Tchaikovsky piano concerto No. 1 played by Emil Gilels
Top Comments
All Comments (69)
-
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.
-
Thank God for television technology.
-
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)
-
@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
-
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
-
@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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
"Such great piano playing nowadays doesn't exist anymore!"
Geert Dehoux, pianist.
Listing Volodos and Kissin over Gilels? That just shows ignorance.
rankfrankrank 2 years ago 17
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.
sab3156 2 years ago 12