Vladimir Sofronitsky plays Scriabin Sonata No. 9

Alexander Scriabin, Piano Sonata No. 9 "Black Mass", Op. 68

Category:

Music

Tags:

• sofronitsky
• scriabin
• piano
• sonata

[TomOwen77]

The sound quality here is very - v ery - wer ry resonant (breaking up) and distorted with many overtones in places. No denying Sofronitsky is one of the great interpreters but there are too many rave reviews which don't match up to what you can actually hear. Put this performance up against Hamelin (or even Glemser on Naxos) and you will hear far more actual variety of tone (and touch in Hamelin's case).

[truecrypt]

Seems like you are confusing the quality of performance with quality of recording. There are many good recordings (Hamelin and Ashkenazy are definitely among those) but it's very hard to dispute Sofronitsky's supremacy in Scriabin. I think Hamelin would rather agree with me! ;)

[pianiplunker]

@truecrypt I'm replying to a 3 year old comment but oh well. Hamelin has made it clear in an interview that he was not a fan of Sofronitsky's Scriabin's interpretations. Basically he said Sofronitsky's playing lacks clarity and he pays little attention to Scriabins tempo and dynamic markings.

[truecrypt]

@pianiplunker

Though I enormously respect Hamelin, his opinion is only his opinion...He may change it later... Sofronitsky shouldn't be measured by simply "clarity" issue. Judging from Hamelin's point of view Chopin himself can be "criticized" for lack of attention to - his own- dynamics and tempi... ;) Geniuses can not and should not be measured by the lowest common denominator.

[pianiplunker]

@truecrypt Hamelin's criticism of Sonfronitsky appears in the book: The Composer-Pianists: Hamelin and The Eight by Robert Rimm. I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the book on hand. Basically he felt Sofronitsky was a sloppy pianist who played on a whim. I admit I'm not familiar with Hamelin's Scriabin interpretations but I imagine them being as different as possible. Personally I'm very receptive to Sofronitsky's Scriabin's interpretations, his adherence to details in the scores notwithstanding.

[truecrypt]

@pianiplunker well... obviously Hamelin doesn't appreciate Sofronitsky... I was wrong assuming the opposite! ;) But I still prefer Sofronitsky with all his imperfections and "lack of clarity" to Hamelin's super human and brilliant execution.

[georgecziffra]

I think the low quality of the recording makes this performance even more eery and disturbing.

[punkpoetry]

Nabokov in Lectures on Russian Literature remarks that Chekhov didn't pay too much heed to verbal elegance and adornment (I don't remember the precise wording); yet was an infinitely greater writer than many celebrated prose stylists. Sofronitsky's singularity lies elsewhere than what is commonly held to be pianistic excellence. I have never heard a phrase or an intonation in his performance that was less than irrepeatable, which is more than I can say of Hamelin

[pianiplunker]

@truecrypt . Well said, I probably wouldn't enjoy Sofronitsky performing Alkan while Hamelin is supreme in that type of music. Fortunately pianists come in an infinite variety.

[MrRhiannonsdad]

Put simply, Hamelin adheres to the score while Sofronitsky adheres to the music. Sofronitsky was a God of Scriabin's music and no-one captures every facet of Scriabin's mindscape like him.

[gullivior]

@pianiplunker Hamelin is a great virtuoso, no doubt, but he is only a pianist .. Sofronitzky is a genius, a poet, a visionary .. from an artistic point of view, the distance between them is incommensurable ..

[titusbeertsen]

@andgodwouldsay The piano concerto is Opus 20., thus early Scriabin. All early Scriabin sounds Chopinesque. I agree late Scriabin is mindblowing though.

[morinoroba]

Great, so inspiring.