Martha argerich is a GOD! But Horowitz, with all his wrong notes, heavy breathing, etc.... still makes me jump from my seat in this movement. No one plays it better.
...I was just listening to Berezovski doing this, and it felt like I got my asshole reamed out, not necessarily in a good way, but, fuck, sometimes you just need that, maybe...anyway, I clearly needed a recovery like fast and Martha did it, so, thank you, Martha...
@ThePianisssimo With all my respect what you are saying is that Richter, Horowitz, Gilels and many more pianists don't really get the spirit of this movement. This is her metabolism and with her energy it works, but I still think it is too fast.
I have spoken to her personally on many occasions and she herself says that she gets carried away when playing live she even mentioned this movement herself.
if anyone respects Martha as a an artist and a person I do.
@galapz Hey that's pretty interesting - as well as being close to what I expected. I always imagine somehow that Martha's "getting carried away" is like a combination of her response to nerves and her impetuous, high-strung nature - as opposed to some players for whom going too fast seems to be a form of showing off. As a result I can more easily overlook it when she seems to play "too fast". And lets face it who are we to judge how fast she should be playing?
@karkasos Her tempo is way more interesting than most. Most performances of this you are just waiting for the big ending, because for most of the piece the tempo is so boring and stagnant. She makes less mistakes over all as a pianist than most
Brainless and superficial. Why does everyone cream their jeans over Argerich? Of course she is one of the supreme natural talents, absolutely no doubt of that, but what has she done with her immense gifts? The same few tired pieces, sounding ever more perfunctory and bored.. And always too fast
@Eichenwald144 What a strange criticism. I would say that Argerich has a broader repertoire than most of the other pianists. If you refer to what you can find here then it is easy to say "same pieces". She plays practically everything.
Maybe she is not your taste, but your arguments are just not true.
@costep Of course I don't only refer to what I can find on Youtube. What kind of an ignoramus do you think I am? Just to make it clear: I know of course that Martha Argerich is a genius, there is no question of that whatever. But there is no question that her repertoire is very limited. When you consider that she can sight-read practically anything, has no technical problems whatsoever it is very odd. She plays practically everything? Brahms concertos? Late Beethoven? Anything after Prokofiev?
I have not heard late Beethoven from her. But I definitely recall Brahms. And I am not so much concerned about "all composers". Horowitz die a phantastic Chopin but his Schubert can be forgotten. And nowadays she plays chambre music, e.g. Max Bruch. Not many play this. She played much more when she was younger. But I think that is excusable. She probably played a lot of Beethoven when she was studying with Gulda at the age of 16. Very interesting is an interview with her at 3SAT.
@Eichenwald144 Ist es nicht so, dass alle Deutschen Ignorami sind? :))
Ich weiß zwar, dass das nicht unbedingt stimmen muss, aber die Dichte an klassischen Musikliebhabern ist doch etwas dünner als in Wien gesät. Aber ganz im Ernst: spielen Sie Klavier, spielen Sie vierhändig, was sind Ihre Lieblingskomponisten?
In meinem Profil ist ja auch die Mailadresse zu finden. Sie können da gerne direkt antworten...
Als Alternative könnte ich ja die Valentina Lisitsa anbieten, die spielt wirklich alles.
I like her choice of tempo. It has so much pizzazz and brings out a lot of melodic, horizontal detail that could go otherwise unnoticed...at least by me
I think Argerich is simply astonishing......She is always becoming better and better. In my opinion, this might not be her best performance of Precipitato, because she played this in 1978 or 1979......At that time, she wasn't really familiar with this piece. But now, she could handle this precipitato really well. Try searching"Martha Argerich in Tokyo 12" for a nice version ^^
much too fast, much too unconsidered, the sound is poor and their are lots of misplaced notes. I know Argerich likes to show off, but she just dosen't have the depth of sound for this one.
@khongcothithoi No, because I'm not hearing the wonderful subtleties that Sokolov and Pollini produce with aplomb. This is just fast music, with incredible virtuosity - typical Argerich. However, some of her other recordings like the Ravel Concerto have insightful musical and instinctive intelligence, so I'm dissapointed to not hear it here, as it is a 'fast' work. Too much, with Argerich, it's about the tempo and not the music.
@wagneristhebest Argerich is sure an intriguing one. She both frustrates and amazes me in equal measure (often during the same piece). The way she shapes the A and D flat major sections in her recording of Chopin Scherzo 2 is just sublime; and like no-one else I have ever heard. There's a real dichotomy between the different ways she chooses to play.
@RH98 For me, Argerich is capable of magic, and virtuosity. But She's not capable of magic to move me out of my soul, like Rubinstein's Chopin, and she's not capable of rounded intellectual playing of the incredibly detailed standard of Barenboim's Beethoven.
@wagneristhebest hey if you claim "with Argerich, it's about the tempo" and "this is just fast music", then why would you put in the first line of the comment @RH98 that Argerich is capable of magic, and virtuosity?! Isn't virtuosity supposed to be fast and loud, amongst other supreme aspects of pianism? Hmm...
@dramf888 Noooo! Virtuosity isn't fast and loud at all! Certainly not loud, and very occasionaly fast, but the fastness should not be considered when in performance - it is the sound of the beautiful instrument! The ability to communicate ideas with a clear and beautiful tone, the ability to let audiences know where the dips and rises of the phrases are, that my freind is virtuosity! Not going hell for mettle lang lang style(which i'm not saying she does) on prokofiev!
This is NERVE-WRECKING! When was this recorded? Is this from Martha's 2001 Carnegie recital or an earlier recording? It's very clean as opposed to other recordings of that recital, where the nuances are lost in the hiss.
This performer has a good sense that he's playing a Percussion Instrument. His level of precision astonishes me. By the way, at this tempo, there's just about 60 sec. lopped off the beginning of the composition. I would NEVER critisize Martha, but at Solokov's pace, I can hear the MUSIC better. Her (Martha's) "Ondine" is a life-changeing musical experience.
