speaking of replacements for Richter & Gilels, many critics have begun to name Grigory Sokolov as the greatest living pianist. I absolutely agree - the depth of his artistry is beyond words.  Sokolov won the Tchaikovsky International in 1966 just after turning 16. To put this in perspective, when Ashkenazy and John Ogdon split the gold medal there in 1962, they were 24 and 25 respectively. There are many Sokolov performances on YouTube. Sample a few - I promise that you will be astonished.

[royo90]

I find it amusing that the picture shown at 1:27 is Pablo Casals and not Eugene Ormandy...

[ahamayoisac]

i first heard it when i was 17 i had an lp of it. The most intelligent interpretation of Chopin's music ever, most people make Chopin sound soapy. There is a section in the second movement, literally 2-3 bars, Gilels plays it in the most orgasmic way on this recording, no one ever made those bars shine, he does. Genius.

[mvolkov11]

dmosj: Very insightful post - I want to reply back in detail later!

[benjosephcuyacot]

Life is beautiful.

[MISHA1119]

liszt6 Of course, I'm not saying Richter overtly disliked this concerto. But fear of comparisons with Gilels in any piece is a misconception. So is the idea that they

were spiteful rivals. Initially good friends, exterior pressures created fissures in the relationship. Richter was a very enigmatic, complex person, far more complicated than Gilels, but it was he who let the world know that the Soviet medical incompetence (I have unbelievable horror stories from Russian friends) killed Gilels.

[muscomap]

@MISHA1119

It is not a misconception about possible existence of comparison. Richter himself said once how he did not want to play Prokofiev third sonata due to Gilels' interpretation. Nobody is talking about the word fear here. Rather, I think it is about being strong enough to declare the genuine reason for not performing this particular concerto. Listen to Neuhaus' version. How can his recording be compared to Gilels? Your medical fact in the last sentence is off-topic.

[voland60]

@muscomap

Good point, and also important to realize that no matter how complicated these historical figures were, or whichever misinformation they have provided about each other - has nothing to do with the question whether comparisons exist or not. Same can be said of Mozart and Salieri. Who cares about what really happened. Comparison - yup. Fear? It is mostly inner disagreement and envy, and not whether the public accepts one above the other. Richter was more competitive, less honest.

[MISHA1119]

tigerian84, I think you're wrong about Richter not wanting to play this work because he feared it would evoke comparisons with Gilels' magnificent performance. If that were true, Richter would not have played countless big Rachmaninoff, Scriabin and Prokofiev pieces that Gilels also played. Richter virtually never played any of the Chopin Sonatas or Concertos, and it is this curious gap in his gargantuan repertoire that suggets another simpler explanation: he just didn't like the piece.

[liszt6]

@MISHA1119

I think what tigerian means is this particular piece, which was never touched by Richter. Of course, other pieces had something to which Richter could have added, which is why he played them. And he DID play and record Chopin's 2nd concerto, in case if you did not know. It would be ridiculous to conclude that he did not like the 1st concerto, if he had recorded the other one. I agree with the fact that he did not have enough guts to admit that Gilels was amazing. Rivalry is to blame.

[demosj]

@liszt6 "It would be ridiculous to conclude that he did not like the 1st concerto, if he had recorded the other one." Impressive deductive reasoning skills there. Sherlock would retire.

If you really want to go there, let's not be selective in a manner that only favor Gilels, huh?

I notice Gilels didn't record the Rach 2.

Aha.

Must be because he was humbled by Richter's recording. Did the record the Rach 1?

No?

Must be that Richter fellow again.

You and tigerian84 need to WAKE UP.

[tigerian84]

@demosj You seem to forget the whole original point of this debate. Richter never named the example pianist for Rach 3. Gilels never named one for Rach 1 and 2. What the heck does this have to do with it? Richter spoke with clarification as to why he did not play the E minor concerto. Neuhaus. This is probably why it all started with ideas that Richter did not admire Gilels inside and had no sympathy for him. They were rivals.

[demosj]

@tigerian84 What's the problem then? Richter wasn't impressed with Gilels' recording of the concerto so didn't acknowledge him as the pianist that convinced him playing the concerto wasn't worth it, because Gilels _wasn't_ that pianist. It's perfectly believable too - why arbitrarily choose Gilels over Lipatti, who is much greater in this concerto and in Chopin?

The problem is, YOU want Gilels want to be that pianist. You want to contrive a rivalry, find something less flimsy to base it on.

