Straordinaria limpidezza del senso poetico, irruenza appassionata, lirismo intimo e pieno di struggente dizione melodica, tecnica, sonorità e impasto timbrico a livelli eccezionali e quasi mai superati. Grande Richter !!! GRAZIE RICHTER per tutti i gioielli dell'interpretazione che ci ha sempre generosamente offerto !!!!!!!!!!! (correzione del precedente )
Straordinario Limpidezza del senso poetico, irruenza appassionata, lirismo intimo e pieno di struggente dizione melodica, tecnica, sonorità e impasto timbrico a livelli eccezionali e quasi mai superati. Grande Richter !!! GRAZIE RICHTER per tutti i gioielli dell'interpretazione che ci ha sempre generosamente offerto !!!!!!!!!!!
@Pianogod1990 I have no doubt that he could, it was just a humorisic comment, personally he is one of my favorite pianists; strong as a titan and soft like silk. I constantly encourage my musical fellows to listen to his works.
Very difficult to say how he interpreted that Sonata, but, suffice, with feeling, haezy has one, more melodromatic, but still intense..... Go Richter, one of the best....
@ilshatt Just for you information, Richter could memorize pieces faster than most of his colleagues. He learned and premiered Prokofiev 7th sonata within 4 days. When he was older, before a perfomance, he suddenly did not remember parts of a piece he was going to play, and that's what made him use scores in some of his live performances later on.
Richter was a genius, and you should not comment on something like you did without knowing these facts.
Perhaps the two best known Faschinsschwanks, saying either Richter or Michelangeli is better than the other does neither justice. Richter is well known in concert for playing with sponteneity as well as playing with great dynamic contrast and energy. Michelangeli, on the other hand, was best known as a very thoughtful and calculated pianisy live and in the studio. Each brings their benefits - Richter's intensity and imagination, Michelangeli's flawless precision and execution. Both great.
I much prefer Richter's interpretation. I think it's much more of what Schumann would want than Michaelangeli's or Benedtti's. I really think it captures the style of the piece. The opening is supposed to be brash and oud, becase it represents the song of the Marseillies(sp?) which was forbidden during the Viennese Carnival that year. I do think that his tempo may be a bit too fast, but I still really love his intepretation.
Michelangeli was temperamentally more of a classicist, what is often called an apollinean artist, not the artistic ideal of a romantic rebel like Schumann, who was far removed from the classic ideal. It makes no sense to argue that a classicist by nature like Michelangelis will render the definitive interpretation of a fundamentally romantic work like the Faschingsschwank aus Wien. The two styles and artistic temperaments are mutually exclusive. Richters interpretation is truly romantic.
Except your judgment is based on the assumption that Michelangeli is "temperamentally more of a classicist", which is, if not outright wrong, highly questionable.
No, it can't. Most of Michelangeli's definitive recordings are Romantic, such as the Gaspard de la Nuit, the Carnaval, and Debussy, for which he was most famous.
I have never heard any other pianist play this music with such a remarkable combination of verve, spontaneity and tenderndess, which form the very essence Robert Schumanns style. A fascinating performance. Thanx.
Yes way. Michelangeli's live 1957 recording from London is simply an insuperable masterpiece: the characterization of each fragment is more distinctive than here, it's a non stop kaleidoscope of unrepeatable musical insights, you can tell he worked and thought about this work for years and years... This is an unarguably fine rendition by one of the all time greats, but not as singular an achievement as Michelangeli's
buono come giudizio mi sembra un po' riduttivo...Michelangeli è un grande artista ma è difficile fare un paragone con Richter.diverso modo d'interpretare e di sentire la musica!
I do not like this. It is too percussive and rushed (perhaps Richter had a bus to catch). This was a big audience. Perhaps this explains why Richter needed to be very noisy so that everybody could hear. Schumann is not about pyrotechnics-it is about class.
Unlike you, you absolute idiot, I do actually play this piece. You are clearly a ignoramus of boundless dumbness. If you think you know more tha me about music you can f off.
SCHUMANNasaSACRILEGE is a fanatic, a misanthrope, an evil one anong us who thinks that nobody in this day and age can play music. It is either entierly cold, with no expression whatsoever or mechanic metrenome madness... His dresen system is as follows. 5 dresdons is absolutley horrid, the worst ever, something that would scare the devil from hell. 4 is almost as bad, but doesn't quite make every single person suicidal, 3 dresdons means that they play quite awfully but they could do worse.
2 dresdons means that the interpretation is a lot lik the sound of a cat being microwaved, but isn't all grusome. 1 dresdons is quite amazing, as he almost never awards something 1. It means The performance makes him cringe very deeply, but does not make him grab a knife and stab himself.
He is really quite discusting and extrodinarily degrading, even to 10 year olds! The only thing he ever says are insults. I wish youtube would remove his acount. This man is nasty.
the example mentioned (1st prelude of WTC) is a terrible one in my opinion, if by romantic you meant emotional, yes no one disputed Bach's compositions' spirit, romantic referred to certain standards and styles popularized after Beethoven, the melody in the prelude is artificial by the performer, and I don't believe that is how Bach would've played it.
In my opinion, only a few of Bach's compositions were truly artistic and emotional. I play a lot of Bach myself, and while I absolutely adore him, I find most of his compositions to be more of an exercise rather than an artistic piece. And many of Bach's pieces are also very boring, and dry. Keep in mind though, Bach had to write a new piece each week for Church mass, so there are bound to be some pieces that are worse than others. Don't get me wrong though, Bach is definetly a genius composer.
and your opinion is worthless to us, if many of bach's work is 'very boring' to you, how do you consider him a genius composer? i think you should quit while you're ahead
It is not up to you to decide whether my opinion is worthless or not.
Many composers had some very uninteresting works such as Mozart and Schubert, but that does not make them bad composers. Do you truly believe evrything Bach wrote was amazing, breathtaking, beutiful, or rich? Not even close. Just because there were some works of Bach I consider not worthwhile to play doesn't mean Bach is a bad composer. Bach is Bach, and that's all that matters.
I never said my opinion was important. With your way of thinking, NOBODY'S opnion is important. It's either that, or that everybody's opinion counts. I prefer the second one, not only because of my own opinions, but because I respect other people's opinions too.
i thought i specifically said worthless TO US, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? of course it's up to me to decide that, I can respect when you say that bach produced some works that you do not enjoy listening to, but what you said was that many of his works were boring, and to answer your question: nothing he has written I would consider uninteresting, nor schubert and mozart
Secondly, why are my comments so worthless? Have I earned a reputation as posting the worst comments, or are you just saying that because it's the only comeback you can think of? Thirdly, when I say uninteresting, I mean by performance standards. Of course I'd listen to the piece, and study it a bit, but I would never play those pieces in front of an audience, nor would I listen to it at a concert. They are not bad pieces, but rather pieces that are not worth performing.
You have on idea who I am. And once again, your really bad habit of posting things without any explanation whatsoever is coming up. Your comments mean NOTHING, as they are backed up by NOTHING. You are an ignorant person who thinks he doesn't deserve to explain himself clearly. Once again, I disagree with everything you post, unless it is backed up by a thought, or even a speck of an idea.
I would love to be able to argue with you, but you demonstrate such a degree of aplomb that I don't know where to start... Read your own PEARLS and tell me if they deserve to be replied to:
- I play a lot of Bach myself, and while I absolutely adore him, I find most of his compositions to be more of an exercise rather than an artistic piece.
- Bach is a polyfonist. His music, unlike Chopin's, Schuberts, etc. is not BASED on emotion, or any kind of storyline.
So, thunder1909, please stop this nonsense. You are not a bad or mean person, but your views are very naive at best. You are given an opportunity to express your opinion - please make sure you have something important or interesting to say.
2. Just because "mathematicians adore Bach", it doesn't mean Bach's music was written for mathematicians or "based on math". As I told you before - Bach's music "can be described by math" because of perfect structure and proportions, but the same applied to almost all *objects of art* or leaving creatures. Please learn the subject. Your understanding of music and performance is very primitive.
Not responding any of these comments, but to your comment about Chopin's polyphony, and the other Bach comment. I can't find that comment.
1. Listening to Chopin's Fantasie last night I realised what you say is very true, and even though the time was diferrent Chopin incorporated Bach into his compositions.
2. One sound, one line, one volume. that is the general approach by many pianists to Bach. You can't have accents, cres. decres. rit. dim. and so on in Bach. It has to played very simply.