@whorace3 i cried the first time i heard solokov's video on here...sheesh. argerich makes it into a nice showpiece here, though. it's a preference...i prefer a slower tempo too, and the nuances that come with it. the coda with both hands taking parts of the melody gets a bit forced or rough at this tempo in my opinion.
la Toccata et ce 3eme mouvement de la Sonate 7 sont incomparables dans leurs difficultés respectives. Le precipitato est plus percussif et sa plus grande difficulté est basée sur des sauts.
La Toccata demande des doigts plus déliés.
Mais la Toccata de Ravel demande (à mon avis) plus encore d'agilité, dans la puissance et la délicatesse.
"Le seul en France qui sache ce qu'il fait est Ravel" (Prokofiev) ^^
A genius is surely someone that leaves lasting work that is admired by many for generations to come - like Bach, Newton, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Tschaikovsky, Einstein, Picasso, Tolstoy.
A mere pianist can't really come into this category at all can they? - if anyone is listening to old Argerich recordings in 100 years time it will certainly only be a very small number of ardent historians.
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
@lsbrother I highly doubt that... we pianists are other kind of creator. surely we didn't compose those pieces we play but without us, those pieces would be meaningless. you mentioned bach but there was a time period when bach was completely forgotten by people. he was brought back to stage by a person. We , pianists, are like that person. we bring music pieces into real music. without us it's just some random notes on a white manuscript that no one will ever look up to.
@lsbrother okay first of all. pianists aren't just machines with high techniques playing the pieces like computers. they put their emotions, interpretation, and just to clarify, i am not trying to depreciate composers. without their music performers would be nobody but i just want to tell you that it's not single-sided. they co-exist. without performers it would've been impossible for people to listen to masterpieces of great composers. only through performers those greatness can materialize.
"pianists .. put their emotions, interpretation.."
we all have emotions - expressing them isn't a particularly unusual or difficult thing to do - it's certainly not the prerogative of geniuses - which is after all where this dialogue started.
I repeat what I said in my first post:
"A genius is surely someone that leaves lasting work that is admired by many for generations to come" ...
pianists (along with most people) don't get into that category - not in my opinion
@lsbrother It's not whether you can express it or not. it's the matter of how you express it. you said Genius is someone who leaves lasting work. The lasting work is not only materialised work you know. Musicians make lasting work. that can be in form of recording which is materialised. however, it can also be the effect musicians made through their music. Music has power to save people's souls. Because we can't see the work visually unlike bach's composition, doesn't mean it's not lasting work.
Recordings have been around for about 100 years and digital transcripts of famous pianists are readily available - but how many people buy recordings of (say) Rachmaninof compared to (say) Evgeny Kissin)? And in another 50 years they won't be buying Kissin - it will be someone else. Don't kid yourself: all pianists are ephemeral but great composers last.
@lsbrother there was a time when the performer & composer were one in the same-its a difficult discussion to have here in print, but and because the nature of "thought" thinking, how we use our intellect etc. plays a huge role in it. The composer uses it to organize a document as in the same manner a performer "reincarnates it off the page" so to speak- both use "thought" thinking, to do it. it may be that the composer, performer and listener are interdependent upon one common vision.
@lsbrother Just for Clarification, i'm not saying all the musicians are genius. but i think ones that are great, who moves people, and saves their souls [i'm not relating it to any religious think btw]. Moreover, these great people/s works are being admired. Only reason those musicians haven't been admired like composers was that our history of recording those great music have been developed not long ago. before than, the work was only available to few people only unlike compositions.
In 50, 100, 200 years time we can be pretty sure that 1000's of people every day in every city, all over the world will be listening to (say) Mozart's music and 99.99....% will be played/recorded by living artists, virtually none of them will be old Argerich recordings!
@lsbrother yes it is correct that recording has been around for 100 years. and maybe you don't know but thousands of people listen to that recording. additionally they do not have to buy the recording to admire the work. also people buy music pieces a lot but do you seriously think they look at those pieces more than they listen to artists playing it? if we go into generalised view, i highly doubt that.
This is like precisely how I am/I'd like to be. Brutally forthcoming, aggressive, quite unstable, unpredictable, then yielding, and off we go to heady abstraction with a tint of ridicule. And sure, we can be all nice for a while before we continue into manic proclamation and the requisite, mind-boggling coda.
who CARES IS SHE MADE ANY MISTAKES!!!! she is martha argerich!!!!she is awesome!! plus everone tends to make mistakeS sometimes....even prokofiev himself made mistakes every now and then....probably very few, but stilll......
The Toccata is much easier, one the most difficult things of the 7th Sonata is not the third movement but the fact that the sonata is so long and you already played the 1st and 2nd movement and are propably already tired. The 1st movement is very difficult as well. And most people play it with to little controll and too aggressive.
Listening to her version the first time can be a bit jarring, disorienting, but If you listen again, carefully, you'll realize that, in certain sections, she pulls back, especially with the left hand toward the end, so that the right hand is thrust strikingly to the foreground. You can then hear details that are commonly drowned out in lesser performances.
I of course cannot play this better, and by all means it is a great performance. However, precise is not a word I'd use to praise it. "balls to the wall" is more like it.
Her treatment of the rhythm in this 3rd movement is amazing. Everything is so clear and precise and succinct. Is this the performance from the concertgbow? I think the Carnegie hall performance is even more amazing though....
I geuss we have out opinions but imo the artist who completely rips everyone to shreds with this entire sonata is Grigiori Soklov. Search him Youtube for his performance in Paris.
Prokofiev's tempo indication is "Precipitato" - that gives you a clue as to her tempo. Plus this is Argerich - Miss Hyperkinetic - she can get away with any tempo, never a dull moment when she makes music! If you want this music very controlled and slower, try Sokolov - totally different, equally fantastic rendition.
Sokolovs interpretation is better in my opinion because he brings out some melodies and harmonies I was unaware of. He also builds a much more intense climax because he gives the music somewhere to go instead of starting off full balst. But Argerich is phenomenal and you are right. Only Argerich can get away with playing at this speed.
Your comment on Argerich's speed puzzles me. Search on youtube on the keywords "Prokofiev Precipitato", and check the times on the myriad interpretations by everyone from Pollini to Horowitz to Argerich. She is completely in the mainstream.