[muscomap]

@demosj I am not tigerian84, and I would like to disagree with you, however. Lipatti is not nearly as great as Gilels in this concerto. Of course, this is my opinion. I am not trying to be any authority in music, nor do I try to be viewed this way.

[demosj]

@muscomap LIpatti's one of my personal favorites, I just cited his as an example. My point was that it was beyond ridiculous to try to manufacture a rivalry between Gilels and Richter in that manner, by saying Richter NOT acknowledging Gilels' concerto interpretation humbled him enough to never record the concerto despite the complete dearth of evidence. Tigerman84's reasoning is the kind of reasoning you expect from Sarah Palin, not from an intelligent, thinking being.

[tigerian84]

@MISHA1119

I was referring to Richter unwilling to name the definitive version of this work. Had he played it, he would not even mention who was amazing in this piece. Yes, it happened to be Gilels. Richter would not care much about public comparison, I agree, but inside he would never put Gilels above himself. Gilels did that, on the other hand. And the fact that Richter labeled Neuhaus to be it instead, proves that comparison exists.

[tigerian84]

Even Richter was not honest enough to declare the real reason for not performing this concerto. It was obviously not due to the interpretation of Neuhaus playing this piece, as he once mentioned. Gilels, on the other hand, mentioned to the audience to "wait until you hear Richter". It's a pity that the latter was not as brave in this respect. Speaking of this recording - the interpretation stops here. Forever. We should keep this recording as a treasure for everyone to enjoy the real Chopin.

[demosj]

@tigerian84 The lengths people go to glorify their favorites. Too bad. 

[muscomap]

@tigerian84 Exactly. This guy Misha thinks he is the smartest living person on this planet. Yet, he makes a crucial mistake when he names a pianist based on the fact that he was only 16 when he won something important. How ridiculous is that? This obviously shows his lack of knowledge in music. During Liszt's time contests were solely on improvisation. The whole concept of today's competition is bullshit. Competition gives you a chance to prove yourself, but it does NOT mean you already did.

[kertesz91]

I think it's a very nice quite a melancolic piece of chopin.

[mvolkov11]

I'm gratified that so many of you find this to be a definitive performance, as I have felt that way for many years after hearing probably a hundred different versions. Gilels displays that golden, burnished tone of his and a temperament combining Slavic color and fire with a Classical sense of form -perfect prerequisites for this concerto. Those who worship Argerich need to listen to this objectively, if they are capable of it. It makes hers sound almost crass by comparison.

[demosj]

@mvolkov11 I love Gilels' recording and is at times my favorite, but the Chopin first concerto isn't like the Rach 3 where there's a very obvious champion-figure like Horowitz who blows everyone else out of the water. Recording in this concerto is WAY too competitive to say thatany given pianist has given the end-all performance. There's Dinu Lipatti's live performance, Argerich's recordings (despite what you say), and Rafal Blechacz is tremendous in this concerto as well. Stanislas Bunin too.

[muscomap]

@demosj The fact that you put someone like Blechacz on the same podium with Gilels just makes you look ignorant, and hereby does not justify your claims on any good examples of other pianists' performances of this concerto.

[demosj]

@muscomap See, this is unfortunate. You could've explained how Blechacz's tone, tempo, and connection to the krakowiak elements in the rondo vivace were inferior to Gilels', and I would've accepted that whether you were right or wrong. Instead, you seized the only pianist I named who wasn't famous, and exploited that inherent risk anyone takes in naming a young musician who hasn't yet entered the Canon.

[MISHA1119]

@demosj, good reply to muscomap, whose statement "putting Blechacz on the same platform as Gilels makes you look igorant " merely confirms his own ignorance. A high-ranking place in the canon of Western art music is not achieved overnight, and at some point earlier in their careers Richter & Gilels were no better known than Blechacz is now. As for his idea that "Richter was afraid of Gilels", this is the kind of wild rubbish that merits a rebuttal post of its own - I shall do so tomorrow.

[tigerian84]

@MISHA1119 It's a pity you are Russian. Just make us look stupid. You clearly never mention how musicians back then SOUNDED, instead whether or not they were well-known. I heard young Gilels and Richter in their early stages. I am afraid to say they never sounded like today's Gods like Blechacz. This is the general problem of society today, due to lack of real masters people naturally make up new ones, and tend to compare them with the past musicians to make themselves feel better.

[mvolkov11]

@tigerian84 Let me say something important: I wasn't trying to stir up any ill feelings. Music is a doorway into the eternal, and these petty sqabbles on You Tube only serve to debase its nobility and grandeur. I agree with all of you that at the present moment we are not seeing adequate replacements for the giants we have lost (Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, Richter, Gilels, etc.). But we should still give fresh talent a chance - let me say more about this later tonight - but I think there is hope.

