Richter plays Chopin Grande Polonaise Brillante

[Lity10]

Too fast for my taste

[porchmonkey401k]

@Lity10 i agree on it being a bit too fast, but i still feel like this interpretation exceeds all in expressive content (to me that is), richter was not a guy to just showboat and crank the tempo

[Lity10]

@porchmonkey401k Wow, 1 year ago? Can't even remember :P But I totally agree with you know though, I was being ignorant back then

[oboist2]

An absolute master!

[britcrit09]

Fantastic!

[MaryMMcMahon1]

@britcrit09 Richter is just so so Brilliant his playing dances around the brain,

and amazes one how and what perfection is. M

[jonnyenglishlim]

Incredible control espicially in the pianissimo passages

[thuztra]

Magnificent Richter!

[davidjb100]

It's sad how juvenile people are. Quit your heated argument and enjoy the music! It doesn't matter who's right or wrong about Richter's interpretation; we can all agree that his pianism speaks for itself.

[p1ano]

Don't forget to enjoy the music.

[himitsunosallychan]

You are right. I should have known better than to waste time on someone who cannot seem to read or to reason. There is a whole lot to enjoy on Youtube, including L'isle Joyeuse! (A kindly member sent me RICHTER's live recording of it. Would you like to listen?)

[spookyben]

You left out QED.

Agree that there is a lot to enjoy in these recordings from various master pianists whether one deems them 'unrussian' or their tone 'shallow' or 'unbeautiful'.

Qui fugiebat rursus proeliabitur

[himitsunosallychan]

Go check out what QED means and when you have done so, don't bother to inform me of your findings. Kindly carry on the conversation on your own. Each time you reply, my Yahoo widget tells me I have mail. I have better things to do than reading junkmails.

[spookyben]

LOL - are you telling me you open every email you get without reading the title?

OK Einstein, here's how it works, the YouTube email actually tells you in the subject line not only that it contains a response but also who it's from.

In other words, read the subject before you open the email, THEN YOU CAN DECLINE TO READ IT. This will save you loads of time for all the 'better things' you have to do.

No charge for time management instruction.

[spookyben]

You are making progress; before you stated Richter's tone was 'shallow and unbeautiful'. 'Maybe not ugly' was as good as you would go.

Now it's 'wonderful'.

I congratulate you.

Be sure to consider where he liked to play and what sort of equipment that most often entailed.

[spookyben]

Maybe part of your problem with SR's tone has to do with the fact that many of his recordings are from his travels around Russia, where he preferred playing in small community halls and churches (and where a first-rate instrument was almost never available).

I also recommend that (if you havent seen it) you view Richter The Enigma (avail on YouTube)

[himitsunosallychan]

Postulate:

There exists at least one writer of the English language that cannot read it correctly.

Proof:

Consider the following quote.

"your proof that Richter's playing was (your words) 'most unrussian, shallow and unbeautiful tone' is to say Chopin never played on a new Steinway." QED

(standing for Quod Erat Demonstrandum, just in case there exists at least one congratulator cum otolaryngologist who did not know)

[spookyben]

Why do you keep running from your statement that Richter was most 'unrussian'? Please explain which nationality a pianist must be to have best tone and depth. LOL

Was Horowitz Russian enough? Rubenstein Polish enough? Francois French enough?

QPD

Quinon proficit deficit (He who does not advance, go backwards)

Qui non est hodie cras minus aptus erit

[himitsunosallychan]

Let me reply directly and respectfully to spookyben-san this time, as I feel the conversation has become non-ridiculous.

First, I never ran. I still maintain that I sometimes feel Richter was the most unrussian of all great pianists because of shallow and unbeautiful tone (my exact words).

Please notice the uncapitalized "unrussian" and the "of all great pianists" following it.

[himitsunosallychan]

Second, I do not believe so much in a Russian school of playing, any more than in an Indian school. But, if there is one characteristic of many (not all, of course) pianists educated at Russian conservatories, I feel it is their beauty of tone. Which, my ears tell me, Richter often (not always) lacked, as in this performance.

By the way, I am not suggesting that pianists learned to produce their tones at conservatories. They might have, and they might not have.

[Gargantupimp]

I produce my tone out of my ass hole! I bet its better than yours!

[himitsunosallychan]

I personally think tone for the most part is something one is born with.