I dont actually think Prokofiev meant this piece to be quite this fast... i would definitely listen to sokolov's version.. I think he got it right on the money on this one..
I LOVE argerich, but i still do not know what she was thinking when interpritting this piece. it is WAY too fast and messy and the sense of pulse is lost.
argerich is great, but i think she missed the boat on this one.
wow, that's interesting. I assumed all argerich lover will recognize her prokofiev's 7 as one of her signature pieces that best show her mixture of musicality and technique. I for one think her interpretation is phenomenal and iconoclastic here, but at the same time authentic to the score. I personally prefer her rendition at Dallas, which you can find here on youtube, perhaps you'll like it more too?
no I think Liszt could have been the greatest pianist of all time. I still think Richter was greater than her, people like Rubeinstein, Gould, Cliburn and Horowitz praised Richter.
I don't really think Richter is was a better pianist than Argerich, I think they're equal. Richter really focusses on the piece itself, while Argerich really puts her emotions into it.
Watch her piano concerto for 2 pianos, then you'll see!
u see, the thing is that ppl are influenced very much by opinions of the majority. like "cloxxman" who said he thought liszt might have been best. in fact, he has no idea wt he's talking about. but just because he's read smwhere that liszt was one of the top technicians of HIS TIME. then automatically liszt becomes the best in his books. but the fact is that records are broken everyday. yesterday it was spitz, today it's phelps!
omg. i can't stop finding you!!! BIZARRE!!! i like your statements, but here I think we need to consider not just what someone "thought of his playing" but the fact that Liszt wrote like 1,200 works for piano IN ADDITION to playing everyone else's works!!! for me, that is unbelievable. he transcribed so much and wrote original works, all technically challenging and original. i was talking with leslie howard a bit about this, and he said that he cannot find asingle piece by liszt in which
.. in which he wasn't searching for, and ACHIEVING, something new. the guy, in my opinion, totally outshines ANY pianist, living or dead, for these reasons.
by the way, my name WEENOSU, because you asked :). WEEN comes from RYAN, which is my first name. my younger brother couldn't pronounce my name as a child, so he said "ween", and it stuck. OSU comes from the fact that I love Ohio State University football. I am not a big sports fan, but love OSU fottball.
i don't know what to think about liszt. i agree that playing as much piano as has been said about liszt would make him a good TECHNICIAN. but keep in mind that it's also been said that he didn't put much feeling into his playing.
i can't believe any of that because i haven't heard him play anything. and people usually have a tendency to bash people with exceptionally good technique by saying they're all fingers & no understanding of the music. one would never know..
Where did you hear that Liszt didn't put much feeling into his music. In all of my years of playing the piano and studying music history I have always heard quite the opposite. His antics at times would put Lang Lang to shame. He was known to rock and sway, roll his eyes in the head, etc. Not having feeling??? I don't know about that.
swaying at the piano and rolling you eyes doesn't AT ALL mean that you put any feeling into your playing.
take Lang Lang for example...
it basically means you're just giving an image that you try to put feeling into your music.
one of the greatest players (for me an for the majority of the people) who could put an immense amount of emotion into what he's playing is Horowitz. he does so with almost no swaying at all
if other pianists made that up about liszt because they were envious of his superior technique or for any other reason.
plus, writing technically challenging/original music shouldn't be used as a measurement of how well you play. Ravel wrote amazing piano music and couldn't play some of it.
now, i'm all for Liszt (although MANY think his music is mostly frivolous) and for me & anyone on youtube, he's probably a godly technician. but in comparing him to pros, i'd like to have proof at least
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Most humble respects to the great Martha Argherich, but I don't think this is a difficult piece to play , if you take away a much complicated nonsense and confused rhetorics about "meaningful details" it s quite easy to get around with, well, at least that s what I think.
The last two pages are fiercely difficult. I have played the Liszt B minor sonata, Goldberg Variations, Wanderer Fantasie, Brahms-Handel Variations, and much other repertoire, and the last two pages of this movement were harder than anything else I have personally played. I was able to get the other repertoire perfectly clean, but these last two pages always had a few dropped notes.
Oh yeah, this piece is just ridiculously easy. I mean, I really can't see why anyone could consider even the tiniest bit challenging. Grade 1 standard.
Let's clear up the pronunciation of Prokofiev's name once and for all: it's Prah-koh-fyeff. The second "O" is long. The name is NOT pronounced Pro-Koff-yeff. Here is a Russian website that givbes authentic pronunciations of all major Russian composers' names. You'll be surprised at how you say Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov and most other composers' names. Just click on the composer's name, then click on his name in Russian, and you'll hear it correctly pronounced.
Yes, Liszt should be in a class where he is never compared to any modern pianist simply because no one has him play and thus it is useless to try to quantify his technique.
my thoughts exactly....We haven't heard Alkan play but it's said that Liszt thought that A had the best technique ever known to a man. Well except for the fact that Busoni knew L at least to some extent, but there are no recordings by Liszt
This is wonderfully fast, and Argerich is one of the best! I agree with everything said in approval of the speed. I can also appreciate Sokolov's playing, for all the reasons mentioned and more. But I must add that it is well known that Prokofiev was a showman. His recordings of his own pieces (the few there are) are at breakneck speed, and often faster than most others play them. So I personally think Argerich is right on with her speed and technicality.
argerich often plays fast. but never too fast - for her. maybe too fast for others. she doesn't play so fast that she has anything less than total control - always very musical.
Omg the most energetic interpretation I've ever heard,It gets my adrenaline pumping,I almost had a heartattack while listening it.omfg so amazing
aoi1109phoebe 3 weeks ago
Sublime as almost always with Argerich. To criticize her is just plain stupid. I would like to hear Kissin now.
vivaelglobo 1 month ago
So exciting :D
malit1234 2 months ago
As much as I love Marta, I still think Pollini nailed this with that early 70s Duetche Gramophone recording. Hard, clean and intense.