[MISHA1119]

@tigerian84 "It's a pity you are Russian. Just make us look stupid. " What does this mean? Also, I am curious about your having heard Richter and Gilels when they were young. At that ime, Russia was adding fresh chapters to its book of eternal suffering via the Stalin purges and Hitler's invasion, which together would cost about fifty million Russian lives. The NKVD had recently murdered Richter's father because of the German-sounding name. Where did you fit into this sanguinary landscape?

[voland60]

@MISHA1119 Maybe tigerian84 feels Russian, which is no doubt a hopeful thing these days. Quite true, at the time these two giants rose to fame Russia was undergoing heavy loads of pain. This is when a talent can be born and show the world what he can do. However, what time do we live in now? With excess of glamour, vulgarity and the like it would be hard to use all talent in a pianist like Blechacz to produce great performances - if he had even any.

[demosj]

@voland60 My teacher knew Zimmerman, Dr. Liszniewski, colleague of Rubinstein and Rachmaninoff, and lived long enough to know Blechacz before his career began. He studied music - not just Chopin but Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart - the philosophers of art, visiting Zelazowa Wola where Chopin was born, places in Warsaw where Chopin composed. He wasn't wasting his time at the mall or on the Internet.

I'd say that played a bigger role than glamour, vulgarity, excess, and lack of wartime/persecution

[MISHA1119]

@demosj: Both inner and outer realities shape art and the modes of expression it takes. Of course the inner world is where concepts develop into

something tangible that expresses itself in the performance (or composition) of the music, and the primary emphasis should lie there. But I endorse your comment about wasting time at the mall or on the Internet - Rosina Lhevinne used to talk about this, positing that even the architecture around us has an influence on how we play.

[MISHA1119]

@voland60 Exactly, Voland, great art is often born in a crucible of pain. This is not

an essential, though. I agree completely, however, that the crass techno-junk culture

of spiritual emptiness in which we live today is a poor environment for cultivating all

the essentials of pianistic art. To some extent the age does produce the person, and we live in a sadly empty one.

[Bret6464]

@MISHA1119

The "age" and environment does matter - but it is overwhelmingly that creative spark inside, the gift that makes a pianist a true artist :-)

Have to agree with Voland60, most competition winners today show little of that spark inside, but any young pianist that does not conform to the "norm" (and that norm is mediocre these days) is squashed! the acclaim goes to those who play perfect notes..and nothing more :(

Everything Gilels performed is surreal, not only his Chopin !!!!!!!

[tigerian84]

@MISHA1119 I agree with muscomap, because a great musician is proven not by the fact that he won a great competition, but through a recording that you hear right here above. Gilels is not superb due to victory in Brussels, it is by all means achieved through this splendid rendition. I can name you hundreds of people that are well-known through competition victories that are a 'joke' in their performances. So, your point makes You rather ignorant. Again, unfortunately you are Russian.

[demosj]

@muscomap What's most alarming is not the fact that you dislike Blechacz, but that you have the gall to use my mention of him to dismiss the recordings by Argerich, Lipatti, and Bunin.

If I put every great recording by Zimmerman, Rosenthal, Rubinstein, Perahia, Argerich, and I tack on Blechacz at the end, suddenly no pianist but Gilels has made a good recording of the piece, right?

How convenient, and contemptible, but every musician has a sycophantic fan like you he'd rather not exist.

[MISHA1119]

@demosj No question that a concerto like the Rachmaninoff Third provides countless ways for a pianist to project his or her uniqueness into the score, while this concerto, massive in size and technical requirements as it is, clearly shows its Mozartean roots in a classicism that discourages too much individualism. Be that as it may, this concerto takes music out of the salon and puts it in the concert hall. I'm glad you mentioned Cliburn - he had one of the best Chopin e minor Concertos ever.

[incoldwinds]

Beauty.

[micheldvorsky]

Gorgeous interpretation.

[tigerian84]

Agree, indeed. Subsequently, it was not wise for Argerich to touch this piece. I guess she never heard this rendition prior to playing it in the competition. I consider this performance to be complete. I cannot imagine anything to be added. Mr. Gilels was a genius.

[chad410]

it was very wise of Argerich to touch this

[muscomap]

Genius composer, genius conductor, and genius pianist. This is when all three factors in a concerto performance are synthesized to produce something divine. Emil Gilels, bravo!