Another pianist he admired was Maria Grinberg, he found her Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues were the best. It’s in one of Richter’s books of dialogues that were never translated into English, where his interlocutor is one Borisov. He also says there that Gilels was untouchable in Beethoven’s 32 Variations and the 1st Brahms concerto.
What a wonderful treasure-trove of performances you've put together, by so many wonderful pianists admired by the great Richter; together with his priceless comments and detailed obsevations. We are most grateful to you. It was like enjoying a fabulous concert! Thank you!
Thank you so much for this treasure trove of piano icons admired by the unique Sviatoslav Richter. I personally love lipatti's Bach Partita and Annie Fischer with her towering account of the first mvt of the Brahms Sonata in F minor.
Yes, thanks for the great effort. Asking for Lucewicz recording directly to him was great! And finding that beautiful Chopin by the almost unknown Teodor Gutman was no less impressive (his Schumann's Toccata strikes me as less interesting, though).
Neuhaus's performance of that slow movement was incredible. So restrained, calm, dignified. Not that modern approaches aren't great, but this was a refreshing novelty.
Some recordings (Julius Katchen, John Browning's Barber Piano Concerto and Gary Graffman's Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.) I couldn't get to the video because of copyrights, companies like RCA and Decca can block the video to everyone. There's a small mistake for Lucewicz, the recording Richter mentioned was for Beethoven's 26th piano sonata, not 24, he warned me: "Richter's statement about my pianoplaying on behalf of a Beethoven-Sonata refered to the sonata Nr.26 'Les Adieux'. The quotation is literally taken from his diary, only the little confusion of Nr.24 instead of Nr.26." -- Van Cliburn might have been on the list, but Richter's relationship with Cliburn seems somewhat mythical. Richter gave the score 24 for Van Cliburn in the competition, but he also gave 23 and 25 to two other contestants. Richter said: "Cliburn swamped Prokofiev's Sixth Sonata with too much pedal and adopted wrong tempi in the Tchaikovsky Concerto". Richer liked some recordings by some important pianists, but that didn't mean they had favorites. For example, Richter loved Arturo Bendetti Michelengeli's Ravel Concerto recording ("The coldness so typical of this pianist is entirely appropirate here and never for a moment at odds with the music"), but overall he found Michelengeli too cold: "As always, beyond reproach. The notes exactly as written. Technically perfect. But it all remains glacial. . . Michelengeli's Debussy no objection, no impression. . .But one doesn't sense any love of the music. . . This total perfection devoid not only of any atmosphere but also (in my own opinion) of the charm that is absolutely indispensable to these (Debussy's) Préludes. Even so, the performance is note-perfect. He’s a real perfectionist. But I think that this fanaticism and and the extreme instrumental standards he set for himself prevent his imagination from taking flight and stop him expressing any real love for the work he’s performing so impeccably. It’s ‘inspiration’ that’s missing. Is this a notion that’s been banished from today’s diction- aries? It would be a great shame if this were so." He had similar thoughts for Radu Lupu and Kissin. "With this pianist (Lupu), everything is so carefully calculated and weighed up in advance that there's nothing unexpected or surprising. The meal is served up as though on a large tray, but you know in advance exactly what it's made up of. And so it was with Schubert's G major Sonata irreproachable and level-headed. Such an interpretation doen't surprise you in any way, all the notes are perfectly place. But is the result really interesting? No. It lacks any sort of thrill and leaves the listener (or me, at any rate) cold." or "Kissin knowledgeable and plays well, but he never throws himself headlong into the sea. Perhaps he'll never do so." He liked some things about Glenn Gould's Bach, but had issues overall: "Glenn Gould has found his own approach to Bach and, from this point of view, he deserves his reputation. It seems to me that his principal merit lies on the level of sonority, a sonority that is exactly what suits Bach best. But, in my own view, Bach's music demands more depth and austerity, whereas with Gould everything is just a little too brilliant and superficial. Above all, however, he doesn't play all the repeats, and thet's something for which I really can't forgive him. It suggests that he doen't actually love Bach suffciently." He liked some of Vladimir Horowitz's recordings and disliked some. In summary, for him, Horowitz was a phenomenal pianist but a mediocre musician: "Phenomenal and off-putting and excellent (in the 'conservatory' sense) and fantastic tone, and thoroughly contradictory. Such a talent! And such a trival mind. . .Such a sympathetic person, so artistic and yet so limited and what an enormous influence on the tastes of young pianists (not musicians)". I don't think Richter had a problem with recordings like Horowitz's Chopin mazurkas. But they approached some composers very oppositely. Consider, for example, Schubert's final sonata. Richter described Samuel Feinberg as a great musician, but criticized Feinberg for playing Bach just like the late Scriabin. I don't know what he thinks of Feinberg's Scriabin. He probably liked it, but I didn't list it because I wasn't sure. --- Apart from this, he harshly criticized many pianists. For example, he found Alexander Goldenweiser's playing too academic. Richter on Ashkenazy: "Total disappointment. Expression = zero. Nothing happens." Richter on Pollini's Chopin: "This Chopin has well-developed biceps. In the first place, everything is forte and in the second place there's no poetry or delicacy (even if everything's impeccably preice) and absolutely no sense of improvisation. Of heroism, yes, there's more than enough, but there was a 'Polish tendency' at the time that Pollini won his prize in the Warsaw competition. Chopin just had to be presented as a patriot and revolutionary. Bad." Richter on Jörg Demus's Haydn Concerto recording: "How fast he plays (exactly twice the tempo). I don't think the music gains anything. Oh, this professorial reading and this conservatory routine! Bah!" Richter on Pogorelich: "Bizzarre, and one doen't know why. You have the impression that he doesn't understand what he's playing. It's not affectation, but rather something physical. Curious imbalance between the right hand and the left, which is sometimes barely audible. And I'm not even talking about the insane and unnatural ritardandos in the Scriabin. He turns the first movement of the Chopin Sonata into a kind of high-flying pianistic study, wtih an overtly forte second subject; he takes the Funeral March very quickly and plays the middle section as though it were Bach (but with a beautiful tone). The final movement is drowned by the pedal. As for the end of the Nocturne, it's simple risible. What a strange character!" Richter on Jean-Philippe Collard: "struck me as really quite ordinary today, an uninteresting, uninterested musician." Richter on one of Martha Argerich and Gidon Kremer concert: "I didn't like this at all. But it's hardly surprising, as these people go out on stage and play without any rehearsal; what can they expect? It's nothing less than scandalous. I can't begin to understand how people can adopt this approach to art. The outcome - a tumultuous success."
