I don't think comparing Richter and Horowitz's version is possible, simply because I think both pianists are incomparable to one another. Their overall approaches and goals were completely different.
Horowitz was all about imagination & reinvention. He was an artist who liked to *interpret* the music his own way.
Richter's absolute aim is always to try and convey what other people (composers) thought. He could read scores very well.
Listening to Scriabins personal recordings. I find his technique and speed separated from a romantic point of view. Scriabin was terror and fear and an odd moldy sorta beauty. beautiful fragrance and perfume like but pieces such as this in mind I would imagine Richter is sorta playing the way Scriabin would have played it. Kinda, but not exactly.
Wow ! It's the first time I listen this piece played by Richter, and I definately love it very much. Perhaps even better than Horowitz's. Listening to this, I feel like something burning and extinguishing slowly at the end, not without a fight. Even if its not some of the late Scriabin work, we can hear what it will become, a genius with a tortured soul, a visionnaire. Difficult to explain as english is not my native language. In one word : Fabulous !
E' incredibile come Richter riesce a liberare una potenza sonora così limpida, omogenea e stabile, nei punti più pericolosi di questo Studio ! Ho notato le stesse doti eccezionali anche nel meraviglioso Concerto op. 33 per pianoforte e orchestra di Antonin Dvorak. Anche in quella esecuzione ... sembra il Mago Merlino che sposta i pianeti da una parte all'altra dell'Universo !!!!!!!!!
I vastly prefer Richter's interpretation to Horowitz's. Horowitz plays each note separately and, because of that, loses the rise and fall and the momentum of each phrase. Richter's plays it as a sea of notes. He connects them all in beautiful phrases. It's not about each individual note being plucked out perfectly; it's about flow.
Sorry, no question Richter is a great pianist, but I always feel bored w/ his playing, so much banging and unimaginative readings. Many other artists "do" great things with the score. Horowitz reveals all the drama and power this Scriabin contains without the hysteria....I never hear that "ah, this makes sense" although I did like his live recording of the Beethoven OP57
Something wrong with your perception if THIS is "messy, punchy and ugly". As a "personal opinion" you can say whatever you wish, but it doesn't make any sense.
@Bruce88keys I absolutely adore Richer, but I have to agree this is just a terrible "interpretation". This etude needs to hit like a static storm, not just one almost continuous stream of notes. Maybe it's just the sound quality but it feels "empty."
@jiggareactmilitant This piece has more notes than God-and a pitfall many great artists fall into is making the listener aware of that fact. Horowitz is the only performance that communicates the intensity and rich writing with grace and clarity. I love the way he suddenly finds "light" in the redemptive melody is surrounded by Russian darkness. This etude is the combination of intracacy and passion-
@jiggareactmilitant This piece has more notes than God-and a pitfall many great artists fall into is making the listener aware of that fact. Horowitz is the only performance that communicates the intensity and rich writing with grace and clarity. I love the way he suddenly finds "light" in the redemptive melody that is surrounded by Russian pathos. This etude is the combination of intracacy and passion-
Although Horowitz interpretation has this charming and romantic touch, one of the best renditions I've ever heard, I don't know if he would be capable of playing it alive like Richter`s did, leaving there all, pure heart, fire burning inside which on the other hand is another way to express a romantic and extremely high difficult this piece is.
this is terrible, maybe he was trying to play it differently because i have another recording of richter playing this and it's great; the same tempo minus the mistakes... before he sat down at the piano for this one he had a couple of drinks maybe?
For this piece I prefer Horowitz too, but I think Richter is still great. Differences in recording quality should also be taken into account when comparing recordings. There are many Richter recordings that suffer from bad recording quality, of which I am sure they would sound absolutely marvelous if they had been recorded in good quality. Also, there is a better recording of this piece from Richter on YT from 1972.
I am reading the comments regarding comparisons of Richter and Horowitz, and honestly I am of the opinion that Horowitz's rendition of this etude is also quite true to the score... he did have a tremendous personality and individuality that came out in his playing (as did Richter of course) but his approach to reading the score was just as serious as any "true to the score" musician-- his choices, extreme as they may sometime appear, are derived from the music.
@ericclark2 I agree - Horowitz really paid attention to the score and you are right when assessing the force of his personality behind that incredible sound- I've listened to Richter a good deal over the years and frankly I am never moved- I know the press he got was astounding in the 60's when he came here and "you" were supposed to be hearing this force of nature from Russia but I think he's boring if not a piano pounder. just saying.
Thank you, truecrypt. This thrilling record is a perfect example of Richter’s heroism. Those were great golden times. Thanks for educating modern music lovers.
Horowitz and Richter play very differently. You can't really compare, but I like Richter 's recording just as much. It's equally brilliant, although in a different way.
what stupid comments-i prefer richter/horowitz etc how are you plebian people to compare these different interpretations from the greatest they played how THEY wished not how YOU personally want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes they can but 99% have'nt a clue what they are talking about, each recording has diff acoustics/also the same performer may play it better/worse/differently the following week/hour/minute day etc etc so comparison between pianists is not just a simple matter of putting a sentence on YT
I prefer the version of the moldavian pianist Alexander Paley who has recorde all the 26 studies on NAXOS, he make's this studie incredible, it's the best version i ever heard, rapid, furious, emotional, and completely magicall!
Horowitz's crisp clear almost classical approach to this piece is unparalleled. While I admire Richter, he is outflanked by Horowitz--if not simply that you can hear every note in Vladimir's interpretation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Richter was rarely kind to other pianists Vladimirviardo and Sofronitsky do better than most. .Monsai...book tells us a lot.Nothing insightful or interesting to say about Hofmann or Annie Fischer .
What Richter's "kindness to other pianists" has to do with Scriabin performance? Viardo and Sofronitsky belong to different "categories". Sofronitsky's Scriabin is unsurpassed... "Monsai... book" is not about Hofmann or Fisher - obviously you're a little confused about the subject.
I think I've listened to every version of this and Richter takes the cake because as always he captures the entirety of the piece so it all ties together. I like horowitz and loredo but they don't make sense of it like this.
One wonders what Richter and Horowitz thought of each other's playing. Could there be 2 more different approaches to this piece? Richter is direct and true to the score, but always musical. (Pianists will smile that he misses the troubling high G sharp in the repetition of 2nd theme). Horowitz is all imagination and individual personality. Both are masterful! Vive la difference!!
I'm agree with trevjr: the best interpretation I heard of this etude is Horowitz one. His pinkie (the melody of this etude is 99% pinkie dependent) was absolutely magician. No equals.
Sorry, I cann't imagine how you have conclusion about Horowitz as "best" interpretation, but I cann't agree more about your observation about Horowitz's pinkie in that performance. It is like sharp sword. Sorry, wrong English and childlike coobservation.
I have been listening to every version and no one comes close to Horowitz. Richter is below Kissin in my opinion, but Vlad is a master.yeah the out of tune piano. I want to like Richter, but he just rushes too much for me, Horowitz has much more control and is more musical.
Yes I did, I'm sorry I didn't like it that much. This etude requires brilliance and that does not mean speed. Richter plays through too much for me. I love the way that Horowitz can just stop on a dime and suspend the phrase. The melody is always singing, other pianists seem to struggle with this etude, Horowitz masters it. Just one opinion.
I prefer the other recording anyway (I don't know if there are more), because it's a tad slower and has better dynamics. Nevertheless this is very good, of course.
cenodus - I agree with you, if you mean the 1953 Horowitz recording, which is unrivaled in its grandeur in my view. In the recording from 1972, on the other hand, I find that Horowitz is a bit mannered, too enamored of detail, too in love with his own intelligence. Richter, on the other hand, takes the eagle's eye view (just as Neuhaus wrote) and and puts the piece before us in perfect architectural clarity.
It's hard to define "mystic" period clearly, but probably it's after 1907.
I'm not sure if his letters were translated and published in English, but it's very interesting reading. Seems like Amazon has several books on this subject - search there for "Scriabin, Aleksandr Nikolayevich"
I was trying to reply to cziffra1980 comment and removed it (instead of replying) - sorry! here is the comment:
Much as I admire the voicing in the opening, I don't like this performance. He plays the lyrical theme as though it is some kind of metrical dance. Why does nobody other than Horowitz pay any attention to the phrase marks? I don't think 'affanato' (or breathless) means the same as 'without taking any breaths'.
I don't understand why nobody other than Horowitz seems to be capable of a real vocal line (in one of the most beatiful melodies ever written). Even Sofronitsky was a total disappointment.
I think there are several reasons for difference...
1. Richter's tempo is much faster - btw I think "breathless" is not exactly the definition, rather "short of breath"... The second theme is not as detailed as Horowitz's simply because it wouldn't fit this speed.
2. Horowitz does it beautifully, but "pays" for it by slowing quite a bit.
3. It was just a regular performance for Richter on the ordinary instrument, - Horowitz always played "specially prepared" piano.
