...shit, what would Chopin have sounded like trying a Hungarian Rhapsody?...anyway, this is not much of a polonaise, really, but Mr. Cziffra sort of saves it...compare to what Mr. Hamelin does with it...
There is someone who said Liszt was a copy cat of Chopin because he composed some "polonaises". But its not because he composed "polonaises" even though he is hungerian that he is a copycat. Brahlms composed hungerian dances even though he is not hungerian.
I've watched this for years and it never occurred to me how brilliant the camera-work and direction is. Not only do they keep long takes, allowing the pianist to be the main focus, but they also change camera angles in perfect harmony with the changes in the music itself. I can't think of any other filmed performance with such brilliant, minimal and illuminating direction.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A soupy mess, if you care what I think. He pedals through a lot of stuff, mostly because of all the mistakes we'd hear if he didn't. He obviously loves flash, but I prefer a little more musical content. Ripping through a line just means there's no technical obstacle to do it, not that there's a musical reason for doing it.
In my Romantic Music class we had a huge discussion over a subtle rivalry between the two. It finally concluded with everyone agreeing both Liszt and Chopin copied each other.
Personally, I like Liszt for his virtuosity and Chopin for his advanced sense of harmony. But otherwise, they're both extroardinary composers who evolved classical music and allowed for the later 20th century piano styles to develop.
so what exactly are technical skills good for? to play great music? correct technique is foundation for learning and being able to play well. but you would have to be kidding to criticize the technique of someone who's bringing out this kind of music. seriously if he actually played like this with his feet there still would be no room for criticizing his technique.
unless, because of your own great technical skills, you can play better than this, please stop trying to sound so impressive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Was briefly looking at some of the comments others have made, but there really is no secret to becoming a concert pianist... Talent and hard work are important but those are already a given. There are SO MANY talented and hard working pianists in the world. What separates them from the ones that win competitions, record deals, and recognition? Luck. Plain and simple. For every 1 Cziffra, there are at least 100 equally talented (if not more talented) pianists that never got their big break
Sorry, JT0420, I have to disagree. Cziffra was unique. There is something totally spectacular and amazing about his playing. I don't think there have been many pianists with that level of talent, perhaps none ever. He overcame the extreme hardship of having been in prison doing hard labor as a political prisoner for years. His passion, his transcribing ability, and his musical acumen were truly unique.
I respect your opinion. I never said Cziffra was not unique, though the way I phrased my words may have construed it as such. Additionally, I perhaps should have said "technical skills" rather than "talent." What I meant to say is that there any many pianists in the world with technical skills that are as good as or better than Cziffra. Every pianist who takes the art seriously/has aspirations for a professional career will work hard. So luck is, unfortunately, a important factor in success
Dear JT0420, I appreciate what you said. I've just never heard any other pianist with his level of technical accomplishment. If you follow his playing of his own transcriptions along with the piano score, such as his William Tell Overture transcription, it seems truly superhuman. I'm not familiar with any other pianist who can play like that. If you do, please name them, especially the ones whose technical skills are "better than Cziffra."
@addeex1 all the supervirtuosos have different strenths and weaknesses over eachother. For example, i don't know of anybody who can touch Cziffras speed, or anybody who can touch Hamelin's finger independence, or Kissin's power...anyway, I just choose not to try to compare or rate them and enjoy them for what genius they each individually bring to music!
Takes a few talents; perfect pitch helps; photographic memory helps (or perfect auditory sequential long-term memory), good finger flexibility, strength and endurance; (length also helps), an appreciation for the genre and the library, originality, a taste for Bach, and above all the desire to out-Brahms Brahms.
If you can do all this you might become a Cziffra. (Who's he?)
it's not true, there are some people who are naturally more talented and gifted then others in almost all areas e.g. music, sports, math
My mom is a piano teacher and she can tell you that there are some people who are more musical, while there are others who would practice and practice but still never get anywhere.
My college piano teacher (a graduate of Eastman School of Music) says that talent only compensates for 10% of playing ability. The other 90% comes from much hard work.
" while there are others who would practice and practice but still never get anywhere."
If you practice poorly you'll get nowhere, but proper practice can turn even the dullest of people into decent pianists...perhaps not of Cziffra's caliber...but decent nonetheless.
And yeah, I totally agree that talent is only 10%, maybe even less, but also, it makes a difference how much talent you posses, because the more you have, the more you hear, and the you hear, the better you'll play. Everything is about the details.
I like Cziffras playing on this song better than Rachmaninoff. No one has came close to his technique yet. Only person i could possibly think of is Liszt himself :D
Yeah but it's funny how the two of them are different. I can't decide between the two. Although, Cziffra is my favourite pianist, Rachmaninoff is, for my taste, more interesting in the first theme, while Cziffra makes it up when the same first theme comes again and when it's technically more challenging. Not that I'm saying anything against the two. It's just something I hear that is closer to my own taste.
for those people who happen to be atheists, talent is an individual ability that only some people have. It might scientifically have to do with the wiring of the brain when people are born. And it's definitely not genetic.
sorry, but if it was really actually genetic, then why are there so many examples of people who have talent and don't pass it on or the other way around?
Learn rather where it is written.. the stone that the builders rejected.. has become head of the corner... this si the LORD's doing.. and it is marvellous in our eyes? The stone is the most inferior of all... and to all the other stones 'most abased' it is 'least' in all aspects.... but 'that the LORD caused it not to be so'
Well said our Lord Jesus.. "you do err not knowing the scripture or powerofGOD" ..and GOD 'has' hid it from wiseandprudent
In response to 'giving the glory of GOD' and 'gift of GOD' which he probably prayed at length for the perfection of... to 'genetics'...
they did such things in ancient times... they made themselves idols of gold and silver.. and attributed the greatness of GOD to a four footed beast made with men's hands
It is genetic. Scientists will one day find a marker for it in the chomosones. Some people even with good teachers and unlimited practice cannot play like this. They are not born with the muscle tone, the hand type, coordination or musical receptivity. If athletic ability and calculating ability could be inherited why not musical ability?
ok... but take my cousin for example... his father (my uncle) sucks at piano he tried it but he's just a fail, and my cousin is a virtuoso pianist. So if its genetic... what happened there?? I think its not genetic but its like an ability that some people have and some people don't... but has nothing to do with genes.
