I am not being critical here at all. But she does not play this like I play it. At all! I make huge mistakes too numerous to mention. My version is more like the choppy seas during a hurricane.
All I can say is that finally I found someone who plays Chopin's music the way I like it to hear!!! Wonderful! There is actually emotion and soul in her playing. Thank you. This speaks to my soul.
Argerich plays it too fast, Zimerman plays it too slow, and Horowitz bangs the right hand too loud to drown the melody. Cecile Licad does it better. The notes are clear, delicate and the ending is beautifully done.
It is my opinion that one must not compare pianists. That said, I feel that this performance is dramatic, dynamic, yet introspective. It is also one of the most interesting and uniquely creative interpretations of all I have ever heard. Martha finds musical lines that other pianists miss, but like I said, let us not compare pianists. This lady was and is a genius. Pure and simple. I cannot help but make the small comment which is obvious: Martha was and still is very pretty...another story
I very much used to like Zimmermann’s interpretation and it was definitely, I must admit, the very performance that got me to like Chopin not as a technique freak show but an... Emotional dance. The very nature of this piece is to combine emotion with effortless playing... It is one heck of a piece to master, I never fully got it. It moves me with almost every performance, but Horowitz is the one who drains my tears.
...this is not Chopin's Chopin...this is the Martha-ferocity Chopin...well, esp. at the end...she's kinda dry, like this was Prokofiev, but what the hell...
@rigel48 ...I long have felt that Martha benefits more from the faint-praisers or even outright detractors than from her fans...so I have labored migtily to work myself into those categories...the praisers, all too often, sound a bit dim...the naysayers "appreciate" her in more interesting ways...the Martha deconstructed is preferable the Matha admired...
@fredericfranc You are not completely wrong in your approach. But you do not answer my question. What is Chopin's Chopin ?
Concerning this ballade (I much love it), I do think that the epic character if this work is better rendered by a large scaled playing with really fast tempo for the coda (as indicated by Chopin : Presto con fuoco) than a restrained approach supposed to be in the style of Chopin.
J Hofmann, V horowitz, S Richter and M Argerich are my favourites for this.
@rigel48 ...because Chopin was no Schwartzenegger and his Pleyels were no Steinways (hey, this is an oversimplification, right?...), he relied on dynamizing down, riveting the attention of his audience by "nuancing them out", he deliberately tried not to sound like Franz Whatever his name...today's audiences are Lang Langed out, so what is one to do?...Martha's "deficiency" in her Chopin is mostly in her dry tone and forced attacks...but, hey, she is not bad..next to LL, certainly...
@fredericfranc Sorry but I disagree both about Chopin and Argerich. The way he was playing is one thing and the way he wanted his works to be played is another matter. Don't forget that he was jealous of Liszt's playing of his Etudes.
Concerning Martha's tone, she has one of the most beautiful sound ever anf if it is true that she is poorly recorded in this ballade, there are plenty other recordings which show that there is nothing dry in her tone (and when you hear her live).
@rigel48 ..."the way he played...the way he wanted it played"...a pretty risky thing to say about a teacher...what I say about her "deficient" tone and nasty, impulsive, Horowitzian attacks applies more to her general tendency in her Chopin, not all that evident here, where she is unusually mellow...check out her scherzos, the Op.53 for the "more bad" Martha...for a better Op. 23 try Malcuzynski, here on the YT, even Rubinstein, Ashkenazy, Zimerman...but, hey, she is not bad...
@fredericfranc I think we shall never agree. I just listen to Malcuzynski. I find his op 23 really very good, except the coda too deliberate and with too much rubato for a presto con fuoco. I definitely prefer Martha's fiery rendition. To finish I am sure that you love Chopin as much as I do, we just have a different perception of his genius.
@Bret6464 ...I am not sure how this reference applies...with my moniker I try to stand up for the composer and against the "enemy" interpreters who try to do their best to do the composer in...Martha is certainly one of the enemies, because she is a "Horowitzian" performer ego-flash driven, going for the entertaining (supposedly) dramatics, not for being fair to the composer, being a stand-in for him, which is what classical music is supposed to be about...
@fredericfranc Saw your very positive post on Rach's performance of Chopin Sonata No. 2 mvmt 3. Then it goes to how Rach performed, the so-called "Old Russian School", all about musicality, artistry and individual input/interpretation. Martha Argerish is such a surreal musician, in the tradition of Rach (and Gilels, Horowitz and others). I am surprised you point to Rubienstein, Zimerman, Ashkenazy... those are definitely not pianists who play in the tradition of Rachmaninoff.