Goose4Lu71 3 months ago
Martha argerich is a GOD! But Horowitz, with all his wrong notes, heavy breathing, etc.... still makes me jump from my seat in this movement. No one plays it better.
calflyboy 3 months ago 2
oh my.... too fast..
hanbitability 4 months ago
...I was just listening to Berezovski doing this, and it felt like I got my asshole reamed out, not necessarily in a good way, but, fuck, sometimes you just need that, maybe...anyway, I clearly needed a recovery like fast and Martha did it, so, thank you, Martha...
fredericfranc 4 months ago
I love this interpretation. Feels like it's crawling under my skin the whole time. Feels itchy somehow. Fantastic.
Chakiejan 4 months ago
@ThePianisssimo With all my respect what you are saying is that Richter, Horowitz, Gilels and many more pianists don't really get the spirit of this movement. This is her metabolism and with her energy it works, but I still think it is too fast.
I have spoken to her personally on many occasions and she herself says that she gets carried away when playing live she even mentioned this movement herself.
if anyone respects Martha as a an artist and a person I do.
And yes I still think it is fast
galapz 5 months ago
@galapz Hey that's pretty interesting - as well as being close to what I expected. I always imagine somehow that Martha's "getting carried away" is like a combination of her response to nerves and her impetuous, high-strung nature - as opposed to some players for whom going too fast seems to be a form of showing off. As a result I can more easily overlook it when she seems to play "too fast". And lets face it who are we to judge how fast she should be playing?
RH98 3 months ago
too fast
galapz 6 months ago
thumbs up if you think of an assembly line when you hear this
pokekop 6 months ago 5
And... the tempo is fun, but it seems to me that there's a bit too much of mistakes. A few are OK, but now there are several.
karkasos 6 months ago
@karkasos Her tempo is way more interesting than most. Most performances of this you are just waiting for the big ending, because for most of the piece the tempo is so boring and stagnant. She makes less mistakes over all as a pianist than most
davidbaker03 6 months ago
Good, but I prefed Solokov's performance of this.
karkasos 6 months ago
@karkasos -His is the best ever recorded IMO, but hers is not all that far behind.
paulostroff99 6 months ago
Brainless and superficial. Why does everyone cream their jeans over Argerich? Of course she is one of the supreme natural talents, absolutely no doubt of that, but what has she done with her immense gifts? The same few tired pieces, sounding ever more perfunctory and bored.. And always too fast
Eichenwald144 6 months ago
@Eichenwald144 What a strange criticism. I would say that Argerich has a broader repertoire than most of the other pianists. If you refer to what you can find here then it is easy to say "same pieces". She plays practically everything.
Maybe she is not your taste, but your arguments are just not true.
costep 5 months ago
@costep Of course I don't only refer to what I can find on Youtube. What kind of an ignoramus do you think I am? Just to make it clear: I know of course that Martha Argerich is a genius, there is no question of that whatever. But there is no question that her repertoire is very limited. When you consider that she can sight-read practically anything, has no technical problems whatsoever it is very odd. She plays practically everything? Brahms concertos? Late Beethoven? Anything after Prokofiev?
Eichenwald144 5 months ago
@Eichenwald144
I have not heard late Beethoven from her. But I definitely recall Brahms. And I am not so much concerned about "all composers". Horowitz die a phantastic Chopin but his Schubert can be forgotten. And nowadays she plays chambre music, e.g. Max Bruch. Not many play this. She played much more when she was younger. But I think that is excusable. She probably played a lot of Beethoven when she was studying with Gulda at the age of 16. Very interesting is an interview with her at 3SAT.
costep 5 months ago
@Eichenwald144 Ist es nicht so, dass alle Deutschen Ignorami sind? :))
Ich weiß zwar, dass das nicht unbedingt stimmen muss, aber die Dichte an klassischen Musikliebhabern ist doch etwas dünner als in Wien gesät. Aber ganz im Ernst: spielen Sie Klavier, spielen Sie vierhändig, was sind Ihre Lieblingskomponisten?
In meinem Profil ist ja auch die Mailadresse zu finden. Sie können da gerne direkt antworten...
Als Alternative könnte ich ja die Valentina Lisitsa anbieten, die spielt wirklich alles.
costep 5 months ago
@costep wer sagst dass alle Deutschen Ignorami
moneyjr1122 4 months ago
You can say whatever you want.. but shes famous and you not :P so, come on ppl.. lets talk :D
geri002 6 months ago
Love this!
576969sbunivedu 7 months ago
I personally prefer Lang Lang's version.
Silereon 7 months ago
@Silereon -there is a word for one that prefers Lang Lang over Argerich and Sokolov.It goes beyond deaf.
paulostroff99 6 months ago
Hey! This is Prokofiev here! Is Martha's tempo really to fast?
Jeez...
Pianist46 7 months ago
I like her choice of tempo. It has so much pizzazz and brings out a lot of melodic, horizontal detail that could go otherwise unnoticed...at least by me
aldebussy 7 months ago
I think Argerich is simply astonishing......She is always becoming better and better. In my opinion, this might not be her best performance of Precipitato, because she played this in 1978 or 1979......At that time, she wasn't really familiar with this piece. But now, she could handle this precipitato really well. Try searching"Martha Argerich in Tokyo 12" for a nice version ^^
RC111295 7 months ago
Thumbs up if Sampo Syreeni's comment from "Benjamin Zander on Music and Passion" from TED brought you here.
MEIZimm 8 months ago
gt5................
1t2o3p 8 months ago
beats sultanov by a mile
iansquared3 9 months ago 2
much too fast, much too unconsidered, the sound is poor and their are lots of misplaced notes. I know Argerich likes to show off, but she just dosen't have the depth of sound for this one.
wagneristhebest 9 months ago
@wagneristhebest : maybe because you can't think as fast as her !
khongcothithoi 8 months ago
@khongcothithoi No, because I'm not hearing the wonderful subtleties that Sokolov and Pollini produce with aplomb. This is just fast music, with incredible virtuosity - typical Argerich. However, some of her other recordings like the Ravel Concerto have insightful musical and instinctive intelligence, so I'm dissapointed to not hear it here, as it is a 'fast' work. Too much, with Argerich, it's about the tempo and not the music.
wagneristhebest 8 months ago
@wagneristhebest : it's your own opinion then, whatever
anw, i still like her recording most
khongcothithoi 8 months ago
@wagneristhebest Argerich is sure an intriguing one. She both frustrates and amazes me in equal measure (often during the same piece). The way she shapes the A and D flat major sections in her recording of Chopin Scherzo 2 is just sublime; and like no-one else I have ever heard. There's a real dichotomy between the different ways she chooses to play.