It is not genetics and it has not been proven. Anyone with a functioning brain and fingers is capable of playing at a high level. It is all about very disciplined consistent practices, hard work, and finding a good teacher. Most of these great were doing this for 6-8 hours a day when they were kids. They make it look effortless because you only see the end result. Its like a most of the time fun full time job.
@gott1rott Guys like Rubinstein and Richter practised no more than 2-3 hours a day, even in youth. When they got old, they wouldnt play weeks before their recitals
Cziffra thought that his talent had been given by God. If somebody reads his book (Cannons and Flowers) it is become obvious. It contains a lot of examples regarding the divine providence.
@MultiTpa : A fantastic pianist. A saw him more almost 30 years ago in Italy... what a concert! He ended with Liszt 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, and the lights went on on the last note... great memories. (As far as thanking "God" for his talent... I'd rather not saying what I really think about that proposition ;-))
The best interpretation I've heard of this piece. Aside from the crazy technical show, Cziffra really put his heart and soul into this performace, as he so often does. A true musical soul!
And this why I really admire virtuosos like Cziffra, Rubinstein, Sarah Chang, Narcisso Yepes, and many others. So my sole pleasure as regards music, is to listen to them and see how they play (thanks to the vids). Not being able to play any instrument will always be the greatest regret of my life.
I agree with you all: one must really practice like hell before one can hope to reach Cziffra's level. 8 hours a day. But not everyone can do that. I am a perfect example of one of the lousiest musicians. I started the piano at 4 and kept practising hard until I was 8. Nothing came out of it. I was my teacher's greatest despair. The worst of it is that I loved playing. But I didn't have the talent, the gift, the feeling. So I gave up. And my inaptitude makes me real sad.
8 hours a day is just nonsense spoken by people who know nothing about how to actually learn to play the piano. Find Chuan Changs' book "The fundamentals of piano practice" and read it thoroughly. As a rule of thumb, you should never need to practice more than 20 minutes to accomplish a particular goal. If you haven't done it by then, aim for something smaller (As small as two notes out of a whole passage, for example)
I agree with the concept there, yet Franz Liszt is credited to have played the piano for 12 hours a day at some times.
The goal and target thing certainly applies, and is a good philosphy however if you wish to go beyond a goal and further than you could aim then immense practice may be required.
I think Liszt spent so much time on the piano _because_ he didn't have a goal: He was experimenting and discovering the things that made him the musician he was. 12 hours a day discovering new music? Sure! 12 hours a day trying to master a run in this ballade? I can't accept that.
I tend not to spend too long on one piece because it gets to a stage where you've played it, 4 or 5 times over and you start to relax off and get it wrong.
However, I can spend lengths of time improvising and composing because it's not the same thing again and again.
Compounding the problem with working on pieces, I think, is the modern notion that we must always exactly reproduce 100% what is written on the music page. So you're left with playing the exact same thing the exact same way forever. Worse still, it seems improvisation is becoming a lost art. Supposedly, a few hundred years ago, it was commonplace to improvise in concert; even while playing others' pieces.
Thank you for your comment, it's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks these things.
the composer only wrote what he felt were the most beautiful notes and melodies he could find.. from there on out.. i don't think the composer wanted everyone to play like they wrote it.. it was 1700~1900 we didn't have ways to record music.. so they wrote it. from here you can play it however you like. but these pieces are genius only. it's like a sculpture from Canova.. once finished do you really want to take or add something too it?
I think Liszt spend that time trying to perfect his technique and at the same time explore the piano and compose music. He was heavily influenced by Nicolo Paganini who had that trill technique on the violin that was just insane. Liszt also tried many difficult stuff on the piano. his pieces are technically demanding. he may be the best pianist of all time
Actually, you don't necessarily need to touch a piano since 3rd or 4th time you meet your teacher... You must need time to understand what is music, and how music come from the piano, from your soul then. Music is not just notes, like language is not just words.
The good thing about Cziffra is the the way he play, very ligth, and that's good, and as a comment only, I think Richter playing of this is like an explosion, I'm not saying this performance is wrong, I love this performance, but with Richter performance (the first time I heard it) I danced (0.32) and cried (2.13), shouted (0.36) and all kind of crazy things, that shows I can feel the music :) =P, or that shows I'm crazy lol
I love it when people sit and critique one of the top 50 pianist of all time acting as if they themselves could even play this piece half as well as Cziffra. He is fabulous and I doubt anyone here can play with half the technical mastery Cziffra had... Basically he is amazing...
with all due respect, i dontsee wny ppl assume anyone CANT play this piece this well if they practice as much and as consisntently as cziffra.. we all have the potential ive been playing piano for just under 4 yrs my most challenging pieces now are couple mozart sonatas in my repertoire but in 4 or 5 years when i get really good ill be ready for pieces like this and i will learn them and post my videos on youtube..
how do you know that.. isnt that subjective to a considerable degre.. besides there may be a few FAMOUS really good musicinas like Cziffra but that doesnt mean there anret several more obscure one's fame can be often fleeting or based on good fortune or timing.. and its not like he or other virtuoso pianists are superhuman.. can do something rest of us can't... ive read and asked things of people who are advanced or near professional musicians and violinists and theyve told me similar things..
So you "have read and asked people..." Obviously I know a lot more than you on this subject. I will not argue with you, that's is below my level.
Go find the Cziffras out there and present them to us! Start with all the people playing say the Grand Galop Chromatique. Then do some serious listening, then compare. But I suspect you don't have the knowledge yourself to judge that.
lets take this from a musical perspective and put it in a scientific one.ALL people are born with equal potential and ANYONE can play at Cziffras level if the right mentality and the required amount of practice is put in;learning to play the piano or learning to do anything for that matter until it becomes automatic happens due to our brain's ability to remember.for example,cziffra did and all humans generally learn to walk by age 3,but we all put in the eqivalent amount of practice to do this.
Science will tell you that we are products of both our nurture (in this case, practice) and nature (in this case, innate talent, determined by our genes). So you could practice 24 hours a day, and if you don't have the right talent, it'll be wasted. Of course, if you have the talent but don't practice, it too will be wasted.
I don't think "innate talent" is determined by our genes. Genes are inherited from parents, but talents aren't necessarily inherited. They are given by (we could say) God or something. Mozart's sons were musicians but they weren't talented.