Hello Ozan, is there a chance to get the Gutman's recordings online? Both Chopin and Schumann's performances are mind blowing! No wonder Slava was so close also to THE super talented cellist Natalia, Teodor's daughter!
I would love to know if he ever heard Rosalyn Tureck's A Bach Recital--a desert island recording for me. Gould referred to her 'liturgical' quality. She could out-finesse anyone with her nuanced touch (Richter included): th-cam.com/video/4LJeN4QqYOU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JohannSebastian th-cam.com/video/TSR__3kV08Y/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JohannSebastian Richter was wrong about Ashkenazy. His Rachmaninoff is wondferul. His Schubert D.894 first movement is perfection--better than Richter's glacial and pedantic take. His Liszt Transcendental Etudes Paysage and Harmonies du Soir have a depth and passion too often absent from interpretations. Kissin's Pictures at an Exhibition and Chopin Polonaise in C Minor, Op. 40, No. 2 don't sound like someone short of passionate commitment. The only pianist reported to have reduced von Karajan to tears. Richter's assessment of Alfred Brendel? Claudio Arrau? Gima Bachauer? Gieseking? Sokolov?
I always wanted to follow through Richter's notes on music but had trouble finding most of the exact recordings he was talking about. This is excactly what i need, now I can happily get back into it!Thanks so much for your heartfelt work!
"Eliso Virsaladze ia an artist of the highest standart, perhaps the strongest female pianist today. She is a very honest musician, and at the same time, she has a real authenticity. In addition, she is of noble blood, which is also important for an artist. I am very impressed with her in all respects." "Eliso Virsaladze is an incomparable performer of Schumann's works!" "3 Beethoven sonatas were performed by N. Gutman and E. Virsaladze. Both ladies demonstrated how Beethoven should be played. I was very happy for Eliso, I did not expect her Beethoven to be so convincing." Sviatoslav Richter
I need to do some digging about this but thanks so much for putting this together. Gutman is stellar!!!!!! And glad you included Annie, Slava adored her!
In his diaries, Richter also wrote about Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli's recordings and live performances: he considered ABM a "great Master" (despite some criticism regarding a certain "coldness", especially in Beethoven's works) and talked about his 1957 Ravel's Piano Concerto as the best ever.
Wonderful collection. Postcards from a genius! The Rachmaninoff/Tchaikovsky is a special surprise, but there are so many other things as well. Neuhaus...
It’s great to hear about Richter’s favorite pianists, not to mention the charming comments. That being said, I’ve hardly heard about any of them, Richter is still to me the most charming of them all.
Some of these are amazing. I’ve never heard of two or three of them. Surprised that he liked Lipatti. I think all or almost all of these treat the piano vocally.
Certainly, as with many historical pianists, vocals were very important to Richter. He already wanted to be a singer before he was a pianist and he is very interested in operas and lieds. We can say the same for many pianists: Richter, Horowitz, Friedman, Hofmann, Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Rubinstein, Paderewski, Backhaus, Neuhaus etc.
I'm wondering if anyone has Teodor Gutman's full recording of chopin nocturne? His chopin is just so dark and magical, and I so want to hear more of him!
Unfortunately, Gutman has no other Chopin nocturnal recordings as far as I know. If there is, I hope someone shares it! Still, he has some recordings for Brahms and Beethoven.
34:44 huh, i had always interpreted from that quote that Richter didn't quite like Yudina's playing ("It was no longer Schubert or Chopin, but Yudina..." and "By the end of her concerts I always used to have a headache."), but i guess the other way around makes sense too, somewhat.
Apparently, Richter's view of Yudina is a bit complex. Although he sometimes disapproves of Yudina's playing, he seems to have loved Yudina for some composers.
Thank you for another great video! But was Grigory Ginzburg really the pianist to whom Richter was referring in that last quote? Grigory studied with Goldenweiser but not, so far as I know, with Neuhaus (although of course it is possible). Anton Ginzburg, on the other hand, was a Neuhaus student and, indeed, there is a video on TH-cam of him playing that same Liszt Concerto pathétique with Richter. Perhaps it was Anton and not Grigory that Richter meant?
Thank you. Ah, you may be right, the paragraph in the book says it's Grigory, but there may have been something wrong. In the book "Sviatoslav Richter : notebooks and conversations": "A brief association with the cellist Daniil Shafran gave me little pleasure. He was a great cellist, with a distinctive tone, but whenever he played, you always had the impression that he was thinking only of the moment when he would have an ingratiating high note that he could hold on to and produce an attractive sound. He also suffered from nerves. I stopped performing with him in 1951 and he then joined up with Grigory Ginzburg. Ginzburg was an excellent student of Neuhaus’s and I often played Liszt’s Concerto pathétique with him. A very fine musician, a very fine pianist and extremely likeable as a man, but passive and lacking in any vestige of artistic ambition. " But I think there was some confusion in the book. Because Anton, who was a student of Heinrich Neuhaus and played with Shafran. I actually knew that Ginzburg didn't work with Neuhaus, but when the book said that, I couldn't think about it.