RH98 8 months ago
@RH98 For me, Argerich is capable of magic, and virtuosity. But She's not capable of magic to move me out of my soul, like Rubinstein's Chopin, and she's not capable of rounded intellectual playing of the incredibly detailed standard of Barenboim's Beethoven.
wagneristhebest 8 months ago
@wagneristhebest hey if you claim "with Argerich, it's about the tempo" and "this is just fast music", then why would you put in the first line of the comment @RH98 that Argerich is capable of magic, and virtuosity?! Isn't virtuosity supposed to be fast and loud, amongst other supreme aspects of pianism? Hmm...
dramf888 7 months ago
@dramf888 Noooo! Virtuosity isn't fast and loud at all! Certainly not loud, and very occasionaly fast, but the fastness should not be considered when in performance - it is the sound of the beautiful instrument! The ability to communicate ideas with a clear and beautiful tone, the ability to let audiences know where the dips and rises of the phrases are, that my freind is virtuosity! Not going hell for mettle lang lang style(which i'm not saying she does) on prokofiev!
wagneristhebest 7 months ago
I looked at 3:35 went, "oh, well then this can't be too fast." Not realizing 30 seconds of this video is clapping
MrYou2ber 10 months ago 16
There's definitely a trademark Argerich cleanliness to it, but I feel like she isn't seeing the subtle melodies within the piece.
mmoynan 11 months ago
fabulous
ueblondon 11 months ago
This is the best tempo I've heard.
rezmogm 11 months ago
slower than sokolov or pollini but with a million errors, especially the final section... if a piece is beyond your capacities, play it slower!
woutissimo 11 months ago
@woutissimo FAIL
geri002 10 months ago 2
This is NERVE-WRECKING! When was this recorded? Is this from Martha's 2001 Carnegie recital or an earlier recording? It's very clean as opposed to other recordings of that recital, where the nuances are lost in the hiss.
pianofan24 1 year ago
@pianofan24 This was a track from the audio CD "MARTHA ARGERICH Live From the Concertgebouw 1978 & 1979"
RC111295 8 months ago
Well... fast as always...
rhapsodielll 1 year ago 2
This performer has a good sense that he's playing a Percussion Instrument. His level of precision astonishes me. By the way, at this tempo, there's just about 60 sec. lopped off the beginning of the composition. I would NEVER critisize Martha, but at Solokov's pace, I can hear the MUSIC better. Her (Martha's) "Ondine" is a life-changeing musical experience.
whorace3 1 year ago
I don't prefer this tempo at all, Grigory Solokov is my fave performer of this toccata, by far
whorace3 1 year ago
@whorace3 i cried the first time i heard solokov's video on here...sheesh. argerich makes it into a nice showpiece here, though. it's a preference...i prefer a slower tempo too, and the nuances that come with it. the coda with both hands taking parts of the melody gets a bit forced or rough at this tempo in my opinion.
Sveccha93 1 year ago
la Toccata et ce 3eme mouvement de la Sonate 7 sont incomparables dans leurs difficultés respectives. Le precipitato est plus percussif et sa plus grande difficulté est basée sur des sauts.
La Toccata demande des doigts plus déliés.
Mais la Toccata de Ravel demande (à mon avis) plus encore d'agilité, dans la puissance et la délicatesse.
"Le seul en France qui sache ce qu'il fait est Ravel" (Prokofiev) ^^
floorembden 1 year ago 2
Sounds like some form of Jazz.
Flutist11 1 year ago
@Flutist11 Pianists call it the rock n roll movement..
Bruce88keys 11 months ago 2
With Martha you take it or leave it, it's that simple. But I think she's a genius.
elgar34 1 year ago
@elgar34
A genius is surely someone that leaves lasting work that is admired by many for generations to come - like Bach, Newton, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Tschaikovsky, Einstein, Picasso, Tolstoy.
A mere pianist can't really come into this category at all can they? - if anyone is listening to old Argerich recordings in 100 years time it will certainly only be a very small number of ardent historians.
lsbrother 1 year ago
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
cjamesackley 1 year ago
@cjamesackley "she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev"
Rachmaninoff et al are remembered for their compositions - not for any recordings they made - that was rather my point!
"people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago."
yes of course - the same people that bought those recordings. In time people will buy recordings by different pianists.
"i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead"
true - but not relevant!
lsbrother 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
cjamesackley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lsbrother dude, people are listening to recordings of her from 30 years ago. she is, and will remain a prime piano icon, as rachmaninoff. as prokofiev. i doubt even 5 people will remember you 10 years after your dead.
cjamesackley 1 year ago
@lsbrother I highly doubt that... we pianists are other kind of creator. surely we didn't compose those pieces we play but without us, those pieces would be meaningless. you mentioned bach but there was a time period when bach was completely forgotten by people. he was brought back to stage by a person. We , pianists, are like that person. we bring music pieces into real music. without us it's just some random notes on a white manuscript that no one will ever look up to.
nyuk36 1 year ago
@nyuk36
Many, many able pianists can play a piece - but it takes a single specially gifted composer to create it in the first place.
That is obviously different and surely not too difficult to understand.
I play the piano rather well but I'm not stupid enough to think that that technical ability puts me on the same level as Bach.
lsbrother 1 year ago
@lsbrother okay first of all. pianists aren't just machines with high techniques playing the pieces like computers. they put their emotions, interpretation, and just to clarify, i am not trying to depreciate composers. without their music performers would be nobody but i just want to tell you that it's not single-sided. they co-exist. without performers it would've been impossible for people to listen to masterpieces of great composers. only through performers those greatness can materialize.
nyuk36 1 year ago
"pianists .. put their emotions, interpretation.."
we all have emotions - expressing them isn't a particularly unusual or difficult thing to do - it's certainly not the prerogative of geniuses - which is after all where this dialogue started.