In no way I wish to demean Horowitz's performance - it's outstanding, - but the same time I find Richter and Sofronitsky very much in spirit of this piece.
I think Richter is far better in the opening to be honest, (horowitz's crisp, almost pedal-free effect is interesting but not exactly pp). However, I think it's the lyrical melody that makes this study stand out musically. When I've worked on this, I always find I spend hardly any time on the first two pages and mostly play the rest of the study (which led to pretty poor results- considering the opening is the hardest bit). I've never heard a performance that makes it sing like Horowitz.
I don't see slowing down as 'paying' in any sense. Personally I think it suffers greatly when treated strictly. All the accents in this Richter's execution of the melody destroy the sense of cantabile, giving a series of lumps rather than a floating line. Surely the more lyrical section implies a new character? I don't understand why every pianist (except Horowitz) insists on being so relentless with one the Scriabin's most vocal melodies.
I also think it's part of Russian tradition to concentrate on the "long line" and never sacrifice it for the beauty of details. Horowitz's outstanding expressiveness does glow through each note, but the "flying feeling" is muted. As for Richter's "lumps" - don't forget he played it in a live concert and what sounds as "lumps" in recording, might well be heard as a "floating line" to an audience.
I don't know. Rachmaninoff had a similar way with melodies. I imagine he would have played this at a very quick tempo, but he would never have plowed straight-through the lyrical melody as Richter does, without giving the melody notes time to 'speak'. Personally I'm convinced that the earlier Russian traditions were very different from the Richter approach (that is typical of modern Russian performers).
Rachmaninoff always underlined the importance of the long line and never allowed "sweet details" to stay on the way of the main point. His favorite joke was:- "oh... these young pianists... they love to show secondary voices so much" (sorry - poor translation). Somehow I think Rachmaninoff's interpretation would be very fast, light and "long-phrased". Russian piano traditions are not different from Richter's approach. As for "typical modern Russian performers" - I'm not sure what do you mean...
I totally disagree with that, personally. Listen to the way Rachmaninoff milks the 2nd subject in the 2nd concerto, just before the cellos enter. NOBODY has stretched the time so close to breaking point (and that's within from a very moving tempo). Rachmaninoff liked flowing tempos, but he never sacrificied melodic projection or detail for the sake of relentlessly incessant onward movement. He stretched things out as much as anyone and never missed the vocal 'difficulty' of a wide interval etc.
I probably could bring some contrarian examples showing the dominance of "long line" or "dictatorship of the rhythm" in Rachmaninoff's playing, but everything depends on concrete case.
There may be well be a number cases certainly, but I think Rachmaninoff's playing is often misrepresented by modern descriptions (that try to sweep the extreme rubatos under the carpet). People always talk about how straight many passages were, but nobody seems to want to focus on the many instances when he pulls a phrase to the verge of breaking point (there are some extreme cases in the third concerto 2nd subject too). It's a pity that modern Russians never display such freedom.
It's a big problem with "freedom"... Everybody wonders why modern young (not only Russian) pianists can't play like that...
Very often we have extremes - either technique obsessed champions or "heavens" seeking dilettantes. Still there are many "modern Russians" who demonstrate quite outstanding playing. Bashkirov, Virsaladze, Zhukov, Pletnev, Demidenko, Igolinsky, Sokolov, Alexeev, Volodos, Kobrin and many more. No need to have a pity upon them ;)
Demidenko? Can't say I've heard much in the way of freedom from him. I see him as the classic Richter clone, personally. I'm fan of Volodos and Pletnev (and I respect Sokolov) but I get a very strong impression that a majority of modern Russians are in the Richter vein. I agree with you on extremes. It seems that it's usually either big (empty) techniques, or pretty, musical playing that just doesn't have much range or dramatic scope to it. I haven't heard Kobrin yet, so I'll take a look out.
You shouldn't look at these musicians as at giants as Rachmaninoff and Hofmann... Let them grow and (God forgive me) die, - in 50 - 70 years they will become "really great".
Well, maybe, but I'm not holding my breath personally. Horowitz already had that sound in the 30s, when he under 30. I can't think of many people (except maybe Gilels, judging from some of the earlier recordings) who started out sounding normal and grew to have a really special sound. Once you've closed the door on a talent (by teaching them that musical art comes solely from obeying the orders of the score) I don't think there's any reason why it will open in years to come.
Unfortunately I don't see too many young talents who'd become great performers by neglecting score, good teachers and long practicing. You probably see music education as something limiting creativity of young talent... May be it's true for some conservatories , but my experience was different.
You misunderstand me a little. I don't mean pianists should be slack about following the score (although I would prefer to hear an interesting performance that disobeys the score than a boring one that follows it perfectly). It's just the great playing never came from the score alone. It comes from being fluent in a musical language. There are as many talents as ever but few interesting players now. I'm convinced that modern teaching is restricting them rather than opening up possibilities.
Good teachers don't restrict great ideas, but insist on ability to *implement* any idea. What you are referring is not a teaching, but "coaching" (or preparation to competition). There is a proverb in Russian - "many called upon but a few chosen...". There are plenty of talents but very few truly great performers. Since you play (and pretty well) yourself, you understand what I'm talking about.
I agree that's what teaching should be, but I'm not sure it's very as its effective anymore. With so many remarkable talents today (surely even more than ever before?) why are no distinctive voices emerging? It has to be the modern culture of teaching. I don't want to sound like Smithsherman, but even the most liberal teachers are quick to ban things like the hands being out of sync. Even if they preach musical ideas, they are preventing their realisation by restricting the tools available.
Back to my teacher's sayings - "two things are important - imagination and taste..."
Down to the problem of playing hands apart - it's matter of taste and balance. What sounds natural for Hofmann and Paderewski often looks ridiculous in the hands of dilettantes. *Timing* is a very powerful "weapon" and should be used with great care, not to mention one should understand fully HOW to use such tool... it's impossible to teach this skill. Certain things are from God - you either have it or not! ;)
I don't necessarily agree that it's impossible to teach. You can guide a student on listen to balance and work on it for themself. There are cases where it should frankly be prescribed, to show a new phrase. I think the problem is that teachers 'ban' it if it doesn't work, when a student should be allowed develop. The way I used this sounded appalling a few years ago, but these days I can blend it in more. I think modern teaching is too quick to ban things, rather allow time for them to develop.
Teaching works only up to the certain level... Piano playing is a complex process and human abilities are limited. There are great, average and bad teachers - regardless of historic period.
Learn from a great master, have artistic environment, listen to others, practice a lot - it should make you a good musician (if talent is there). Whether such person will become a *great one*, depends on other things. Problem is not in a "modern teaching", but in modern scale of values.
I agree that it is down to modern values, but I think the problem is that these values have permeated so heavily into teaching. Teachers no longer teach all they are capable of passing on musically (sticking to showing students how to obey a score) because they feel they have to meet with certain expectations in college environments.Where are the teachers that encourage students to directly emulate the styles and gestures of the greats, before finding themself? I have simply never heard of it.
On personal level - I couldn't ever find an official teaching position all my life... ;)
My dear friend (superb pianist and musician) can't get a teaching position for more than 10 years... Our common friend (nicely looking girl 30 years ago) who's never demonstrated much talent, is a leading teacher in one of biggest European conservatories.
Life is not fair, but "history will sort it out"! ;)
Although I'm not a serious professional, the best things about my own playing came from trying to emulate effects I heard on recordings (apparently the worst sin of all?). If I always followed what teachers told me, I would never have cultivated what I feel are the most interesting things in my playing. I'm convinced that students shuld be encouraged to study the players like Horowitz and figure out how the sounds are made. Once they actually know what is available, they can find their own way.
Are you serious? I'm really surprised so many people look at recordings for ideas.. What did Richter listen to to get HIS ideas? It makes you think.. or Rachmaninoff? Cziffra? Yeah they would go occasionally to hear live performances but not to learn how to play.. I'm guilty of listening to recordings out of interest but I'm trying to limit that too, because I think it can be damaging.. That's why I don't even have that many piano recordings.
But how could it damage you? If a person does not have enough strength of will to listen to recordings without having their vision damaged, they clearly don't have a whole lot going on in terms of ideas to start with. Not listening to anything is hardly likely to improve that. Music doesn't come from the score alone and neither does it come from a vacuum. It comes from hearing other great musicians and being inspired by what you individually consider to be effective- through objective listening.
So you think Richter didn't have a whole lot going on in terms of ideas, because he didn't listen to many recordings? LISTEN to this and think, it's original. No one to steal from. His own. Of course I listen to recordings but never more than once or twice and NEVER to look for ideas. I listen to orchestral music a lot more than piano. I see what you're saying, but I hate it when people listen to recordings because they're too limited to come up with their own way. But what do I know.
Where did these come from then? Were they implied in the score? If he had NEVER heard a performance of music, would he have played as he did? It is inconceivable. Everyone learns from what they have heard. I'm not saying you should copy things without thinking though. I'm saying that if a person has strength of personality, listening to a wide-range of sounds should only serve to strengthen that players personality.