It might also perhaps be a genetical defection of some sorts. Sometimes genes can be mutated, of course most of the time it's either harmless or dangerous, but sometimes those rare mutations can have positive aspects.
if there is anyone willing to become as good or better than georges cziffra, then he or she must put in at least the equivalent amount of practice that cziffra put in. the reason why cziffra's type of talent is so rare is not necesarially because he was naturally gifted of any sort, but it's due to the fact that most people simply lack his calibur of work ethic OR just didnt start playing as early as he did. Cziffra would probably tell u himself that he practiced his ass off to get that good.
Cziffra made some recordings of this piece.Someone has remarked that he used too much pedal.Personally I think the pedal is okay;but Czifrra didn't show off the Polonaise rhythm.The Polonaise should be played with pride and high spirit in a galope-like rythme.Richter has a wonderful performance of this piece on recording.
i actually think this may be my favorite of his interpretations of anything.. this is just amazing.... i love his other liszt of course but this is really something else.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The first time I heard George play, I didn't think much, as other great pianists (Richter, Horowitz) produced a power that over shadowed him. But he is a fantastic interpreter of Chopin. I wish he had recorded more of Chopin, rather than Liszt.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
WAY TOO MUCH PEDAL. You're not supposed to play the piece like that.. it becomes boring to listen to after a few minutes. Besides that, the fast passages and overall technique was very nice, of course.
jealous pianists with no style or personality accused Cziffra of cheating in the Chopin Etude Op.10/1 in C major. Watch him play it here on YouTube and make your own mind up. In any case its almost impossible to redistribute the notes between the hands.
Liszt didn't object to texual variations in his Hungarian Rhapsodies. I'm sure he would have enjoyed Cziffra's additions and cimbalom effects in the cadenzas of this Polonaise. Cziffra abandons himself to the spirit of the music rather than to note perfect accuracy. Rachmaninoff's performance is very fine but lacks Cziffra's joie de vivre.
Not really accurate enough. I like this performance more than BrucknerEnthusiast does (at least Cziffra has some style) but I think we are in danger of having two sets of standards by praising this performance just because it is by Cziffra when it so obviously wouldn't be acceptable if offered by a student at a music college.
BTW I've heard the 1925 recording by Rachmaninov which BrucknerEnthusiast refers to. It's AWESOME and yes, you really should hear it!!!
And how many students at music colleges have become known as great pianists? Why would you judge a performer by how his performance relates to what a dutiful conservatory student would play in order to pass a piano exam? There's a reason Liszt used to kick students out of his master classes and tell them to go wash their filthy laundry at the Conservatory.
Cziffra was known for making little improvisations on these pieces, so maybe that is why you are hearing little changes. But, then I haven't played this piece so I wouldn't know if he is making mistakes. It sounds fine to me though.
(cont.) Bar 192, 3rd beat r.h. chord - clearly a memory slip, taking the chord from the next bar. Bars 198 and 199 the r.h. octave is effectively on the wrong inversion of the dominant. I didn't need quarter speed to hear that ;-) But as I can go to the piano and play those bars (as written) without prior practice, I doubt that it is more than a misreading.
(cont.) I don't hear all that much that could be construed as cheating however. Bars 153 and 154 the r.h. is certainly not exactly as written, but I don't hear him taking too many liberties in the other scalic passages. I do strongly suspect that he has slightly simplified bars 163-166, which is tricky.
Out of curiosity, I etxtracted the audio from the video and have been listening to the section from post-cadenza (bar 147) to the return of the main theme (bar 201) at quarter speed, as I think that is the section where it is most likely short cuts would be taken. There are a few oddities - firstly there are a few wrong notes; secondly there are what would probably be considered nowadays to be eccentric performance decisions (eg left before right in 183-193).
I was intrigued because BrucknerEnthusiast was so adamant about Cziffra cheating technically - and it really wasn't clear to me that he was. I agree, there is much to enjoy in this performance.
technical cheating? as long as he plays all the notes on time i don't understand why he should be criticized for playing the way he's most comfortable with. liszt's hands were bigger than rachmaninov's so sometimes changing his written schedule to fit another pair of hands is definitely justified.
ibclappin: He doesn't play all the notes, that's the whole point. Only professionals who have played this piece are likely to notice this. But if this performance by Cziffra has won new friends for this superb polonaise by Liszt, then that's great.
What a pity Maestro Ashkenazy doesn't like Liszt much. His old Decca recording of some of the Transcendental studies was wonderful. Decca/London kept trying to get him to record the Liszt concerti, but he wasn't interested.
Liszt hands were actually normal sized, but a clay casting of his hands revealed that strangely he had absolutely no webbing between his fingers, allowing him to reach to almost a 14th-- which was more than even Rachmaninoff could. Pretty weird, but I've read that a few places so I am pretty sure its accurate (I also saw the casting of the hands in pictures).
i thought chopin had fine polonaises.. but liszt sure breaks out on this piece.. at least for me.. just like liebestraum a flat this is beautiful yet technical.. way more then liebestraum.. but beautiful the same. about the performance cziffra always holds his ground. great polonaise. thx for posting.
Oh come on children! Look at it objectively! there is much to enjoy here in this masterful performance by undisputably one of the most celebrated Liszt interpreters since Liszt himself! We were always taught in conservatoire that if you can sit through a performance of professional quality and not find a score of good things to comment on then you werent listening hard enough and that you needed to get your own ego dealt with! - if the cap fits wear it!
Well said, pianoboyo. Yes, it's true, all of us (including me!) ought to be looking for positive aspects of performances, not just bad aspects (though in fairness, I normally do look for positive aspects; I just resent the amount of technical cheating by Cziffra in this performance).
The diversity of approaches to piano playing by various pianists is something which we should celebrate, even if we personally don't like what they are doing.
This guy is beyond ajectives to describe the total package that he was. I would love to hear him do some of scriabin's work. Both have the ghost hand of Franz Liszt upon them.
Those gigantic chord leaps at the end. #*$&%*#inghell.
It is great to listen to someone who is so obviously proud of their abilities. Makes listening to anything he plays verrrry interesting. None of this bleeding heart rubbish.
Utterly mindblowing. His playing covers everything a pianist should - passion, technical accuracy, pitch... its all there and he makes it all his own. Talk about your master craftsmen.
I guess you cant please everybody , but you got to hand it Cziffra, there isnt a piece of music that he cant play not supberly but downright brilliantly with such great passion and feeling. Liszt and Chopin must be very extatic with his interpretations.