@fredericfranc My apologies, I thought you were another user with a similar "name", mea culpa :-)) Still, I see you like Murray Perahia, who was Horowitz's favorite "student", and who was trained at Juilliard - where the "Old Russian School" moved en-masse at the time of the revolution, when Rach moved to NY, and where the tradition of Rach continues to this day. BTW, Rach's performance of the Chopin Sonata No.2 is one of the greatest ever in history :-)
@Bret6464 ...never could figure out why Rach did not have Horo shot rather than befriending him, maybe he was hoping Horo was going to marry one of his daughters, did not realize Horo was gay?...I would not say Martha is a pianist in the Rach tradition, she is too perverse...Zimerman I mentioned only because he is so "anti-Argerich", so unspontaneous...Ruby, Ashkenaz have the requisite Chopinesque tone than Argerich conspiquously lacks...still I love the old girl, sex trumps all..
@fredericfranc Everything about Martha is beautiful, Rach would love her pianism. There are 3 pianists that Rach praised greatly: Gilels (his acknowledged "successor"), Horowitz and Moiseiwitsch. Can't disagree with Rach on his opinion of Horo. Rubinstein? I grew up listening to him, and it was a revelation at age ten that there were other pianists who did not lull you to sleep. I do not prefer those who play in Rubinstein's style, Askenazy is not one of those, not close.
@Bret6464 ...your use of negatives is even more artful than fredericfranc's to the point that you have me confused not a little...but sticking to Martha, just to avoid headaches...if you listen to Martha's actual recordings, from the 70's and then beyond, of solo piano, of which there are fewer and fewer, of course, I mean the REAL CD's, her playing of the Romantic repertoire, particularly Chopin, gets more and more tedious...even if the other types, like the Baroque, hold up, so?...
@Bret6464 ...trying to teach somebody to hate the music they love is sort of dumb, but not entirely because it will then be replaced by something better...only you can teach your ears to perceive the deficiencies in Argerich's and Horowitz's Chopin...but first you must discover the dimensions to Chopin that these pianists deliberately or otherwise ignore...I can't do it really by an intellectual argument..the books "Ch. as seen by his students" and "Ch. the reluctant Romantic"..TRY..
@fredericfranc It's simple - you believe Rubinstein does Chopin justice, I do not. There is little passion, musicality and artistry in Rubinstein's Chopin.. yes he does play notes perfectly. But what is pianism if not to evoke emotion? Rubinstein puts me to sleep, sadly :-(
Horowitz and Martha are among the greatest in interpreting Chopin. No use arguing, you have made your point repeatedly and all that on Martha's video - that is a faux pas.
@Bret6464 ...if Ruby puts you to sleep, there are many other interpreters who are definitely easily better than H. and A., and who do not share their pianistic problems...it is a matter of developing some dissatisfaction with these two, getting tired of them, etc.,..I once thought highly of them too, but got over that, got tired of these dynamic "cheap thrills", tried to learn to "wear the long pants" musically, to "put away these childish things" finally...
@rigel48 ...manfully, I headed where man's gotta go in need, i.e. Lang Lang, kiesworld86 upload, a white piano, the works...seriously, Martha has a date with this nocturne but does not quite know what to do with the guy...better jobs are by Lipatti, Cherkassky, Arrau, and, above all, Ruby, who,as might be expected, has a superior tone, which is his specialty anyway...also tried Solomon (YOUR UPLOAD OR AM I LOADED?), Francois, Backhaus, Janis, Pollini.. no, they did not send me...
@fredericfranc You are the kind of people full of certitudes ! Rubinstein, Lipatti, Arrau, .. are not better than Argerich in this nocturne (op 27 no 2) and her tone is gorgeous. To say that Rubinstein has a superior tone is like to say for instance that the 1st ballade is superior to the 4th (and reciprocally). All great pianist has a distinct tone: Horowitz, Arrau, Rubinstein, Michelangeli, .... and Argerich. To prefer one to another is just a matter of taste.
@rigel48 ...you really want to ruin Martha's Chopin for yourself the intellectual way...try those books I mention below..."Chopin vu par son eleves", the english transl. exists, and "Chopin, the reluctant Romantic", on the Amazon...they will disabuse you forever of the silly notion that Chopin is a Romantic composer, and Martha plays him like he IS a Romantic, so she is "out there"...finally you will hit the happy hunting grounds at the long last...
@fredericfranc Thank you for your reading advice. Maybe I may recommend you the book "Chopin Playing" by James Methuen-Campbell, to try to convince you that there is not one "true" way of interpreting Chopin.
Now to say that Chopin is not a Romantic composer would be a very hard task to prove. The ballades, the Preludes and much of his works are very Romantic in inspiration.
Tchaikovsky loved very much Mozart (as Chopin did), he is not a "classical" composer for all that !