PS. I believe Richter listened to plenty of other musicians.
"I'm saying that if a person has strength of personality, listening to a wide-range of sounds should only serve to strengthen that players personality." Yes. But not seek for recordings to know how to play something.
Incidentally,I don't listen to recordings for specific ideas, but so I can get know the a musical language.I can now play a piece I have never heard performed and find my own ideas, but I had never listened to great musicians where would my style come from? Joseph Villa's Scriabin 3rd and 5th sonatas are a carbon copy of Horowitz's and marvellous playing. However, what happens when he plays the Scriabin 7th which Horowitz never recorded? Well, it's easily the finest performance I've ever heard.
Incidentally, I presume you have had a teacher? If you follow what your teacher suggests, are you being more indidividual than if you learn from a big range of the greatest performers? How curious that our teachers preach how you must never learn from recordings, if you want to be individual! Those who do not experience a wide variety of ideas are likely to be the LEAST individual players, because they learn from only one source- the single person who tells them how to play!
Of course I have a teacher. It sounds like you've never had one, otherwise why would you think that? A good teacher will not hammer their own way into you but guide you to be a good artist. And of course I don't agree with EVERYthing he says. Most great musicians have had teachers. I'm not really disagreeing with you much - yes it's important to listen to recordings and go to concerts, but there are people who listen to a record 5-6-10-12 times in a row because they have no imagination.
I don't think that's necessarily bad though. While I certainly advocate listening to orchestral music, to emulate what the orchestral sound requires many techniques. By careful analysis of Horowitz's recordings, I have managed to discern a number of his musical tricks. Now I use them with my own personality, where I consider them appropriate. Without having analysed these techniques (which no teacher taught me) I would have been denied access to a whole world of sounds.
I have had a range of teachers who taught me various things. However, none of them taught me the sound-production techniques that I got from those pianists who possess the most orchestral sound. If you think that makes me some kind of unthinking autamaton then so be it but, in my opinion, those who are brought up on the idea that listening is harmful are usually be those who have the least individual sound. Before you can sculpt your personality, you need to learn what is available to you.
Everybody listens to a wide range or recordings, of course. That's a given. But not for ideas!!!!!!!!! My teacher is in a really well known trio, and they often play contemporary music which no one has recorded before, and you know what.. they sound fantastic. I'm really lucky because I know teachers who will play something and have the student repeat it a number of times until they have it absolutely the same. That's just idiotic, and that's how many robots are created these days.
What's wrong with listening to a recording ONCE and not 5 thousand times? You must have had bad teachers if you feel none of them taught you anything important, especially about sound production which then you felt the need to explore through recordings (which isn't terrible.. at least you're not looking for interpretation). Listening TO FIND IDEAS, interpretation, is harmful. That's all I was getting at. Yes you need to learn what is available to you, but NOT copy or listen to 100s of times.
Listening repeatedly is the often only way to figure out how a performer achieves a sound. If I like a sound, why should I not spend time adding it to my repetoire of effects? I may not even use it in that particularly piece, but I will never have access to it, unless I figure out what the performer did. Considering how few pianists even use old-fashioned techniques of voicing and balancing, I think it is rather optimistic to hope any of them will teach these techniques. I had to do it myself.
BTW, if you're interested I have a film of the Godowksy arrangement of the Swan. I'm not claiming it to be a great performance, but the ideas contained within are different to in any performance I have heard. However, the old-fasioned techniques I use to project the inner lines are similar to those preached by Godowsky and I learned them by emulating old recordings in general-not the particular piece. I believe this shows how you can find fully individual ways, by learning from other performers.
Well do whatever you want, but you should be learning those kinds of things from a (good) teacher. I'm sorry you haven't found any that would help you in such ways. As long as you're not looking at how to interpret a piece by listening to it 1,000 times I think it's fine.
Modern teachers don't teach the musical sounds that interest me. There are very few modern players that even USE them. In order to learn how to make the kind of sounds that interest me, I had to find out for myself. There is a whole world of recordings that anyone who has the inclination can learn widen their vocabulary with. Of course, if their happy to depend entirely on their teacher's word for inspiration that's up to them, but does that make them 'individual'? I don't see in any way at all.
Whatever makes you happy. I agree there is a whole world of recordings which are unbelievably amazing and I do like to listen to them but never copy......... never....... And no good artist will depend ENTIRELY on their teacher's words. You can't possibly agree with everything someone says. And inspiration comes under many different forms. Again, I really think if you have a good teacher you'd understand that there is no reason to fear you won't be individual. Teachers should make you THINK.
BTW one final thing. I'm rather struck by the irony of your suggestion that I should be learning these things from a teacher, rather than finding my own way of making those sounds that appeal to me. Are you arguing for individuality or not?
You're not finding your "own" way because you're looking at recordings for it. But that's not the point. Sound production is extremely important. You should be learning these things from a teacher because if you have a problem they SHOULD be helping you to solve it, not to mention it would be MUCH quicker to sink in than looking at a hundred recordings to finally realize what's you're doing wrong. Yes I'm arguing for individuality... of interpretation and artistic expression, not technique.
Did you not read any of the comments I posted? I'm learning SOUNDS from recordings.
Have you had any teachers that have shown you how to acheive maximal projection of inner voices by using fractional delays (ie playing the left hand after the right?)? This is simply not taught these days. A player who does not know how to use this effect is like a poet with a limited vocabulary. Anyone who cares to analyse Horowitz can learn this exceedingly orchestral sound in a small amount of time.
Um. HAHAHA, sorry. Yes I have! My old teacher mentioned this to me a few times but I found it weird to be teaching something which should come natural to you............... Yeah I noticed you did that throughout the whole piece...................
Interesting. It's nice to know there are some people out there who teach these things, but I think your teacher is in an overwhelming minority. Sadly, most people can only gain access to these effects if they explore historic recordings and experiment with the effects that they can discover within.
I'm referring to musical techniques, not physical techniques. Quite honestly, if you have never listened closely to certain performances, you are probably not even aware of the existence of various techniques that were almost universal in the 1920s but which modern players have discarded. Those who want to sound different should start by expanding the options that are available to them.
Of course I have. Mostly to pieces I wasn't playing at the time. Because some of the recordings we have are really incredible... But I think I listen to them for different reasons than you do.
No, please understand what I am stressing is that recordings should be used to learn HOW to make sounds. I don't emulate performances directly. I think you'll find that my film of the Scriabin D sharp minor study is very different from Horowitz, although I could not have played it that way if I had not analysed his orchestral voicing techniques. Even the finest teacher has limits, but there is no limit to what can be learned in recordings. It can only open doors, if you already have personality.
I know that. And I'm stressing that recordings shouldn't be used to learn how to interpret something. And I entirely disagree with your last point. Why CAN'T you learn from a teacher what you learn from a recordings? You haven't met a good teacher. I have to go now, nice talking to you.
I don't say you "can't", but it's easier to learn what the effect is FOR by hearing it done to the greatest level. The sound is the goal, and must be understood before it is possible to work on it.
Anyway, the main thing is not that you "can't" learn it from a teacher. But why leave it to chance? Few music college teachers teach many of these ideas. Listen to recordings and you can DEFINITELY become familiar with what's possible (for YOURSELF- not what one person chooses to let you know!)
Just one thing, please don't get the impression I'm discounting the worth of teachers.I just hate the fact that so many people seem to regard their teacher as an omnipotent guru, rather than explore the great recordings. I was taught all the regular things by teachers myself. However, the things that make me sound different are the musical techniques that I picked up from recordings. Now I'm aware of the them, I use them where my personal musical choices suggest them to be appropriate.
As I said, you haven't found a good teacher. The sound is the goal and it must be understood before it's possible to work on it? What do you think a teacher does? Who have you even studied with? Wow. I'm really going to stop replying because I see no point. FYI there are many ways to learn. Not just copy recordings. See ya.
Don't you see my point here? You have BOTH! You dismissed the worth of learning from recordings before, but I have never dismissed the worth of teachers. Even the best teacher doesn't teach you everything. Take what you can from teachers, but don't leave it at that- especially if you want to find something within yourself. There is no 'perfect' teacher who can do everything for you. Learn as much you can from them, but why not learn just as much from some the greatest musicians who ever played!
I didn't! However, you unequivocally shut out detailed listening to great performers as being a good way to learn things! Do you not realise the irony, when you're the one telling me 'there are many ways to learn'? That's precisely what I've been suggested here! Use EVERYTHING that is available to you. Individual thought CANNOT be inspired by a single stimulus although individul decisions CAN be made by those who have explored a wide vista of musical possibilities.
Oh my god do you not read........ THAT's why I said there are many ways to learn. The ONLY thing I shut out is listening to a record five billion times until you finally think of what to do, how to phrase and how to make it sound good. YOu SHOULD NOT be learning how to play and you should NOT be getting all your ideas through a recording of the piece(s) you're playing. THAT'S ALL. I can't believe I'm still wasting my time with this.