Therefore, to answer your question, a pianist need not be of any particular nationality to have good (I am sure you mean "good" and not "best") tone and a deep tone.

So now I hope you understand what I meant by "unrussian of all great pianists".

[himitsunosallychan]

Richter was certainly a titan, no less and no more than Gilels was, or Pollini used to be, but very often, I do not hear a beautiful sound, which doubtless is beautiful only in the ears of the listener, but in my opinion is the prominent characteristic of many russian musicians.

[spookyben]

I still disagree with you on Richter's tone but I appreciate your attempt to answer.

This answer however is filled with so many contradictions (e.g. many pianists from Russian conservatories having beautiful tone, in the same paragraph as not suggesting that the tone was produced in the conservatories) that there doesnt seem to be a point.

I also appreciate that you prefer Gilels (and many other great Russian pianists) to Richter because their tone is not 'shallow and beautiful'.

[himitsunosallychan]

Oh no! Please do not appreciate something that is not a fact. I do not prefer Gilels (or many other great Russian pianists) to Richter. I absolutely and definitely do not.

If someone were to tell me that Gilels was "better" or "greater" than Richter, I would just as vehemently disagree. Anyone knows tone is not everything in music. AND, just because Richter's tone is often not pretty does not mean it is not wonderful. Because, Richter's variation of tone color is quite often baffling.

[himitsunosallychan]

X is "true" (or "faithful") to the score ≠

X's performance is a truthful reproduction of the composer's conception or intention, NOT NECESSARILY ...  just in case there are congratulators who did not know...

Proof:

Take two performers who play "true" to the score and yet come out with alarmingly different renditions. QED

[spookyben]

Sorry, but only if it stands for quo errat demonstrator

I like how you completely ignore your own contradictions to post a mathmatical formula to prove something you admit is only a matter of feeling.

Please post another equation showing how Richter's playing is insufficiently Russian, deep or beautiful. Good thing the politboro didn't realize that when they demanded he play at Stalin's funeral.

Best of luck with your self-prescribed otolaryngologist.

[himitsunosallychan]

Alternative Proof:

Consider just one performer who plays "true" to the score, on one occasion on an old Pleyel and on another occasion on a new Steinway. QED

[himitsunosallychan]

And,

Chopin never played on a new Steinway.

...just in case there are otolaryngologists who did not know...

[spookyben]

Awesome - your proof that Richter's playing was (your words) 'most unrussian, shallow and unbeautiful tone' is to say Chopin never played on a new Steinway. Pardon me while I get my sunglasses, I can't stand the brilliance.

Waiting on math equation on how to sound russian enough and improve tone.

Keep typing QED if it makes you feel better lol.

[X52SY]

Thank you for this beautiful video. I'd like to invite watching Nuccio Trotta's performances. An unknown pianist worth listening in to. Thanks.

[21tango12]

well, like most music the popular ones get the most play. But here, with Richter, you are really seeing a very personal style of playing and interpretation. Listen to Richter play Chopin's Etude op.10 no.12. Then compare it to the other versions posted on youtube. You'll hear and see a vast difference in style and interpretation. Having said that, look around, the classical field is vast. Try something you never heard of before and avoid the ones you have heard or know something about.

[slydiggydog]

i dont really know much about classical piano but why is it that everybody plays the same pieces? or i may be making a generalisation because i just dont know. why interpretation of someone elses work and not write ones own? i'm interested to hear an answer

[VikingBerserker]

Richter said that he didn't want to add to the world's supply of bad compositions.

But you are right that the emphasis on composition has dwindled.

[Mongoose1358]

because before the explosion of modern music (after the 1900s), every composer had their own style and you couldn't recreate that same style without basicaly being a ripoff, so to replay that same mood as the original composers it is better to play their music than make copies of it.

[virr23]

in my opinion you say people play the same pieces it's because you don't listen to classical piano much. There're million more pieces that pianists play. However, i do agree that many pianists play famous pieces pieces like this one. Just because pianists are performers that means they'll have to play somebody else's work and make the best possible interpretation. These are great works so why not many people play them? And composers will do the 'writing'.

[sir1920]

I agree... too fast for my taste. Artur Rubinstein did the greatest recording of the Andante Spianato et Grande Polonaise.