A couple of minutes later and another sense of astonishment...for Gutman's Schumann Toccata. , Unbeatable surely, even by Richter. Please may we have some more Gutman and does he, by any chance, play Bach.
Gutman is really exceptional his Chopin nocturne is really music making creative this is what the music can be ,regardless of Chopin's intentions. The Schumann toccata is not well recorded but it too is a testament of a high mind.
Amazing video! But Richter meant perhaps Anton Ginzburg, who was famous for accompanying Daniil Sharan. As far as I know, Grigory Ginzburg was a pupil of Goldenweizer, not of Neuhaus. His playing was fantastic and filled with artistic intentions. He was humble but extremely active as an artist, in my opinion.
Who? I could include some names, like Glenn Gould, but he also brought a lot of criticism to him. But if I had it again, I would include the recordings he praised (for example, the Hindemith sonata). But such examples are few.
Casadesus went to Odessa! That in itself is remarkable to me. I dont believe anyone btw the appearance of Landowska(i could not imagine Mozart played more tastelessly or execrably andHorozowky(admirable) Arrau(surprisingly unthiughtful!. That generation! Iagree wRichter. Mozarts seemingly facile notes on da page come so far away yet are so human i find it impossible to play.IngridHaebler is genius in this music.Uchida,Pireslili,Krauss ,Schiff,Perahia we now have wonderful Mozarteans! This Eschenbach in his pianoplaying days is unforgettable. The first time this very special movement which ive always known to be special made me cry.The first time outside of his operas this has ever happened!
@@OzanFabienGuvener Yes, we have some information:) Richter&Neuhaus thought that Cziffra was a circus performer, not a pianist. By the way, that's what most Soviet pianists thought of Cziffra. Richter& Neuhaus were very disrespectful also to Grig.Ginzburg,S.Barere & to many others pianists because of their skills. A professor at the Moscow Conservatory, a friend of Richter's, told me: "The better someone played(the more virtuoso), the more disrespectful Neuhaus and Richter were to him". Richter had a bad relationship with Gilels. Richter was jealous of Gilels for every slightest reason. For example, Richter could not forgive Gilels for being the first to play Prokofiev's 8th Sonata (Prokofiev's most profound and significant sonata). Also, Richter was very annoyed that Gilels played the Companella wonderfully, and so on...
@@Alex-oy6ss Thanks for the additions. I'm not surprised, I already guessed that. But I think they were not disrespectful because of their skills. If pianists distort the piece to showcase their technique, it can be uncomfortable for pianists like Richter. This is understandable in my opinion. This is a different perspective. As far as I know, Neuhaus highly respected pianists such as Busoni, Rachmaninoff, Lhevinne; their skills are also very high. If you interpret this as envy of their abilities, I disagree. But of course, Richter may have been jealous of Gilels because of the Prokofiev sonata.
@@OzanFabienGuvener Neuhaus snr. once said about Horowitz: "we would not criticize Horowitz if we had at least 10 percent of his skills". Its wasn`t about "distortion" it was about mental and physical issues. I know this for sure because I read a lot about them, but also heard it from people who knew them personally. But, anyway, thanks for your channel:))
@@Alex-oy6ss Maybe you're right, I'm not as knowledgeable about Richter and Neuhaus as you are, I am closer to the French School. :). However, I am not convinced that Richter criticizes enviously, and those who know him personally interpret it in their own way. But I will think about it, some criticisms can of course be as you say. For example, I think Horowitz criticized Hofmann and Rosenthal for personal reasons. Rosenthal was very critical of him (My guess is that Horowitz was pissed off because he publicly criticized Horowitz at his first American concerts) and may have been jealous of Rachmaninoff's admiration for Hofmann. Because I know of some stories where he showed admiration for Hofmann when he first came to America. Thank you for sharing your views and knowledge :).
Richter has said this many times: "I don’t like pianos - I like music more." or "I remember Igumnov saying to me one day: ‘You don’t like pianos!’ ‘Possibly so,’ I replied, ‘I prefer the music.’ I never choose a piano and don’t try them out before a concert. It’s useless and demoralizing. I place myself in the hands of the piano tuner." Glenn Gould: "I believe you can divide musical performance into two categories: those who seek to exploit the instrument they use and those who do not. In the first category, if we believe history, is a place for such legandary characters as Liszt and Paganini as well as many allegedly demanding virtuosi of more recent vintage. That category belongs essentially to musicians determined to make us aware of their relationship with their instrument. They allow that relationship to become the focus of attention. The second category includes musicians who try to bypass the whole question of the performing mechanism to create the illusion of a direct link between themselves and a particular musical score. And, therefore, help the listener to achieve a sense of involvement, not with performance per se but rather with the music itself. And in our time, there's no better eample of that second musican than Sviatoslav Richter." Horowitz is in the first category, as Gould would have said. For Richter, the piano is a tool, not an end. @@ahdyabdelatif
I completely disagree with Hofmann and Richter! Horowitz was also a composer and a virtuoso and a musician at the same time. Nobody could play the Chopin Mazurkas similar to him. His Mendelssohn Songs 'without words' were unique and the Rach 3 not to forget!!!