I agree. When I hear Cziffra play Liszt I feel like something that is missing with others' presentations of this work is in the utmost abundance in Cziffra's playing. He taps into the feeling behind the brilliant execution, most pianists are blinded by the difficulties in execution, I've found. I dont care as much for his Chopin but that's purely opinion, he plays it wonderfully.
@BlazeKenny richter said he practiced 14 hours a day
spartan1081990 1 month ago
...shit, what would Chopin have sounded like trying a Hungarian Rhapsody?...anyway, this is not much of a polonaise, really, but Mr. Cziffra sort of saves it...compare to what Mr. Hamelin does with it...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
There is someone who said Liszt was a copy cat of Chopin because he composed some "polonaises". But its not because he composed "polonaises" even though he is hungerian that he is a copycat. Brahlms composed hungerian dances even though he is not hungerian.
JohnRift 8 months ago
Unbelievable technique!
BalletBabyBoy 8 months ago
@BalletBabyBoy He's called CZIFFRA !!!!!!!!!!!
lol
flouz2 3 months ago in playlist Favoris de flouz2
@flouz2
lol with your name? its a Hungarian name
Neszoljvissza 2 months ago in playlist Liszt playlist
6 people are going to die!!
DadoD999 9 months ago
Okay, who are the 6 trolls who pressed the "dislike" button?
*gets out shot-gun
123mazeppa 10 months ago 5
Okay, who are the 6 trolls who pressed the "dislike" button?
123mazeppa 10 months ago
He never ceases to amaze me. Great pianist !
cygnusne 10 months ago
Great performance.
DadoD999 11 months ago 2
i'd give a million to see his octaves.... what a beauty!!!
satyu131089 1 year ago 2
I've watched this for years and it never occurred to me how brilliant the camera-work and direction is. Not only do they keep long takes, allowing the pianist to be the main focus, but they also change camera angles in perfect harmony with the changes in the music itself. I can't think of any other filmed performance with such brilliant, minimal and illuminating direction.
cziffra444 1 year ago
By the way, What grade is this piece?
Just want to know.
123mazeppa 1 year ago
@123mazeppa Its over 9,000
artygunnar 1 year ago 3
@123mazeppa it's cunt destroyer grade, jk I guess fantasy Impromptu is grade 8, so this might be 10 easily.
spartan1081990 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A soupy mess, if you care what I think. He pedals through a lot of stuff, mostly because of all the mistakes we'd hear if he didn't. He obviously loves flash, but I prefer a little more musical content. Ripping through a line just means there's no technical obstacle to do it, not that there's a musical reason for doing it.
StvErick9 1 year ago
@StvErick9 lets see you try bro
artygunnar 1 year ago
cziffra is a genius. keep listening until you understand
johnliamten 1 year ago 5
don t miss also the intyerpretation of this piece by Sergei Rachmaninoff; both interpretations are absolutely amazing....
uhartchristian 1 year ago 2
I put polonaise on my sandwich.
nippoland 1 year ago
@nippoland I think you're confusing this piece with Liszt's Mayonnaise in F Minor.
VolcanoBalls 1 year ago 3
Theres a reason no one can come up with Who is a better Composer Chopin or liszt.
Cuz there both too damn good.
openmindspace 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Liszt definitely based this off Chopin. Yet, he threw in some of his own styles.
Starbirdy9999 1 year ago
Liszt definitely based this off Chopin. Yet, he through in some of his own styles.
Starbirdy9999 1 year ago
...Grande!!!!!
NuovoCurioso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrZnoo this sucks,this is a shame to the true race of pianists,like hamelin,volodos,horowitz,ciffra,so yeah i m kind of racist.
if you mean other types of racism id like you to quote me where i said that,otherwise,you re just a lifeless troll 1 week ago
v3ryspecial @MrZnoo do you really have nothing better to do than troll classical pieces? go back to /b
Bret6464 1 year ago
Fabulous!! This is what I call good piano playing!
Starwalker6978 1 year ago 2
@ElEsquisProductions no i think its 90% talent and 2% hard work
afertyus1000 1 year ago
Liszt is such a copycat of Chopin!
stockcar5472 1 year ago
Lol
In my Romantic Music class we had a huge discussion over a subtle rivalry between the two. It finally concluded with everyone agreeing both Liszt and Chopin copied each other.
Personally, I like Liszt for his virtuosity and Chopin for his advanced sense of harmony. But otherwise, they're both extroardinary composers who evolved classical music and allowed for the later 20th century piano styles to develop.
earwasel2 1 year ago 6
Cziffra's son was a conductor. He was a good pianist, but he was a conductor. And it was no accident.
LeroyJacksonJones 2 years ago
so what exactly are technical skills good for? to play great music? correct technique is foundation for learning and being able to play well. but you would have to be kidding to criticize the technique of someone who's bringing out this kind of music. seriously if he actually played like this with his feet there still would be no room for criticizing his technique.
unless, because of your own great technical skills, you can play better than this, please stop trying to sound so impressive.
ibclappin 2 years ago
Cziffra's horse came over one time. It had a nice face, a good smile. It had a soft personality.
LeroyJacksonJones 2 years ago
what about 4:28 - 4:30?
ibclappin 2 years ago
5:10 ~ 5:27 is a gift that Cziffra gave to British people!
felix0911176727 2 years ago
I can't say enough about Cziffra! So I won't even try.
He was amazing!
I wish he would have received the attention he deserved!
Brent
BrentAudi 2 years ago 7
JT0420 I absolutely contradict you!
Cziffra is a pianist who since childhood has shown a remarkable agility in big jumps as you can see in the video!
Cziffra is unique and will be the only one.
Is clearly seen in the video that his technique and interpretazine cross the line of normality!
I advise you to see more videos about Cziffra, and to change its mind.
However I am Italian.