"Listening TO FIND IDEAS, interpretation, is harmful."
Do you deny these words or something? So it's okay to use an idea if a teacher suggests it to you, but HARMFUL to acquire something from a great perfomer? You have a closed mind, if you seriously believe this. I have not excluded ANY learning methods. It doesn't matter where an idea is taken from, only whether it is performed with thought and musicianship. If an idea is good, learn from it.
Next time you go to a masterclass and hear a pianist suggest a good way of executing a particular passage, I take it that you will dismiss the concept of trying this idea because it is not your own? If not, you are simply being inconsistent when you say that to find ideas in recordings is harmful. As you say there are many methods of learning and personally I don't believe in closing my mind to ANY of those which are available to me.
Damn, I must REALLY suck at expressing what I want to say. Just answer me this: do you think it's ok to COPY what other people do from recordings? Simple question. And please tell me who you've studied with/had masterclasses with..... Just out of curiousity. It's really different when someone explains something to you and when you hear something and say "Here I'm going to do what this guy did! But here, I'm going to do what so and so did." and copy. In my opinion. What do I know, I'm a teenager.
YES! Could I have made that ANY more clear? It's fine to use a GOOD idea, regardless of whether it comes from a teacher or a recording. If an idea is GOOD then use it. The traditional argument that you must never try using ideas from great recordings (because they are not yours) is as idiotic as the idea that you should not try what a teacher suggests (because it's not 'yours' either). Those who tell students not to listen to others are simply afraid they will find a different way to their own.
Then why are you arguing here? From my very first response, I made it VERY clear that it is essential to use musical thought when learning by emulating ideas on recordings. So do you continue to exclude the idea that there are things to be learned from experimenting with different ideas for yourself (beyond your teacher's ideas) or do you not? People often, say you can't use external ideas because you 'don't understand why they did it'. What if I DO and happen to agree with it? It's harmful?
As I mentioned before, Joseph Villa is pianist who achieved a near carbon copy of Horowitz's interpretation in Scriabin's 3 and 5th sonatas. Elsewhere in the 4th (the audio is on youtube) and 7th what happens? No Horowitz to copy, does he have no ideas of his own? NO!!!! He has LOADS of ideas!!! He played ANYTHING superbly, something that owes greatly to the fact that he clearly analysed the techniques by which other greats were able to exploit the piano's musical limits!
So you haven't had a teacher before, of course you're going to think it's ok to copy recordings. I think THAT's idioic. Interpretation is something personal, which GOOD teachers barely even touch on. My teacher doesn't tell me how EVERY note is supposed to sound. It's something unique to the performer. A teacher gives you DIRECTIONS on how to make it sound good, but YOU make it happen. A recording dictates you HOW it's supposed to sound EXACTLY and leaves no explanation..
I'm sure, yes, you could apply the knowledge to other works and go ahead, but why steal someone's interpretation? I woud never ever ever copy what someone else does, and again a teacher SHOULD NOT do that either. He should only guide you to understand the work better and help you sound good (NOT dictate everything) and eventually be able to do things entirely on your own.
Don't get me wrong. Yes listening to recordings is important (any kind of recordings), but I know too many people who can't play a piece before they hear it 100 times. I pesonally think that's not right. I'm sure Villa's 4th and 7h sonatas are great, but I don't see why he had to copy Horowitz's (I have to hear that still, I can't judge).
So LISTEN to the 4th sonata on youtube. If you can honestly tell me that you feel that performance could have occured without his intimate knowledge of the Horowitz style, you have to be kidding. His explosive climax demonstrates how well he knew Horowitz's techniques. Equally, if you going to say the performance is 'invalid' because it depends on Horowitz techniques, you are clearly more interested in principles than in music results.
What? Have you been paying any attention? As I said I HAVE had teachers. However, to learn from them alone is NOT more individual than to learn from EVERY source available to you. I didn't learn MY approach from them. I'm a teacher MYSELF and I encourage students to plenty of listening. The last thing I want is students who just do everything I say without thinking. However, personality does not come from nowhere. It comes from being familiar with just how many different approaches there are.
"However, to learn from them alone is NOT more individual than to learn from EVERY source available to you." Yes! Learn from, NOT copy. I don't even know if we should be arguing. And I'm 100% sure you don't tell your students to look for a recording and play everything the same way.
I disagree. Sometimes it quite valid to copy- in order to LEARN. Only those with weak convictions will be negatively affected by this process. If you refuse to acknowledge this as part of a learning process then you are seriously limiting your musical opportunities. I am often extremely happy to attempt to get students to emulate effects on good performances. They can learn far more than from emulating me alone, or supposedly figuring out their 'own' way.
Ok. Good luck with your career. You don't know how I play, so why are you quick to judge I have limited musical opportunities? You said yourself if the result is good, nothing else should matter.. right? Good luck!
I love svjatoslav richter very very much, but comparing to sofronitzky and horowitz he was playing this piece like a russian tank.
klausknulp 1 month ago
i love gilels
PIANO101528 3 months ago
@PIANO101528 me too!
klausknulp 1 month ago
I don't think comparing Richter and Horowitz's version is possible, simply because I think both pianists are incomparable to one another. Their overall approaches and goals were completely different.
Horowitz was all about imagination & reinvention. He was an artist who liked to *interpret* the music his own way.
Richter's absolute aim is always to try and convey what other people (composers) thought. He could read scores very well.
th3wing3dpaint3r 5 months ago
Listening to Scriabins personal recordings. I find his technique and speed separated from a romantic point of view. Scriabin was terror and fear and an odd moldy sorta beauty. beautiful fragrance and perfume like but pieces such as this in mind I would imagine Richter is sorta playing the way Scriabin would have played it. Kinda, but not exactly.
ChrisWatch 7 months ago
Hello,
Wow ! It's the first time I listen this piece played by Richter, and I definately love it very much. Perhaps even better than Horowitz's. Listening to this, I feel like something burning and extinguishing slowly at the end, not without a fight. Even if its not some of the late Scriabin work, we can hear what it will become, a genius with a tortured soul, a visionnaire. Difficult to explain as english is not my native language. In one word : Fabulous !
W.
wilou62 7 months ago
E' incredibile come Richter riesce a liberare una potenza sonora così limpida, omogenea e stabile, nei punti più pericolosi di questo Studio ! Ho notato le stesse doti eccezionali anche nel meraviglioso Concerto op. 33 per pianoforte e orchestra di Antonin Dvorak. Anche in quella esecuzione ... sembra il Mago Merlino che sposta i pianeti da una parte all'altra dell'Universo !!!!!!!!!
darkblueangel1956 8 months ago
"Affanato" (breathless) indeed!
Richter, Horowitz and Sofronitsky are the summit of Scriabin pianism.
ggn1234 8 months ago
Oh, Richter. Of course he'd play this in only two and a half minutes... :P
cbuhlayza 10 months ago
I vastly prefer Richter's interpretation to Horowitz's. Horowitz plays each note separately and, because of that, loses the rise and fall and the momentum of each phrase. Richter's plays it as a sea of notes. He connects them all in beautiful phrases. It's not about each individual note being plucked out perfectly; it's about flow.
LevMysh68 10 months ago
Sorry, no question Richter is a great pianist, but I always feel bored w/ his playing, so much banging and unimaginative readings. Many other artists "do" great things with the score. Horowitz reveals all the drama and power this Scriabin contains without the hysteria....I never hear that "ah, this makes sense" although I did like his live recording of the Beethoven OP57
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I find this messy and punchy playing I don't care if its your holy relic "Richter" this is ugly
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
@Bruce88keys
Something wrong with your perception if THIS is "messy, punchy and ugly". As a "personal opinion" you can say whatever you wish, but it doesn't make any sense.
truecrypt 11 months ago 7
@Bruce88keys
Have you ever heard Richter's 1972 version? Please do.