@@berlinzerberus In fact, Richter did not completely ignore Horowitz. He liked some of Horowitz's recordings, but disliked some of them. I don't think Richter had a problem with recordings like Horowitz's Chopin mazurkas. But they approached some composers very oppositely. Consider, for example, Schubert's final sonata. Horowitz focused on more pianistic colours: contrasts, orchestral resonance of the piano, etc. Richter is more abstract. Richter can get a very nice tone if he wants to, but he doesn't always pay attention to it, sometimes his tone is really colorless. It is also widely believed that Horowitz unintentionally sets a bad example for some modern pianists. Benno Moiseiwitsch: "(...) with all my respect and admiration for Horowitz, i blame him for it. because since he came, it was something of a hurricane and everybody started to emulate him, but Horowitz is a great artist, a great musician, but there are so many teachers and pianists that try to say 'oh! i can play this as fast as Horowitz and as loudly!' and they do, and that's all there is to it. naturally there are a few exceptions, and these exceptions will eventually emerge as good or great pianists." Maybe Richter thought similarly? I don't think it's Horowitz's fault, It was misunderstood.
Wow...fascinating. Thanks so much putting this together. I was hoping there would be a comment about Britten. Although he was primarily known as a composer, I know the two of them were friendly and played together. Btw, I'm curious. What did Richter think of Browning's Barber?
Thanks! "An eclectic concerto written in a thoroughly professional manner and brilliantly played by John Browning (a serious and thoughtful pianist whom I heard and got to know at Spoleto). A good recording." "As for contemporary non-Russian music, I’ve essentially tackled Britten, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Berg and Webern.The first work of Britten’s that I played was the Cello Sonata, which I performed with Rostropovich, and later with that extraordinary musician Natasha Gutman, one of the people with whom I’ve derived the most pleasure from making music. Then there was the Piano Concerto, a work full of youthful energy, written under the influence of Ravel and Prokofiev, perhaps a little immature, but extremely likeable in its English way. I recorded it under Britten him- self, but he was already ill, he hadn’t long to live and had little energy. As I didn’t really feel on form myself, the recording isn’t very successful. We also played duets together, Mozart and Schubert and his own Rondo alla burlesca for two pianos. I staged two of his operas in Moscow as part of the December Nights Festival at the Pushkin Museum, Albert Herring and The Turn of the Screw. A long time ago the young Lorin Maazel sug- gested that I should stage the Ring; of course, I was tempted by the idea and could already imagine a revolving set, with a rock in the distance on which enormous trees rose up; a rock turning all the time, avenues, horses, and sopranos who remained seated, never moving, while everything around them revolved; clouds scudding past and trees swaying, the whole scene being visible only in flashes, as if in flashes of lightning. The effect of movement produced in this way would have reflected the waves of music. It never happened. But I can still picture those productions of Britten’s operas. Moments of great excitement. I firmly believe that Britten is one of the century’s leading composers, as is Paul Hindemith, perhaps the last great representative of ‘Germanness’ in music." On Britten's Peter Grimes: "This was the first opera - and the first piece in general - that I heard by Britten. It was in Budapest. I was immediately ensnared by it. Right away I felt that, if ’'d been a composer myself, this is how I'd have written. I became a fervent admirer of Britten’s music and have remained so ever since." On Britten's Cello Symphony: "Very interesting work, written specially for Rostropovich. With Britten, speculative powers are always combined with human feelings - he’s a representative of what’s called ‘human music’ - and you notice this both in his choice of subjects for his operas and in his other works." On Britten Concerto in D major op. 13: "I sensed that the acedemicians didn't understandt the work. Virtually no one expressed an opinion. The weight of tradition, and what a weight!"
In Josef Hofmann's Beethoven Scherzo, from op.31 the sforzatos are indeed there, but are not punched out ostentatiously like a spasm. Everything is proportionate. And of course technically, it is indeed perfection itself.
I agree. In Richter's recording of the same work, sforzatos are very prominent. Hofmann does not overemphasize like Richter, but he does not ignore it either.
Thanks! I thought of this for Bach violin sonatas and partitas or cello suites. I usually list for works that I know better. Although I know many records for Paganini Caprices, I don't think I know very well, If I don't know very well, I won't make that list. Yet one of my draft projects is on Paganini-Liszt adaptations. I plan to do both the Paganini version and the Liszt version together with the best recordings. It can be nice for both violin and piano comparison.
Actually, I needed to include Gould's recordings of modern composers. While Richter respects Gould's playing, he finds his Bach superficial and his general style problematic. But he really likes some of Gould's recordings, like the Hindemith 3rd Sonata, I think I could add those.
@@OzanFabienGuvener yes :) Richter respected Gould’s style because of Gould’s timbre. Not saying every Gould’s recordings are fitted to Richter but think those two had a pretty good relationships
Beethoven's Scherzo under Hofmann's fingers - unbelievable. Now I understand why Witold Lutosławski said that after hearing Hofmann's performance of Op. 111, he could not bear any other interpretation of this sonata.
C'est vrai, mais je ne pense pas que cela contredise ce qu'il a dit :"L'interprète est vraiment un exécutant, devant reproduire les intentions du compositeur à la lettre, il ne doit rien ajouter qui ne soit pas déjà dans l’œuvre. S'il est talentueux, il nous permet d'entrevoir la vérité de l'œuvre ce qui est en soi un élément du génie qui se reflète en lui, il ne doit pas dominer la musique, mais devrait se dissoudre en elle."
@@OzanFabienGuvener On peut servir et dominer en même temps. C'est d'ailleurs ce que fait Richter, et c'est cela qui le rend unique et intéressant. Il n'a jamais été question pour lui de se dissoudre dans quoi que ce soit. Et surtout pas dans quelque chose d'aussi nébuleuse que les "intentions du compositeur".
@@tsiryoliva6636 Je suis d'accord avec ce que vous avez dit, mais je ne pense pas que le point de vue de Richter soit contradictoire. "C'est d'ailleurs ce que fait Richter, et c'est cela qui le rend unique et intéressant." Je pense que tu as tellement raison à ce sujet !