I repeat what I said in my first post:
"A genius is surely someone that leaves lasting work that is admired by many for generations to come" ...
pianists (along with most people) don't get into that category - not in my opinion
lsbrother 1 year ago
@lsbrother It's not whether you can express it or not. it's the matter of how you express it. you said Genius is someone who leaves lasting work. The lasting work is not only materialised work you know. Musicians make lasting work. that can be in form of recording which is materialised. however, it can also be the effect musicians made through their music. Music has power to save people's souls. Because we can't see the work visually unlike bach's composition, doesn't mean it's not lasting work.
nyuk36 1 year ago
@nyuk36
Recordings have been around for about 100 years and digital transcripts of famous pianists are readily available - but how many people buy recordings of (say) Rachmaninof compared to (say) Evgeny Kissin)? And in another 50 years they won't be buying Kissin - it will be someone else. Don't kid yourself: all pianists are ephemeral but great composers last.
lsbrother 1 year ago
@lsbrother not so
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
@Bruce88keys
demonstrably so - not merely a matter of opinion - a matter of fact
lsbrother 11 months ago
Comment removed
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
@lsbrother there was a time when the performer & composer were one in the same-its a difficult discussion to have here in print, but and because the nature of "thought" thinking, how we use our intellect etc. plays a huge role in it. The composer uses it to organize a document as in the same manner a performer "reincarnates it off the page" so to speak- both use "thought" thinking, to do it. it may be that the composer, performer and listener are interdependent upon one common vision.
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
@lsbrother Just for Clarification, i'm not saying all the musicians are genius. but i think ones that are great, who moves people, and saves their souls [i'm not relating it to any religious think btw]. Moreover, these great people/s works are being admired. Only reason those musicians haven't been admired like composers was that our history of recording those great music have been developed not long ago. before than, the work was only available to few people only unlike compositions.
nyuk36 1 year ago
@nyuk36
In 50, 100, 200 years time we can be pretty sure that 1000's of people every day in every city, all over the world will be listening to (say) Mozart's music and 99.99....% will be played/recorded by living artists, virtually none of them will be old Argerich recordings!
lsbrother 1 year ago
@lsbrother yes it is correct that recording has been around for 100 years. and maybe you don't know but thousands of people listen to that recording. additionally they do not have to buy the recording to admire the work. also people buy music pieces a lot but do you seriously think they look at those pieces more than they listen to artists playing it? if we go into generalised view, i highly doubt that.
nyuk36 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bruce88keys 11 months ago
Prefer Pollini.
Troybeallad 1 year ago
This is like precisely how I am/I'd like to be. Brutally forthcoming, aggressive, quite unstable, unpredictable, then yielding, and off we go to heady abstraction with a tint of ridicule. And sure, we can be all nice for a while before we continue into manic proclamation and the requisite, mind-boggling coda.
ssyreeni 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Very nice and dynamic interpretation, just a pity that she makes about 100,000 errors in 3:34 minutes.
woutissimo 1 year ago
who CARES IS SHE MADE ANY MISTAKES!!!! she is martha argerich!!!!she is awesome!! plus everone tends to make mistakeS sometimes....even prokofiev himself made mistakes every now and then....probably very few, but stilll......
pal0palo 1 year ago 2
unbelievable clarity ... this is definitely my favorite performance of this piece
just curious, is this harder or easier than prokofiev's toccata?
jtennisfan0901 2 years ago
i think its easier.
kyleclef 2 years ago 2
i think it's harder than the toccata
vinbelgium 2 years ago 3
It's a lot easier than the toccata.
TheRaff1975 1 year ago
@jtennisfan0901: I would say it's more difficult...
gc65531941 1 year ago
much easier than the Toccata, no doubt
dorpik 1 year ago
@dorpik You're right, I mastered this piece in less than a month and the toccata I gave up because of all those notes, it's almost an etude.
katchum 1 year ago
@katchum
The Toccata is much easier, one the most difficult things of the 7th Sonata is not the third movement but the fact that the sonata is so long and you already played the 1st and 2nd movement and are propably already tired. The 1st movement is very difficult as well. And most people play it with to little controll and too aggressive.
wiczitier 1 year ago
La mejor pianista de todos los tiempos. Un orgullo haber nacido en el mismo pais.
michirichi1 2 years ago 3
greatest pianist ever
gonzalogior 2 years ago 3
A master peace performed by the master of masters.....brought to a climax in a wonderful way! Great!
raoultak 2 years ago 2
Listening to her version the first time can be a bit jarring, disorienting, but If you listen again, carefully, you'll realize that, in certain sections, she pulls back, especially with the left hand toward the end, so that the right hand is thrust strikingly to the foreground. You can then hear details that are commonly drowned out in lesser performances.
Gmapchannel 2 years ago 2
thank you for the tip!
moghedien13 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The rubato is some of my favorite!
pookiehohn 2 years ago
awesome performance
i like so much the expression of the endnotes
salviatim 2 years ago
TEN UTWÓR SERGIUSZA PROKOFIEWA ŻYJE !!!!! pod palcami Marthy niczym potężna maszyna !!!!!!
sikorkasikoreczka15 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow martha proved agains she is faster than anybody else. Her great (and only?) merit?
op83bdur 2 years ago
I of course cannot play this better, and by all means it is a great performance. However, precise is not a word I'd use to praise it. "balls to the wall" is more like it.
nicklewisatx 2 years ago
Geez! The ending is insane!
NightClash909 2 years ago 17
Her treatment of the rhythm in this 3rd movement is amazing. Everything is so clear and precise and succinct. Is this the performance from the concertgbow? I think the Carnegie hall performance is even more amazing though....
gojewla 2 years ago 3
The Carnagie Hall performance is really impressive from the technical point of view. This for sure!
But for my taste, this one is musically much much better!
The other one it's too fast for me, impressive but too fast.
macerini 2 years ago
My word ...
faraz1729 2 years ago
I have the highest regard for Argerich's playing, but for this movement, Pollini puts everybody to shame with his clarity, power and bravura.