TheSupermaurizio 2 years ago 7
I recommend Stephen Hough for the polonaises.
purpleoscar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Was briefly looking at some of the comments others have made, but there really is no secret to becoming a concert pianist... Talent and hard work are important but those are already a given. There are SO MANY talented and hard working pianists in the world. What separates them from the ones that win competitions, record deals, and recognition? Luck. Plain and simple. For every 1 Cziffra, there are at least 100 equally talented (if not more talented) pianists that never got their big break
JT0420 2 years ago
Sorry, JT0420, I have to disagree. Cziffra was unique. There is something totally spectacular and amazing about his playing. I don't think there have been many pianists with that level of talent, perhaps none ever. He overcame the extreme hardship of having been in prison doing hard labor as a political prisoner for years. His passion, his transcribing ability, and his musical acumen were truly unique.
broomxx 2 years ago 5
I respect your opinion. I never said Cziffra was not unique, though the way I phrased my words may have construed it as such. Additionally, I perhaps should have said "technical skills" rather than "talent." What I meant to say is that there any many pianists in the world with technical skills that are as good as or better than Cziffra. Every pianist who takes the art seriously/has aspirations for a professional career will work hard. So luck is, unfortunately, a important factor in success
JT0420 2 years ago
Dear JT0420, I appreciate what you said. I've just never heard any other pianist with his level of technical accomplishment. If you follow his playing of his own transcriptions along with the piano score, such as his William Tell Overture transcription, it seems truly superhuman. I'm not familiar with any other pianist who can play like that. If you do, please name them, especially the ones whose technical skills are "better than Cziffra."
broomxx 2 years ago 2
totally agree
liszt100 2 years ago
Are you kidding me? I can't come up with any one that has better technique than Cziffra..... Maybe Hamelin is somewhere there, I don't know.
addeex1 1 year ago
@addeex1 all the supervirtuosos have different strenths and weaknesses over eachother. For example, i don't know of anybody who can touch Cziffras speed, or anybody who can touch Hamelin's finger independence, or Kissin's power...anyway, I just choose not to try to compare or rate them and enjoy them for what genius they each individually bring to music!
chutdigadut 1 year ago 2
Takes a few talents; perfect pitch helps; photographic memory helps (or perfect auditory sequential long-term memory), good finger flexibility, strength and endurance; (length also helps), an appreciation for the genre and the library, originality, a taste for Bach, and above all the desire to out-Brahms Brahms.
If you can do all this you might become a Cziffra. (Who's he?)
petie32 2 years ago 2
he playes with pathos....great
scriabin007 2 years ago
it's not true, there are some people who are naturally more talented and gifted then others in almost all areas e.g. music, sports, math
My mom is a piano teacher and she can tell you that there are some people who are more musical, while there are others who would practice and practice but still never get anywhere.
ishoy123 2 years ago
My college piano teacher (a graduate of Eastman School of Music) says that talent only compensates for 10% of playing ability. The other 90% comes from much hard work.
" while there are others who would practice and practice but still never get anywhere."
If you practice poorly you'll get nowhere, but proper practice can turn even the dullest of people into decent pianists...perhaps not of Cziffra's caliber...but decent nonetheless.
earwasel2 2 years ago 4
And yeah, I totally agree that talent is only 10%, maybe even less, but also, it makes a difference how much talent you posses, because the more you have, the more you hear, and the you hear, the better you'll play. Everything is about the details.
LeX140891 2 years ago 2
I like Cziffras playing on this song better than Rachmaninoff. No one has came close to his technique yet. Only person i could possibly think of is Liszt himself :D
Stealth2k 2 years ago 2
Yeah but it's funny how the two of them are different. I can't decide between the two. Although, Cziffra is my favourite pianist, Rachmaninoff is, for my taste, more interesting in the first theme, while Cziffra makes it up when the same first theme comes again and when it's technically more challenging. Not that I'm saying anything against the two. It's just something I hear that is closer to my own taste.
LeX140891 2 years ago
If this is in the Carnegie Hall, the ending will make people hysteric screaming I guess! (sorry for my English~~)
felix0911176727 2 years ago
Don't forget to give props to Liszt who captured the spirit of Chopin's polonaises in this composition (composed shortly after Chopin's death??).
juufa72 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
even my grandmom is better.
.
.
.
.
.
my grandmom is martha argerich...
stagesix6 2 years ago
my uncle Georges would laugh at you:))
thege6 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
for those people who happen to be atheists, talent is an individual ability that only some people have. It might scientifically have to do with the wiring of the brain when people are born. And it's definitely not genetic.
jan1an 2 years ago
???
pookiehohn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its genetic bro, srry to burst your bubble, and its proven.
danedaworld 2 years ago
sorry, but if it was really actually genetic, then why are there so many examples of people who have talent and don't pass it on or the other way around?
jan1an 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
fool... do you have 'no' understanding?
Learn rather where it is written.. the stone that the builders rejected.. has become head of the corner... this si the LORD's doing.. and it is marvellous in our eyes? The stone is the most inferior of all... and to all the other stones 'most abased' it is 'least' in all aspects.... but 'that the LORD caused it not to be so'
Well said our Lord Jesus.. "you do err not knowing the scripture or powerofGOD" ..and GOD 'has' hid it from wiseandprudent
AlexanderinChrist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In response to 'giving the glory of GOD' and 'gift of GOD' which he probably prayed at length for the perfection of... to 'genetics'...
they did such things in ancient times... they made themselves idols of gold and silver.. and attributed the greatness of GOD to a four footed beast made with men's hands
AlexanderinChrist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
as we know it, its called genetics =D
danedaworld 2 years ago
You made absolutely no sense in this.
Cziffra is absolutely amazing, and is my all-time favoritepianist.
Booger308 2 years ago 4
if it is genetic... then why Cziffras' son wasn't a virtuoso pianist?
L1ttl3Karl0s 2 years ago 2
He was a really good piano player but decided to take on conducting.
tomekkobialka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is genetic. Scientists will one day find a marker for it in the chomosones. Some people even with good teachers and unlimited practice cannot play like this. They are not born with the muscle tone, the hand type, coordination or musical receptivity. If athletic ability and calculating ability could be inherited why not musical ability?
concerto35 2 years ago
ok... but take my cousin for example... his father (my uncle) sucks at piano he tried it but he's just a fail, and my cousin is a virtuoso pianist. So if its genetic... what happened there?? I think its not genetic but its like an ability that some people have and some people don't... but has nothing to do with genes.
Poliglo 2 years ago 2
It is not genetics and it has not been proven. Anyone with a functioning brain and fingers is capable of playing at a high level. It is all about very disciplined consistent practices, hard work, and finding a good teacher. Most of these great were doing this for 6-8 hours a day when they were kids. They make it look effortless because you only see the end result. Its like a most of the time fun full time job.
gott1rott 2 years ago 11
@gott1rott
this is 100% true
BazzTheBoss 2 years ago
@gott1rott Guys like Rubinstein and Richter practised no more than 2-3 hours a day, even in youth. When they got old, they wouldnt play weeks before their recitals
BlazeKenny 1 month ago
Cziffra thought that his talent had been given by God. If somebody reads his book (Cannons and Flowers) it is become obvious. It contains a lot of examples regarding the divine providence.