Lot of performances back in time, were poor recordings. Technology was yet in diapers.
andibonnington 11 months ago
@Bruce88keys I absolutely adore Richer, but I have to agree this is just a terrible "interpretation". This etude needs to hit like a static storm, not just one almost continuous stream of notes. Maybe it's just the sound quality but it feels "empty."
jiggareactmilitant 10 months ago
@jiggareactmilitant This piece has more notes than God-and a pitfall many great artists fall into is making the listener aware of that fact. Horowitz is the only performance that communicates the intensity and rich writing with grace and clarity. I love the way he suddenly finds "light" in the redemptive melody is surrounded by Russian darkness. This etude is the combination of intracacy and passion-
Bruce88keys 10 months ago
@jiggareactmilitant This piece has more notes than God-and a pitfall many great artists fall into is making the listener aware of that fact. Horowitz is the only performance that communicates the intensity and rich writing with grace and clarity. I love the way he suddenly finds "light" in the redemptive melody that is surrounded by Russian pathos. This etude is the combination of intracacy and passion-
Bruce88keys 10 months ago
Although Horowitz interpretation has this charming and romantic touch, one of the best renditions I've ever heard, I don't know if he would be capable of playing it alive like Richter`s did, leaving there all, pure heart, fire burning inside which on the other hand is another way to express a romantic and extremely high difficult this piece is.
andibonnington 1 year ago
Kissin? Are you nuts? What a BABY!!!
cctunes 1 year ago
this is terrible, maybe he was trying to play it differently because i have another recording of richter playing this and it's great; the same tempo minus the mistakes... before he sat down at the piano for this one he had a couple of drinks maybe?
ibclappin 1 year ago
For this piece I prefer Horowitz too, but I think Richter is still great. Differences in recording quality should also be taken into account when comparing recordings. There are many Richter recordings that suffer from bad recording quality, of which I am sure they would sound absolutely marvelous if they had been recorded in good quality. Also, there is a better recording of this piece from Richter on YT from 1972.
tweriovnzxclb 1 year ago
Amazing performance---
I am reading the comments regarding comparisons of Richter and Horowitz, and honestly I am of the opinion that Horowitz's rendition of this etude is also quite true to the score... he did have a tremendous personality and individuality that came out in his playing (as did Richter of course) but his approach to reading the score was just as serious as any "true to the score" musician-- his choices, extreme as they may sometime appear, are derived from the music.
ericclark2 1 year ago
@ericclark2 I agree - Horowitz really paid attention to the score and you are right when assessing the force of his personality behind that incredible sound- I've listened to Richter a good deal over the years and frankly I am never moved- I know the press he got was astounding in the 60's when he came here and "you" were supposed to be hearing this force of nature from Russia but I think he's boring if not a piano pounder. just saying.
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
Thank you, truecrypt. This thrilling record is a perfect example of Richter’s heroism. Those were great golden times. Thanks for educating modern music lovers.
ConcertoArt 1 year ago 2
How could I have forgetten Scriabin? He's underplayed and barely qppears
in recorded piano collections. Excellent rendition - please post more.
beatlebonzo 1 year ago
The ship is being buffeted by the waves.
lewars1912 1 year ago
Richter has got a big head. Well, great intellect really does equal a defined shaped head!
Great piece
jasonextreme 1 year ago
"memento mori " this etude.
bratupir 2 years ago
horowitz surely rules this piece...
vincentlam1984 2 years ago
Horowitz and Richter play very differently. You can't really compare, but I like Richter 's recording just as much. It's equally brilliant, although in a different way.
IgorTheClown 1 year ago
what stupid comments-i prefer richter/horowitz etc how are you plebian people to compare these different interpretations from the greatest they played how THEY wished not how YOU personally want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
afertyus1000 2 years ago
and? can't people have a preference? how exactly does that make one plebeian?
flammesombres 2 years ago
yes they can but 99% have'nt a clue what they are talking about, each recording has diff acoustics/also the same performer may play it better/worse/differently the following week/hour/minute day etc etc so comparison between pianists is not just a simple matter of putting a sentence on YT
afertyus1000 2 years ago
aferyus, you don't understand much. You are just a mind#$%@&^
gzaenker 1 year ago
gzaenker don't involve yourself with subjects that are above your comprehension
afertyus1000 1 year ago
Great work, but i prefer Horowitz (:
4785689 2 years ago
Superb!!
koliatima 2 years ago
I prefer the version of the moldavian pianist Alexander Paley who has recorde all the 26 studies on NAXOS, he make's this studie incredible, it's the best version i ever heard, rapid, furious, emotional, and completely magicall!
TheLanilsson 2 years ago
@TheLanilsson are you him by chance? Enough with plugging yourself all over! Nobody gives a damn.
Amneris3 2 years ago
lol
afertyus1000 2 years ago
@Amneris3 Haha, seriously. that NAXOS buisness is some awful stuff.
mahler151 2 years ago
Horowitz's crisp clear almost classical approach to this piece is unparalleled. While I admire Richter, he is outflanked by Horowitz--if not simply that you can hear every note in Vladimir's interpretation.
downtoearthwildguy 2 years ago
yes maybe true but this is a bad recording so it's difficult to compare
afertyus1000 2 years ago
a great performance by richter as always but i prefer horowitz in this one. he just made me feel more
stefthe80 2 years ago 2
Mmm...Scriabin!
Richter is the best pianist!
AnnMarry19 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richter was rarely kind to other pianists Vladimirviardo and Sofronitsky do better than most. .Monsai...book tells us a lot.Nothing insightful or interesting to say about Hofmann or Annie Fischer .
lovesGenet 2 years ago
Very strange comment...
What Richter's "kindness to other pianists" has to do with Scriabin performance? Viardo and Sofronitsky belong to different "categories". Sofronitsky's Scriabin is unsurpassed... "Monsai... book" is not about Hofmann or Fisher - obviously you're a little confused about the subject.
truecrypt 2 years ago 6
TRUE to music was always his objective.
Superb.
bratupir 2 years ago 2
Horowitz's version is more romantic... but Richter's contains more fire and insanity, which I think is truer to Scriabin's original intentions.
BrackenClelk 2 years ago 21
that is one hell of a good comment! agree!
DonFrankos 2 years ago
I think I've listened to every version of this and Richter takes the cake because as always he captures the entirety of the piece so it all ties together. I like horowitz and loredo but they don't make sense of it like this.
alkibiades00 2 years ago
Did you listen to Sergio Fiorentino....for me its one of the greatest versions, besides Richter and Horowitz....
Schibol 2 years ago
David, Horowitz also liked Sofronitsky.
superstition222 2 years ago
Thanks for posting all these great recording, Truecrypt!
IgorTheClown 2 years ago
I find Horowitz's too dry for my taste. I prefer this version
kingjonnyvii 2 years ago
i agree.
predoje 2 years ago
Richter's is an implacable raging rampage of astounding velocity, but I think that in this case, Horowitz' is more nuanced....romatic even
sagalat 2 years ago
richter is good!!!!
lecheparavaka 2 years ago
One wonders what Richter and Horowitz thought of each other's playing. Could there be 2 more different approaches to this piece? Richter is direct and true to the score, but always musical. (Pianists will smile that he misses the troubling high G sharp in the repetition of 2nd theme). Horowitz is all imagination and individual personality. Both are masterful! Vive la difference!!
camaysar222 2 years ago 20
Well, technically the g sharp is in the 3rd measure of the first statement of the 2nd theme.
camaysar222 2 years ago
Well I know that Horowitz said that out of the russian pianists, he only liked richter. I don't imagine Richter paid the same compliments.
davidgray2 2 years ago
No sir. Richter only had derogatory things to say about Horowitz. They did meet in New York, though, and apparently got along quite amicably.
weikko79 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no the best interpretation is evgeny kissin
ancatiberian 2 years ago
I assume you express your *personal* opinion...
Otherwise it sounds like a diagnosis.
Kissin is an outstanding pianist - may be you should outline why do you consider Kissin's performance the best.
truecrypt 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Theonedue 1 year ago
I'm agree with trevjr: the best interpretation I heard of this etude is Horowitz one. His pinkie (the melody of this etude is 99% pinkie dependent) was absolutely magician. No equals.
ciayko 3 years ago 3
ahemm...'magical' of course ;)
ciayko 3 years ago
Sorry, I cann't imagine how you have conclusion about Horowitz as "best" interpretation, but I cann't agree more about your observation about Horowitz's pinkie in that performance. It is like sharp sword. Sorry, wrong English and childlike coobservation.
himitsunosallychan 3 years ago
I have been listening to every version and no one comes close to Horowitz. Richter is below Kissin in my opinion, but Vlad is a master.yeah the out of tune piano. I want to like Richter, but he just rushes too much for me, Horowitz has much more control and is more musical.
trevjr 3 years ago
Have you listened to Ulugbek Palvanovs version? It's splendid. I also like Horowitz's ver ymuch.
Tompelicious 3 years ago
Yes I did, I'm sorry I didn't like it that much. This etude requires brilliance and that does not mean speed. Richter plays through too much for me. I love the way that Horowitz can just stop on a dime and suspend the phrase. The melody is always singing, other pianists seem to struggle with this etude, Horowitz masters it. Just one opinion.
trevjr 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, Horowitz sucks. Richter and Sofronitsky are the best IMHO.
weikko79 3 years ago
Saying the Horowitz sucks destroys the whole "humble" side of your pathetic acronym.
IgorTheClown 2 years ago 5
In my case, "H" doesn't stand for "humble", but for "honest":
weikko79 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lemonizm 2 years ago
Try Ruth Laredo.
NateRushing 3 years ago
handlebars
J3r3meee 3 years ago
brlliant :)
ingute1992 3 years ago
I want to cry listening to his plays.. Godlike musicality! Really.. D:
Minoru73 3 years ago 2
damn good such suffering. such misery. he captured that wondrful quality of scriabin to sound like he is in a trance.
teoakinyel 3 years ago 5
Thanks,
is is a live recording? (and if so, from when?
-----------------------------
Rolf, Netherlands.
