Tchaikovsky piano concerto No. 1 played by Emil Gilels

[davidhertzberg]

Thank God for television technology.

[penguinshin]

No offense, but please put away your thesaurus. Not all digital recording technology is the same, so you cannot claim that 1980's digital sound was the same as 2000's digital sound and that because its all digital, Gilels sound in recordings is due 100% to himself. Listen to Ricther, he too had a golden sound, albeit he didn't get as much attention for it. This special sound is partly due to a lack of quality in recording technology, which is why older recordings sound mellow.

[punkpoetry]

@penguinshin

you're welcome to stick to your theory, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, including the testimonies of those who were fortunate enough to hear Gilels live. Just don't ask me to conform to the linguistic standard of an illiterate American teenager

[penguinshin]

@punkpoetry woh, where did "illiterate" come from lol. what does "linguistic standard" mean (so that others (including myself) know what your talking about). this "evidence" you are talking about are the recordings themselves which, as i said already, are limited (or in this case, enhanced), by the recording technology of the time. Please check your logic: Testimonies of live performance can be good and recordings can be good, but that doesn't make the sound the same...

[punkpoetry]

@penguinshin

I'm happy to brand as illiterate anyone who doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its". Regarding Gilels, recording technology and your (unfathomable to me) use of the word "logic" - whatevs bro

[penguinshin]

@punkpoetry and I like to call anybody who uses the words "linguistic standard" as pretentious and stupid because, if you'd like to know the truth, those words don't have any meaning - I think I've found a great place to use the word nonsensical! however, i'm sure you have a good reason to be the way that you are. oops i forgets to Capitilize my santences!

:)

:)

:)

:p

[punkpoetry]

@penguinshin

I only used the phrase in reference to your own reference to a thesaurus, which I've interpreted as an invitation to express my thoughts in a style with which you would be more, shall we say, conversant. I've studied linguitics (majored in it, in fact) all too well to know the arbitrary, socially determined nature of register, convention etc. If anything, it was a call for you to be less restrictive! (dont expect you to understand how this is consistent with mockery of bad grammar)

[RabidCh]

@punkpoetry

kids these days huh?

my ass golden tone doesnt exist, even in more modern recordings cherkassky and novaes killed 99% of pianists with their tone, and then you also have grigory sokolov, igor zhukov with another kind of world. acoustics in recordings matter no doubt, but when its attested in person and through multiple recordings in different environments, somebody's just deaf here.

[geertdehoux]

"Such great piano playing nowadays doesn't exist anymore!"

Geert Dehoux, pianist.

[penguinshin]

I think that the sound people attribute to Gilels is partly due to his own doing and partly due to the recordings of his time. Yes, there is a russian school of playing that emphasizes tone. In fact, the production of good tone is inherent in good technique for this school. Volodos also has magnificent tone. However, due to recording technologies and the different sets of pianos, certain tones labeled as "golden" are not achievable. Listen to Volodos' Schubert or Skryabin.

[punkpoetry]

@penguinshin

while it's true that production of sound is given special emphasis with the Soviet piano school, your claim is a nonsensical one. to refute it, one needs to go no further than Gilels' (and Richter's and Lupu's etc) mentor Heinrich Neuhaus, who's written about Gilels' irrepeatable tone with awe and amazement. This quality shines through in Soviet recordings made in the 1930s as it does in digital recordings made on DG in the 1980s. again, indefensible nonsense

[UGTownsend]

Wrong notes, who cares? See the forest, not the trees :)

[curlysue27]

This Gilels doesn't have as delicate a sound or the pure artistry of Richter.

[bobbphysics]

@curlysue27 That's just your opinion

[Frozentoes1]

@curlysue27 Richter...a delicate sound? Wowzers, the man pounds the piano like he has jackhammers for hands.

Great pianist, though. One of the best.