I beg to differ, these guys could NOT play everything, they weren't able, or shunned to cross over into jazz and the beautiful realm of ad-lib music of really accomplished MUSICIANS (vs sheet music robots) eg Liberace, Cavallaro, Fats Waller, Peterson, Beegie Adair...and remained hailed & celebrated virtuoso sheet music robots for the entirety of their lives.
Another pianist he admired was Maria Grinberg, he found her Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues were the best. It’s in one of Richter’s books of dialogues that were never translated into English, where his interlocutor is one Borisov. He also says there that Gilels was untouchable in Beethoven’s 32 Variations and the 1st Brahms concerto.
Thanks for adding! I'm not surprised, I thought he would like Maria Grinberg.
Gilels had skills.
What a wonderful treasure-trove of performances you've put together, by so many wonderful pianists admired by the great Richter; together with his priceless comments and detailed obsevations. We are most grateful to you. It was like enjoying a fabulous concert! Thank you!
Thank you so much for this treasure trove of piano icons admired by the unique Sviatoslav Richter. I personally love lipatti's Bach Partita and Annie Fischer with her towering account of the first mvt of the Brahms Sonata in F minor.
BRAVI TUTTI....from Mexico City!
No words can describe my love and admiration to this video and the effort put behind it. Thank you!
Yes, thanks for the great effort. Asking for Lucewicz recording directly to him was great! And finding that beautiful Chopin by the almost unknown Teodor Gutman was no less impressive (his Schumann's Toccata strikes me as less interesting, though).
I've only just started and the Neuhaus has astonished me. As always, Ozan., you do us a power mind booster, and thank you.
Marvelous, Thank You!!! The best I heard in the last month.
Neuhaus's performance of that slow movement was incredible. So restrained, calm, dignified. Not that modern approaches aren't great, but this was a refreshing novelty.
Precisely!
Indeed! And same with his son Stanislav Neuhaus's Rachmaninoff
Some recordings (Julius Katchen, John Browning's Barber Piano Concerto and Gary Graffman's Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.) I couldn't get to the video because of copyrights, companies like RCA and Decca can block the video to everyone.
There's a small mistake for Lucewicz, the recording Richter mentioned was for Beethoven's 26th piano sonata, not 24, he warned me: "Richter's statement about my pianoplaying on behalf of a Beethoven-Sonata refered to the sonata Nr.26 'Les Adieux'. The quotation is literally taken from his diary, only the little confusion of Nr.24 instead of Nr.26."
--
Van Cliburn might have been on the list, but Richter's relationship with Cliburn seems somewhat mythical. Richter gave the score 24 for Van Cliburn in the competition, but he also gave 23 and 25 to two other contestants. Richter said: "Cliburn swamped Prokofiev's Sixth Sonata with too much pedal and adopted wrong tempi in the Tchaikovsky Concerto".
Richer liked some recordings by some important pianists, but that didn't mean they had favorites. For example, Richter loved Arturo Bendetti Michelengeli's Ravel Concerto recording ("The coldness so typical of this pianist is entirely appropirate here and never for a moment at odds with the music"), but overall he found Michelengeli too cold: "As always, beyond reproach. The notes exactly as written. Technically perfect. But it all remains glacial. . . Michelengeli's Debussy no objection, no impression. . .But one doesn't sense any love of the music. . . This total perfection devoid not only of any atmosphere but also (in my own opinion) of the charm that is absolutely indispensable to these (Debussy's) Préludes. Even so, the performance is note-perfect. He’s a real perfectionist. But I think that this fanaticism and and the extreme instrumental standards he set for himself prevent his imagination from taking flight and stop him expressing any real love for the work he’s performing so impeccably. It’s ‘inspiration’ that’s missing. Is this a notion that’s been banished from today’s diction- aries? It would be a great shame if this were so."
He had similar thoughts for Radu Lupu and Kissin. "With this pianist (Lupu), everything is so carefully calculated and weighed up in advance that there's nothing unexpected or surprising. The meal is served up as though on a large tray, but you know in advance exactly what it's made up of. And so it was with Schubert's G major Sonata irreproachable and level-headed. Such an interpretation doen't surprise you in any way, all the notes are perfectly place. But is the result really interesting? No. It lacks any sort of thrill and leaves the listener (or me, at any rate) cold." or "Kissin knowledgeable and plays well, but he never throws himself headlong into the sea. Perhaps he'll never do so."
He liked some things about Glenn Gould's Bach, but had issues overall: "Glenn Gould has found his own approach to Bach and, from this point of view, he deserves his reputation. It seems to me that his principal merit lies on the level of sonority, a sonority that is exactly what suits Bach best. But, in my own view, Bach's music demands more depth and austerity, whereas with Gould everything is just a little too brilliant and superficial. Above all, however, he doesn't play all the repeats, and thet's something for which I really can't forgive him. It suggests that he doen't actually love Bach suffciently."
He liked some of Vladimir Horowitz's recordings and disliked some. In summary, for him, Horowitz was a phenomenal pianist but a mediocre musician: "Phenomenal and off-putting and excellent (in the 'conservatory' sense) and fantastic tone, and thoroughly contradictory. Such a talent! And such a trival mind. . .Such a sympathetic person, so artistic and yet so limited and what an enormous influence on the tastes of young pianists (not musicians)". I don't think Richter had a problem with recordings like Horowitz's Chopin mazurkas. But they approached some composers very oppositely. Consider, for example, Schubert's final sonata.
Richter described Samuel Feinberg as a great musician, but criticized Feinberg for playing Bach just like the late Scriabin. I don't know what he thinks of Feinberg's Scriabin. He probably liked it, but I didn't list it because I wasn't sure.
