Rare - Alexander Scriabin - Revised Etude Op.8 No.12
Uploader Comments (ScriabinFanatic)
Top Comments
-
I personally prefer this version and believe it's a shame that everyone else just plays the original.
-
Are there any more recordings of the revised version?
All Comments (71)
-
Yes. One of them was here before mid-2008, when I had downloaded it right before it was deleted. See the channel name "f1f1f1s", it has been reuploaded recently!
-
i did drugs today, im a worthless piece of shit, this masterpiece reminds me that im human
-
A most interesting version!
-
This version is too fruity. Lacks the darkness and depth of the original.
-
I love this version, i think it´s more deep into emotions
-
Why isn't the last two chords FF? I can barely hear the first one! In the score they are indicated so!
-
both are really nice pieces...I'm sure if Horowitz had got his hands on this he would have made it sound amazing
-
did i comment and give thanks for posting this piece already...if not, many thanks
-
@JSAntares I don't think so. This revision is really strange for early Scriabin.
-
Who is playing here??
Does anyone know where I might find the sheet music to this little ditty?
rachman1noff 1 year ago
@rachman1noff It is available on IMSLP
ScriabinFanatic 1 year ago
The two versions make fascinating comparison, but there are some rather odd moments in this one such as in the juxtaposition of G sharp and G natural in b. 29. Some of the momentum in the middle of the more familiar version, achieved by the modulations, seem to be lost. Here it sort of wallows away in E major/minor without going anywhere. I wonder about the origins of this version - was it published in Scriabin's lifetime?
wrdna58 1 year ago 2
@wrdna58 Yes according to the sheet music I had seen on IMSLP for it, it was published not very long after the first version was published.
ScriabinFanatic 1 year ago
@ScriabinFanatic The material on IMSLP is derived from an edition published in 1947. Op. 8 was first published in 1894, but was this 'revised' version (which in my view is distinctly inferior) really published either in 1894 or 1895 shortly after? It could have stemmed from a manuscript.
wrdna58 1 year ago
@wrdna58 I have no idea about its origin then as I must have misinterpreted IMSLP when I saw it on there.
ScriabinFanatic 1 year ago