[mehandas]

@curlysue27 Personally I think Richtor sounds like a mechanical piano device. But I don't say that in public for fear of being accused of not being musically perceptive. Nonetheless, as far as I can hear, Gilels is the cleverest pianist in terms of interpretation and in terms of technique, because he is able to vary the tone so much, unlike Richter who's tone variation is none (or in artistic jargon 'subtle').

[icgriffin]

to toscanob You are quite correct . At 1.42 he hits the wrong notes!!!

This is nothing unusual. I have been a keen classical music enthusiast for over 40yrs and I can state categorically that even the best of them make mistakes and ,surprisingly these sometimes even make it onto the final recording. This applies to orchestras and performers the world over. No matter how brilliant they are, they are still human!

[uchiha938]

are those wrong notes or is the piano out of key?

[SugarTomAppleRoger]

This really is a special clip!

[happydudenator]

gilels is so awesome that even his hands emit an aura of awesome - you can actually see a dark glow around his hands!

[frogmanpiano]

Simply, this is great playing, all the performances mentioned are special, Van Cliburn recorded his performance after he won the Tchaikovsky Comp and it is still available it too is great; elsewhere I have mentioned Rubinstein and of course dear Martha A' s volcanic recording should not be forgotten; and then there is Solomon and so on......There is no such thing as the best just different and they all have claim to our attention at different times -or should

[Bret6464]

Yes - Gilels, Richter (with the BPO), Horowitz, these are all signature and never to be matched performences, but don't forget Van Cliburn's Moscow performence, that is my favorite :-) No one else has come close! Does anybody know if there is a CD with the St. Petersburg Orchestra of this?

[Anderskh]

ipod ???? mine are all on LP and open reel tape.

[toscanob]

Did anybody hear something unusual at 1:42 ?????

[ksj818]

@toscanob  Nobody cares, but yes... it's very unusual indeed:D

[Ellinidara]

I forgot Horowitz...

[ElEsquisProductions]

Of course, Horowitz delivered all the power in the Tchaikovsky concerto, but I think this piece is owned by majestic pianists with a noble sound ej. Gilels, Rubinstein.

[Qumak13]

Too slow! I've heard Gilels' other recording (with Philharmonia Orchestra and Maazel) and the first part was played in awesome 20 minutes!

But to me Richter/Karajan will always remain a canonic interpretation.

[billyguns2]

Cluytens subdivides the opening bars!!! This is TOTALLY wrong-headed, and makes for a plodding, uninspired performance; Gilels deserved better.

[Astra2012]

my opinion,as usual with opinions, differs and I just love Kissin/karajan interpretation. Best!

But Gilels has lots of passion (probably more than Tchaikovsky!) and gives it another-very exciting!-dimension.

[ishnumy]

I completely agree with you! Kissin/Karajan's interpretation is awesome.

But -to me- Gilels delivers it with more power and passion!

I think have ~15 versions of this concertos on my ipod lol

[ElEsquisProductions]

my opinion in the interpretations in levels

1) Rubinstein

2)Gilels

3)Ritcher

4)Argerich

[Ellinidara]

Argerich (first !)

Weissemberg

Kissin

Rubinstein

Gilels

[agomalak1]

Gilels can only be compared to Richter. Period.

[rbcrazyriderrb]

; ( *sniff* so beatiful

[vesterico]

Very beatiful indeed, sigh...

[XxGabexXxxxx]

Great, i love it!

[Nfx1963]

come on, Gilels is on top of them all, musically and technically speaking. He displayed by far the most astonishing legato on earth

[Giovanni222]

Gilels is the best when accompanied by an orchestra. But as a soloist, Horowitz edges it.

[diableret]

Gilels untouchable in the Tchaikovsky as with almost everything he touched,...and who is this cretin comparing him ubnavouarably with Kissin and Volodyos.

Gilels can only be compared to Richter, Sofronitsky and Michelangeli, the last titans, the very top of the pyramid.

[lscully3]

Horowitz? Argerich? Both brought the Tchaikovksy to a very high level as well.

[violajones]

Best pianist of all time!!