JoFrSc 2 years ago
I geuss we have out opinions but imo the artist who completely rips everyone to shreds with this entire sonata is Grigiori Soklov. Search him Youtube for his performance in Paris.
Hervinbalfour 2 years ago
Strepitosa!!!!!!
flic71 2 years ago
OMG!!! Amazing! nomber one!!
andodod 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sokolov is soooo much better! damn you martha for ruining such a great piece.. Get this garbage off of here... SOKOLOV!
348Frate 2 years ago
I agree!!
shaermy 2 years ago
Prokofiev's tempo indication is "Precipitato" - that gives you a clue as to her tempo. Plus this is Argerich - Miss Hyperkinetic - she can get away with any tempo, never a dull moment when she makes music! If you want this music very controlled and slower, try Sokolov - totally different, equally fantastic rendition.
troppofiato 2 years ago 23
troppofiato: emphasis on EQUALLY FANTASTIC! they are completely different yet both are great.
LetTheMusicFlow1 2 years ago
Sokolovs interpretation is better in my opinion because he brings out some melodies and harmonies I was unaware of. He also builds a much more intense climax because he gives the music somewhere to go instead of starting off full balst. But Argerich is phenomenal and you are right. Only Argerich can get away with playing at this speed.
Hervinbalfour 2 years ago
Your comment on Argerich's speed puzzles me. Search on youtube on the keywords "Prokofiev Precipitato", and check the times on the myriad interpretations by everyone from Pollini to Horowitz to Argerich. She is completely in the mainstream.
salviati 2 years ago 2
@troppofiato try Gould's
Andyrugaz 8 months ago
I respect Argerich's interpretation but it is played too fast for my likings.
975020 2 years ago 2
dude! this is fast. kind kills the rhythmic pulse of the 7 time signature. It's still cool though. 8
Irelandlass7789 2 years ago 4
I dont actually think Prokofiev meant this piece to be quite this fast... i would definitely listen to sokolov's version.. I think he got it right on the money on this one..
348Frate 2 years ago 2
i love this mess!
asçelruihvsglb293486 açsdfk haçuh19875gbskb
asdlfbhapo3985haçinuqp09u2nçzlun 0´q9 çslkj g
a´0t pqoiu4 pqou4t pq8785 pou rgpo1978 09qu 0pa jlh
stagesix6 2 years ago 4
Wonderfull!!!!
klausknulp 2 years ago
ella es la mejor!!
she is the best .
aguantekapo 2 years ago 3
Sokolov le vuela la raja
majark4 2 years ago
Wow, after listening the Sokolov Version this sounds very much like in a rush and unclean ... but its probably a question of taste ... hmmm.
takeox 2 years ago 4
I LOVE argerich, but i still do not know what she was thinking when interpritting this piece. it is WAY too fast and messy and the sense of pulse is lost.
argerich is great, but i think she missed the boat on this one.
dansan4444 2 years ago 3
wow, that's interesting. I assumed all argerich lover will recognize her prokofiev's 7 as one of her signature pieces that best show her mixture of musicality and technique. I for one think her interpretation is phenomenal and iconoclastic here, but at the same time authentic to the score. I personally prefer her rendition at Dallas, which you can find here on youtube, perhaps you'll like it more too?
Snufkin999 2 years ago
I PREFER GLENN GOULD'S VERSION
MichaelDLC 2 years ago
So do I...
But Argerich's good too.
jubulalau 2 years ago
ho sentito altre esecuzioni di questa settima sonata di Prokofiev.
, Marta Angerich fa a pezzi mostri sacri come Richter e Glen Gould. E' la piu' grande pianista vivente al mondo.
diegriva 2 years ago
I like.
v4liumfrance 3 years ago
This is 7/8 time signature. It is not very difficult, but the articulation is very important. She has it :)
MashaGarfield90 3 years ago
cold and fast makes 5 stars
tHEnOOSEsWING 3 years ago 4
greates woman pianist of all timne
Coixxman 3 years ago
no, i think greatest women or male pianist of all time.
kyleclef 3 years ago
no I think Liszt could have been the greatest pianist of all time. I still think Richter was greater than her, people like Rubeinstein, Gould, Cliburn and Horowitz praised Richter.
Coixxman 3 years ago
I don't really think Richter is was a better pianist than Argerich, I think they're equal. Richter really focusses on the piece itself, while Argerich really puts her emotions into it.
Watch her piano concerto for 2 pianos, then you'll see!
MathijsGiltjes1993 2 years ago
u see, the thing is that ppl are influenced very much by opinions of the majority. like "cloxxman" who said he thought liszt might have been best. in fact, he has no idea wt he's talking about. but just because he's read smwhere that liszt was one of the top technicians of HIS TIME. then automatically liszt becomes the best in his books. but the fact is that records are broken everyday. yesterday it was spitz, today it's phelps!
fionasapple 2 years ago
omg. i can't stop finding you!!! BIZARRE!!! i like your statements, but here I think we need to consider not just what someone "thought of his playing" but the fact that Liszt wrote like 1,200 works for piano IN ADDITION to playing everyone else's works!!! for me, that is unbelievable. he transcribed so much and wrote original works, all technically challenging and original. i was talking with leslie howard a bit about this, and he said that he cannot find asingle piece by liszt in which
weenosu 2 years ago
.. in which he wasn't searching for, and ACHIEVING, something new. the guy, in my opinion, totally outshines ANY pianist, living or dead, for these reasons.
by the way, my name WEENOSU, because you asked :). WEEN comes from RYAN, which is my first name. my younger brother couldn't pronounce my name as a child, so he said "ween", and it stuck. OSU comes from the fact that I love Ohio State University football. I am not a big sports fan, but love OSU fottball.
weenosu 2 years ago
o ok. i get the name now:)
i don't know what to think about liszt. i agree that playing as much piano as has been said about liszt would make him a good TECHNICIAN. but keep in mind that it's also been said that he didn't put much feeling into his playing.
i can't believe any of that because i haven't heard him play anything. and people usually have a tendency to bash people with exceptionally good technique by saying they're all fingers & no understanding of the music. one would never know..
fionasapple 2 years ago
Where did you hear that Liszt didn't put much feeling into his music. In all of my years of playing the piano and studying music history I have always heard quite the opposite. His antics at times would put Lang Lang to shame. He was known to rock and sway, roll his eyes in the head, etc. Not having feeling??? I don't know about that.
