A truly strong man, to have gone through such a lot and come out on the other side. An amazing pianist, I love this version of the Ballade. Thanks for posting!
This performance really captivates me for some reason. It really comes out in the slower tempo, the piece never really goes anywhere (even though you want it to!), he keeps on holding it back. Perhaps it has to do with the tragedy in his life, perhaps not, it's really Cziffra's own piece.
After two and a half decades of worldwide success was another tragedy, in 1982 his only son died.Cziffra's late period characterized by again sorrow of the broken man.
Between 1950 and 1953 Cziffra was in a forced-labor camp, where his hands was thoroughly broken down. In this time he struggled with alcohol and suffered from oppression in Hungary. This was a very tough period in his life. His back is a real miracle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
richter better? He was never creative at the piano, he never understood the possibilities of the music he was playing, he could only reproduce, very much like pollini, richter was IMHO only a reproducer, but he had a great technique. People like Cortot, Horowitz, Cziffra, constance Keen, these are the realy musicians.
Everyone is entitled to his own taste. And in particular creative people will often have problems appreciating differing approaches. But I think, it is highly important to understand that their will always be a wide spectrum of perceptions and conceptions among musicians and audiences. To the same extent as some people love spicy food and some don't. Both are valid choices and nobody who loves spicy food, for instance, can claim that a chef is only good if he cooks spicy meals.
To be clear, I am not saying that there are no measures for artistic achievement. Of course, one can distinguish good and bad musicians (as there are good and terrible chefs). What matters is, for instance: understanding, both intellectually and emotionally, of the piece; having a concept, an idea; the ability to communicate this idea to the listener (which includes but is evidently not limited to technical skills); quality of the sound; rhythmic control and flexibility; use of dynamics;
appropriateness of style, etc. Just to name a few.
Having said this, I can reveal that I for my part admire Richter's art very much. His playing moves me very much. But I also love Moiseiwitsch, Gilels, Grinberg, Sofronitsky, Cortot, some Cziffra, some Francois, Lipatti, Rubinstein, some Gould, Lhevinne, Feinberg (obviously), some Horowitz, Hofmann, Arrau, Haskil, etc.
appropriateness of style, etc. Just to name a few.
Having said this, I can reveal that I for my part admire Richter's art very much. His playing moves me very much. But I also love Moiseiwitsch, Gilels, Grinberg, Sofronitsky, Cortot, some Cziffra, some Francois, Lipatti, Rubinstein, some Gould, Lhevinne, Feinberg (obviously), some Horowitz, Hofmann, Arrau, Haskil, etc.
Richter "never understood the possibilities of the music he was playing, he could only reproduce"!!!?
Richter was one of the most genius pianists of all times, and his genius was recognized all over the world, and this is a FACT! His playing was the most vivid, emotional and full of passion. He had an outstanding sense of form and style. And he understood the possibilities of the music he was playing more than anyone else!
he never understood the music he played, and yes, he only could reproduce, that's what he also said: I only want to play what is written (and not because of the note's, but dynamics).
he was one of the worst musicians ever, most people who like him do not know what music making is, this is a FACT. he had NO passion, could only hammer the piano in forte passage's. He had an outstanding sense for form, but you need more to be a musician.
His talent burst almost without outside help he learned playing almost without teachers! When he started studying in Moscow conservatory at Neuhaus's class, this great musician, after being a teacher of series of stars, including Gilels, exclaimed: "What a talent! There is practically nothing I can teach him!"
@tamarahisk you're misunderstandin him with NEUHAUS, and the person referred to "What a talent! There is practically nothing I can teach him!" is RICHTER
It's pitty you are making a remark without reading the whole correspondence - the person we was discussing was Richter and I quoted Neuhaus's opinion about Richter
He seems to be ill here,physically & musically. Meandering, unrthymic, un-lilting second theme,misreadings, clumsiness, sketchy ending....A sad example of an enormous but unruly talent.
Full of reflection, not as exuberant in places as others make it sound. He is holding back on the fortes more, so it sounds almost like a nocturne to me. But a fine performance in its own right, because the overall aproach is quite consistent and highlights the details more.
A personal and very expressive performance. Less mannered than some critics make of Cziffra's Chopin. The original recorded sound is a bit boxed in and dry.
A truly strong man, to have gone through such a lot and come out on the other side. An amazing pianist, I love this version of the Ballade. Thanks for posting!
anniedch444 1 year ago
This performance really captivates me for some reason. It really comes out in the slower tempo, the piece never really goes anywhere (even though you want it to!), he keeps on holding it back. Perhaps it has to do with the tragedy in his life, perhaps not, it's really Cziffra's own piece.
bicsc7 1 year ago
He really looks like Schuman.
RomanticNotes 2 years ago
After two and a half decades of worldwide success was another tragedy, in 1982 his only son died.Cziffra's late period characterized by again sorrow of the broken man.
davidsusu 2 years ago
Between 1950 and 1953 Cziffra was in a forced-labor camp, where his hands was thoroughly broken down. In this time he struggled with alcohol and suffered from oppression in Hungary. This was a very tough period in his life. His back is a real miracle.
davidsusu 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
poor
infajoe 2 years ago
Isn't it too slow?? Sometimes I can't stand this tempo....
davsone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
richter better? He was never creative at the piano, he never understood the possibilities of the music he was playing, he could only reproduce, very much like pollini, richter was IMHO only a reproducer, but he had a great technique. People like Cortot, Horowitz, Cziffra, constance Keen, these are the realy musicians.
mombeekmarcel 3 years ago
Everyone is entitled to his own taste. And in particular creative people will often have problems appreciating differing approaches. But I think, it is highly important to understand that their will always be a wide spectrum of perceptions and conceptions among musicians and audiences. To the same extent as some people love spicy food and some don't. Both are valid choices and nobody who loves spicy food, for instance, can claim that a chef is only good if he cooks spicy meals.
SamuelFeinberg 2 years ago 2
To be clear, I am not saying that there are no measures for artistic achievement. Of course, one can distinguish good and bad musicians (as there are good and terrible chefs). What matters is, for instance: understanding, both intellectually and emotionally, of the piece; having a concept, an idea; the ability to communicate this idea to the listener (which includes but is evidently not limited to technical skills); quality of the sound; rhythmic control and flexibility; use of dynamics;
SamuelFeinberg 2 years ago
appropriateness of style, etc. Just to name a few.
Having said this, I can reveal that I for my part admire Richter's art very much. His playing moves me very much. But I also love Moiseiwitsch, Gilels, Grinberg, Sofronitsky, Cortot, some Cziffra, some Francois, Lipatti, Rubinstein, some Gould, Lhevinne, Feinberg (obviously), some Horowitz, Hofmann, Arrau, Haskil, etc.
SamuelFeinberg 2 years ago
Comment removed
SamuelFeinberg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
appropriateness of style, etc. Just to name a few.
Having said this, I can reveal that I for my part admire Richter's art very much. His playing moves me very much. But I also love Moiseiwitsch, Gilels, Grinberg, Sofronitsky, Cortot, some Cziffra, some Francois, Lipatti, Rubinstein, some Gould, Lhevinne, Feinberg (obviously), some Horowitz, Hofmann, Arrau, Haskil, etc.
SamuelFeinberg 2 years ago
What planet are you from? What are you mumbling?!
Richter "never understood the possibilities of the music he was playing, he could only reproduce"!!!?
Richter was one of the most genius pianists of all times, and his genius was recognized all over the world, and this is a FACT! His playing was the most vivid, emotional and full of passion. He had an outstanding sense of form and style. And he understood the possibilities of the music he was playing more than anyone else!
to be continued...
tamarahisk 2 years ago 3
planet earth.
he never understood the music he played, and yes, he only could reproduce, that's what he also said: I only want to play what is written (and not because of the note's, but dynamics).
he was one of the worst musicians ever, most people who like him do not know what music making is, this is a FACT. he had NO passion, could only hammer the piano in forte passage's. He had an outstanding sense for form, but you need more to be a musician.
To be continued if you want...
mombeekmarcel 2 years ago
Ha-ha-ha!
I have never heard such a rubish!
But I suppose there are people who always say black on white out of spite or envy or simply out of spirit of contradiction.
Once upon a time there were people that said that Beethoven "could only hammer the piano in forte passage's" and Mozart's music was too shallow.
Nowdays these people's voice is louder because today they have a stage like Youtube or other chats but it doesn't make it less ridiculous.
tamarahisk 2 years ago
His talent burst almost without outside help he learned playing almost without teachers! When he started studying in Moscow conservatory at Neuhaus's class, this great musician, after being a teacher of series of stars, including Gilels, exclaimed: "What a talent! There is practically nothing I can teach him!"
tamarahisk 2 years ago 3
@tamarahisk you're misunderstandin him with NEUHAUS, and the person referred to "What a talent! There is practically nothing I can teach him!" is RICHTER
newFranzFerencLiszt 1 year ago
to newFranzFerencLiszt
It's pitty you are making a remark without reading the whole correspondence - the person we was discussing was Richter and I quoted Neuhaus's opinion about Richter
tamarahisk 1 year ago
@tamarahisk ok sorry
newFranzFerencLiszt 1 year ago
He seems to be ill here,physically & musically. Meandering, unrthymic, un-lilting second theme,misreadings, clumsiness, sketchy ending....A sad example of an enormous but unruly talent.
NOSEhow2LIV 3 years ago
Thank you for this nice video.Kisses from Greece and 5*****
ifigeniakatika 3 years ago
Adoro Nelson Freire, João Carlos Martins, Cortot, Richter, principalmente Richter...
Mas meu favorito é Cziffra!
My favorite of all!
Fedidovisk 3 years ago
Full of reflection, not as exuberant in places as others make it sound. He is holding back on the fortes more, so it sounds almost like a nocturne to me. But a fine performance in its own right, because the overall aproach is quite consistent and highlights the details more.
donthuis 3 years ago
THANKS FOR THIS VIDEO!!!!
stienwayz 3 years ago
A personal and very expressive performance. Less mannered than some critics make of Cziffra's Chopin. The original recorded sound is a bit boxed in and dry.
piano345 3 years ago
he played it very soulfully
pjioayncoe 3 years ago