[Steinway12345]

Sorry, but not even close.

[violajones]

You have someone else to suggest?

Can you name other pianist who interpret Beethoven sonatas better. Or Schubert sonatas? or the trout quintet (with Amadeus quartet)?

Barking isn't enough for an argument

[Steinway12345]

First off, lets not freak out so quickly. First of all, the obvious answer is, of course, Liszt. Most technically advanced pianist of all time, reputed to have performed orchestral works at the piano, and according to popular opinion, have out-done the orchestra. There are also modern examples of more technically advanced pianists. Volodos, Evgeny Kissen, and others.

[Steinway12345]

As to interpretation, no interpretation is, per se, "better" than any other. It is about the listener, and, of course, the composer's intentions. As neither Beethoven or Schubert are alive, they aren't exactly capable of giving their opinion of how their work should be played, so it is then left to history, and, of course the performer. Beauty, sir, is in the eyes of the beholder.

I should like to stress that I don't mean to discredit this man. I consider him a superb pianist, but not the best.

[sab3156]

Volodos and Kissen are school boys compared to the likes of Richter, Gilels, and Rubinstein.

You really have no idea what you're talking about if you believe technical precision and finger velocity is what it takes to be a musician. As for technique suited for beauty, the names you mentioned have none.

[Steinway12345]

I never said that "technical precision and finger velocity" are what it takes to be a musician. However, good musicianship sprouts from good technique. For example, if you are playing a virtuoso piano piece, for example, La Campanella, you will surely add expression to it. However, the good pianist knows that you should not add expression to a piece until you have it technically perfect (or close to it.)

[sab3156]

That's an extreme view. Anyway, to each his own.

[Steinway12345]

Is it? That's simply how I've been taught, and it has worked out well for me.

[cdsmithers81]

Or perhaps it could be said that the two are the same for any musical instrument - 'technique' IS 'expression', and vice versa - that one is not truly possible without the other. Technique is not simply facilitated finger-work, but the result of a keen responsiveness to one's sound i.e. MUSICAL sound (whether 'expressive' or 'beautiful' or whatever you want to call it).

[mandyschulz]

especially kissin will be the perfect schoolboy forever - but no more - and volodos plays like a pig!

[ElEsquisProductions]

You are completely right! what pianists like Richter, Gilels and Rubinstein looked for was not just technical mastery, but the beauty of the sound and the message of the piece. Music is about telling a story, not perfection in fingering and technique.

[SugarTomAppleRoger]

@sab3156 Yep. I would agree with you. What do you think of Argerich?

[curlysue27]

@SugarTomAppleRoger the greatest..

[ElEsquisProductions]

I agree, Gilels is not the ultimate pianist, but he had complete mastery over the fiendishly difficult Spanish Rhapsody and over the pieces of Beethoven like the sonatas.

[rankfrankrank]

Listing Volodos and Kissin over Gilels? That just shows ignorance.

[snipee911]

@rankfrankrank No, it shows bad taste not ignorance.

[TheMoritati]

@rankfrankrank I completely agree. Gilels is possibly my favorite pianist.

[srplaysbachtb]

Hmmm...I wonder...

Richter?

Not that hard.

[Steinway12345]

Can I retract previous comments? Honestly, the only pianist I would possibly put over Gilels would be Horowitz. I was being pigheaded. Leave my previous ignorance be, please.

[Steinway12345]

Also, possibly Rubenstein.

[horiac]

I cried a little. Thank God for such people a Tchaikovsky and Giglels.

[ccguy66]

Woodwinds holding out phrase too long at 1:02, and they're having trouble keeping up with the accelerando at 1:22... but Gilels is fantastic.

[sujimsusana]

bellissimo...

[orannisthedestroyer]

what an incredible performance!!! gilels is himself...what can we say? but that orchestra also is FABULOUS!!! they are more "together" than any modern orchestra I've ever heard.

[scratchmcg]

Absolutely amazing.