Hervinbalfour 2 years ago
swaying at the piano and rolling you eyes doesn't AT ALL mean that you put any feeling into your playing.
take Lang Lang for example...
it basically means you're just giving an image that you try to put feeling into your music.
one of the greatest players (for me an for the majority of the people) who could put an immense amount of emotion into what he's playing is Horowitz. he does so with almost no swaying at all
fionasapple 2 years ago
And btw, I agree with what you said about Horowitz. The same can be said of Martha Argerich.
Hervinbalfour 2 years ago
if other pianists made that up about liszt because they were envious of his superior technique or for any other reason.
plus, writing technically challenging/original music shouldn't be used as a measurement of how well you play. Ravel wrote amazing piano music and couldn't play some of it.
now, i'm all for Liszt (although MANY think his music is mostly frivolous) and for me & anyone on youtube, he's probably a godly technician. but in comparing him to pros, i'd like to have proof at least
fionasapple 2 years ago
WOW, I got here after I had listened to Solokov playing this... Oo
So fast, but very interesting.
I can't stop listening richters and her interpretation.
There really are things,... too good for this world
MusicJava 3 years ago
The ending kinda fell apart...not dissing, just saying
noprahwinfrey2007 3 years ago
wtf are u talking about? its like saying i drink beer but i didnt swallow it.
fanguism 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most humble respects to the great Martha Argherich, but I don't think this is a difficult piece to play , if you take away a much complicated nonsense and confused rhetorics about "meaningful details" it s quite easy to get around with, well, at least that s what I think.
dzinndzinnati 3 years ago
this is definitely one of the most difficult pieces in the history of music!
scribeuisum 3 years ago
No it isn't... or were you sarcastic?
RabidCh 3 years ago
The last two pages are fiercely difficult. I have played the Liszt B minor sonata, Goldberg Variations, Wanderer Fantasie, Brahms-Handel Variations, and much other repertoire, and the last two pages of this movement were harder than anything else I have personally played. I was able to get the other repertoire perfectly clean, but these last two pages always had a few dropped notes.
HansVonBulow 3 years ago
Oh yeah, this piece is just ridiculously easy. I mean, I really can't see why anyone could consider even the tiniest bit challenging. Grade 1 standard.
mowmowmow9 2 years ago
how exactly do you pronounce prokofiev?
whit838 3 years ago
Pronunciation: (pru-kô'fē-uf, Russ. pru-kô'fyif)
pianovideo 3 years ago
Let's clear up the pronunciation of Prokofiev's name once and for all: it's Prah-koh-fyeff. The second "O" is long. The name is NOT pronounced Pro-Koff-yeff. Here is a Russian website that givbes authentic pronunciations of all major Russian composers' names. You'll be surprised at how you say Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov and most other composers' names. Just click on the composer's name, then click on his name in Russian, and you'll hear it correctly pronounced.
ssprokofiev 3 years ago
Ha ha ha I love this piece....especially after a few cups of coffee.
wonderfully chaotic :D
physicsbunny 3 years ago 2
She is born to be a pianist.
domkim1986 3 years ago 13
@domkim1986 she BORN pianist ahahahaha :D
LittleArgerich 1 year ago
Sick tempo, but extremely well played. Only a person with an insane technic can pull this kind of stuff off.
wouterpathetique 3 years ago 5
Yeah, it's impossible even normally and then at this tempo it is just sick.
Soamsey 3 years ago 4
This is so good, when a piano student plays prokofiev I get a headake, but she controlls the chaos in this pease, beautyfull, chaos and technic :D
somedudeplayingpiano 3 years ago 4
Simply put, she has transcendental technique; she belongs in the highest class of virtuosi (Liszt, Busoni, Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, and her).
mathpianist93 3 years ago 4
no. Liszt should be in one class by himself.
mathpianist93 3 years ago 5
What of...Richter and Alkan for intsance?
singsinsing 3 years ago 2
Yes, Liszt should be in a class where he is never compared to any modern pianist simply because no one has him play and thus it is useless to try to quantify his technique.
eigenvector91 3 years ago 7
That should be, "no one has HEARD him play".
eigenvector91 3 years ago 3
my thoughts exactly....We haven't heard Alkan play but it's said that Liszt thought that A had the best technique ever known to a man. Well except for the fact that Busoni knew L at least to some extent, but there are no recordings by Liszt
singsinsing 3 years ago
Tempo sounds OK to my ears and in keeping with the intention of the piece. Pollini took this at a similar pace. Bravura
Goose4Lu71 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fantastic + Fabuluso = Fantabuluso!
Whhhhaaaat a Woman!
Its all in the fingers
and the key strokes folks.
peymaania 3 years ago
HO-LY-SMOKES! Geniale!
Max11551 3 years ago
LOL. Most recordings are about three and a half minutes....minus the THIRTY SECONDS OF CLAPPING. Holy hell, she's a speed demon!
coasterman16 3 years ago 3
This is wonderfully fast, and Argerich is one of the best! I agree with everything said in approval of the speed. I can also appreciate Sokolov's playing, for all the reasons mentioned and more. But I must add that it is well known that Prokofiev was a showman. His recordings of his own pieces (the few there are) are at breakneck speed, and often faster than most others play them. So I personally think Argerich is right on with her speed and technicality.
apothecarydc 3 years ago 4
I like this version, its suppose to be precise right to the beat.
Coixxman 3 years ago 2
argerich often plays fast. but never too fast - for her. maybe too fast for others. she doesn't play so fast that she has anything less than total control - always very musical.
scordatura 3 years ago 2
Teaching this to a pupil now--she wanted to hear this--titanic--clean and rhythmic! Bravo, Martha!!
biegel88 3 years ago
This is insanely fast but I LOVE it!!!
AngelinaTaylor 3 years ago
mon dieu... c'est super-vite!!!! elle est grandiose!!!
scribeuisum 3 years ago
Prokofiev and She are both Great!
egrosz 3 years ago