---
Apart from this, he harshly criticized many pianists. For example, he found Alexander Goldenweiser's playing too academic.
Richter on Ashkenazy: "Total disappointment. Expression = zero. Nothing happens."
Richter on Pollini's Chopin: "This Chopin has well-developed biceps. In the first place, everything is forte and in the second place there's no poetry or delicacy (even if everything's impeccably preice) and absolutely no sense of improvisation. Of heroism, yes, there's more than enough, but there was a 'Polish tendency' at the time that Pollini won his prize in the Warsaw competition. Chopin just had to be presented as a patriot and revolutionary. Bad."
Richter on Jörg Demus's Haydn Concerto recording: "How fast he plays (exactly twice the tempo). I don't think the music gains anything. Oh, this professorial reading and this conservatory routine! Bah!"
Richter on Pogorelich: "Bizzarre, and one doen't know why. You have the impression that he doesn't understand what he's playing. It's not affectation, but rather something physical. Curious imbalance between the right hand and the left, which is sometimes barely audible. And I'm not even talking about the insane and unnatural ritardandos in the Scriabin. He turns the first movement of the Chopin Sonata into a kind of high-flying pianistic study, wtih an overtly forte second subject; he takes the Funeral March very quickly and plays the middle section as though it were Bach (but with a beautiful tone). The final movement is drowned by the pedal. As for the end of the Nocturne, it's simple risible. What a strange character!"
Richter on Jean-Philippe Collard: "struck me as really quite ordinary today, an uninteresting, uninterested musician."
Richter on one of Martha Argerich and Gidon Kremer concert: "I didn't like this at all. But it's hardly surprising, as these people go out on stage and play without any rehearsal; what can they expect? It's nothing less than scandalous. I can't begin to understand how people can adopt this approach to art. The outcome - a tumultuous success."
Hello Ozan, is there a chance to get the Gutman's recordings online? Both Chopin and Schumann's performances are mind blowing! No wonder Slava was so close also to THE super talented cellist Natalia, Teodor's daughter!
These quotes are amazing, richter is such a devout man to art. What a true master
They're really great. I can share what I have, there are a few more that are not on TH-cam.
@@pablobear4241 Absolutely!
I would love to know if he ever heard Rosalyn Tureck's A Bach Recital--a desert island recording for me. Gould referred to her 'liturgical' quality. She could out-finesse anyone with her nuanced touch (Richter included):
th-cam.com/video/4LJeN4QqYOU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JohannSebastian
th-cam.com/video/TSR__3kV08Y/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JohannSebastian
Richter was wrong about Ashkenazy. His Rachmaninoff is wondferul. His Schubert D.894 first movement is perfection--better than Richter's glacial and pedantic take. His Liszt Transcendental Etudes Paysage and Harmonies du Soir have a depth and passion too often absent from interpretations.
Kissin's Pictures at an Exhibition and Chopin Polonaise in C Minor, Op. 40, No. 2 don't sound like someone short of passionate commitment. The only pianist reported to have reduced von Karajan to tears.
Richter's assessment of Alfred Brendel? Claudio Arrau? Gima Bachauer? Gieseking? Sokolov?
Ozan, you're doing very important work!
What a great idea to assemble this together via those notebooks.
Neuhaus has a fabulous tone and touch. Very vocal.
Absolutely first rate! Stunning!
🎉México./Yucatán. ❤muchas gracias ,bellísimo 🎹🎶🎶🎶🎶🫶🇲🇽
Ozen❣️❣️🎻❣️👏👏👏👏
Divino Ozen ,🎶🎶🎶🎶🇲🇽🎼🎶muchas gracias Dios te. bendiga. 😇😘🙏🙏
Chopin 2nd movement by Neuhaus is breathtaking. Thanks.
I always wanted to follow through Richter's notes on music but had trouble finding most of the exact recordings he was talking about. This is excactly what i need, now I can happily get back into it!Thanks so much for your heartfelt work!
Thank you for making this amazing video🧡👏👏👏
10/10 collectio. Thank you.
"Eliso Virsaladze ia an artist of the highest standart, perhaps the strongest female pianist today. She is a very honest musician, and at the same time, she has a real authenticity. In addition, she is of noble blood, which is also important for an artist. I am very impressed with her in all respects."
"Eliso Virsaladze is an incomparable performer of Schumann's works!"
"3 Beethoven sonatas were performed by N. Gutman and E. Virsaladze. Both ladies demonstrated how Beethoven should be played. I was very happy for Eliso, I did not expect her Beethoven to be so convincing."
Sviatoslav Richter
Carmen. ❣️🎶🖐️ México 🇲🇽 , ,
,
Quel magnifique travail et si merveilleusement illustré Merci !!
Bravo Ozan, thank you for compiling these!
Thank you so much for creating this precious resource.
This is amazing. Thank you
Thank you for this sublime video. How could one disagree? When such a master expresses his choices, others listen, and learn.
Such a great work you've put together here. Thanks!
Amazing compilation. Many thanks. 👌
I need to do some digging about this but thanks so much for putting this together. Gutman is stellar!!!!!! And glad you included Annie, Slava adored her!
Loved this format! This was great
VERY interesting, thanks.
Thanks for this...I'll listen to your compilation when I have time enough!
Greetings
I hope you will like it! :)
In his diaries, Richter also wrote about Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli's recordings and live performances: he considered ABM a "great Master" (despite some criticism regarding a certain "coldness", especially in Beethoven's works) and talked about his 1957 Ravel's Piano Concerto as the best ever.
Wonderful collection. Postcards from a genius! The Rachmaninoff/Tchaikovsky is a special surprise, but there are so many other things as well. Neuhaus...
thanks so much for this collection!
WOW amazing work! Congratulations.