I am a collector of classical 78's and lp's
Click "otterhouse" above to see (and hear!)
some of my collection.
(Gioconda de Vito, Berl Senofsky, Vlado Perlemuter,
Carl Schuricht, Gina Bachauer etc)
otterhouse 3 years ago
It's a live recording. Moscow, 1952.
truecrypt 3 years ago
omg
goobleglob 3 years ago 4
Very good, but I think the best version of this piece is Kissins (not the early one but the one that was published with the Harenberg Collection).
10151080w 3 years ago
vamos como si fuera una lección de solfeo totalmente. Ni una sola respiración...
anferlo 3 years ago
I prefer the other recording anyway (I don't know if there are more), because it's a tad slower and has better dynamics. Nevertheless this is very good, of course.
singsinsing 3 years ago
AH - Richter !!!
Superb [almost as good as Horowitz - I really do think that Horowitz has got the best understanding of this piece, and the other Scriabin Etudes]
cenodus 3 years ago 4
cenodus - I agree with you, if you mean the 1953 Horowitz recording, which is unrivaled in its grandeur in my view. In the recording from 1972, on the other hand, I find that Horowitz is a bit mannered, too enamored of detail, too in love with his own intelligence. Richter, on the other hand, takes the eagle's eye view (just as Neuhaus wrote) and and puts the piece before us in perfect architectural clarity.
Mortimer123 3 years ago 2
Thank you.
pjioayncoe 3 years ago
Was he a mystic at that time?
pjioayncoe 3 years ago
It's hard to define "mystic" period clearly, but probably it's after 1907.
I'm not sure if his letters were translated and published in English, but it's very interesting reading. Seems like Amazon has several books on this subject - search there for "Scriabin, Aleksandr Nikolayevich"
truecrypt 3 years ago
My favorite Scriabin's piece.Truely affanato...When did he write this?
pjioayncoe 3 years ago
Op. 42 was created around 1903.
truecrypt 3 years ago
1903, I think.
jmsofia 3 years ago
Unquestionably HUGE, if speedy muddy, performance. I prefer Horowitz' more nuanced lyricism and attention to detail, e.g. syncopation at 1:50
sagalat 3 years ago
Echt!!!Nekaya bezotkaznost' texniki, uverenno-tochnoye masterstvo bez kotoroy bol'shaya estrada nemislima.Tak tol'ko mojet Maestro...
Truecrypt, ya tebe blagodarna...
nairigrigorian 3 years ago
I was trying to reply to cziffra1980 comment and removed it (instead of replying) - sorry! here is the comment:
Much as I admire the voicing in the opening, I don't like this performance. He plays the lyrical theme as though it is some kind of metrical dance. Why does nobody other than Horowitz pay any attention to the phrase marks? I don't think 'affanato' (or breathless) means the same as 'without taking any breaths'.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I don't understand why nobody other than Horowitz seems to be capable of a real vocal line (in one of the most beatiful melodies ever written). Even Sofronitsky was a total disappointment.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Here is my (truecrypt) reply:
I think there are several reasons for difference...
1. Richter's tempo is much faster - btw I think "breathless" is not exactly the definition, rather "short of breath"... The second theme is not as detailed as Horowitz's simply because it wouldn't fit this speed.
2. Horowitz does it beautifully, but "pays" for it by slowing quite a bit.
3. It was just a regular performance for Richter on the ordinary instrument, - Horowitz always played "specially prepared" piano.
truecrypt 3 years ago
In no way I wish to demean Horowitz's performance - it's outstanding, - but the same time I find Richter and Sofronitsky very much in spirit of this piece.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I think Richter is far better in the opening to be honest, (horowitz's crisp, almost pedal-free effect is interesting but not exactly pp). However, I think it's the lyrical melody that makes this study stand out musically. When I've worked on this, I always find I spend hardly any time on the first two pages and mostly play the rest of the study (which led to pretty poor results- considering the opening is the hardest bit). I've never heard a performance that makes it sing like Horowitz.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
I don't see slowing down as 'paying' in any sense. Personally I think it suffers greatly when treated strictly. All the accents in this Richter's execution of the melody destroy the sense of cantabile, giving a series of lumps rather than a floating line. Surely the more lyrical section implies a new character? I don't understand why every pianist (except Horowitz) insists on being so relentless with one the Scriabin's most vocal melodies.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
I understand what you mean...
I also think it's part of Russian tradition to concentrate on the "long line" and never sacrifice it for the beauty of details. Horowitz's outstanding expressiveness does glow through each note, but the "flying feeling" is muted. As for Richter's "lumps" - don't forget he played it in a live concert and what sounds as "lumps" in recording, might well be heard as a "floating line" to an audience.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I don't know. Rachmaninoff had a similar way with melodies. I imagine he would have played this at a very quick tempo, but he would never have plowed straight-through the lyrical melody as Richter does, without giving the melody notes time to 'speak'. Personally I'm convinced that the earlier Russian traditions were very different from the Richter approach (that is typical of modern Russian performers).
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Rachmaninoff always underlined the importance of the long line and never allowed "sweet details" to stay on the way of the main point. His favorite joke was:- "oh... these young pianists... they love to show secondary voices so much" (sorry - poor translation). Somehow I think Rachmaninoff's interpretation would be very fast, light and "long-phrased". Russian piano traditions are not different from Richter's approach. As for "typical modern Russian performers" - I'm not sure what do you mean...
truecrypt 3 years ago
I totally disagree with that, personally. Listen to the way Rachmaninoff milks the 2nd subject in the 2nd concerto, just before the cellos enter. NOBODY has stretched the time so close to breaking point (and that's within from a very moving tempo). Rachmaninoff liked flowing tempos, but he never sacrificied melodic projection or detail for the sake of relentlessly incessant onward movement. He stretched things out as much as anyone and never missed the vocal 'difficulty' of a wide interval etc.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
I probably could bring some contrarian examples showing the dominance of "long line" or "dictatorship of the rhythm" in Rachmaninoff's playing, but everything depends on concrete case.
truecrypt 3 years ago
There may be well be a number cases certainly, but I think Rachmaninoff's playing is often misrepresented by modern descriptions (that try to sweep the extreme rubatos under the carpet). People always talk about how straight many passages were, but nobody seems to want to focus on the many instances when he pulls a phrase to the verge of breaking point (there are some extreme cases in the third concerto 2nd subject too). It's a pity that modern Russians never display such freedom.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
It's a big problem with "freedom"... Everybody wonders why modern young (not only Russian) pianists can't play like that...
Very often we have extremes - either technique obsessed champions or "heavens" seeking dilettantes. Still there are many "modern Russians" who demonstrate quite outstanding playing. Bashkirov, Virsaladze, Zhukov, Pletnev, Demidenko, Igolinsky, Sokolov, Alexeev, Volodos, Kobrin and many more. No need to have a pity upon them ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
Demidenko? Can't say I've heard much in the way of freedom from him. I see him as the classic Richter clone, personally. I'm fan of Volodos and Pletnev (and I respect Sokolov) but I get a very strong impression that a majority of modern Russians are in the Richter vein. I agree with you on extremes. It seems that it's usually either big (empty) techniques, or pretty, musical playing that just doesn't have much range or dramatic scope to it. I haven't heard Kobrin yet, so I'll take a look out.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
You shouldn't look at these musicians as at giants as Rachmaninoff and Hofmann... Let them grow and (God forgive me) die, - in 50 - 70 years they will become "really great".
truecrypt 3 years ago
Well, maybe, but I'm not holding my breath personally. Horowitz already had that sound in the 30s, when he under 30. I can't think of many people (except maybe Gilels, judging from some of the earlier recordings) who started out sounding normal and grew to have a really special sound. Once you've closed the door on a talent (by teaching them that musical art comes solely from obeying the orders of the score) I don't think there's any reason why it will open in years to come.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Unfortunately I don't see too many young talents who'd become great performers by neglecting score, good teachers and long practicing. You probably see music education as something limiting creativity of young talent... May be it's true for some conservatories , but my experience was different.
BTW I like 50 y.o. Horowotz more than 30 y.o. ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
You misunderstand me a little. I don't mean pianists should be slack about following the score (although I would prefer to hear an interesting performance that disobeys the score than a boring one that follows it perfectly). It's just the great playing never came from the score alone. It comes from being fluent in a musical language. There are as many talents as ever but few interesting players now. I'm convinced that modern teaching is restricting them rather than opening up possibilities.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Good teachers don't restrict great ideas, but insist on ability to *implement* any idea. What you are referring is not a teaching, but "coaching" (or preparation to competition). There is a proverb in Russian - "many called upon but a few chosen...". There are plenty of talents but very few truly great performers. Since you play (and pretty well) yourself, you understand what I'm talking about.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I agree that's what teaching should be, but I'm not sure it's very as its effective anymore. With so many remarkable talents today (surely even more than ever before?) why are no distinctive voices emerging? It has to be the modern culture of teaching. I don't want to sound like Smithsherman, but even the most liberal teachers are quick to ban things like the hands being out of sync. Even if they preach musical ideas, they are preventing their realisation by restricting the tools available.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Back to my teacher's sayings - "two things are important - imagination and taste..."