MultiTpa 2 years ago 32
@MultiTpa : A fantastic pianist. A saw him more almost 30 years ago in Italy... what a concert! He ended with Liszt 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, and the lights went on on the last note... great memories. (As far as thanking "God" for his talent... I'd rather not saying what I really think about that proposition ;-))
bersa888 1 year ago 2
The best interpretation I've heard of this piece. Aside from the crazy technical show, Cziffra really put his heart and soul into this performace, as he so often does. A true musical soul!
squishym 3 years ago 48
I like the technical show; it shows that he's confident in his play.
JlDsanity 2 years ago 2
Incredible performance, full of vigor and emotion. Brilliant playing.
cerzule 3 years ago 3
Anyone notice Cziffra sniffing above the keyboard in the last 4 seconds? The piano keys must have started burning after that magnificent performance.
schroeder711 3 years ago 3
LOL...
RomanticMusikFan 3 years ago
And this why I really admire virtuosos like Cziffra, Rubinstein, Sarah Chang, Narcisso Yepes, and many others. So my sole pleasure as regards music, is to listen to them and see how they play (thanks to the vids). Not being able to play any instrument will always be the greatest regret of my life.
shangqinli 3 years ago
that makes no sense - your planning to have a regret - do something about it - your alive and your fingers apprently function... .
tnmtemerity 3 years ago
I agree with you all: one must really practice like hell before one can hope to reach Cziffra's level. 8 hours a day. But not everyone can do that. I am a perfect example of one of the lousiest musicians. I started the piano at 4 and kept practising hard until I was 8. Nothing came out of it. I was my teacher's greatest despair. The worst of it is that I loved playing. But I didn't have the talent, the gift, the feeling. So I gave up. And my inaptitude makes me real sad.
shangqinli 3 years ago
8 hours a day is just nonsense spoken by people who know nothing about how to actually learn to play the piano. Find Chuan Changs' book "The fundamentals of piano practice" and read it thoroughly. As a rule of thumb, you should never need to practice more than 20 minutes to accomplish a particular goal. If you haven't done it by then, aim for something smaller (As small as two notes out of a whole passage, for example)
javacisnotrecognized 3 years ago
You can read his book online for free; so you won't have to pay for it.
javacisnotrecognized 3 years ago
I agree with the concept there, yet Franz Liszt is credited to have played the piano for 12 hours a day at some times.
The goal and target thing certainly applies, and is a good philosphy however if you wish to go beyond a goal and further than you could aim then immense practice may be required.
AwesomeArpeggios 3 years ago
I think Liszt spent so much time on the piano _because_ he didn't have a goal: He was experimenting and discovering the things that made him the musician he was. 12 hours a day discovering new music? Sure! 12 hours a day trying to master a run in this ballade? I can't accept that.
javacisnotrecognized 3 years ago 3
Now there's something I agree with fully.
I tend not to spend too long on one piece because it gets to a stage where you've played it, 4 or 5 times over and you start to relax off and get it wrong.
However, I can spend lengths of time improvising and composing because it's not the same thing again and again.
AwesomeArpeggios 3 years ago
Compounding the problem with working on pieces, I think, is the modern notion that we must always exactly reproduce 100% what is written on the music page. So you're left with playing the exact same thing the exact same way forever. Worse still, it seems improvisation is becoming a lost art. Supposedly, a few hundred years ago, it was commonplace to improvise in concert; even while playing others' pieces.
Thank you for your comment, it's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks these things.
javacisnotrecognized 3 years ago 5
I hate people who reproduce what is written on the page!
Yes, surely you can play exactly to a tempo and follow rules yet when you perform you must give a recital.
I always try to play a piece faster, slower, with exaggerated rubato, with defined dynamics and pushing notes just to see which sounds right.
It's the only way to find a performance that you like.
And thank you for your insights!
AwesomeArpeggios 3 years ago 4
the composer only wrote what he felt were the most beautiful notes and melodies he could find.. from there on out.. i don't think the composer wanted everyone to play like they wrote it.. it was 1700~1900 we didn't have ways to record music.. so they wrote it. from here you can play it however you like. but these pieces are genius only. it's like a sculpture from Canova.. once finished do you really want to take or add something too it?
xclassicheadx 3 years ago 2
I think Liszt spend that time trying to perfect his technique and at the same time explore the piano and compose music. He was heavily influenced by Nicolo Paganini who had that trill technique on the violin that was just insane. Liszt also tried many difficult stuff on the piano. his pieces are technically demanding. he may be the best pianist of all time
Coixxman 3 years ago 3
Actually, you don't necessarily need to touch a piano since 3rd or 4th time you meet your teacher... You must need time to understand what is music, and how music come from the piano, from your soul then. Music is not just notes, like language is not just words.
maxdesp 3 years ago 5
It's wonderful, Cziffra György!
matatakakiban 3 years ago
such a great perfomance... omg
bahman1363 3 years ago 2
The way he plays it makes it sound like a furious charge of knights...!
eristaviserbia 3 years ago 4
the most beautiful music
Oasisfan427 3 years ago 3
Great! Bravo! TY.
paulostroff99 3 years ago
The good thing about Cziffra is the the way he play, very ligth, and that's good, and as a comment only, I think Richter playing of this is like an explosion, I'm not saying this performance is wrong, I love this performance, but with Richter performance (the first time I heard it) I danced (0.32) and cried (2.13), shouted (0.36) and all kind of crazy things, that shows I can feel the music :) =P, or that shows I'm crazy lol
nazhiitoxx 3 years ago
sure u're crazy....
anferlo 3 years ago
WHY CANT ANYONE EVER PLAY LISZT POLONAISE NO.1
!!!!!
its seriously more beautiful than this one. dont get me wrong though i love this song, just ...maan.
prestomoltoagitato 3 years ago
I agree
stegben 3 years ago
Becuz it is extremly more difficult than no.1
andou7 3 years ago 2
yeah no doubt no doubt.
but i'll choose beauty or sadness over difficulty anyday.
prestomoltoagitato 3 years ago 3
Cziffra also play Liszt Polonaise No.1, have you heard that? It's wonderful, too!!
