aren't you really fed up with taking the "octaves" of this movement as if there isn't anything else but that octaves passage in the whole movement..what makes that interesting to play these octaves as fast as possible and talk about them under each of this movement and compare the pianists according to these octaves... come on, please, really enough...
At this level, it doesn't pay to worry about technical ability. Speculating about whether or not Richter could have played the octaves faster than Argerich or Horowitz is pretty much worthless; I'm sure Horowitz and Argerich could have played the octaves even faster than they did, but they don't. At this level of technical mastery, I'm concerned only by interpretation; whether or not they make the piece of music interesting for me. Now, I will leave that hanging... by not giving my opinion.
I always thought too many judgements on a rendition of this concerto is simply based on the difficult octave passage. There is more than sheer virtuosity to this concerto and should not be judged by only that matter. (Although I frankly believe that technical virtuosity is kind of required to play this, heh.)
See comments on Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in "Conversations with Menuhin." Almost every violinist tried to play more beautifully and brilliantly than colleagues, so it was over-played, over-used, yet amazingly well played more often than almost any other work. Look at it as vehicle of self-display in the West (too general statement I know), but Russians play it somewhat more disciplined, and the music loses nothing. Very similar case with piano concerto and conservatory octave competition?
how is it "better"? Horowitz's and Argerich's recordings have remained benchmarks. This Richter recording is rather passionless and dry compared to them.
One can easily say that Richter, Gilels, Ginzburg, Rubinstein, Cliburn, Gavrilov, Pletnev (and I probably missed another 5-10) left us performances which are very well up to (if not above) Horowitz and Argerich versions. You measure "better" by the speed of octaves, other people prefer different parameters. Matter of taste, experience and education.
I think you may find useful to learn a bit more about the subject... for example listen Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3 - those are 9th (not 8th!) and they are much harder to play than simply octaves. Richter runs through them with astronomical speed and ease.
If you have to say something interesting about performance, please feel free to do so... otherwise your points re speed of octaves has no value whatsoever.
You guys should see the video recording of this, along with Gennardy conducting it. Just sweeping. Though Gennardy admitted that it was really difficult to work with him, because richter had the kind of energy that tended to crush rather than collaborate.
Vous voulez dire Gennady Rozhdestvensky? Je n'ai pas trouvee la video sur youtube...Sur mon vieux vinyl c'est le meme concert Richter + Evgueni Mravinski, avec Orch.Symphonique Nationale de Leningrad
Such SPIRIT in execution! I sit in awe, moments fading and forgotten for all their worthlessness, inspired and enriched. Richter presents thru his execution an intensity of emotion that can cut through your soul.
bon, mais je préfère Martha Argerich sur ce concerto :)
khongcothithoi 1 year ago
aren't you really fed up with taking the "octaves" of this movement as if there isn't anything else but that octaves passage in the whole movement..what makes that interesting to play these octaves as fast as possible and talk about them under each of this movement and compare the pianists according to these octaves... come on, please, really enough...
bugra885 1 year ago
At this level, it doesn't pay to worry about technical ability. Speculating about whether or not Richter could have played the octaves faster than Argerich or Horowitz is pretty much worthless; I'm sure Horowitz and Argerich could have played the octaves even faster than they did, but they don't. At this level of technical mastery, I'm concerned only by interpretation; whether or not they make the piece of music interesting for me. Now, I will leave that hanging... by not giving my opinion.
BenMcCormack91 1 year ago
Richter is the greatest.
jeffsteinway 2 years ago 2
I always thought too many judgements on a rendition of this concerto is simply based on the difficult octave passage. There is more than sheer virtuosity to this concerto and should not be judged by only that matter. (Although I frankly believe that technical virtuosity is kind of required to play this, heh.)
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
See comments on Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in "Conversations with Menuhin." Almost every violinist tried to play more beautifully and brilliantly than colleagues, so it was over-played, over-used, yet amazingly well played more often than almost any other work. Look at it as vehicle of self-display in the West (too general statement I know), but Russians play it somewhat more disciplined, and the music loses nothing. Very similar case with piano concerto and conservatory octave competition?
RDSerebrianny 2 years ago
Argerich and Horowitz had much faster octaves. Richter's are soooo slow
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
So, all you can hear is the spead of the octaves? ;)
truecrypt 2 years ago
Also, their versions of this movement are much more exciting and passionate. It's not just the octaves
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
You may well get more excited by Martha Argerich, but it doesn't make Richter's octaves "sooo slow".
truecrypt 2 years ago
but richters perfomance is more more more more better than argerich and horowitz!!!!
minibushta 2 years ago 3
how is it "better"? Horowitz's and Argerich's recordings have remained benchmarks. This Richter recording is rather passionless and dry compared to them.
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
One can easily say that Richter, Gilels, Ginzburg, Rubinstein, Cliburn, Gavrilov, Pletnev (and I probably missed another 5-10) left us performances which are very well up to (if not above) Horowitz and Argerich versions. You measure "better" by the speed of octaves, other people prefer different parameters. Matter of taste, experience and education.
truecrypt 2 years ago
you've got to admit though. Richter probably couldn't have played the double octaves faster than Horowitz and Argerich (and Gilels probably too)
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
I think you may find useful to learn a bit more about the subject... for example listen Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3 - those are 9th (not 8th!) and they are much harder to play than simply octaves. Richter runs through them with astronomical speed and ease.
If you have to say something interesting about performance, please feel free to do so... otherwise your points re speed of octaves has no value whatsoever.
truecrypt 2 years ago
Argerich had a lot of problems trying to decrease her octaves speed.
She played like an automated robot those octaves, and according to my point of view, she breaked up the balance of the concerto because of this...
alexggable 2 years ago 2
génial !
nguyenthecuongquoc 2 years ago 4
the best !!!! genios!!!!
vipbekunia 2 years ago 4
Merci pour la video! *****
marighim2008 3 years ago 7
You guys should see the video recording of this, along with Gennardy conducting it. Just sweeping. Though Gennardy admitted that it was really difficult to work with him, because richter had the kind of energy that tended to crush rather than collaborate.
TimandBen 3 years ago 2
Vous voulez dire Gennady Rozhdestvensky? Je n'ai pas trouvee la video sur youtube...Sur mon vieux vinyl c'est le meme concert Richter + Evgueni Mravinski, avec Orch.Symphonique Nationale de Leningrad
marighim2008 3 years ago
..mesmerising...truly coruscating...
BoratBrother 3 years ago 3
Such SPIRIT in execution! I sit in awe, moments fading and forgotten for all their worthlessness, inspired and enriched. Richter presents thru his execution an intensity of emotion that can cut through your soul.
willistara 3 years ago 13