Have you ever heard Richter's recordings of Bach? You could easily fall asleep listening to them. They are played the simplest way possible, with no change in colour, tone, tempo, or sound. And yet the simplicity of Bach's music is what makes it so difficult to play.
I assure you I've heard practically everything Richter has recorded. Forgive me, but your "opinions" on Richter and Bach are entirely moronic. You are probably trying to be *original*, but the result is the opposite. Truly - "ignorance is a blessing"!
There is no ignorance, and I'm not trying to be original. I assure you that I am correct about Richter's recordings of Bach. Maybe you think some of my comments are too general, but I thought I wouldn't have to explain such widely known facts. Especially to a 'great 'musician'.
You are deeply wrong about Richter's recordings because your understanding of the subject is very superficial. I enjoyed your sarcasm toward my "greatness"! ;) Let's return to this topic when you'll be able to play just first 4 measures of Faschingsschwank. I'm sure it will take 4-5 years and by that time you'll see yourself in a different light.
1. Yes, most Bach's pieces are an exercise, not like an etude, but more of a polyphonic exercise. I say this also because there is seldom any change of speed (rubatos) colour, or tone while playing Bach. Everything has to be one line, one volume, and one sound.
2. I might've worded this one wrong, but what I'm trying to say is that Bach just lived in a different time. I can't really compare him to Chopin, or anybody else, because the composers all lived at diferrent times.
1. No, they are not - most of Bach's music is not created for the purpose of "exercising"; and even those which are intended to be an exercise are much more than that. As for "one line, one volume, one sound" - please don't mention it anywhere. ;)
2. Though there is a little bit of truth in what you are saying, the way you understand it is greatly simplified and wrong. F.e. polyphony is a very important part of Chopin's music.
everyone other than you who's posted here doesn't think much of your opinion, that's concerning 'us'. Your comments are worthless because all you can offer us is a broad generalization, 'boring' isn't worth shit when you're speaking of intellectual/artistic compositions you can never write yourself, as for it being the only thing I could have come up with, you would have to remind me of exactly what I'm rebutting to, you haven't said anything of value yet, the rest is repeated nonsense.
Romantic? I will say that Bach was not a romantic, but a rather a baroque composer. Bach's styles are in no way romantic, or even remotely close to the likes of Chopin, Schubert etc. Although I respect your opinion about you being able to feel so many different emotions while listening to Bach. While Bach wasn't a romantic (that is a fact), I completely agree with you about being able to listen to his pieces no matter how your feel happy or sad. Bach envokes many emorions in me too =P.
Presicely is known by all of us that music is expresseed in a math way of what came out from your mind/soul. Writing scores back in Baroque peridod, was still in diapers. Altough there is no evidence that some work has to be played with remarks it doesn't mean you won't play with phrasing, rubato, colour, tone. A simple example of it can be Cantata 147 where I've seen people crying cause its "sublime & profound melancholy" and that expression or feeling, I conclude: is romanticism not dialectic.
My age doesn't matter, as I have played many years of piano and can only say what I hear. What I hear in Richter's playing is pure perfection. He is an extremely talented pianist. Unfortunatly compared to pianists such as Gilels, Richter gives little emotion (especially in his older years). I believe the reason for that is Richter's 'German' upbringing where perfection is upmost important.
Sorry for comment on your age. I apologize for that.
What I try to say is that there are many ways of expressing the same feeling, and sometimes they look totally different, even contradict.
For example, one would say "I am sad" in a extremely calm voice while another says in a dispointed voice, and they are both really sad. But sometimes it's hard to tell if one is reaaly sad, especially when you never encounter that kind of expression. You just think "No, he is not sad"
I'm 14 and I'm studing this piece, and I love this interpretation, many people thinks that this piece is easy, but have them never seen the partiture?
(1) What it calls my attention about guys like ShmitS's comments is that he tries hard to encourage all of us to use our sensibility in order to convert a bunch of signs in something far away different than the meaning itself of those signs called music. On one hand I believe that most of us have enough sensibility, I don't think that we as an audience here "metronomizes" the music first in order to decode it and then "feel" it properly according to ShmitS's guidance.
(2) All of us have our own personal way of felling the music. It is totally subjective. On the other hand, this particular look of ShmitS "The D'Artagnan look", makes me believe that he is truly possessed by this kind of "romantic saver of poverty", in this case: our poverty of souls, mediocre, distorted, narrow, and primitive minds who given our ignorance and lack of sensibility are not capable to distinguish between what is worth or not when feeling the music through certain interpreter.
(3) He tries to brake, in his own belief and selfish conception, the musical rules if there exist at some point about listening and playing certain work but he gets caught in the same way. He is trapped in his own way of thinking, converting the subjectivity of music into a logical thought, his logical thought, and reconverted back again to his own convenience and therefore to his subjective form.
(4) The final result is that we have a new music redeemer, a soul saver who is going to take us out from the darkness and to teach us how we must conceive music in a proper way. It's a contradiction. His conception is based on a false premise. If there is a person who metronomizes the music is him but won't accept it because of his paranoid and grappled mind. If the term metronome means "speed per se", then the artifact would be designed just from the middle to the top of it.
(5) Music is subjective, that's the best understood concept in a person with the minimum level of intelligence though what I've noticed that ShmitS and many others do here, is to listen over and over again a musician -- paradoxically hated by all of them- who felt the music deep in his heart, deep in his soul and expressed with passion, love, humble and honesty. If we can be sure of something is that Richter was an authentic and genuine musician whether you like him or not.
(6) There is no doubt that he was a sensible and superb human being and Shmits or anyone else will not take it out from him definitely. ShmitS is just lonely person who tries to call attention by this means. He is just trying to hide away his fears, his mediocrity and his loneliness making us believe that he is an intellectual gifted person.
Someone here described his page perfectly: "The house of terror". That resumes the truly essence of a loser.
Dear znanto,We're not having a conversation about Richter or his abilities.I attack this performance aesthetic,even if mother Theresa adopted it.AGAIN...TO THOSE WHO WISH TO DEFEND THIS PERFORMANCE AESTHETIC,WE AWAIT THE DEFENCE ON AESTHETIC GROUNDS.
I don't understand what you are waiting for to be said, you want someone to explain its artistic value? from what I understand you think it is monotonous, robotic or superficial (correct me if I am mistaken), then shouldn't you expect the natural reply of one who thinks it's clear, precise, poised, and not chaotic nor overrun by unnecessary display of emotions, many of the components of memorable performance, you need not be reminded that not everyone shares your opinion.
Physically precise(not spiritually).As to chaos...clearly any feeling would be a "Chaos"
to you...as "the unnecessary emotions" of your humanity so threaten you,that you yearn for performers to echo back to you internal vapidity,so you may be confirmed...that indeed...you are empty...of all "Unnecessary emotions"
I said unnecessary 'display' of emotions, there is a difference, while it is admirable for the artist to immerse himself in the music, the performance will not come off cohesive. stop attempting to quote me if you cannot do it right. sir, I understand you dislike Richter, but why do you feel the need to attack everyone who disagrees? if it simply be heard, done. Do you aim to convert us because your opinion is the correct one? that would indeed inform us of your own 'internal vapidity'
(Unnecessary display of emotions) is just 1 evidence of your anti-musical fetishes.
Sir,You claim that I dislike Richter & yet haven't perused my reviews of Richter at Youtube thoroughly. What you regard as cohesive musically is what most consider a train schedule.Go study Mechancial Engineering
Why should Schumann come across as being cohesive? Have you ever examined his structures? I think cohesiveness appears to be the very LAST thing he cared about.
if you're looking for a discussion about Schumann I'm afraid you have come to the wrong guy, I'm not much of a fan of his music as I am of Bach/Liszt, and so no I haven't 'examined his structures'. I feel that Richter here has an introspective view on the whole work, and shows it from the first note.
Further,you clearly haven't listened to pianists who knew Schumann and or grew out of his age.They all had individual takes...but none of it was "cohesive".You have the right instincts for Mechanical Engineering and or logistics.
Introspective? Those collossal, fortissimos are introspective?
Anyhow, I'm not merely talking about Schumann (although he is a composer possibly more than any other , where the notion that cohesion is required is simply nonsensical). Why is 'cohesion' always needed? Why is not equally valid to show the manner in which a piece contains massive contrast, instead of always trying to bond? Where did the composers say that their music must be played cohesively?
why do people continue with attempts to quote what hasn't been said? I don't recall typing 'cohesive' until now, nor claiming that the sole aim of a performance is to maintain cohesiveness, but rather meant that a well rounded tone is of artistic value, that was the context of the comment, after smithsherman had begged for someone to elaborate on the aesthetics of this performance, only to meet it with constant cavilling, that answers why seldom anyone cares for a discussion with him on Richter.
"I said unnecessary 'display' of emotions, there is a difference, while it is admirable for the artist to immerse himself in the music, the performance will not come off cohesive."
Really? That sounds pretty clear to me- if it isn't cohesive you're saying it's a flaw. I could not disagree more, especially in Schumann.
Those who constantly aim to unify only succeed in destroying the wildness and emotional diversity of Schumann. I didn't say you said it was the 'sole aim' But why is it an aim AT ALL? I never heard Schumann preaching the importance of cohesion. For that matter I never heard Beethoven doing so, despite the prevaling torrents of modern re-interpretation put out by Barenboim and Brendel etc.
I fundamentally disagree with Smith on much about the Romantic style, but we share this view, I believe.
the statement you quoted, again, was taken out of context, seeing how I was elaborating on the initial comment, meaning that upon listening to Richter's interpretation, I noted cohesiveness in mood, the themes are ever changing, granted in this work. as smith has pointed out, many had their individual takes, shouldn't this also be a take, at least as an observation of mine, I wonder why it's receiving so much attention, I had much else to say about this video.
Well, you can refer to 'context' but it seems quite clear to me that your premise for the comment was that if something fails to be 'cohesive' that is inherently a flaw. I don't really see how any issue of context could lead to an alternate meaning being drawn. I have always found the notion that 'lack of cohesiveness = bad' to be a strange concept, although modern thinking seems to regard this concept as being an absolute, incontrovertible truth of music. I don't think Schumann ever thought so.
I referred to it before, the context was replying to smith on the aesthetics of this performance, not performance in general, I don't proclaim Richter to be the final word, for example, I dislike his recording of Liszt's wilde jagd, but the Piano Sonata in B minor is beyond belief, his Bach is sublime, while most of his Chopin is only another perspective to me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the liszt piano sonate with richter is beyond belief???? my dear friend, visit the youtube channel "czifframadness" and hear a real performance of the sonate, the way she was mentioned... Richter NEVER understood the music he was playing. He was only concerned about the form, never about the music behind the note's. He had no notion of melodic line and melodic development, he was a great theoreticus on "form", that's all. A pianist to forget.
I don't think you understand Richter's personality. Richter was German, so he was never really very emotional. Richter does indeed understand the music he plays, he just chooses to show it in a different way, thorugh from and character, rather than feeling and emotions (for the most part).
This is not a titanic battle, this is just a comment. Youtube is "invented" to give comments. I do not care if people like him or not, it's just a comment.
it's not richter, it's his interpretation, if you can call it an interpretation... but that's ofcourse my opinion... Why do people react positive or negative on something? maybe because other people say or do something we do not like. Why do you have problems with negative critique, if positive critique is no problem, why not negative?
To say "he had to choose another profession", or "he is not a musician" or "he doesn't understand the music he plays", etc.... has nothing to do with Richter's interpretation! Critique supposes to provide a level of objectivity and arguments. I see nothing in your "opinions" but hateful emotions. Probably this kind of hatred is not a choice... but destiny!
Do you want me to make a website where I explain from bar to bar why he does not understand the music he is playing? I want to do so, but it take's much time...
Yes, it would be a great website, especially with your "bar by bar" explanations. Also you could post commentaries on: "why Leonardo is not an artist" and "why Einstein didn't understand physics". It would be a fascinating reading! I regret you won't be the first one to gain popularity by bashing great names.
What in the hell are you saying??!!? "Richter was German, so he was never really very emotional", are germans genetically emotionless people?? And by the way, was Richter german? He was always a sovjet citizen, born in the Ukraine, died Moscow.
Yes, thats exactly what I said, but I think you misunderstood me. Richter grew up differently, his parents taught him not what Russian parents taught their children (i'm referring to Russian pianists). He grew up to be a perfectionist. Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music. Especially in his older days, when he believed he should play the composer, not himself. But did he know what the composer felt? No.
Your notion - "Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music" - is simply ignorant. The rest of your comment is not much better - you know nothing (or very little) about the subject.
Ok, I understand more what youre saying. Im not sure thats true though. A german upbringing versus a russian one.
And I would say that no performer ever knew or knows what the composer whose music they are playing felt. Gould playing Bach, Kempf or Brendel playing Beethoven, none of them knew anymore of what those compoers felt than what you say about Richter. A performance is a reconstruction, based on subjective ideas and feelings and life experience, and recorded references these days.
You are confusing a lot of things and make quite doubtful conclusions.
1. You have no clue about German or Russian "upbringing" in Soviet Russia.
2. Performer may not feels EXACTLY the same as a composer, but good performers do bring out composer's feelings and intentions quite well. This is the essence of piano art!
Your idea (about Richter not knowing what Beethoven's felt) is not a very appealing one.
(1)wassup, Its not MY IDEA that richter didnt know what beethoven felt, thunder1909 says that about richter on a general basis. Your 2nd point there are my thoughts exactly, but it is the PERFORMERS own feelings and experience thats being used as a template to paint a picture of what the composer felt. My idea is that it is only thunder1909's subjective idea of richter, not an objective fact that richter knows less about var. composers feelings.
(2)hm...In the west you learn to play the piano; in Sovjet Russia, piano learns to play YOU!! In the west Richter plays Beethoven; in Sovjet Russia, Beethoven plays RICHTER!!
I'm sorry, your point about upbringing in "SOVJET RUSSIA" inspired a couple attempts at russian reversal jokes. I guess they suck but, These are the originals:
In the west you can always find a party; in sovjet russia Party finds YOU!
In the west you watch TV; in sovjet russia TV watches YOU!!
my reply was to thunder1909 of course - I made a mistake - actually I agree with you!
Jokes are good, but the reversed ones, as you correctly noticed, surely do suck ;)
The point is - even under the communist system, people could learn how to play the piano and express composer's intentions. As for thunder1909's idea - let's give him a chance to perform and express his own feelings...
I am completely correct on the fact that Richter's German upbringing influenced him to play quite a bit differntly than Russian pianists. Concerning the fact that he didn't play as emotionally as other pianists, that IS true. I'm not implying that Richter was a bad pianists in any way, but that he was his own differnt guy. This is also consistent for Bach (who was also German).Bach wrote preludes, fugues, inventions, suites.None of those pieces were based on emotion.
1. Saying that "German upbringing influenced Richter to play less emotional" is ridiculous. How do you measure emotions at the piano?! German-Russian origin didn't "mute" R's temper ;)
2. Regarding Bach - what do you think his music is based on? Mathematical formulas? Chopin's music is not less *calculated* than Bach's. Richter is not less emotional than Sofronitsky, Oborin, Yudina or Neuhaus. Your views are naive and, forgive me, uneducated.
I am tired and don't want to argue anymore about Richter's emotions at the piano.
Concerning Bach, yes his music is actually based on math Say there are 4 measures of the melody in the right hand, 4 in left, and 8 together. Bach does that a lot, and many mathematicians actually love his music. That's a big reason why.
I, for one, actually PLAY the piano, so I know very well I am talking about. I've carefully studied many of Bach's inventions, preludes, suites etc, and played many of them myself. If you DON'T play the piano, and haven't had the experience of learning Bach's music yourself, then I would shut the hell up and not judge people with your subjective comments. I DO know what I am talking about, and I definetly think you should try to learn what you are talking about yourself.
Your opinion about yourself and your musical abilities is greatly exaggerated. Again, you know very little (rather nothing) about piano performance. As for what I can do (or not) - let's leave this topic to others - I don't promote myself and you are not qualified to judge my skills.
I never judged your skills, I said IF you don't play the piano. And you have NO idea about my piano skills, so that comment is quite void. And i'd like to know very much why and how you think my knowledge is limited.
Your knowledge is not limited - it's non-existent. The one who speaks about Bach and Richter the way you do - simply unable to play the piano well. FYI I do play the piano.
I'm on truecrypt's side. thunder doesn't know anything about music. Sorry thunder, but you have to catch up in knowledge. Bach's music ONLY consists of emotions. And Richter is a very good Bach interpret. That's my opinion.
So thunder, what's next? Martha Argerich is not talented enough? Mikhail Pletnev can't play Beethoven? Rafal Blechacz is not good enough for holding the first prize medal of the chopin competition?? Tell us. I'm really looking forward to some more bullshit.
Bach is a polyfonist. His music, unlike Chopin's, Schuberts, etc. is not BASED on emotion, or any kind of storyline. I'm not saying all of his music isn't emotional, but many of his preludes, fugues etc. aren't based on emotion. (Most) of Bach's music doesn't relaly tell a story r make you cry, but iAs to your 'bulllshit', I haven't got a clue to where you got the idea that Martha, Mike, and Rafal, are bad pianists and so forth.
Sorry for messing up the comment, but as I said (most) of Bach's music doesn't really tell a story or make you cry or laugh, but is simply a polyfonic excersise and no more. This doesn't apply to all of Bach's music, like his piano concertos.
You have no clue about Bach, polyphony, Chopin, Richter, etc. Whatever you say turns into nonsense. Truly a very special gift! You shouldn't address well respected pianists by first name - they are not your pals... You shouldn't say "Richter is is an extremely talented pianist" - it sounds idiotic when comes from you. I understand you don't mean to offend, but your comments are extremely stupid. Please, educate yourself before posting or even better - don't post for a while.
Yes, thats exactly what I said, but I think you misunderstood me. Richter grew up differently, his parents taught him not what Russian parents taught their children (i'm referring to Russian pianists). He grew up to be a perfectionist. Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music. Especially in his older days, when he believed he should play the composer, not himself. But did he know what the composer felt? No.
I accept this as I do a Burned Souffle from a Great Chef.I don't go skulking around in his trash,relishing any vestige of a failure I happen upon. but admit the failure and await his next triumph.
what you consider an anti-musical fetish, I consider as respect for the music on the sheet, and the artist. I have yet to read one remotely positive comment on a Richter video by you, I've gone through your reviews of his appassionata, toccata, jeux d'eau, and others.. they are replicas of the same blather. I wonder why I keep replying seeing how I don't consider this a discussion at all, you choose a sentence of mine and reply to it, with no interest in answering any of the questions I posed.
That's why you'll never play well...because you're interested in abstracts like sheets.
A score is only a vague hint,from which a multi dimensional aural-rhetorical-psychological-coloured sonic totality must be created.The music only can be found in souls...not in scores.
you'll be happy to find out I have changed my mind, I no longer consider your thoughts opinions, rather just take them as they are, nonsense, opinions have to be based on prior knowledge, you demonstrate none of it when you speak of my playing, any musical meaning has to be derived from the notes, and nothing else, and should I point out that you haven't answered any of my questions yet?
As usual Gerry is telling us that if others liked it then we must...He doesn't mention the people like Rubinstein who intensely despised Richter's playing of Schumann.Okay Gerry...think like Rubinstein....
i can hear the piano's pain in his Forte. ouch !
oneginee 2 months ago in playlist Schumann
Straordinaria limpidezza del senso poetico, irruenza appassionata, lirismo intimo e pieno di struggente dizione melodica, tecnica, sonorità e impasto timbrico a livelli eccezionali e quasi mai superati. Grande Richter !!! GRAZIE RICHTER per tutti i gioielli dell'interpretazione che ci ha sempre generosamente offerto !!!!!!!!!!! (correzione del precedente )
darkblueangel1956 6 months ago
Straordinario Limpidezza del senso poetico, irruenza appassionata, lirismo intimo e pieno di struggente dizione melodica, tecnica, sonorità e impasto timbrico a livelli eccezionali e quasi mai superati. Grande Richter !!! GRAZIE RICHTER per tutti i gioielli dell'interpretazione che ci ha sempre generosamente offerto !!!!!!!!!!!
darkblueangel1956 6 months ago
The best performer of whole musical history.
That's it.
homelandless 10 months ago 4
@Pianogod1990 I have no doubt that he could, it was just a humorisic comment, personally he is one of my favorite pianists; strong as a titan and soft like silk. I constantly encourage my musical fellows to listen to his works.
Best regards.
ilshatt 11 months ago
Very difficult to say how he interpreted that Sonata, but, suffice, with feeling, haezy has one, more melodromatic, but still intense..... Go Richter, one of the best....
RichHaezaert 1 year ago
YAYYYYYYYYY HOOOORAY FOR MUSIC AND MUSIC-MAKING, FULL-OUT AND UNAPOLOGETIC AND INSPIRED AND AUTHENTIC!
RedCloudBeechWaveAhh 1 year ago 2
How come he is not wih a sheet music, in his busy life he dared to memorize some things haha.
ilshatt 1 year ago
@ilshatt lolol!
RedCloudBeechWaveAhh 1 year ago
@ilshatt Just for you information, Richter could memorize pieces faster than most of his colleagues. He learned and premiered Prokofiev 7th sonata within 4 days. When he was older, before a perfomance, he suddenly did not remember parts of a piece he was going to play, and that's what made him use scores in some of his live performances later on.
Richter was a genius, and you should not comment on something like you did without knowing these facts.
PianoGod1990 1 year ago
This is fantastic , but i prefer perahai version ....
kempff95 1 year ago
@kempff95 they are both amazing^^
loboris1995 10 months ago
holy crap, Richter was a TITAN
daeviydt 1 year ago
@daeviydt Jawhol!!!
SugarTomAppleRoger 1 year ago
Where are Intermezzo and Finale??
01jemph 1 year ago
The Great Richter... what a pity for the awful audio.
newFranzFerencLiszt 1 year ago
What grade is this piece? =)
ViicVN 1 year ago
@ViicVN This is at the level ARCT, using the Royal Conservatory of Music grading system.
PianotheViolinist 1 year ago
Richter at his theatrical and poetic best - incomparable! Does anyone know whether he also recorded Carnaval? I can't find anywhere on YT.
atherleyboy 1 year ago
Superb playing. Larrocha and Arrau also play this very, very well.
jbbny 2 years ago
Awesome
yoamolaupi 2 years ago
Perhaps the two best known Faschinsschwanks, saying either Richter or Michelangeli is better than the other does neither justice. Richter is well known in concert for playing with sponteneity as well as playing with great dynamic contrast and energy. Michelangeli, on the other hand, was best known as a very thoughtful and calculated pianisy live and in the studio. Each brings their benefits - Richter's intensity and imagination, Michelangeli's flawless precision and execution. Both great.
PIanoReview 2 years ago 2
I much prefer Richter's interpretation. I think it's much more of what Schumann would want than Michaelangeli's or Benedtti's. I really think it captures the style of the piece. The opening is supposed to be brash and oud, becase it represents the song of the Marseillies(sp?) which was forbidden during the Viennese Carnival that year. I do think that his tempo may be a bit too fast, but I still really love his intepretation.
EmilyCait09 2 years ago
Michelangeli was temperamentally more of a classicist, what is often called an apollinean artist, not the artistic ideal of a romantic rebel like Schumann, who was far removed from the classic ideal. It makes no sense to argue that a classicist by nature like Michelangelis will render the definitive interpretation of a fundamentally romantic work like the Faschingsschwank aus Wien. The two styles and artistic temperaments are mutually exclusive. Richters interpretation is truly romantic.
stlivermore 2 years ago
Except your judgment is based on the assumption that Michelangeli is "temperamentally more of a classicist", which is, if not outright wrong, highly questionable.
demosj 2 years ago
Then again it could be patently right and/or highly unquestionable.
stlivermore 2 years ago
@stlivermore
No, it can't. Most of Michelangeli's definitive recordings are Romantic, such as the Gaspard de la Nuit, the Carnaval, and Debussy, for which he was most famous.
Do you consider Horowitz a Baroque pianist too?
demosj 2 years ago
i really like his spirit in this piece however, i feel that the tempo is too much. to fast! but then again, who am I to disagree with RICHTER!! ;)
driemaaldrommels 2 years ago
I have never heard any other pianist play this music with such a remarkable combination of verve, spontaneity and tenderndess, which form the very essence Robert Schumanns style. A fascinating performance. Thanx.
stlivermore 2 years ago
Титан духа, мысли и клавиатуры.
Vikrussia 2 years ago 3
beautifull but arturo's is better :)
odrakikoolol92 2 years ago
No way.
micheldvorsky 2 years ago 3
Yes way. Michelangeli's live 1957 recording from London is simply an insuperable masterpiece: the characterization of each fragment is more distinctive than here, it's a non stop kaleidoscope of unrepeatable musical insights, you can tell he worked and thought about this work for years and years... This is an unarguably fine rendition by one of the all time greats, but not as singular an achievement as Michelangeli's
punkpoetry 2 years ago
I agree with you.
klabm7 2 years ago
You little weenies have no idea what Richter was, is, See all the videos. Then more. Then think a bit what he had to be to do what he did.
Then pray to God you can be a millionth of that.
petie32 2 years ago 23
@petie32 youre a Wienie
hahahaha
SolarJakee 1 year ago
this is great but Arturo Benedetti owns the opening of the piece His rendition is awesome
TJFNYC212 2 years ago
Magnifico !!!!
GBV1961 2 years ago
amazing....
kaisersweeta 2 years ago
What a fantastic piece!!!!
I LOVE the part at 4:41 with the French national anthem!!
AlCoFa 3 years ago 3
OUI OUI, AlCoFa! C'est merveilleux!! Et M. Richter- il était le roi du piano.
TheVandella 3 years ago
lovee this piece
i just got the piece from my piano teacher xD
allygator890 3 years ago
It's really fun to play. I'm learning it now.
daredevil101888 3 years ago
This piece is a beautiful one.
dxiao4 3 years ago
buono, ma ascoltare (per stupirsi!!!) l'esecuzione di Benedetti Michelangeli (Lonfra 1957)... e poi mi direte!
Luismiguel*
luigidiilio 3 years ago
buono come giudizio mi sembra un po' riduttivo...Michelangeli è un grande artista ma è difficile fare un paragone con Richter.diverso modo d'interpretare e di sentire la musica!
sugarve 3 years ago 5
Magnificent!!this is really the Schumann's aesthetical world.Thanks for post the Richter's performance treasures.
ERNESTOABO 3 years ago
while I'm a huge Richter fan, this sounds closer to Prokofiev's aesthetical world than to Schumann's
punkpoetry 3 years ago
Im Tale zieht der Frühling auf!
aaabbbccc5 3 years ago
i love this performance!
ugolinoandhissons 3 years ago
Basically, it means that SasaS thinks it's horrible because it pays attention to structure and isn't completely drenched in rubato.
Haeronthegreat 3 years ago
I do not like this. It is too percussive and rushed (perhaps Richter had a bus to catch). This was a big audience. Perhaps this explains why Richter needed to be very noisy so that everybody could hear. Schumann is not about pyrotechnics-it is about class.
mikezzzaaa3 3 years ago
The only thing that you will ever catch is a venerial disease. Your stupidity explains why you don't recognize class.
Slipperypaws 3 years ago
Unlike you, you absolute idiot, I do actually play this piece. You are clearly a ignoramus of boundless dumbness. If you think you know more tha me about music you can f off.
mikezzzaaa3 3 years ago
Why don't you post it and show us your "class"...and we can all have a laugh.
True, my paws are too slippery to play, but your head is even more empty than the halls were you give your "classy" rec(i)tals.
Slipperypaws 3 years ago
It is time to agree to disagree.
mikezzzaaa3 3 years ago
SCHUMANNasaSACRILEGE is a fanatic, a misanthrope, an evil one anong us who thinks that nobody in this day and age can play music. It is either entierly cold, with no expression whatsoever or mechanic metrenome madness... His dresen system is as follows. 5 dresdons is absolutley horrid, the worst ever, something that would scare the devil from hell. 4 is almost as bad, but doesn't quite make every single person suicidal, 3 dresdons means that they play quite awfully but they could do worse.
beryllium2 3 years ago 2
2 dresdons means that the interpretation is a lot lik the sound of a cat being microwaved, but isn't all grusome. 1 dresdons is quite amazing, as he almost never awards something 1. It means The performance makes him cringe very deeply, but does not make him grab a knife and stab himself.
He is really quite discusting and extrodinarily degrading, even to 10 year olds! The only thing he ever says are insults. I wish youtube would remove his acount. This man is nasty.
beryllium2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I AWARD THIS 4 DRESDENS....
SCHUMANNasaSACRILEGE 3 years ago
ahaha this argument below is quite funny, dont argue with such non sense. people has different views and leave it there....
MIBAKI 3 years ago
This man should have been a composer.
terraflux16 3 years ago
Just Wonderful.......... Schumann .i think......was the music Richter plays better than any other composer.
All the atmosphere of fantasy and Schumann "Craziness" is there. Perfect.
666
z666z666z 3 years ago
the example mentioned (1st prelude of WTC) is a terrible one in my opinion, if by romantic you meant emotional, yes no one disputed Bach's compositions' spirit, romantic referred to certain standards and styles popularized after Beethoven, the melody in the prelude is artificial by the performer, and I don't believe that is how Bach would've played it.
znanto 3 years ago
In my opinion, only a few of Bach's compositions were truly artistic and emotional. I play a lot of Bach myself, and while I absolutely adore him, I find most of his compositions to be more of an exercise rather than an artistic piece. And many of Bach's pieces are also very boring, and dry. Keep in mind though, Bach had to write a new piece each week for Church mass, so there are bound to be some pieces that are worse than others. Don't get me wrong though, Bach is definetly a genius composer.
thunder1909 3 years ago
and your opinion is worthless to us, if many of bach's work is 'very boring' to you, how do you consider him a genius composer? i think you should quit while you're ahead
znanto 3 years ago
It is not up to you to decide whether my opinion is worthless or not.
Many composers had some very uninteresting works such as Mozart and Schubert, but that does not make them bad composers. Do you truly believe evrything Bach wrote was amazing, breathtaking, beutiful, or rich? Not even close. Just because there were some works of Bach I consider not worthwhile to play doesn't mean Bach is a bad composer. Bach is Bach, and that's all that matters.
thunder1909 3 years ago
"It is not up to you to decide whether my opinion is worthless or not."
Goes to...
"Bach is Bach, and that's all that matters."
So yes according to yourself, your opinion doesn't matter. Can't force people to like certain music anyway.
RabidCh 3 years ago
I never said my opinion was important. With your way of thinking, NOBODY'S opnion is important. It's either that, or that everybody's opinion counts. I prefer the second one, not only because of my own opinions, but because I respect other people's opinions too.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Did I say I was taking your "opinion"? You need to read your comments and others comments more carefully.
RabidCh 3 years ago
i thought i specifically said worthless TO US, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? of course it's up to me to decide that, I can respect when you say that bach produced some works that you do not enjoy listening to, but what you said was that many of his works were boring, and to answer your question: nothing he has written I would consider uninteresting, nor schubert and mozart
znanto 3 years ago
First of all, who's US?
Secondly, why are my comments so worthless? Have I earned a reputation as posting the worst comments, or are you just saying that because it's the only comeback you can think of? Thirdly, when I say uninteresting, I mean by performance standards. Of course I'd listen to the piece, and study it a bit, but I would never play those pieces in front of an audience, nor would I listen to it at a concert. They are not bad pieces, but rather pieces that are not worth performing.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Not worth performing for me anyways.
thunder1909 3 years ago
No,thunder1909, just vice versa - you don't deserve to touch this piece.
truecrypt 3 years ago
You kidding me?...
You seriously kidding me Truecrypt?...
You have on idea who I am. And once again, your really bad habit of posting things without any explanation whatsoever is coming up. Your comments mean NOTHING, as they are backed up by NOTHING. You are an ignorant person who thinks he doesn't deserve to explain himself clearly. Once again, I disagree with everything you post, unless it is backed up by a thought, or even a speck of an idea.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
I would love to be able to argue with you, but you demonstrate such a degree of aplomb that I don't know where to start... Read your own PEARLS and tell me if they deserve to be replied to:
- I play a lot of Bach myself, and while I absolutely adore him, I find most of his compositions to be more of an exercise rather than an artistic piece.
- Bach is a polyfonist. His music, unlike Chopin's, Schuberts, etc. is not BASED on emotion, or any kind of storyline.
truecrypt 3 years ago
- Bach's music doesn't really tell a story or make you cry or laugh, but is simply a polyfonic excersise and no more.
This doesn't apply to all of Bach's music, like his piano concertos.
-Concerning Bach, yes his music is actually based on math Say there are 4 measures of the melody in the right hand, 4 in left, and 8 together.
truecrypt 3 years ago
So, thunder1909, please stop this nonsense. You are not a bad or mean person, but your views are very naive at best. You are given an opportunity to express your opinion - please make sure you have something important or interesting to say.
truecrypt 3 years ago
1. Like I said, diferrent time, diferrent music.
2. Please tell me how I am wrong here. Did you know, studies have actually shown that a lot of mathematicians adore Bach.
thunder1909 3 years ago
1. Yes, very original thought... ;)
2. Just because "mathematicians adore Bach", it doesn't mean Bach's music was written for mathematicians or "based on math". As I told you before - Bach's music "can be described by math" because of perfect structure and proportions, but the same applied to almost all *objects of art* or leaving creatures. Please learn the subject. Your understanding of music and performance is very primitive.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Not responding any of these comments, but to your comment about Chopin's polyphony, and the other Bach comment. I can't find that comment.
1. Listening to Chopin's Fantasie last night I realised what you say is very true, and even though the time was diferrent Chopin incorporated Bach into his compositions.
2. One sound, one line, one volume. that is the general approach by many pianists to Bach. You can't have accents, cres. decres. rit. dim. and so on in Bach. It has to played very simply.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Have you ever heard Richter's recordings of Bach? You could easily fall asleep listening to them. They are played the simplest way possible, with no change in colour, tone, tempo, or sound. And yet the simplicity of Bach's music is what makes it so difficult to play.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
I assure you I've heard practically everything Richter has recorded. Forgive me, but your "opinions" on Richter and Bach are entirely moronic. You are probably trying to be *original*, but the result is the opposite. Truly - "ignorance is a blessing"!
truecrypt 3 years ago
There is no ignorance, and I'm not trying to be original. I assure you that I am correct about Richter's recordings of Bach. Maybe you think some of my comments are too general, but I thought I wouldn't have to explain such widely known facts. Especially to a 'great 'musician'.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
You are deeply wrong about Richter's recordings because your understanding of the subject is very superficial. I enjoyed your sarcasm toward my "greatness"! ;) Let's return to this topic when you'll be able to play just first 4 measures of Faschingsschwank. I'm sure it will take 4-5 years and by that time you'll see yourself in a different light.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Have you every posted any videos of yourself playing anything? I'd love to see them.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
you can find a playlist "Truecrypt plays..." on my page.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Thanks, I'll come back to you some other time when I feel like arguing and embarassing you some more =P. Just kidding.
thunder1909 3 years ago
you are welcome to argue with me, but try not to embarrass yourself ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
Have you every posted any videos of yourself playing anything? I'd love to see them.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Have you every posted any videos of yourself playing anything? I'd love to see them.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
1. It's a good sign you noticed polyphony in Chopin's music!
2. Be careful with "general" approach. Try to be precise. One CAN have dynamics (and agogics) in Bach.
truecrypt 3 years ago
1. Yes, most Bach's pieces are an exercise, not like an etude, but more of a polyphonic exercise. I say this also because there is seldom any change of speed (rubatos) colour, or tone while playing Bach. Everything has to be one line, one volume, and one sound.
2. I might've worded this one wrong, but what I'm trying to say is that Bach just lived in a different time. I can't really compare him to Chopin, or anybody else, because the composers all lived at diferrent times.
thunder1909 3 years ago
1. No, they are not - most of Bach's music is not created for the purpose of "exercising"; and even those which are intended to be an exercise are much more than that. As for "one line, one volume, one sound" - please don't mention it anywhere. ;)
2. Though there is a little bit of truth in what you are saying, the way you understand it is greatly simplified and wrong. F.e. polyphony is a very important part of Chopin's music.
truecrypt 3 years ago
everyone other than you who's posted here doesn't think much of your opinion, that's concerning 'us'. Your comments are worthless because all you can offer us is a broad generalization, 'boring' isn't worth shit when you're speaking of intellectual/artistic compositions you can never write yourself, as for it being the only thing I could have come up with, you would have to remind me of exactly what I'm rebutting to, you haven't said anything of value yet, the rest is repeated nonsense.
znanto 3 years ago
thunder1909;
1. "Us" are people who are fed up with your nonsense.
2. No, you didn't earn bad reputation yet. Bad reputation is still a *reputation*.
3. So, Faschingsschwank is not was worth to perform? Have you tried first 4 measures? ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago 2
Romantic? I will say that Bach was not a romantic, but a rather a baroque composer. Bach's styles are in no way romantic, or even remotely close to the likes of Chopin, Schubert etc. Although I respect your opinion about you being able to feel so many different emotions while listening to Bach. While Bach wasn't a romantic (that is a fact), I completely agree with you about being able to listen to his pieces no matter how your feel happy or sad. Bach envokes many emorions in me too =P.
thunder1909 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
terrible. A terrible interpretation. Who is this hack? Just dreadful. really quite dreadful and appalling. Who let the waiter play?
Brennafugg 3 years ago
Please, do not write about things you don't understand.
AAssett 3 years ago
but it's really quite dreadful and appalling. I was appalled.
Brennafugg 3 years ago
Do we have a new Shmith's reincarnation here? Hope not.
Score is just the result of moulding on a mathematic expression and logical way, the conclussion of a musical idea conceived in a subjective form.
Since when Bach's Choral music, sacred Cantatas, Mass in B minor, to mention some of them, were conceived as mathematic forms?
Someone tell me please...
nietzschemasterclass 3 years ago
Do you know the correct spelling of the "new Shmith" ???
AAssett 3 years ago
EVAR NOTICED THA TYME SIGNATURE IN THE BEGINNING? 2/4? 3/4? 4/4? LOLOL MATH!!!11!1one1 the bastard thought we'd never notice it.
znanto 3 years ago
Presicely is known by all of us that music is expresseed in a math way of what came out from your mind/soul. Writing scores back in Baroque peridod, was still in diapers. Altough there is no evidence that some work has to be played with remarks it doesn't mean you won't play with phrasing, rubato, colour, tone. A simple example of it can be Cantata 147 where I've seen people crying cause its "sublime & profound melancholy" and that expression or feeling, I conclude: is romanticism not dialectic.
nietzschemasterclass 3 years ago
I think thunder is too young to distinguish what things look like and what they really are.
Richter is a pianist who evokes the deepst emotion.
Thank for posting this video.
maurizioya 3 years ago
My age doesn't matter, as I have played many years of piano and can only say what I hear. What I hear in Richter's playing is pure perfection. He is an extremely talented pianist. Unfortunatly compared to pianists such as Gilels, Richter gives little emotion (especially in his older years). I believe the reason for that is Richter's 'German' upbringing where perfection is upmost important.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Sorry for comment on your age. I apologize for that.
What I try to say is that there are many ways of expressing the same feeling, and sometimes they look totally different, even contradict.
For example, one would say "I am sad" in a extremely calm voice while another says in a dispointed voice, and they are both really sad. But sometimes it's hard to tell if one is reaaly sad, especially when you never encounter that kind of expression. You just think "No, he is not sad"
maurizioya 3 years ago
there's no such thing as tainted perfection, either it's perfect or it isn't, pure adds nothing to that statement.
znanto 3 years ago
I'm 14 and I'm studing this piece, and I love this interpretation, many people thinks that this piece is easy, but have them never seen the partiture?
Richter is one of the best pianist in the world.
FabioThePianist 3 years ago
Lol these comments are ridiculous to read...man, it is just music, an interpretation.
Vampyreq 3 years ago
Lol these comments are ridiculous to read...man, it is just music, an interpretation.
Vampyreq 3 years ago
That, and in order to make some big bucks!
suzettegm 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Meanwhile...this performance Aesthetic...
continues to stink.Poor Schumann.
smithsherman 4 years ago
To all music lovers:
(1) What it calls my attention about guys like ShmitS's comments is that he tries hard to encourage all of us to use our sensibility in order to convert a bunch of signs in something far away different than the meaning itself of those signs called music. On one hand I believe that most of us have enough sensibility, I don't think that we as an audience here "metronomizes" the music first in order to decode it and then "feel" it properly according to ShmitS's guidance.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago
(2) All of us have our own personal way of felling the music. It is totally subjective. On the other hand, this particular look of ShmitS "The D'Artagnan look", makes me believe that he is truly possessed by this kind of "romantic saver of poverty", in this case: our poverty of souls, mediocre, distorted, narrow, and primitive minds who given our ignorance and lack of sensibility are not capable to distinguish between what is worth or not when feeling the music through certain interpreter.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago 2
(3) He tries to brake, in his own belief and selfish conception, the musical rules if there exist at some point about listening and playing certain work but he gets caught in the same way. He is trapped in his own way of thinking, converting the subjectivity of music into a logical thought, his logical thought, and reconverted back again to his own convenience and therefore to his subjective form.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago
(4) The final result is that we have a new music redeemer, a soul saver who is going to take us out from the darkness and to teach us how we must conceive music in a proper way. It's a contradiction. His conception is based on a false premise. If there is a person who metronomizes the music is him but won't accept it because of his paranoid and grappled mind. If the term metronome means "speed per se", then the artifact would be designed just from the middle to the top of it.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago
(5) Music is subjective, that's the best understood concept in a person with the minimum level of intelligence though what I've noticed that ShmitS and many others do here, is to listen over and over again a musician -- paradoxically hated by all of them- who felt the music deep in his heart, deep in his soul and expressed with passion, love, humble and honesty. If we can be sure of something is that Richter was an authentic and genuine musician whether you like him or not.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago 2
(6) There is no doubt that he was a sensible and superb human being and Shmits or anyone else will not take it out from him definitely. ShmitS is just lonely person who tries to call attention by this means. He is just trying to hide away his fears, his mediocrity and his loneliness making us believe that he is an intellectual gifted person.
Someone here described his page perfectly: "The house of terror". That resumes the truly essence of a loser.
nietzschemasterclass 4 years ago
Dear znanto,We're not having a conversation about Richter or his abilities.I attack this performance aesthetic,even if mother Theresa adopted it.AGAIN...TO THOSE WHO WISH TO DEFEND THIS PERFORMANCE AESTHETIC,WE AWAIT THE DEFENCE ON AESTHETIC GROUNDS.
smithsherman 4 years ago
I don't understand what you are waiting for to be said, you want someone to explain its artistic value? from what I understand you think it is monotonous, robotic or superficial (correct me if I am mistaken), then shouldn't you expect the natural reply of one who thinks it's clear, precise, poised, and not chaotic nor overrun by unnecessary display of emotions, many of the components of memorable performance, you need not be reminded that not everyone shares your opinion.
znanto 4 years ago 2
Yes,This Aesthetic is Monodimensionally clear.
Physically precise(not spiritually).As to chaos...clearly any feeling would be a "Chaos"
to you...as "the unnecessary emotions" of your humanity so threaten you,that you yearn for performers to echo back to you internal vapidity,so you may be confirmed...that indeed...you are empty...of all "Unnecessary emotions"
smithsherman 4 years ago
I said unnecessary 'display' of emotions, there is a difference, while it is admirable for the artist to immerse himself in the music, the performance will not come off cohesive. stop attempting to quote me if you cannot do it right. sir, I understand you dislike Richter, but why do you feel the need to attack everyone who disagrees? if it simply be heard, done. Do you aim to convert us because your opinion is the correct one? that would indeed inform us of your own 'internal vapidity'
znanto 4 years ago
(Unnecessary display of emotions) is just 1 evidence of your anti-musical fetishes.
Sir,You claim that I dislike Richter & yet haven't perused my reviews of Richter at Youtube thoroughly. What you regard as cohesive musically is what most consider a train schedule.Go study Mechancial Engineering
smithsherman 4 years ago
Why should Schumann come across as being cohesive? Have you ever examined his structures? I think cohesiveness appears to be the very LAST thing he cared about.
cziffra1980 4 years ago
if you're looking for a discussion about Schumann I'm afraid you have come to the wrong guy, I'm not much of a fan of his music as I am of Bach/Liszt, and so no I haven't 'examined his structures'. I feel that Richter here has an introspective view on the whole work, and shows it from the first note.
znanto 4 years ago
Further,you clearly haven't listened to pianists who knew Schumann and or grew out of his age.They all had individual takes...but none of it was "cohesive".You have the right instincts for Mechanical Engineering and or logistics.
smithsherman 4 years ago
Introspective? Those collossal, fortissimos are introspective?
Anyhow, I'm not merely talking about Schumann (although he is a composer possibly more than any other , where the notion that cohesion is required is simply nonsensical). Why is 'cohesion' always needed? Why is not equally valid to show the manner in which a piece contains massive contrast, instead of always trying to bond? Where did the composers say that their music must be played cohesively?
cziffra1980 4 years ago 2
why do people continue with attempts to quote what hasn't been said? I don't recall typing 'cohesive' until now, nor claiming that the sole aim of a performance is to maintain cohesiveness, but rather meant that a well rounded tone is of artistic value, that was the context of the comment, after smithsherman had begged for someone to elaborate on the aesthetics of this performance, only to meet it with constant cavilling, that answers why seldom anyone cares for a discussion with him on Richter.
znanto 4 years ago
"I said unnecessary 'display' of emotions, there is a difference, while it is admirable for the artist to immerse himself in the music, the performance will not come off cohesive."
Really? That sounds pretty clear to me- if it isn't cohesive you're saying it's a flaw. I could not disagree more, especially in Schumann.
cziffra1980 4 years ago
Those who constantly aim to unify only succeed in destroying the wildness and emotional diversity of Schumann. I didn't say you said it was the 'sole aim' But why is it an aim AT ALL? I never heard Schumann preaching the importance of cohesion. For that matter I never heard Beethoven doing so, despite the prevaling torrents of modern re-interpretation put out by Barenboim and Brendel etc.
I fundamentally disagree with Smith on much about the Romantic style, but we share this view, I believe.
cziffra1980 4 years ago
the statement you quoted, again, was taken out of context, seeing how I was elaborating on the initial comment, meaning that upon listening to Richter's interpretation, I noted cohesiveness in mood, the themes are ever changing, granted in this work. as smith has pointed out, many had their individual takes, shouldn't this also be a take, at least as an observation of mine, I wonder why it's receiving so much attention, I had much else to say about this video.
znanto 4 years ago
Well, you can refer to 'context' but it seems quite clear to me that your premise for the comment was that if something fails to be 'cohesive' that is inherently a flaw. I don't really see how any issue of context could lead to an alternate meaning being drawn. I have always found the notion that 'lack of cohesiveness = bad' to be a strange concept, although modern thinking seems to regard this concept as being an absolute, incontrovertible truth of music. I don't think Schumann ever thought so.
cziffra1980 4 years ago
I referred to it before, the context was replying to smith on the aesthetics of this performance, not performance in general, I don't proclaim Richter to be the final word, for example, I dislike his recording of Liszt's wilde jagd, but the Piano Sonata in B minor is beyond belief, his Bach is sublime, while most of his Chopin is only another perspective to me.
znanto 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the liszt piano sonate with richter is beyond belief???? my dear friend, visit the youtube channel "czifframadness" and hear a real performance of the sonate, the way she was mentioned... Richter NEVER understood the music he was playing. He was only concerned about the form, never about the music behind the note's. He had no notion of melodic line and melodic development, he was a great theoreticus on "form", that's all. A pianist to forget.
marcelmombeek 4 years ago
I have heard it, but won't again. I understand where you come from when you criticise Richter's playing, but I disagree.
znanto 4 years ago 5
I don't think you understand Richter's personality. Richter was German, so he was never really very emotional. Richter does indeed understand the music he plays, he just chooses to show it in a different way, thorugh from and character, rather than feeling and emotions (for the most part).
thunder1909 3 years ago
then he had to choose another profession.
marcelmombeek 3 years ago
Marcel,
It wasn't Richter's choice - it was his DESTINY.
Looks like you're engaged in titanic battle with Richter! Good luck in your hopeless endeavor! ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
even a destiny can be wrong.
This is not a titanic battle, this is just a comment. Youtube is "invented" to give comments. I do not care if people like him or not, it's just a comment.
marcelmombeekeigen 3 years ago
Marcel;
Destiny can not be right or wrong... it's a DESTINY.
If you "do not care" why is such an insistence and negativity toward Richter? ;)
truecrypt 3 years ago
it's not richter, it's his interpretation, if you can call it an interpretation... but that's ofcourse my opinion... Why do people react positive or negative on something? maybe because other people say or do something we do not like. Why do you have problems with negative critique, if positive critique is no problem, why not negative?
marcelmombeekeigen 3 years ago
Marcel;
To say "he had to choose another profession", or "he is not a musician" or "he doesn't understand the music he plays", etc.... has nothing to do with Richter's interpretation! Critique supposes to provide a level of objectivity and arguments. I see nothing in your "opinions" but hateful emotions. Probably this kind of hatred is not a choice... but destiny!
truecrypt 3 years ago 5
Do you want me to make a website where I explain from bar to bar why he does not understand the music he is playing? I want to do so, but it take's much time...
marcelmombeekeigen 3 years ago
Yes, it would be a great website, especially with your "bar by bar" explanations. Also you could post commentaries on: "why Leonardo is not an artist" and "why Einstein didn't understand physics". It would be a fascinating reading! I regret you won't be the first one to gain popularity by bashing great names.
truecrypt 3 years ago 5
What in the hell are you saying??!!? "Richter was German, so he was never really very emotional", are germans genetically emotionless people?? And by the way, was Richter german? He was always a sovjet citizen, born in the Ukraine, died Moscow.
eirikpilot 3 years ago
Yes, thats exactly what I said, but I think you misunderstood me. Richter grew up differently, his parents taught him not what Russian parents taught their children (i'm referring to Russian pianists). He grew up to be a perfectionist. Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music. Especially in his older days, when he believed he should play the composer, not himself. But did he know what the composer felt? No.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909,
Your notion - "Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music" - is simply ignorant. The rest of your comment is not much better - you know nothing (or very little) about the subject.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Ok, I understand more what youre saying. Im not sure thats true though. A german upbringing versus a russian one.
And I would say that no performer ever knew or knows what the composer whose music they are playing felt. Gould playing Bach, Kempf or Brendel playing Beethoven, none of them knew anymore of what those compoers felt than what you say about Richter. A performance is a reconstruction, based on subjective ideas and feelings and life experience, and recorded references these days.
eirikpilot 3 years ago
eirikpilot;
You are confusing a lot of things and make quite doubtful conclusions.
1. You have no clue about German or Russian "upbringing" in Soviet Russia.
2. Performer may not feels EXACTLY the same as a composer, but good performers do bring out composer's feelings and intentions quite well. This is the essence of piano art!
Your idea (about Richter not knowing what Beethoven's felt) is not a very appealing one.
truecrypt 3 years ago
P.S. My reply probably should be addressed to - thunder1909 and less to eirikpilot
truecrypt 3 years ago
(1)wassup, Its not MY IDEA that richter didnt know what beethoven felt, thunder1909 says that about richter on a general basis. Your 2nd point there are my thoughts exactly, but it is the PERFORMERS own feelings and experience thats being used as a template to paint a picture of what the composer felt. My idea is that it is only thunder1909's subjective idea of richter, not an objective fact that richter knows less about var. composers feelings.
eirikpilot 3 years ago
(2)hm...In the west you learn to play the piano; in Sovjet Russia, piano learns to play YOU!! In the west Richter plays Beethoven; in Sovjet Russia, Beethoven plays RICHTER!!
I'm sorry, your point about upbringing in "SOVJET RUSSIA" inspired a couple attempts at russian reversal jokes. I guess they suck but, These are the originals:
In the west you can always find a party; in sovjet russia Party finds YOU!
In the west you watch TV; in sovjet russia TV watches YOU!!
eirikpilot 3 years ago
eirikpilot;
my reply was to thunder1909 of course - I made a mistake - actually I agree with you!
Jokes are good, but the reversed ones, as you correctly noticed, surely do suck ;)
The point is - even under the communist system, people could learn how to play the piano and express composer's intentions. As for thunder1909's idea - let's give him a chance to perform and express his own feelings...
truecrypt 3 years ago
This goes to tuecrypt too.
I am completely correct on the fact that Richter's German upbringing influenced him to play quite a bit differntly than Russian pianists. Concerning the fact that he didn't play as emotionally as other pianists, that IS true. I'm not implying that Richter was a bad pianists in any way, but that he was his own differnt guy. This is also consistent for Bach (who was also German).Bach wrote preludes, fugues, inventions, suites.None of those pieces were based on emotion.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
1. Saying that "German upbringing influenced Richter to play less emotional" is ridiculous. How do you measure emotions at the piano?! German-Russian origin didn't "mute" R's temper ;)
2. Regarding Bach - what do you think his music is based on? Mathematical formulas? Chopin's music is not less *calculated* than Bach's. Richter is not less emotional than Sofronitsky, Oborin, Yudina or Neuhaus. Your views are naive and, forgive me, uneducated.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I am tired and don't want to argue anymore about Richter's emotions at the piano.
Concerning Bach, yes his music is actually based on math Say there are 4 measures of the melody in the right hand, 4 in left, and 8 together. Bach does that a lot, and many mathematicians actually love his music. That's a big reason why.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
It's good you decided not to argue about Richter's "emotions". You have zero knowledge about it.
As for Bach's music, - you know even less than nothing. Study the subject well before posting really dull comments.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Truecrypt,
I, for one, actually PLAY the piano, so I know very well I am talking about. I've carefully studied many of Bach's inventions, preludes, suites etc, and played many of them myself. If you DON'T play the piano, and haven't had the experience of learning Bach's music yourself, then I would shut the hell up and not judge people with your subjective comments. I DO know what I am talking about, and I definetly think you should try to learn what you are talking about yourself.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
Your opinion about yourself and your musical abilities is greatly exaggerated. Again, you know very little (rather nothing) about piano performance. As for what I can do (or not) - let's leave this topic to others - I don't promote myself and you are not qualified to judge my skills.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Truecrypt,
I never judged your skills, I said IF you don't play the piano. And you have NO idea about my piano skills, so that comment is quite void. And i'd like to know very much why and how you think my knowledge is limited.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
Your knowledge is not limited - it's non-existent. The one who speaks about Bach and Richter the way you do - simply unable to play the piano well. FYI I do play the piano.
truecrypt 3 years ago
I'm on truecrypt's side. thunder doesn't know anything about music. Sorry thunder, but you have to catch up in knowledge. Bach's music ONLY consists of emotions. And Richter is a very good Bach interpret. That's my opinion.
So thunder, what's next? Martha Argerich is not talented enough? Mikhail Pletnev can't play Beethoven? Rafal Blechacz is not good enough for holding the first prize medal of the chopin competition?? Tell us. I'm really looking forward to some more bullshit.
Ilanovic07 3 years ago
Sigh...
I will attmept to explain.
Bach is a polyfonist. His music, unlike Chopin's, Schuberts, etc. is not BASED on emotion, or any kind of storyline. I'm not saying all of his music isn't emotional, but many of his preludes, fugues etc. aren't based on emotion. (Most) of Bach's music doesn't relaly tell a story r make you cry, but iAs to your 'bulllshit', I haven't got a clue to where you got the idea that Martha, Mike, and Rafal, are bad pianists and so forth.
thunder1909 3 years ago
Sorry for messing up the comment, but as I said (most) of Bach's music doesn't really tell a story or make you cry or laugh, but is simply a polyfonic excersise and no more. This doesn't apply to all of Bach's music, like his piano concertos.
thunder1909 3 years ago
thunder1909;
You have no clue about Bach, polyphony, Chopin, Richter, etc. Whatever you say turns into nonsense. Truly a very special gift! You shouldn't address well respected pianists by first name - they are not your pals... You shouldn't say "Richter is is an extremely talented pianist" - it sounds idiotic when comes from you. I understand you don't mean to offend, but your comments are extremely stupid. Please, educate yourself before posting or even better - don't post for a while.
truecrypt 3 years ago
Yes, thats exactly what I said, but I think you misunderstood me. Richter grew up differently, his parents taught him not what Russian parents taught their children (i'm referring to Russian pianists). He grew up to be a perfectionist. Compared to many other pianists, especially Russian ones, Richter did not put a lot of emotion into his music. Especially in his older days, when he believed he should play the composer, not himself. But did he know what the composer felt? No.
thunder1909 3 years ago
I accept this as I do a Burned Souffle from a Great Chef.I don't go skulking around in his trash,relishing any vestige of a failure I happen upon. but admit the failure and await his next triumph.
smithsherman 4 years ago
what you consider an anti-musical fetish, I consider as respect for the music on the sheet, and the artist. I have yet to read one remotely positive comment on a Richter video by you, I've gone through your reviews of his appassionata, toccata, jeux d'eau, and others.. they are replicas of the same blather. I wonder why I keep replying seeing how I don't consider this a discussion at all, you choose a sentence of mine and reply to it, with no interest in answering any of the questions I posed.
znanto 4 years ago 2
That's why you'll never play well...because you're interested in abstracts like sheets.
A score is only a vague hint,from which a multi dimensional aural-rhetorical-psychological-coloured sonic totality must be created.The music only can be found in souls...not in scores.
smithsherman 4 years ago
you'll be happy to find out I have changed my mind, I no longer consider your thoughts opinions, rather just take them as they are, nonsense, opinions have to be based on prior knowledge, you demonstrate none of it when you speak of my playing, any musical meaning has to be derived from the notes, and nothing else, and should I point out that you haven't answered any of my questions yet?
znanto 4 years ago 2
As usual Gerry is telling us that if others liked it then we must...He doesn't mention the people like Rubinstein who intensely despised Richter's playing of Schumann.Okay Gerry...think like Rubinstein....
smithsherman 4 years ago
you don't have to like it at all, but do you recognise that he could've played it differently if he chose to? this is the way he sees fit.
znanto 4 years ago
artie, I'll consider the many