[flugelmaniac]

again we hear the evidence of Richters lovely singing tone. He  really knew how to produce

and project bel canto.Many pianists are guilty

of shallow sound, but Richter is one the notable exceptions to this.

[himitsunosallychan]

I apologize for wrong English, but with extreme courage, I want to ask you.Please do not consider that I am being sarcastic or something, because I really want knowledge. I admire Richter, but always cann't understand why he often chose decrepit sounding pianos, as he did here. Or, of course, it isn't decrepit, just my ears are crummy, and I need to see ear doctor.

[simnos1]

It's an old recording, probably on tape - and therefore the reproduction of the sound is poor. I'm pretty sure Richter could afford a good piano lol.

[himitsunosallychan]

I sometimes feel Richter was the most unrussian of all great pianists because of shallow and unbeautiful tone. (Maybe not ugly, but I cann't feel his tone is beautiful. Again, maybe I need ear doctor.)Why is this bel canto? I feel Gilels had real bel canto tone, and used it to the full in later years. I would be very much grateful to you if you could give me instructive advice on "what to listen to" when listening to Richter, particularly as regards to his tone.

[OkitaJuuzou]

I think so too

But, ather people thinks beautiful

I cant understande

[spookyben]

Gilels said it best when he received praise for his first concerts in the west - "Wait till you hear Richter"

[himitsunosallychan]

That is one other thing I admire about Emil Gilels. His extreme modesty. I suppose he was not only a great musician, he was a great man.

(To be honest though, he might have slightly, just slightly, over-estimated Richter. In Japan too, where I come from, Richter tends to be not slightly but much too unslightly over-estimated whereas Gilels tends to be grossly under-estimated.)

[spookyben]

I love EG's Grieg Lyric Pc recording - but I also think he was a piano master whereas Richter was at another level.

That is the difference between you and me, I think he (EG) was being completely honest when he acknowledged Richter's genius. There should be no shame or controversy for agreeing with him.

But then anyone who says Richter's tone is shallow and unbeautiful must realize that because of his faithfulness to the written score they are saying the same thing about the composer.

[himitsunosallychan]

I must respectfully disagree.

Pollini, especially in his early career, was, by general agreement, "true" to the score. (Although I for one have only a vague notion of what being true to the score can mean.)

BUT, his recording of Chopin's etudes is in no way a truthful reproduction of what Chopin conceived them to be, that I am 100% certain.

As for Richter being at another level, if that is to mean he was in some way superior to Gilels as a musician, that is of course patently false.

[spookyben]

I will have to stay with Gilels himself on this and he admitted Richter was his superior. That you must insist that Gilels himself was 'patently false' in his assessment says more about yourself than either Gilels or Richter. Feel comfortable in the knowledge that Richter himself would find this conversation ridiculous.

I find it interesting that you can claim Pollini (whose playing I love) is true to something you have only vague notions of. This may explain your general outlook.

[himitsunosallychan]

Please, I feel my language is good enough to get my point across. I never claimed Pollini (whose playing I am not behind you in loving) was true to anything. It is the general agreement I claimed I knew about. Read if you can, very, very carefully.

BUT, I would agree with Richter that this conversation is ridiculous.

End of ridiculous argument.

[spookyben]

You better read your own writing again. You claim you are 100% certain about something you 'have only a vague notion of'.

I myself have never managed to be simultaneously vague and perfectly certain about one specific thing in my life. How can I argue with you? I congratulate you.

[francorussie]

Generally speaking in my opinion Richter is one of OR the best interpreter of CHOPIN

The quality of sound is horrible here (I am wondering if this is really Richter, however, the Slavic singing is deep and beautiful). Listen to Arthur Rubinstein ' s performance of this on YouTube.

[francorussie]

We also hear the singing Slavic theme and it is interpreted in a beautiful way: it is not only a "Polonaise" (brilliant, lively) but the heart sings with it, too :-)

[flugelmaniac]

Rubensteins 1935 version is also a gem for 'Slavic soul'.

[pincheruso]

I do not like it...Prefer Horowitz(vinil)!

[francorussie]

may be more "vinyl" in the interpretation and musicality, too

[flugelmaniac]

Yes the Horowitz is brilliant, but I still think this is one of the best as well

[helmsdeep84]

Too fast