@rigel48 ...I largely agree with your general sentiments, that there is no "certitude" in this business, but you go too much for this "total washout" effect, that everybody is equal to everybody else, it is all a matter of taste...some distinctions and observations can be made in criticism and they may and often do have validity...Chopin, one can make a case, was quite hostile to the spirit of Romanticism, and is, at any rate, overly romanticized by the interpreters nowadays, and
@rigel48 cranking back on this Romantic foolishness would benefit the Chopin interpretation. Miss Argerich is one of the culprits, but she was put up to this by Horowitz, unfortunately. Comparing the "tone" of various interpreters is doable fairly objectively, I think, at any rate I am a hound for this, and think Ruby, esp. in his nocturnes and waltzes is impossible to beat damn near, another tone man I like is Malcuzynski, who is unfairly neglected...
has anyone got kissin playing this? t got taken down for some reason! his has much more tempo variation, and he pulls it to the point of almost being too far but its incredible..
I love the way she carries the descending line through while still bringing out the bass melodies, the speed of execution and lines are all aimed at heightening the emotion .. it's what she's constantly striving to acheive it's what makes her an artists and one of the truly great pianists of our time. She pulls the tempo way back in the thematic material around 2:30 and it becomes almost pastoral instead turning heavily romantic.. the piece is brilliantly executed
@ocsound1 I agree with you. I was going to type something like "This was a great performance!" but it feels almost pithy for me to say... her level of interpretation, skill, musicality, and execution are so extraordinary, she deserves so much better than that. I think your comment serves as a terrific example of a worthy description of the greatness of her performance here. She really gets this piece. Those who complain that it's too fast or something, just don't get it.
Ending sounds terrible, way too fast, plenty of mistakes, wrong expression. This is my favorite piece of music, but, sorry, I can't enjoy this rendition at all.
@gamhacked. You have a very personal opinion of how this piece must be played. Here, the ending is just played as Chopin indicated : Fast with fire (PRESTO CON FUOCO). Plenty of mistakes ? Which mistakes ? Wrong expression ? this coda is terrific race, not a gentle walk ! Many pianists play this coda way too slow, especially K. Zimerman.
@rigel48 Maybe Zimmerman does play it too slowly, but Argerich plays it too fast, perhaps not for the music, but for her own level of skill. If you can't hear the mistakes, keep listening and you'll hear them. Zimmerman's version is 99% perfect technically, and I much prefer his expression.
@gamhacked . I note that you are not able to point out any mistake (because there is none). It is so easy to accuse without proof. Zimerman's careful version as a whole is no more perfect technically than Argerich's one (she makes a little slip at 5'43). Argerich's skill for high virtuosity is very well known. She plays fast because she can, as said the late Vlado Perlemuter. Now considering the expression, it is just a matter of taste.
This is one of Argerich's performance where I find too much of HER. I want to hear Chopin, because it is with his compositions that my musical feelings identify. I don't suscribe to the idea that a performance is a shared work between composer and interpreter. Composition comes first! Her brilliant technique could have been put to a much better use!
well, to be honest, this playing is not even close to be the best....the man in "The Pianist" movie play this masterpiece - even when u hear it without watching the move - better than this playing by Argerich. I cant feel (to me) the right nuances of this composition in this performance
Love this performance and interpretation-stunning and sensitive. Argerich remains a totally insightful and technically brilliant artist -a master of her gift --my equally and above all favorite is, of course, Evgeny KISSIN.."not of this world" .
What can we say about Chopin when token it's opus by large ? It's a man of a very tender touch and doomed by far greater passion than it's actual emotional stamina can withstand. To reconcile that what rises above and what within him, Chopin does tend to strike like an unexpected tsunami, giving us episodes of allmost electrically discharged emotion and Argerich pays repect in this regard majestically. At any rate, it's hard for any man to play Chopin like a woman could, for obv reasons, ne ? ~
Rubenstein said playing Chopin is about "an expression of melody"...why the rush here? It's almost as though she's afraid to reveal anything of herself but keeps it hidden behind a lightning quick virtuoso performance...
@immaculatezulu I have to agree. This particular piece it's hard to play. From all the performances I've heard nobody has played it like Rubenstein. Don't take me wrong Argerich is a superb performer, but there's something wanting, and you are right it's HER. Musical notes will only be sounds regardless of how precisely and elegantly you can play them. It's not until you show the human behind them that they become a masterpiece.
@immaculatezulu NONSENSE !!!! Her tempo is her choice and she is a true artist, one of the greatest ever, along with Rach, Gilels, Horowitz, Moiseiwitsch, Weissenberg, very very few others. Not all greats played like Rubinstein!
For those who can not hear her musicality in this performance, I would suggest going on and listening to your favorites: Kissin, Zimermann, etc, etc... whatever works for you, but no idiotic comments about Martha's playing :-))
@Bret6464 Thank you for your comment, artists are different and should be listened to as such not compared to one another, if one doesn't like what a certain artist does they should well go listen to what they like and leave others alone.
Some artists are just too extraordinary for baseless critism, but we all have different tastes.
Martha has always been a surreal musician, her clarity and tone/color are sublime :-)) Still not all her recordings do her total justice, it could also be a problem in downloading then uploading to YT, many times the sound goes.
@immaculatezulu Before eaven leanding an ear to what any interpretator has to say, we must listen to the music and understand the intent of the composer's soul that's placed within the structure of the piece in question.
@immaculatezulu Martha is certainly rightly recognized as one of the greatest technicians with great fire playing..this performance. (each to each taste of course in interpretation) immediately brought to mind a remark by the famous Birgit Nilsson in Wagner in a master class: "if you have little truly profound to say , better to just be done with it take the faster tempi if you can..and it might still sound expressive anyway".
when I hear Martha play..."amaze them all with speed and loudness...and it will sound *great*". i like her a lot in her ravel though....there she can truly be ravishing ..in the ease that she balances melodic lines surrounded by really difficult colorations around it...
@m8a1x2 yeah i know i mean, small kind of people like classical music normally is a adult or a old man i am 14 years old i like beatles rock and classical music nowdays kids like justin bieber selena gomez jonas brothers come on if they want to destroy the ears will be better to cut them off '-'
While Argerich may not be to everyone's taste, she always brings to the table a fresh perspective coupled with superhuman technique. A brilliant pianist, indeed!
the ending 2~3 minutes are just too fast... but as a whole sadly (as i'm not her biggest fan) she plays it really nice. if only avdeeva could play half as good as argerich...
My absolute favourite pianist playing my absolute favourite piece of all time. Her playing inspires me in every part of my life.
xMayyyyyyyx 2 weeks ago
How. Incredible. I never expected to hear someone better than Rubinstein, but I have. Brava. Bravissima.
Pinepelt 3 weeks ago
OMG even better than Rubinstein!!!
natyraaa 3 weeks ago
Dizer o que? Saudade imensa, desejo de sair daqui rápido, entrar num mundo paralelo...
pessoayvone 4 weeks ago
magnifique interprétation !
sunweb7 1 month ago
I am not being critical here at all. But she does not play this like I play it. At all! I make huge mistakes too numerous to mention. My version is more like the choppy seas during a hurricane.
TheCobalt100 1 month ago
@TheCobalt100
So Why dont you post your videos.... ?
8880lilith 1 week ago
@8880lilith I'm terrible. When I play the piano, my kids and wife threaten to desert me.
TheCobalt100 1 week ago
Shut the fuck up and enjoy this delightful music!!!!!!!
antonioaugustogurgel 1 month ago
Beautiful scales, but lacks a little musicality, amplitude and lyricism, good phrasing indeed, little hard version for be Chopin.
Ray0X0 1 month ago
Belle pianiste,jeu sensible et puissant.
abracadabranque 1 month ago
fuck, she was hot when she was younger
TaiMaiShu0k 1 month ago
@TaiMaiShu0k Still is, IMHO
chaos1588 3 weeks ago
All I can say is that finally I found someone who plays Chopin's music the way I like it to hear!!! Wonderful! There is actually emotion and soul in her playing. Thank you. This speaks to my soul.
MsOlkina 2 months ago 8
Im downloading Chrome browser so I can listen on YT without distraction from all the tedious 'connoisseur' nobodies twitting about here.
MrCinemuso 2 months ago
Argerich plays it too fast, Zimerman plays it too slow, and Horowitz bangs the right hand too loud to drown the melody. Cecile Licad does it better. The notes are clear, delicate and the ending is beautifully done.
jeezee0210 2 months ago
@jeezee0210 - Isn't it funny I've never heard you on stage performing this.
undeuxtroisquatreish 2 months ago 3
@undeuxtroisquatreish No, not yet, because I still have to parse together the interpretations of Licad, Bolet, and Richter.
jeezee0210 2 months ago
great!!
second best version right behind bolet...
themikeofmikes 2 months ago
It is my opinion that one must not compare pianists. That said, I feel that this performance is dramatic, dynamic, yet introspective. It is also one of the most interesting and uniquely creative interpretations of all I have ever heard. Martha finds musical lines that other pianists miss, but like I said, let us not compare pianists. This lady was and is a genius. Pure and simple. I cannot help but make the small comment which is obvious: Martha was and still is very pretty...another story
MrStephenborisoff 2 months ago
Just "precise and elegant"? She, more importantly has provided the passion and interest this piece deserves.
mudyar 2 months ago
I very much used to like Zimmermann’s interpretation and it was definitely, I must admit, the very performance that got me to like Chopin not as a technique freak show but an... Emotional dance. The very nature of this piece is to combine emotion with effortless playing... It is one heck of a piece to master, I never fully got it. It moves me with almost every performance, but Horowitz is the one who drains my tears.
Rachmaninoffkid 2 months ago
Sorry Martha, but I dont like it...
erickalk 2 months ago
...this is not Chopin's Chopin...this is the Martha-ferocity Chopin...well, esp. at the end...she's kinda dry, like this was Prokofiev, but what the hell...
fredericfranc 3 months ago
@fredericfranc What is Chopin's Chopin ?
Probably Chopin as you like him : soft, gentle and small scaled.
His genius needs more power and imagination than your narrow view !
The end is a Presto con fuoco not an Allegro con grazioso !
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ...I long have felt that Martha benefits more from the faint-praisers or even outright detractors than from her fans...so I have labored migtily to work myself into those categories...the praisers, all too often, sound a bit dim...the naysayers "appreciate" her in more interesting ways...the Martha deconstructed is preferable the Matha admired...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc You are not completely wrong in your approach. But you do not answer my question. What is Chopin's Chopin ?
Concerning this ballade (I much love it), I do think that the epic character if this work is better rendered by a large scaled playing with really fast tempo for the coda (as indicated by Chopin : Presto con fuoco) than a restrained approach supposed to be in the style of Chopin.
J Hofmann, V horowitz, S Richter and M Argerich are my favourites for this.
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ...because Chopin was no Schwartzenegger and his Pleyels were no Steinways (hey, this is an oversimplification, right?...), he relied on dynamizing down, riveting the attention of his audience by "nuancing them out", he deliberately tried not to sound like Franz Whatever his name...today's audiences are Lang Langed out, so what is one to do?...Martha's "deficiency" in her Chopin is mostly in her dry tone and forced attacks...but, hey, she is not bad..next to LL, certainly...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Sorry but I disagree both about Chopin and Argerich. The way he was playing is one thing and the way he wanted his works to be played is another matter. Don't forget that he was jealous of Liszt's playing of his Etudes.
Concerning Martha's tone, she has one of the most beautiful sound ever anf if it is true that she is poorly recorded in this ballade, there are plenty other recordings which show that there is nothing dry in her tone (and when you hear her live).
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ..."the way he played...the way he wanted it played"...a pretty risky thing to say about a teacher...what I say about her "deficient" tone and nasty, impulsive, Horowitzian attacks applies more to her general tendency in her Chopin, not all that evident here, where she is unusually mellow...check out her scherzos, the Op.53 for the "more bad" Martha...for a better Op. 23 try Malcuzynski, here on the YT, even Rubinstein, Ashkenazy, Zimerman...but, hey, she is not bad...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc I think we shall never agree. I just listen to Malcuzynski. I find his op 23 really very good, except the coda too deliberate and with too much rubato for a presto con fuoco. I definitely prefer Martha's fiery rendition. To finish I am sure that you love Chopin as much as I do, we just have a different perception of his genius.
rigel48 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Et Tu, Brute? :-)
Bret6464 2 months ago
@Bret6464 ...I am not sure how this reference applies...with my moniker I try to stand up for the composer and against the "enemy" interpreters who try to do their best to do the composer in...Martha is certainly one of the enemies, because she is a "Horowitzian" performer ego-flash driven, going for the entertaining (supposedly) dramatics, not for being fair to the composer, being a stand-in for him, which is what classical music is supposed to be about...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Saw your very positive post on Rach's performance of Chopin Sonata No. 2 mvmt 3. Then it goes to how Rach performed, the so-called "Old Russian School", all about musicality, artistry and individual input/interpretation. Martha Argerish is such a surreal musician, in the tradition of Rach (and Gilels, Horowitz and others). I am surprised you point to Rubienstein, Zimerman, Ashkenazy... those are definitely not pianists who play in the tradition of Rachmaninoff.
Bret6464 2 months ago
@fredericfranc My apologies, I thought you were another user with a similar "name", mea culpa :-)) Still, I see you like Murray Perahia, who was Horowitz's favorite "student", and who was trained at Juilliard - where the "Old Russian School" moved en-masse at the time of the revolution, when Rach moved to NY, and where the tradition of Rach continues to this day. BTW, Rach's performance of the Chopin Sonata No.2 is one of the greatest ever in history :-)
Bret6464 2 months ago
@Bret6464 ...never could figure out why Rach did not have Horo shot rather than befriending him, maybe he was hoping Horo was going to marry one of his daughters, did not realize Horo was gay?...I would not say Martha is a pianist in the Rach tradition, she is too perverse...Zimerman I mentioned only because he is so "anti-Argerich", so unspontaneous...Ruby, Ashkenaz have the requisite Chopinesque tone than Argerich conspiquously lacks...still I love the old girl, sex trumps all..
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Everything about Martha is beautiful, Rach would love her pianism. There are 3 pianists that Rach praised greatly: Gilels (his acknowledged "successor"), Horowitz and Moiseiwitsch. Can't disagree with Rach on his opinion of Horo. Rubinstein? I grew up listening to him, and it was a revelation at age ten that there were other pianists who did not lull you to sleep. I do not prefer those who play in Rubinstein's style, Askenazy is not one of those, not close.
Bret6464 2 months ago
@Bret6464 ...your use of negatives is even more artful than fredericfranc's to the point that you have me confused not a little...but sticking to Martha, just to avoid headaches...if you listen to Martha's actual recordings, from the 70's and then beyond, of solo piano, of which there are fewer and fewer, of course, I mean the REAL CD's, her playing of the Romantic repertoire, particularly Chopin, gets more and more tedious...even if the other types, like the Baroque, hold up, so?...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@Bret6464 ...trying to teach somebody to hate the music they love is sort of dumb, but not entirely because it will then be replaced by something better...only you can teach your ears to perceive the deficiencies in Argerich's and Horowitz's Chopin...but first you must discover the dimensions to Chopin that these pianists deliberately or otherwise ignore...I can't do it really by an intellectual argument..the books "Ch. as seen by his students" and "Ch. the reluctant Romantic"..TRY..
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc It's simple - you believe Rubinstein does Chopin justice, I do not. There is little passion, musicality and artistry in Rubinstein's Chopin.. yes he does play notes perfectly. But what is pianism if not to evoke emotion? Rubinstein puts me to sleep, sadly :-(
Horowitz and Martha are among the greatest in interpreting Chopin. No use arguing, you have made your point repeatedly and all that on Martha's video - that is a faux pas.
Bret6464 2 months ago
@Bret6464 ...if Ruby puts you to sleep, there are many other interpreters who are definitely easily better than H. and A., and who do not share their pianistic problems...it is a matter of developing some dissatisfaction with these two, getting tired of them, etc.,..I once thought highly of them too, but got over that, got tired of these dynamic "cheap thrills", tried to learn to "wear the long pants" musically, to "put away these childish things" finally...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Try Argerich in the nocturne Op 27 no 2 here on youtube (uploaded by Kimorelic) to see if she has not a Chopinesque tone !
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ...manfully, I headed where man's gotta go in need, i.e. Lang Lang, kiesworld86 upload, a white piano, the works...seriously, Martha has a date with this nocturne but does not quite know what to do with the guy...better jobs are by Lipatti, Cherkassky, Arrau, and, above all, Ruby, who,as might be expected, has a superior tone, which is his specialty anyway...also tried Solomon (YOUR UPLOAD OR AM I LOADED?), Francois, Backhaus, Janis, Pollini.. no, they did not send me...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc You are the kind of people full of certitudes ! Rubinstein, Lipatti, Arrau, .. are not better than Argerich in this nocturne (op 27 no 2) and her tone is gorgeous. To say that Rubinstein has a superior tone is like to say for instance that the 1st ballade is superior to the 4th (and reciprocally). All great pianist has a distinct tone: Horowitz, Arrau, Rubinstein, Michelangeli, .... and Argerich. To prefer one to another is just a matter of taste.
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ...you really want to ruin Martha's Chopin for yourself the intellectual way...try those books I mention below..."Chopin vu par son eleves", the english transl. exists, and "Chopin, the reluctant Romantic", on the Amazon...they will disabuse you forever of the silly notion that Chopin is a Romantic composer, and Martha plays him like he IS a Romantic, so she is "out there"...finally you will hit the happy hunting grounds at the long last...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc Thank you for your reading advice. Maybe I may recommend you the book "Chopin Playing" by James Methuen-Campbell, to try to convince you that there is not one "true" way of interpreting Chopin.
Now to say that Chopin is not a Romantic composer would be a very hard task to prove. The ballades, the Preludes and much of his works are very Romantic in inspiration.