Precious! Thank you
great video
Wonderful
What a stunning, incredible Liszt played by Yudina! Like I'm really hearing the whining and the rage, all this without being "sentimental", fantastic.
Wonderful video ! Thank you
Amazing... Andreas Lucewicz, Teodor Gutman and Dezso Ranki are new to me, and they're so good!
Just impressed ❤ thanks 🙏 a lot for sharing this jewel
It’s great to hear about Richter’s favorite pianists, not to mention the charming comments. That being said, I’ve hardly heard about any of them, Richter is still to me the most charming of them all.
Really eye-opening -- never realized Richter had been this candid about other pianists' playing.
I don't either. I don't know how he found the time to listen to those pianists and comment on them with interest.
Richter. 🇲🇽.Mexico 20---24. 🎶🎶🎶👏👏👏👏👏🏆👆🥰.
Gracias Ozen 🇲🇽. México. ,,,,🎹🎶🎶🎶🎶
So 12 Caprichos 🎼🎶🎶🎻❣️
Magnifique ! Merci.
Some of these are amazing. I’ve never heard of two or three of them. Surprised that he liked Lipatti. I think all or almost all of these treat the piano vocally.
Certainly, as with many historical pianists, vocals were very important to Richter. He already wanted to be a singer before he was a pianist and he is very interested in operas and lieds. We can say the same for many pianists: Richter, Horowitz, Friedman, Hofmann, Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Rubinstein, Paderewski, Backhaus, Neuhaus etc.
Si es mi favorito. 🇮🇷🎹
Agosto. 20/24 👏👏👏🥇🫳
Buenos días. 🇲🇽 México. 🫶🇲🇽
What is the origin of these lines? His diary?
Is there somewhere I can find the complete Virsaladze recording of Schumann op11 ?
It's on @PrincePhilippe1 (On The Top of Damavand for ever) channel. "Eliso Virsaladze in recital (1980) - Schumann & Liszt"
@@OzanFabienGuvener thank you !! And thank you for the video too :)
Ne güzeldir dünya yaratmışsın. Başarılar.
I'm wondering if anyone has Teodor Gutman's full recording of chopin nocturne? His chopin is just so dark and magical, and I so want to hear more of him!
Unfortunately, Gutman has no other Chopin nocturnal recordings as far as I know. If there is, I hope someone shares it! Still, he has some recordings for Brahms and Beethoven.
@@OzanFabienGuvener They don't even have them on the russian site Classical Music Online. What a pity. The sound is absolutely beautiful.
I believe Richter commented on Ivan Moravec after hearing him play Beethoven, not the Janacek in your snippet.
He admired Liberace's early recordings.
Interesting! Thanks.
Grazie per questa magnifica playlist!!! ⭐ ❤
34:44 huh, i had always interpreted from that quote that Richter didn't quite like Yudina's playing ("It was no longer Schubert or Chopin, but Yudina..." and "By the end of her concerts I always used to have a headache."), but i guess the other way around makes sense too, somewhat.
Apparently, Richter's view of Yudina is a bit complex. Although he sometimes disapproves of Yudina's playing, he seems to have loved Yudina for some composers.
Thank you for another great video! But was Grigory Ginzburg really the pianist to whom Richter was referring in that last quote? Grigory studied with Goldenweiser but not, so far as I know, with Neuhaus (although of course it is possible). Anton Ginzburg, on the other hand, was a Neuhaus student and, indeed, there is a video on TH-cam of him playing that same Liszt Concerto pathétique with Richter. Perhaps it was Anton and not Grigory that Richter meant?
Thank you. Ah, you may be right, the paragraph in the book says it's Grigory, but there may have been something wrong. In the book "Sviatoslav Richter : notebooks and conversations": "A brief association with the cellist Daniil Shafran gave me little pleasure. He was a great cellist, with a distinctive tone, but whenever he played, you always had the impression that he was thinking only of the moment when he would have an ingratiating high note that he could hold on to and produce an attractive sound. He also suffered from nerves. I stopped performing with him in 1951 and he then joined up with Grigory Ginzburg. Ginzburg was an excellent student of Neuhaus’s and I often played Liszt’s Concerto pathétique with him. A very fine musician, a very fine pianist and extremely likeable as a man, but passive and lacking in any vestige of artistic ambition. "
But I think there was some confusion in the book. Because Anton, who was a student of Heinrich Neuhaus and played with Shafran. I actually knew that Ginzburg didn't work with Neuhaus, but when the book said that, I couldn't think about it.
@@OzanFabienGuvener -- Always....So Sensational!.....Happy New Year from Mexico!
A couple of minutes later and another sense of astonishment...for Gutman's Schumann Toccata. , Unbeatable surely, even by Richter. Please may we have some more Gutman and does he, by any chance, play Bach.
I've never seen his Bach recording :(
Ozan 🎶🎶🎶🎶un Grande. 🇲🇽Mexico. 🌟👏👏👏👏👏🌟🌟
Maria Yudina
Gutman is really exceptional his Chopin nocturne is really music making creative this is what the music can be ,regardless of Chopin's intentions. The Schumann toccata is not well recorded but it too is a testament of a high mind.
Amazing video! But Richter meant perhaps Anton Ginzburg, who was famous for accompanying Daniil Sharan. As far as I know, Grigory Ginzburg was a pupil of Goldenweizer, not of Neuhaus. His playing was fantastic and filled with artistic intentions. He was humble but extremely active as an artist, in my opinion.
You are right, unfortunately it is mentioned as Grigory in the book, but I think it was a mistake, Richter meant Anton there.
Many ommissions, some more important
than many pianists who are included
Who? I could include some names, like Glenn Gould, but he also brought a lot of criticism to him. But if I had it again, I would include the recordings he praised (for example, the Hindemith sonata). But such examples are few.