Down to the problem of playing hands apart - it's matter of taste and balance. What sounds natural for Hofmann and Paderewski often looks ridiculous in the hands of dilettantes. *Timing* is a very powerful "weapon" and should be used with great care, not to mention one should understand fully HOW to use such tool... it's impossible to teach this skill. Certain things are from God - you either have it or not! ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
I don't necessarily agree that it's impossible to teach. You can guide a student on listen to balance and work on it for themself. There are cases where it should frankly be prescribed, to show a new phrase. I think the problem is that teachers 'ban' it if it doesn't work, when a student should be allowed develop. The way I used this sounded appalling a few years ago, but these days I can blend it in more. I think modern teaching is too quick to ban things, rather allow time for them to develop.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Teaching works only up to the certain level... Piano playing is a complex process and human abilities are limited. There are great, average and bad teachers - regardless of historic period.
Learn from a great master, have artistic environment, listen to others, practice a lot - it should make you a good musician (if talent is there). Whether such person will become a *great one*, depends on other things. Problem is not in a "modern teaching", but in modern scale of values.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I agree that it is down to modern values, but I think the problem is that these values have permeated so heavily into teaching. Teachers no longer teach all they are capable of passing on musically (sticking to showing students how to obey a score) because they feel they have to meet with certain expectations in college environments.Where are the teachers that encourage students to directly emulate the styles and gestures of the greats, before finding themself? I have simply never heard of it.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
On personal level - I couldn't ever find an official teaching position all my life... ;)
My dear friend (superb pianist and musician) can't get a teaching position for more than 10 years... Our common friend (nicely looking girl 30 years ago) who's never demonstrated much talent, is a leading teacher in one of biggest European conservatories.
Life is not fair, but "history will sort it out"! ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
Although I'm not a serious professional, the best things about my own playing came from trying to emulate effects I heard on recordings (apparently the worst sin of all?). If I always followed what teachers told me, I would never have cultivated what I feel are the most interesting things in my playing. I'm convinced that students shuld be encouraged to study the players like Horowitz and figure out how the sounds are made. Once they actually know what is available, they can find their own way.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Absolutely nothing wrong with emulating great performances!!! It's the first and important step for almost every good student.
Another question is "how far" and "what for"?
Actually, a bit of ignorance is good for performer - it's easy to get lost between Hoffman, Horowitz, Gould, Richter... ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
Are you serious? I'm really surprised so many people look at recordings for ideas.. What did Richter listen to to get HIS ideas? It makes you think.. or Rachmaninoff? Cziffra? Yeah they would go occasionally to hear live performances but not to learn how to play.. I'm guilty of listening to recordings out of interest but I'm trying to limit that too, because I think it can be damaging.. That's why I don't even have that many piano recordings.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
But how could it damage you? If a person does not have enough strength of will to listen to recordings without having their vision damaged, they clearly don't have a whole lot going on in terms of ideas to start with. Not listening to anything is hardly likely to improve that. Music doesn't come from the score alone and neither does it come from a vacuum. It comes from hearing other great musicians and being inspired by what you individually consider to be effective- through objective listening.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
So you think Richter didn't have a whole lot going on in terms of ideas, because he didn't listen to many recordings? LISTEN to this and think, it's original. No one to steal from. His own. Of course I listen to recordings but never more than once or twice and NEVER to look for ideas. I listen to orchestral music a lot more than piano. I see what you're saying, but I hate it when people listen to recordings because they're too limited to come up with their own way. But what do I know.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Where did these come from then? Were they implied in the score? If he had NEVER heard a performance of music, would he have played as he did? It is inconceivable. Everyone learns from what they have heard. I'm not saying you should copy things without thinking though. I'm saying that if a person has strength of personality, listening to a wide-range of sounds should only serve to strengthen that players personality.
PS. I believe Richter listened to plenty of other musicians.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
"I'm saying that if a person has strength of personality, listening to a wide-range of sounds should only serve to strengthen that players personality." Yes. But not seek for recordings to know how to play something.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Incidentally,I don't listen to recordings for specific ideas, but so I can get know the a musical language.I can now play a piece I have never heard performed and find my own ideas, but I had never listened to great musicians where would my style come from? Joseph Villa's Scriabin 3rd and 5th sonatas are a carbon copy of Horowitz's and marvellous playing. However, what happens when he plays the Scriabin 7th which Horowitz never recorded? Well, it's easily the finest performance I've ever heard.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Incidentally, I presume you have had a teacher? If you follow what your teacher suggests, are you being more indidividual than if you learn from a big range of the greatest performers? How curious that our teachers preach how you must never learn from recordings, if you want to be individual! Those who do not experience a wide variety of ideas are likely to be the LEAST individual players, because they learn from only one source- the single person who tells them how to play!
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Of course I have a teacher. It sounds like you've never had one, otherwise why would you think that? A good teacher will not hammer their own way into you but guide you to be a good artist. And of course I don't agree with EVERYthing he says. Most great musicians have had teachers. I'm not really disagreeing with you much - yes it's important to listen to recordings and go to concerts, but there are people who listen to a record 5-6-10-12 times in a row because they have no imagination.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I don't think that's necessarily bad though. While I certainly advocate listening to orchestral music, to emulate what the orchestral sound requires many techniques. By careful analysis of Horowitz's recordings, I have managed to discern a number of his musical tricks. Now I use them with my own personality, where I consider them appropriate. Without having analysed these techniques (which no teacher taught me) I would have been denied access to a whole world of sounds.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Um, good luck. Find a teacher.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I have had a range of teachers who taught me various things. However, none of them taught me the sound-production techniques that I got from those pianists who possess the most orchestral sound. If you think that makes me some kind of unthinking autamaton then so be it but, in my opinion, those who are brought up on the idea that listening is harmful are usually be those who have the least individual sound. Before you can sculpt your personality, you need to learn what is available to you.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Everybody listens to a wide range or recordings, of course. That's a given. But not for ideas!!!!!!!!! My teacher is in a really well known trio, and they often play contemporary music which no one has recorded before, and you know what.. they sound fantastic. I'm really lucky because I know teachers who will play something and have the student repeat it a number of times until they have it absolutely the same. That's just idiotic, and that's how many robots are created these days.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
What's wrong with listening to a recording ONCE and not 5 thousand times? You must have had bad teachers if you feel none of them taught you anything important, especially about sound production which then you felt the need to explore through recordings (which isn't terrible.. at least you're not looking for interpretation). Listening TO FIND IDEAS, interpretation, is harmful. That's all I was getting at. Yes you need to learn what is available to you, but NOT copy or listen to 100s of times.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Listening repeatedly is the often only way to figure out how a performer achieves a sound. If I like a sound, why should I not spend time adding it to my repetoire of effects? I may not even use it in that particularly piece, but I will never have access to it, unless I figure out what the performer did. Considering how few pianists even use old-fashioned techniques of voicing and balancing, I think it is rather optimistic to hope any of them will teach these techniques. I had to do it myself.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
BTW, if you're interested I have a film of the Godowksy arrangement of the Swan. I'm not claiming it to be a great performance, but the ideas contained within are different to in any performance I have heard. However, the old-fasioned techniques I use to project the inner lines are similar to those preached by Godowsky and I learned them by emulating old recordings in general-not the particular piece. I believe this shows how you can find fully individual ways, by learning from other performers.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Well do whatever you want, but you should be learning those kinds of things from a (good) teacher. I'm sorry you haven't found any that would help you in such ways. As long as you're not looking at how to interpret a piece by listening to it 1,000 times I think it's fine.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Modern teachers don't teach the musical sounds that interest me. There are very few modern players that even USE them. In order to learn how to make the kind of sounds that interest me, I had to find out for myself. There is a whole world of recordings that anyone who has the inclination can learn widen their vocabulary with. Of course, if their happy to depend entirely on their teacher's word for inspiration that's up to them, but does that make them 'individual'? I don't see in any way at all.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Whatever makes you happy. I agree there is a whole world of recordings which are unbelievably amazing and I do like to listen to them but never copy......... never....... And no good artist will depend ENTIRELY on their teacher's words. You can't possibly agree with everything someone says. And inspiration comes under many different forms. Again, I really think if you have a good teacher you'd understand that there is no reason to fear you won't be individual. Teachers should make you THINK.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
BTW one final thing. I'm rather struck by the irony of your suggestion that I should be learning these things from a teacher, rather than finding my own way of making those sounds that appeal to me. Are you arguing for individuality or not?
cziffra1980 3 years ago
You're not finding your "own" way because you're looking at recordings for it. But that's not the point. Sound production is extremely important. You should be learning these things from a teacher because if you have a problem they SHOULD be helping you to solve it, not to mention it would be MUCH quicker to sink in than looking at a hundred recordings to finally realize what's you're doing wrong. Yes I'm arguing for individuality... of interpretation and artistic expression, not technique.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Did you not read any of the comments I posted? I'm learning SOUNDS from recordings.