Tchaikovsky loved very much Mozart (as Chopin did), he is not a "classical" composer for all that !
rigel48 2 months ago
@rigel48 ...I largely agree with your general sentiments, that there is no "certitude" in this business, but you go too much for this "total washout" effect, that everybody is equal to everybody else, it is all a matter of taste...some distinctions and observations can be made in criticism and they may and often do have validity...Chopin, one can make a case, was quite hostile to the spirit of Romanticism, and is, at any rate, overly romanticized by the interpreters nowadays, and
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@rigel48 cranking back on this Romantic foolishness would benefit the Chopin interpretation. Miss Argerich is one of the culprits, but she was put up to this by Horowitz, unfortunately. Comparing the "tone" of various interpreters is doable fairly objectively, I think, at any rate I am a hound for this, and think Ruby, esp. in his nocturnes and waltzes is impossible to beat damn near, another tone man I like is Malcuzynski, who is unfairly neglected...
fredericfranc 2 months ago
@fredericfranc LISZT! LISZT! FRANZ LISZT!!!
YetHaterLover 2 months ago
Comment removed
fredericfranc 2 months ago
has anyone got kissin playing this? t got taken down for some reason! his has much more tempo variation, and he pulls it to the point of almost being too far but its incredible..
adamkent8 3 months ago
I love the way she carries the descending line through while still bringing out the bass melodies, the speed of execution and lines are all aimed at heightening the emotion .. it's what she's constantly striving to acheive it's what makes her an artists and one of the truly great pianists of our time. She pulls the tempo way back in the thematic material around 2:30 and it becomes almost pastoral instead turning heavily romantic.. the piece is brilliantly executed
ocsound1 3 months ago 13
@ocsound1 I agree with you. I was going to type something like "This was a great performance!" but it feels almost pithy for me to say... her level of interpretation, skill, musicality, and execution are so extraordinary, she deserves so much better than that. I think your comment serves as a terrific example of a worthy description of the greatness of her performance here. She really gets this piece. Those who complain that it's too fast or something, just don't get it.
beakt 3 months ago
Ashkenazy's is still the best.
EmptyVee00000 4 months ago
for some reason, this doesn't sound like Martha Argerich- and also it sounds like a recording on an undersized piano
Bruce88keys 4 months ago
Es un genio! Tiene todo lo que un pianista necesita:Tecnica, vigor ,sentimiento.No falta nada! opunion de SUZANA RATTO
iraratto11 4 months ago
when was this recorded?
nicoart1 4 months ago
i always appreciate her refreshing interpretations
ThePaulinoContreras 4 months ago
Ending sounds terrible, way too fast, plenty of mistakes, wrong expression. This is my favorite piece of music, but, sorry, I can't enjoy this rendition at all.
gamhacked 4 months ago
@gamhacked. You have a very personal opinion of how this piece must be played. Here, the ending is just played as Chopin indicated : Fast with fire (PRESTO CON FUOCO). Plenty of mistakes ? Which mistakes ? Wrong expression ? this coda is terrific race, not a gentle walk ! Many pianists play this coda way too slow, especially K. Zimerman.
rigel48 4 months ago
@rigel48 Maybe Zimmerman does play it too slowly, but Argerich plays it too fast, perhaps not for the music, but for her own level of skill. If you can't hear the mistakes, keep listening and you'll hear them. Zimmerman's version is 99% perfect technically, and I much prefer his expression.
gamhacked 4 months ago
@gamhacked . I note that you are not able to point out any mistake (because there is none). It is so easy to accuse without proof. Zimerman's careful version as a whole is no more perfect technically than Argerich's one (she makes a little slip at 5'43). Argerich's skill for high virtuosity is very well known. She plays fast because she can, as said the late Vlado Perlemuter. Now considering the expression, it is just a matter of taste.
rigel48 4 months ago
This is one of Argerich's performance where I find too much of HER. I want to hear Chopin, because it is with his compositions that my musical feelings identify. I don't suscribe to the idea that a performance is a shared work between composer and interpreter. Composition comes first! Her brilliant technique could have been put to a much better use!
Ernesto7608 4 months ago
well, to be honest, this playing is not even close to be the best....the man in "The Pianist" movie play this masterpiece - even when u hear it without watching the move - better than this playing by Argerich. I cant feel (to me) the right nuances of this composition in this performance
nataschmidtt 5 months ago
@nataschmidtt you say that because you were watching a movie.... with scenes..... and cuts... and edits.....
Vesivian 5 months ago
@nataschmidtt did you know she wins the chopin piano competition? why don't you get a life and close your mouth? :)
geri002 4 months ago
@geri002 lol because she's a legend doesnt make she's perfect at anything...she, in my opinion, just not very good on this piece
nataschmidtt 3 months ago
Love this performance and interpretation-stunning and sensitive. Argerich remains a totally insightful and technically brilliant artist -a master of her gift --my equally and above all favorite is, of course, Evgeny KISSIN.."not of this world" .
slsherwoodwells 5 months ago
What can we say about Chopin when token it's opus by large ? It's a man of a very tender touch and doomed by far greater passion than it's actual emotional stamina can withstand. To reconcile that what rises above and what within him, Chopin does tend to strike like an unexpected tsunami, giving us episodes of allmost electrically discharged emotion and Argerich pays repect in this regard majestically. At any rate, it's hard for any man to play Chopin like a woman could, for obv reasons, ne ? ~
TenderlyBurned 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you are here beacuse of the film "The Pianist"
fativiolento 7 months ago
@fativiolento im hear cuz of marthas great interpretation ;)
BassicStorm 7 months ago
Rubenstein said playing Chopin is about "an expression of melody"...why the rush here? It's almost as though she's afraid to reveal anything of herself but keeps it hidden behind a lightning quick virtuoso performance...
immaculatezulu 9 months ago
@immaculatezulu I have to agree. This particular piece it's hard to play. From all the performances I've heard nobody has played it like Rubenstein. Don't take me wrong Argerich is a superb performer, but there's something wanting, and you are right it's HER. Musical notes will only be sounds regardless of how precisely and elegantly you can play them. It's not until you show the human behind them that they become a masterpiece.
bernalrd 6 months ago
@immaculatezulu NONSENSE !!!! Her tempo is her choice and she is a true artist, one of the greatest ever, along with Rach, Gilels, Horowitz, Moiseiwitsch, Weissenberg, very very few others. Not all greats played like Rubinstein!
For those who can not hear her musicality in this performance, I would suggest going on and listening to your favorites: Kissin, Zimermann, etc, etc... whatever works for you, but no idiotic comments about Martha's playing :-))
Bret6464 5 months ago 36
@Bret6464 bravo!
michaelgedal 4 months ago
@Bret6464 Yes,in this case I'm agree...ahaha Martha runs..and is not always right.
Ellinidara 3 months ago
@Bret6464 oooer!!
diskors55 2 months ago
@diskors55 @michaelgedal @Ellinidara
TY :-))) Some artists are just above mundane criticism
Bret6464 2 months ago
@Bret6464 Thank you for your comment, artists are different and should be listened to as such not compared to one another, if one doesn't like what a certain artist does they should well go listen to what they like and leave others alone.
mojopum 2 months ago
@mojopum TY :-)) I try, sometimes to no avail.
Some artists are just too extraordinary for baseless critism, but we all have different tastes.
Martha has always been a surreal musician, her clarity and tone/color are sublime :-)) Still not all her recordings do her total justice, it could also be a problem in downloading then uploading to YT, many times the sound goes.
Bret6464 2 months ago
@immaculatezulu Before eaven leanding an ear to what any interpretator has to say, we must listen to the music and understand the intent of the composer's soul that's placed within the structure of the piece in question.
TenderlyBurned 5 months ago
@immaculatezulu Martha is certainly rightly recognized as one of the greatest technicians with great fire playing..this performance. (each to each taste of course in interpretation) immediately brought to mind a remark by the famous Birgit Nilsson in Wagner in a master class: "if you have little truly profound to say , better to just be done with it take the faster tempi if you can..and it might still sound expressive anyway".
tedly10027 4 months ago
when I hear Martha play..."amaze them all with speed and loudness...and it will sound *great*". i like her a lot in her ravel though....there she can truly be ravishing ..in the ease that she balances melodic lines surrounded by really difficult colorations around it...
tedly10027 4 months ago
funny Justin bieber videos have like 9999999999 views and classic music have only 3491 views
arthur483 9 months ago
@arthur483 it,s not funny ...it,s so sad...
m8a1x2 6 months ago
@m8a1x2 yeah i know i mean, small kind of people like classical music normally is a adult or a old man i am 14 years old i like beatles rock and classical music nowdays kids like justin bieber selena gomez jonas brothers come on if they want to destroy the ears will be better to cut them off '-'
arthur483 6 months ago
It seems to me that this performance is made by an other pianist not by Martha Argerich.
suniforlife 10 months ago
@suniforlife Why????
monicapianista 8 months ago
@suniforlife It's her, but I believe from her young age
Freddran 7 months ago
While Argerich may not be to everyone's taste, she always brings to the table a fresh perspective coupled with superhuman technique. A brilliant pianist, indeed!
gloriousmusic2010 10 months ago
too fast, not too fast.... I say most of the big pianists play the ending part (presto con fuoco) slowly. So I welcome this temperament.
Freddran 10 months ago
the ending 2~3 minutes are just too fast... but as a whole sadly (as i'm not her biggest fan) she plays it really nice. if only avdeeva could play half as good as argerich...
mx19idlewilder 11 months ago