felix0911176727 2 years ago 3
I love it when people sit and critique one of the top 50 pianist of all time acting as if they themselves could even play this piece half as well as Cziffra. He is fabulous and I doubt anyone here can play with half the technical mastery Cziffra had... Basically he is amazing...
bknight917 3 years ago 11
but not always is critique, is talk about the mistakes or imagine what way the performance would be better
nazhiitoxx 3 years ago
with all due respect, i dontsee wny ppl assume anyone CANT play this piece this well if they practice as much and as consisntently as cziffra.. we all have the potential ive been playing piano for just under 4 yrs my most challenging pieces now are couple mozart sonatas in my repertoire but in 4 or 5 years when i get really good ill be ready for pieces like this and i will learn them and post my videos on youtube..
leif573 3 years ago
Well you can always practice, but many people already do and there are few really good musicians, in the caliber of Cziffra.
lyghdha 3 years ago
how do you know that.. isnt that subjective to a considerable degre.. besides there may be a few FAMOUS really good musicinas like Cziffra but that doesnt mean there anret several more obscure one's fame can be often fleeting or based on good fortune or timing.. and its not like he or other virtuoso pianists are superhuman.. can do something rest of us can't... ive read and asked things of people who are advanced or near professional musicians and violinists and theyve told me similar things..
leif573 3 years ago
So you "have read and asked people..." Obviously I know a lot more than you on this subject. I will not argue with you, that's is below my level.
Go find the Cziffras out there and present them to us! Start with all the people playing say the Grand Galop Chromatique. Then do some serious listening, then compare. But I suspect you don't have the knowledge yourself to judge that.
lyghdha 3 years ago
lets take this from a musical perspective and put it in a scientific one.ALL people are born with equal potential and ANYONE can play at Cziffras level if the right mentality and the required amount of practice is put in;learning to play the piano or learning to do anything for that matter until it becomes automatic happens due to our brain's ability to remember.for example,cziffra did and all humans generally learn to walk by age 3,but we all put in the eqivalent amount of practice to do this.
JlDsanity 3 years ago
Science will tell you that we are products of both our nurture (in this case, practice) and nature (in this case, innate talent, determined by our genes). So you could practice 24 hours a day, and if you don't have the right talent, it'll be wasted. Of course, if you have the talent but don't practice, it too will be wasted.
DHAR3070 3 years ago
Science tells ya alot of stuff. Don't believe something just because of science; that makes it no better than religion.
javacisnotrecognized 3 years ago 4
I don't think "innate talent" is determined by our genes. Genes are inherited from parents, but talents aren't necessarily inherited. They are given by (we could say) God or something. Mozart's sons were musicians but they weren't talented.
IQ40000 2 years ago 6
Perhaps it's an interplay between genes and our environment?
heyyy19 2 years ago 2
maybe the gene(s) is recessive. But I think raw talent isn't nearly enough. Cultivating it, makes a master.
madgamer23 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
Rlaw2222 2 years ago
It might also perhaps be a genetical defection of some sorts. Sometimes genes can be mutated, of course most of the time it's either harmless or dangerous, but sometimes those rare mutations can have positive aspects.
merl0c 2 years ago
if there is anyone willing to become as good or better than georges cziffra, then he or she must put in at least the equivalent amount of practice that cziffra put in. the reason why cziffra's type of talent is so rare is not necesarially because he was naturally gifted of any sort, but it's due to the fact that most people simply lack his calibur of work ethic OR just didnt start playing as early as he did. Cziffra would probably tell u himself that he practiced his ass off to get that good.
JlDsanity 3 years ago
Cziffra made some recordings of this piece.Someone has remarked that he used too much pedal.Personally I think the pedal is okay;but Czifrra didn't show off the Polonaise rhythm.The Polonaise should be played with pride and high spirit in a galope-like rythme.Richter has a wonderful performance of this piece on recording.
xujia1001 3 years ago
i actually think this may be my favorite of his interpretations of anything.. this is just amazing.... i love his other liszt of course but this is really something else.
kaperisk 3 years ago 2
would you or anybody happen to know if there is a recording of him playing this on an album or something of that sort?
JlDsanity 3 years ago
i havent seen it on CD i have a recording of him playing polonaise no1 though...
kaperisk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The first time I heard George play, I didn't think much, as other great pianists (Richter, Horowitz) produced a power that over shadowed him. But he is a fantastic interpreter of Chopin. I wish he had recorded more of Chopin, rather than Liszt.
saintdracula 3 years ago
Cziffra owned this polonaise. I hope there is a film that he plays Liszt's Polonaise No.1,
that will be very inconceivable.
felix0911176727 4 years ago 4
Listining to this gave me the desire to make a revolution full of passion, blood and death
frankros1000 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WAY TOO MUCH PEDAL. You're not supposed to play the piece like that.. it becomes boring to listen to after a few minutes. Besides that, the fast passages and overall technique was very nice, of course.
LandoKashmir 4 years ago
LandoKashmir,
Do YOU play the piano????
And if so, HOW do you play, this or any other piece.....
cygnusne 4 years ago
I like the too much pedal.
JlDsanity 4 years ago
:O
never heard about this piece before xs
but its very good (Y)
heroicpolonaise 4 years ago 2
stunning performance. and those who commented negatively here, u guys are just JEALOUS!
best performance of this piece i think.
rusz 4 years ago 4
jealous pianists with no style or personality accused Cziffra of cheating in the Chopin Etude Op.10/1 in C major. Watch him play it here on YouTube and make your own mind up. In any case its almost impossible to redistribute the notes between the hands.
piano345 4 years ago 5
Cziffra György a király !!!!!!!!!! :-)
Lacipianist 4 years ago
Brian, you are so right..Holy Shit no one plays this better..Except Liszt maybe
khadsell 4 years ago 4
people this video is not fake , he just so amazing , just awesome , really so good pianist , just enjoy the music
thegoddescomposer 4 years ago 4
Liszt didn't object to texual variations in his Hungarian Rhapsodies. I'm sure he would have enjoyed Cziffra's additions and cimbalom effects in the cadenzas of this Polonaise. Cziffra abandons himself to the spirit of the music rather than to note perfect accuracy. Rachmaninoff's performance is very fine but lacks Cziffra's joie de vivre.
piano345 4 years ago
Not really accurate enough. I like this performance more than BrucknerEnthusiast does (at least Cziffra has some style) but I think we are in danger of having two sets of standards by praising this performance just because it is by Cziffra when it so obviously wouldn't be acceptable if offered by a student at a music college.
BTW I've heard the 1925 recording by Rachmaninov which BrucknerEnthusiast refers to. It's AWESOME and yes, you really should hear it!!!
popmusicmakesmevomit 4 years ago
And how many students at music colleges have become known as great pianists? Why would you judge a performer by how his performance relates to what a dutiful conservatory student would play in order to pass a piano exam? There's a reason Liszt used to kick students out of his master classes and tell them to go wash their filthy laundry at the Conservatory.
friendlyfinch 4 years ago 4
Cziffra was known for making little improvisations on these pieces, so maybe that is why you are hearing little changes. But, then I haven't played this piece so I wouldn't know if he is making mistakes. It sounds fine to me though.
VikingBerserker 4 years ago
(cont.) Bar 192, 3rd beat r.h. chord - clearly a memory slip, taking the chord from the next bar. Bars 198 and 199 the r.h. octave is effectively on the wrong inversion of the dominant. I didn't need quarter speed to hear that ;-) But as I can go to the piano and play those bars (as written) without prior practice, I doubt that it is more than a misreading.
alkanliszt 4 years ago
(cont.) I don't hear all that much that could be construed as cheating however. Bars 153 and 154 the r.h. is certainly not exactly as written, but I don't hear him taking too many liberties in the other scalic passages. I do strongly suspect that he has slightly simplified bars 163-166, which is tricky.
alkanliszt 4 years ago
Out of curiosity, I etxtracted the audio from the video and have been listening to the section from post-cadenza (bar 147) to the return of the main theme (bar 201) at quarter speed, as I think that is the section where it is most likely short cuts would be taken. There are a few oddities - firstly there are a few wrong notes; secondly there are what would probably be considered nowadays to be eccentric performance decisions (eg left before right in 183-193).
alkanliszt 4 years ago
Why would you waste your own time doing that? Just enjoy the music...
Itcreeps 4 years ago
I was intrigued because BrucknerEnthusiast was so adamant about Cziffra cheating technically - and it really wasn't clear to me that he was. I agree, there is much to enjoy in this performance.
alkanliszt 4 years ago
technical cheating? as long as he plays all the notes on time i don't understand why he should be criticized for playing the way he's most comfortable with. liszt's hands were bigger than rachmaninov's so sometimes changing his written schedule to fit another pair of hands is definitely justified.
ibclappin 4 years ago
ibclappin: He doesn't play all the notes, that's the whole point. Only professionals who have played this piece are likely to notice this. But if this performance by Cziffra has won new friends for this superb polonaise by Liszt, then that's great.
What a pity Maestro Ashkenazy doesn't like Liszt much. His old Decca recording of some of the Transcendental studies was wonderful. Decca/London kept trying to get him to record the Liszt concerti, but he wasn't interested.
BrucknerEnthusiast 4 years ago
Liszt hands were actually normal sized, but a clay casting of his hands revealed that strangely he had absolutely no webbing between his fingers, allowing him to reach to almost a 14th-- which was more than even Rachmaninoff could. Pretty weird, but I've read that a few places so I am pretty sure its accurate (I also saw the casting of the hands in pictures).
VikingBerserker 4 years ago
i thought chopin had fine polonaises.. but liszt sure breaks out on this piece.. at least for me.. just like liebestraum a flat this is beautiful yet technical.. way more then liebestraum.. but beautiful the same. about the performance cziffra always holds his ground. great polonaise. thx for posting.
misotoma 4 years ago
Oh come on children! Look at it objectively! there is much to enjoy here in this masterful performance by undisputably one of the most celebrated Liszt interpreters since Liszt himself! We were always taught in conservatoire that if you can sit through a performance of professional quality and not find a score of good things to comment on then you werent listening hard enough and that you needed to get your own ego dealt with! - if the cap fits wear it!
pianoboyo 4 years ago
Well said, pianoboyo. Yes, it's true, all of us (including me!) ought to be looking for positive aspects of performances, not just bad aspects (though in fairness, I normally do look for positive aspects; I just resent the amount of technical cheating by Cziffra in this performance).
The diversity of approaches to piano playing by various pianists is something which we should celebrate, even if we personally don't like what they are doing.
BrucknerEnthusiast 4 years ago
Truly a master on the keyboard. Just makes me speachless. Bravo cziffra!!!
nightblade37 4 years ago 5
Because of Cziffra, I promise I will study this one for myself.
YYJBL 4 years ago 2
gooooooood goooooooooood
saikunn 4 years ago 2
bravo!
YYJBL 4 years ago 2
minkia
cipi91 4 years ago
thanks! i used savetube to save this video
titansolaris 4 years ago
I just looked at those leaps at the end again.
Jesus.
He beats this piece like it's some thin guy who took his woman.
mackayde 4 years ago
This guy is beyond ajectives to describe the total package that he was. I would love to hear him do some of scriabin's work. Both have the ghost hand of Franz Liszt upon them.
tedbo777999 4 years ago
Those gigantic chord leaps at the end. #*$&%*#inghell.
It is great to listen to someone who is so obviously proud of their abilities. Makes listening to anything he plays verrrry interesting. None of this bleeding heart rubbish.
mackayde 4 years ago
Utterly mindblowing. His playing covers everything a pianist should - passion, technical accuracy, pitch... its all there and he makes it all his own. Talk about your master craftsmen.
lehah 4 years ago
Cziffra never once disappointed me with his interpretations. Always brilliant.
sab3156 4 years ago
He should have composed a piece that he has trouble playing.
OorvakanSar 4 years ago
I guess you cant please everybody , but you got to hand it Cziffra, there isnt a piece of music that he cant play not supberly but downright brilliantly with such great passion and feeling. Liszt and Chopin must be very extatic with his interpretations.
steinwaygrande1 5 years ago
I agree. When I hear Cziffra play Liszt I feel like something that is missing with others' presentations of this work is in the utmost abundance in Cziffra's playing. He taps into the feeling behind the brilliant execution, most pianists are blinded by the difficulties in execution, I've found. I dont care as much for his Chopin but that's purely opinion, he plays it wonderfully.
ProkofievRules 4 years ago
cziffra one godlike genius dispose that very little man you can say off
billentyu007 5 years ago