Have you had any teachers that have shown you how to acheive maximal projection of inner voices by using fractional delays (ie playing the left hand after the right?)? This is simply not taught these days. A player who does not know how to use this effect is like a poet with a limited vocabulary. Anyone who cares to analyse Horowitz can learn this exceedingly orchestral sound in a small amount of time.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Um. HAHAHA, sorry. Yes I have! My old teacher mentioned this to me a few times but I found it weird to be teaching something which should come natural to you............... Yeah I noticed you did that throughout the whole piece...................
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Interesting. It's nice to know there are some people out there who teach these things, but I think your teacher is in an overwhelming minority. Sadly, most people can only gain access to these effects if they explore historic recordings and experiment with the effects that they can discover within.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
I'm referring to musical techniques, not physical techniques. Quite honestly, if you have never listened closely to certain performances, you are probably not even aware of the existence of various techniques that were almost universal in the 1920s but which modern players have discarded. Those who want to sound different should start by expanding the options that are available to them.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Of course I have. Mostly to pieces I wasn't playing at the time. Because some of the recordings we have are really incredible... But I think I listen to them for different reasons than you do.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
No, please understand what I am stressing is that recordings should be used to learn HOW to make sounds. I don't emulate performances directly. I think you'll find that my film of the Scriabin D sharp minor study is very different from Horowitz, although I could not have played it that way if I had not analysed his orchestral voicing techniques. Even the finest teacher has limits, but there is no limit to what can be learned in recordings. It can only open doors, if you already have personality.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
I know that. And I'm stressing that recordings shouldn't be used to learn how to interpret something. And I entirely disagree with your last point. Why CAN'T you learn from a teacher what you learn from a recordings? You haven't met a good teacher. I have to go now, nice talking to you.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I don't say you "can't", but it's easier to learn what the effect is FOR by hearing it done to the greatest level. The sound is the goal, and must be understood before it is possible to work on it.
Anyway, the main thing is not that you "can't" learn it from a teacher. But why leave it to chance? Few music college teachers teach many of these ideas. Listen to recordings and you can DEFINITELY become familiar with what's possible (for YOURSELF- not what one person chooses to let you know!)
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Just one thing, please don't get the impression I'm discounting the worth of teachers.I just hate the fact that so many people seem to regard their teacher as an omnipotent guru, rather than explore the great recordings. I was taught all the regular things by teachers myself. However, the things that make me sound different are the musical techniques that I picked up from recordings. Now I'm aware of the them, I use them where my personal musical choices suggest them to be appropriate.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
As I said, you haven't found a good teacher. The sound is the goal and it must be understood before it's possible to work on it? What do you think a teacher does? Who have you even studied with? Wow. I'm really going to stop replying because I see no point. FYI there are many ways to learn. Not just copy recordings. See ya.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Don't you see my point here? You have BOTH! You dismissed the worth of learning from recordings before, but I have never dismissed the worth of teachers. Even the best teacher doesn't teach you everything. Take what you can from teachers, but don't leave it at that- especially if you want to find something within yourself. There is no 'perfect' teacher who can do everything for you. Learn as much you can from them, but why not learn just as much from some the greatest musicians who ever played!
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Ok. Just don't shut out teachers.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I didn't! However, you unequivocally shut out detailed listening to great performers as being a good way to learn things! Do you not realise the irony, when you're the one telling me 'there are many ways to learn'? That's precisely what I've been suggested here! Use EVERYTHING that is available to you. Individual thought CANNOT be inspired by a single stimulus although individul decisions CAN be made by those who have explored a wide vista of musical possibilities.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Oh my god do you not read........ THAT's why I said there are many ways to learn. The ONLY thing I shut out is listening to a record five billion times until you finally think of what to do, how to phrase and how to make it sound good. YOu SHOULD NOT be learning how to play and you should NOT be getting all your ideas through a recording of the piece(s) you're playing. THAT'S ALL. I can't believe I'm still wasting my time with this.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Of course, you never said this then?
"Listening TO FIND IDEAS, interpretation, is harmful."
Do you deny these words or something? So it's okay to use an idea if a teacher suggests it to you, but HARMFUL to acquire something from a great perfomer? You have a closed mind, if you seriously believe this. I have not excluded ANY learning methods. It doesn't matter where an idea is taken from, only whether it is performed with thought and musicianship. If an idea is good, learn from it.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Next time you go to a masterclass and hear a pianist suggest a good way of executing a particular passage, I take it that you will dismiss the concept of trying this idea because it is not your own? If not, you are simply being inconsistent when you say that to find ideas in recordings is harmful. As you say there are many methods of learning and personally I don't believe in closing my mind to ANY of those which are available to me.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Damn, I must REALLY suck at expressing what I want to say. Just answer me this: do you think it's ok to COPY what other people do from recordings? Simple question. And please tell me who you've studied with/had masterclasses with..... Just out of curiousity. It's really different when someone explains something to you and when you hear something and say "Here I'm going to do what this guy did! But here, I'm going to do what so and so did." and copy. In my opinion. What do I know, I'm a teenager.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
YES! Could I have made that ANY more clear? It's fine to use a GOOD idea, regardless of whether it comes from a teacher or a recording. If an idea is GOOD then use it. The traditional argument that you must never try using ideas from great recordings (because they are not yours) is as idiotic as the idea that you should not try what a teacher suggests (because it's not 'yours' either). Those who tell students not to listen to others are simply afraid they will find a different way to their own.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Then why are you arguing here? From my very first response, I made it VERY clear that it is essential to use musical thought when learning by emulating ideas on recordings. So do you continue to exclude the idea that there are things to be learned from experimenting with different ideas for yourself (beyond your teacher's ideas) or do you not? People often, say you can't use external ideas because you 'don't understand why they did it'. What if I DO and happen to agree with it? It's harmful?
cziffra1980 3 years ago
As I mentioned before, Joseph Villa is pianist who achieved a near carbon copy of Horowitz's interpretation in Scriabin's 3 and 5th sonatas. Elsewhere in the 4th (the audio is on youtube) and 7th what happens? No Horowitz to copy, does he have no ideas of his own? NO!!!! He has LOADS of ideas!!! He played ANYTHING superbly, something that owes greatly to the fact that he clearly analysed the techniques by which other greats were able to exploit the piano's musical limits!
cziffra1980 3 years ago
So you haven't had a teacher before, of course you're going to think it's ok to copy recordings. I think THAT's idioic. Interpretation is something personal, which GOOD teachers barely even touch on. My teacher doesn't tell me how EVERY note is supposed to sound. It's something unique to the performer. A teacher gives you DIRECTIONS on how to make it sound good, but YOU make it happen. A recording dictates you HOW it's supposed to sound EXACTLY and leaves no explanation..
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I'm sure, yes, you could apply the knowledge to other works and go ahead, but why steal someone's interpretation? I woud never ever ever copy what someone else does, and again a teacher SHOULD NOT do that either. He should only guide you to understand the work better and help you sound good (NOT dictate everything) and eventually be able to do things entirely on your own.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong. Yes listening to recordings is important (any kind of recordings), but I know too many people who can't play a piece before they hear it 100 times. I pesonally think that's not right. I'm sure Villa's 4th and 7h sonatas are great, but I don't see why he had to copy Horowitz's (I have to hear that still, I can't judge).
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
So LISTEN to the 4th sonata on youtube. If you can honestly tell me that you feel that performance could have occured without his intimate knowledge of the Horowitz style, you have to be kidding. His explosive climax demonstrates how well he knew Horowitz's techniques. Equally, if you going to say the performance is 'invalid' because it depends on Horowitz techniques, you are clearly more interested in principles than in music results.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
What? Have you been paying any attention? As I said I HAVE had teachers. However, to learn from them alone is NOT more individual than to learn from EVERY source available to you. I didn't learn MY approach from them. I'm a teacher MYSELF and I encourage students to plenty of listening. The last thing I want is students who just do everything I say without thinking. However, personality does not come from nowhere. It comes from being familiar with just how many different approaches there are.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
"However, to learn from them alone is NOT more individual than to learn from EVERY source available to you." Yes! Learn from, NOT copy. I don't even know if we should be arguing. And I'm 100% sure you don't tell your students to look for a recording and play everything the same way.
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
I disagree. Sometimes it quite valid to copy- in order to LEARN. Only those with weak convictions will be negatively affected by this process. If you refuse to acknowledge this as part of a learning process then you are seriously limiting your musical opportunities. I am often extremely happy to attempt to get students to emulate effects on good performances. They can learn far more than from emulating me alone, or supposedly figuring out their 'own' way.
cziffra1980 3 years ago
Ok. Good luck with your career. You don't know how I play, so why are you quick to judge I have limited musical opportunities? You said yourself if the result is good, nothing else should matter.. right? Good luck!
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago