Bach - Concerto no 1 in re minor - 1st mov

[colourfulwithaU]

I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS FOREVER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING.

[paganviodio]

the audio trace does not fit with the film material. it they don´t match. this disturbs me. but richter is richter. he plays great.

[taylor10goal]

I don't know.....I have heard hundreds of interpretations of this concert and although I admire Richter I cannot say that this is the best version I heard. It sounds me like: "OK, let's finish it, I'm already late". And I really don't like how he plays the part between 6:52 and 7:24.

[alienalienss]

@taylor10goal You shouldn't ignore the bad sound quality of the recording. This seems like a pretty good performance, to be honest. It's just hard to hear. 

[bersa888]

...correction: I meant Baroque composers were aware of periods, phrases, etc., when writing. BUT, when playing the music, those "affects" determined a more "fragmented" interpretation, directed more towards the small unit than the big picture :-)

[bersa888]

It is when playing and articulating these small units of a musical sentence (from the Baroque) that the approach will necessarily differ from playing a Chopin's nocturne, where the "singing line" is usually of foremost importance. And motivic development is hard sometimes to spot from one section to the other (at least in Bach). But it's there (it depends on forms and genres, of course).

I'll have to look into Tiegerman's recordings (Youtube?)! Thank you!

[bersa888]

I have my own old favorites too, by the way :-) But, as a musician/composer, I always cared more about the music - which I can play myself too - than the performer, although this certainly important. Bach would sound OK even when played on kitchen utensils.... (I love Lhevinne too).

[bersa888]

Also, not everything Landowska or Richter (Karl) played was great ;-) As far as Baroque music, things that were NOT the norm before would be unthinkable today: phrasing by motif and agogic accents; pitch/tuning; rhythmic freedom; dynamics; tempo; materials (strings, woods, etc.). During that last 60 years there have been tons of discoveries, both scores and documents, that must necessarily inform the intelligent performer. And I would never want it all to be more about Landowska than BACH ;-)

[Arush09]

When a performer reaches the transcendent level, the phrasing by motif and agogic accents, rhythmic freedom, dynamics, tempo, and even the notes are at their disposal. Toscanini even added parts in the strings for Beethoven's fifth for reinforcement! None of the masters ever played one piece the same way everytime. I enjoy liberties taken by the master's. Landowska or any of them can do whatever they like with the music.

[bersa888]

Then we think alike. Music - baroque or not - is about playing it. But Landowska and many old great performers phrased by phrase, a totally romantic approach to period music which was unthinkable 300 years ago. I don't have a problem with liberties of approach, but with being out of touch with the original intentions, flexible as they might have been (and they were). Whether you like it or not, there's such think as a more appropriate performance for a 300-year old piece of music.

[Arush09]

I agree completely, but appropriate might not be the best word to use.

And as a composer, you would have to agree that we compose by phrase often times. Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Program music all have clear complete sections and phrasing that often times has little to do with the previous section.

If you like Lhevinne, you will enjoy Friedman and Tiegerman(best Chopin in my opinoin), too, if you haven't already heard them. =)

[bersa888]

Composing "by phrase" was not in the use or even vocabulary of the Baroque composer. Musical periods in the Baroque were much more flexible and free of "classic proportion" (2+2, 4+4, 8+8, etc.). Priority and attention was given to specific small gestures and motifs (as well as counterpoint, harmony, etc.). Each of these dealt with specific intervals, articulations thereof and emotional significance ("affects").

[francescaemc2]

hmmm. What's Richard Dawkin's email?

Beginning to doubt.....

[colourfulwithaU]

@francescaemc2

Good question; there is no 'contact' link on his website. Not that I can find, anyways.

[SSSLAWWWA]

I'm deep in shock! I've been looking for this record for so so long, that I even forgot I'd been looking for it! How can I explain my gratitude to The Publisher?! It's Soviet TV broadcast, late 70s, Youry Nikolaevsky conducts. Thanks again and again!

[francescaemc2]

Richter rulz. Shreds Bach like it outghta should.

[PunisaRachich]

hahaha

[Arush09]

This is perfection, just like Gould's. Landowska, however, is the queen and absolute authority on Bach.

If you can find it, there is a recording of Borovsky playing this concerto in a Busoni arrangement...one of the most amazing recordings I have ever heard.

[bersa888]

Not a fun of "historically informed" performances (original instruments and such) I suppose.... :-) My only disagreement would be with calling Landowska "the queen and absolute authority on Bach", while herself said that "this might not be the way Bach should be played, but it is MY way".... I think she was great, but the sound of her steel harpsichord was downright awful when compared with the real things (copies or reconstructed originals). I' d invite you to listen the "posts of "alra1975"

[Arush09]

Your quote is a little mixed up. What she actually said (to another Bach specialist)was "You play Bach your way, and I'll play him HIS way."

Can you post the link to whatever it is you are recommending? I think her harpsichord's sound is magnificent and would be very interested to hear something that makes her instrument sound "downright awful". Thanks

[bersa888]

Yes, you are right. But she also said/admitted (maybe not in those EXACT words) what I wrote. No matter what, I consider her a great artist, but today's musicological knowledge is vastly superior to what they had or rather what they CARED about then ;-) The instrument she had built for herself was not a "real" harpsichord by historical standard. Any of her famous recordings sound metallic and aggressive, just like a reinforced steel instrument would sound. But that's just me...

[Arush09]

Today's musicological knowledge? As far as what? They are discontinuing many of the transcendental musicians recordings. Find me a musician today as great as Landowska, Lhevinne, Tiegermann, etc. They do not exist anymore! The knowledge we have today is pure shit. No one knows the difference anymore.

[bersa888]

Hey, don't get so upset...! Just a discussion here...

Two topics: 1) todays' performers 2) Baroque music and its interpretation.

1) I agree about the dime-a-dozen pianists and violinists out there, all techniques and no hearts... the problem is that it's hard to find the real deal amongst so many recordings and concerts.

2) I wouldn't dismiss the "knowledge" we have today which is, because of time alone, superior in many ways to what they knew or had available 50-100 years ago.

[frankkkappa]

Close to GG performance! But not so effortless as GG! GG plays a "little" better!

[PunisaRachich]

you are utterly deaf if you can't hear Richter's superiority to anyone! including Gould

[vivascargill1]

@PunisaRachich gould himself admitted as  much

[aldebussy]

His Bach is lovely and I really appreciate this video, though his WTC is FAR from historically accurate. He uses pedale to sustain notes that in the piece had to be sustained for 1/5 of what he does.

Gould is not everything.

Other famous interpretors: Murray Perahia, Angela Hewitt, Andras Schiff, Rosalyn Tureck, etc etc

[PunisaRachich]

of course he's not. he's far from it

[miliona1re]

why at 1.46 he accelerates?

[nickrussel79]

this is one of the episodes to notice that the tempo came down to less than ideal - and to pep it up a bit, subtly and masterfully

[klizmophil]

Does anyone know who that conductor is?

[efitzge76]

Richter exemplifies the rhythmic and percussive nature of this first movement, which I love. I sincerely admire Gould's interpretation as well, though this one fits my mind better.

To me, this first movement is as much about evenness as it is phrasing.

[pianofolle]

i cant believe people still talk ab gould as if he was the only great interpreter of bach. apart from the absurdity of such view, richter happens to be a bach interpreter summa cum laude, he was and is well known as that. start wherever u guys want: italian concerto, WTC etc.

[Coixxman]

Gould is better

[Timmytimtimtm]

Coixx u don't have to compare he Bigwigs all the time.

[mrtslam]

I think my opinion is pretty much the same others' here. I hate to criticize Richter. But, when compared with Glenn Gould, Richter could only look second class.

[Timmytimtimtm]

Gould has his own weaknesses, you are in mistake if you think he is the ultimate in Bach performance.

[deandusk]

i think so too, timtimtimtimtimtim

[wouterpathetique]

Richter is a great pianist, in this recording however the only thing he does is play loud. Tempo is a little too fast but that's not the main concern: the main thing is that there are barely any dynamic differences, and that he makes it sound mechanical. Too bad for a pianist of that quality.

[fluffytom82]

too fast? I think he plays it far too slow... it gets mechanical because the velocity is not there!

and for all you Gould fans: Glenn Gould sucks at playing baroque music :)

[aldebussy]

I'm sorry if you can't hear the nuances.

[tsukai1]

Richter's interpretation gets 20k views. Gould's interpretation gets 114k views. This answers our question on who's version is better.

[palcsi]

Don't always be swayed by popular opinion - think for yourself.

[tsukai1]

You're right. I shouldn't be swayed by popular opionions. After giving this a second listen, I have to say it's an interesting interpretation. I still prefer Gould's version. Thanks.

[flo2300]

But richter's video has been posted 1 year after gould 's one

[RabidCh]

Richter isn't known for his Bach as compared to Glenn Gould who is known mostly for his Bach. Richter plays an "old style" Russian way of playing Bach while Gould redefined Bach with eccentric playing. I like both; I love Richter's Bach very much and Gould puts Romanticism and tension into this piece like no other.

[RabidCh]

And a month later I'm wondering why I put "Romanticism into my post"... lol

Scratch that word.

[Darklord12356]

No it could just be that more people know about Gould...

[aldebussy]

Hmmm...do you realize we're on YT?

These people aren't Cesar Cui or Harold Schonberg.

[mojekajby]

Gould was absolutely superb in his initial recording of the Goldbergs...Richter's playing of the Bach d-minor (especially the earlier recording[from the 60s??] with a better conductor...I believe it was Rudolf Barshai)is closer to the "melos" of this piece than Gould's, although I admire Gould in other things, as stated above....

[h4x3dby1337]

Too fast for my taste, and he rushes quite a bit. Gould's is much better, in my opinion.

[ClassicalMMAChef]

Why is the complete orchestra standing??

[beethoven4ever]

What a pleasure!

[znanto]

impressive

[iinvent]

Written by a true genius... performed by another genius. I just love it.

[GrigolConservative]

This music is as perfect as Bach was himself!

[nairda55555]

that could be both a comment, an insult, or irony if you were talking about mozart instead of bach.

[JEP177777]

I swear by Gould but also love this! Very clear and dramatic. He rushes where I rush.

[mandy13467]

they had to pull out at 7:24

:(

[adrct]

Great performance! Richter was a genius. It's great to hear (and watch) him play Bach. Two giants!

[mandy13467]

Best interpretation I've ever heard.

[ClassicalMMAChef]

It does seem to hurried and this takes away a bit of the musicality specially compared to Gould's interpretation.

But there is definately no denying that this is packed with intensity as always with Richter's performances.

[gokhanay1]

1st violin is not Kogan, Oleg KAGAN!!!

[nikolaimedtner]

unbelievable how he keeps the tempo during the whole movement. it's the most difficult

[bee5722]

I really like GG's version much better...this sounds robotic..

[AlsatianCousin]

Only shows how little you know.

[bee5722]

Yeah you are right, I wish I could appreciate it more...

[mltube]

And you will, some day.

[afertyus1000]

leandrusi you wanker i didnt say it was composed for the organ,just that it suits the mood better

[leandrusi]

He he,ok. Lets just calm down shall we.

I actually fin your comment very interesting,I guess Ill have to hear it on organ, I asume it would probably sound really nice.

Thats one of my favorite things about Bach´s music, it is absolute music. So geniously writen that it goes beyond the phisical fact of sound.

[afertyus1000]

yeh sorry about the stupd comment,i did'nt mean to insult you as i don't know you,lets just enjoy the music

[Yeparchippe]

Enregistrement intéressant, ce n'est certainement pas la meilleure performance de richter dans ce registre du répertoire de Bach mais le document est intéressant. J'aimerais bien savoir par qui est conduit l'orchestre, il joue de manière très spéciale les cadences rythmiques de transition; encore merci pour cet envoi

[196823]

Classical playing. It's good

[mltube]

Stop by any time, Sonnym.

[sonnym1]

a bit too fast/hurried...doesn't come close to Glenn Gould's performance although I enjoyed it, thankyou

[NagualElias]

this piece sounds better played slow on piano. on harpsichord it sounds better on a faster tempo.

[ppooqqww0011]

nothing special

[afertyus1000]

go away

[iolda]

it is Georgian lenguage

the unic language

:)

[mltube]

But not intirily, I presume. :-)

[iolda]

arachveulebrii xarisxia video rgolia:)

perfect da magali shesrulebis manera,

thanks for posting this

[mltube]

What kind of language is it? Looks like some incription scheme.

[BROWNRAT100]

awsome performance!

[BatesJr]

I've always loved the creepiness of this movement, something which really surprised me when I first heard it years ago. The performance is excellent, thank you for posting this.

[afertyus1000]

i love it also but i think it sounds better on the church organ,more in suiting to the period

[leandrusi]

Go read a book and inform yourself a little bit. This is not for organ.

[ronaldocobre]

Magnífico, de fato!

[mimfri]

WOW - what a gem. Thanks for posting. Please put up the rest!