A fantastic pianist like RICHTER knows the Music , consequently knows the greatness of LIPATTI. No one interprets JSB like him
Lipatti's musicality in Bach is excellent, but it is also very special that he reflects Bach's spiritual feeling.
@@OzanFabienGuvener YES Bro !!!
México 🇲🇽🖐️
Excelente
with Chopin -Lipatti S François-Rubinstein music is a melody so Bach become a melody and not a robotic keyboard as many pianists
Casadesus went to Odessa! That in itself is remarkable to me. I dont believe anyone btw the appearance of Landowska(i could not imagine Mozart played more tastelessly or execrably andHorozowky(admirable) Arrau(surprisingly unthiughtful!. That generation! Iagree wRichter. Mozarts seemingly facile notes on da page come so far away yet are so human i find it impossible to play.IngridHaebler is genius in this music.Uchida,Pireslili,Krauss ,Schiff,Perahia we now have wonderful Mozarteans! This Eschenbach in his pianoplaying days is unforgettable. The first time this very special movement which ive always known to be special made me cry.The first time outside of his operas this has ever happened!
The Best Mozart piano concertos players are Really=Mozart 15 Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli Mozart 17 Dezo Ranki Mozart 18 Ashkenazy Mozart 19 Radu Lupu Mozart 20 Ashkenazy Mozart 21 Radu Lupu Mozart 22 Jörg Demus Robert Casadesus Laura Mikkola Natalia Trull Mozart 23 Solomon Cutner Mozart 24 Grigory Sokolov Maria Grinberg Mozart 25 Murray Perahia Mozart 27 Alexei Lubimov! Mozart concerto two pianos Gavrilov and Dang Thai Son!!
Quie revisa mi archivo?
Рихтер безукоризнен и распрекрасен вообще и в принципе; так люблю его до обожания… очень нравится его подборка.
i wonder what Richter (would have) thought of Cziffra
Does anyone have information?
@@OzanFabienGuvener Yes, we have some information:) Richter&Neuhaus thought that Cziffra was a circus performer, not a pianist. By the way, that's what most Soviet pianists thought of Cziffra. Richter& Neuhaus were very disrespectful also to Grig.Ginzburg,S.Barere & to many others pianists because of their skills. A professor at the Moscow Conservatory, a friend of Richter's, told me: "The better someone played(the more virtuoso), the more disrespectful Neuhaus and Richter were to him". Richter had a bad relationship with Gilels. Richter was jealous of Gilels for every slightest reason. For example, Richter could not forgive Gilels for being the first to play Prokofiev's 8th Sonata (Prokofiev's most profound and significant sonata). Also, Richter was very annoyed that Gilels played the Companella wonderfully, and so on...
@@Alex-oy6ss Thanks for the additions. I'm not surprised, I already guessed that. But I think they were not disrespectful because of their skills. If pianists distort the piece to showcase their technique, it can be uncomfortable for pianists like Richter. This is understandable in my opinion. This is a different perspective. As far as I know, Neuhaus highly respected pianists such as Busoni, Rachmaninoff, Lhevinne; their skills are also very high. If you interpret this as envy of their abilities, I disagree. But of course, Richter may have been jealous of Gilels because of the Prokofiev sonata.
@@OzanFabienGuvener Neuhaus snr. once said about Horowitz: "we would not criticize Horowitz if we had at least 10 percent of his skills". Its wasn`t about "distortion" it was about mental and physical issues. I know this for sure because I read a lot about them, but also heard it from people who knew them personally.
But, anyway, thanks for your channel:))
@@Alex-oy6ss Maybe you're right, I'm not as knowledgeable about Richter and Neuhaus as you are, I am closer to the French School. :). However, I am not convinced that Richter criticizes enviously, and those who know him personally interpret it in their own way. But I will think about it, some criticisms can of course be as you say. For example, I think Horowitz criticized Hofmann and Rosenthal for personal reasons. Rosenthal was very critical of him (My guess is that Horowitz was pissed off because he publicly criticized Horowitz at his first American concerts) and may have been jealous of Rachmaninoff's admiration for Hofmann. Because I know of some stories where he showed admiration for Hofmann when he first came to America.
Thank you for sharing your views and knowledge :).
Hay traducor ,pero no lo entiendo.
Dice Richter 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶
What about Konstantin Scherbakov in his Italian debut of Rachmaninov's complete solo works?
Did Richter talk about him? I don't know
Horowitz referred to Hofmann as a first-class pianist technician but a third-rate musician. Richter referred Horowitz likewise.
Yeah! I thought that too. Horowitz's playing character was all about piano colours, but Richter didn't like the piano. Therefore it is understandable.
@@OzanFabienGuvener how exactly didn't richter like the piano
Richter has said this many times: "I don’t like pianos - I like music more." or "I remember Igumnov saying to me one day: ‘You don’t like pianos!’ ‘Possibly so,’ I replied, ‘I prefer the music.’ I never choose a piano and don’t try them out before a concert. It’s useless and demoralizing. I place myself in the hands of the piano tuner."
Glenn Gould: "I believe you can divide musical performance into two categories: those who seek to exploit the instrument they use and those who do not. In the first category, if we believe history, is a place for such legandary characters as Liszt and Paganini as well as many allegedly demanding virtuosi of more recent vintage. That category belongs essentially to musicians determined to make us aware of their relationship with their instrument. They allow that relationship to become the focus of attention. The second category includes musicians who try to bypass the whole question of the performing mechanism to create the illusion of a direct link between themselves and a particular musical score. And, therefore, help the listener to achieve a sense of involvement, not with performance per se but rather with the music itself. And in our time, there's no better eample of that second musican than Sviatoslav Richter."
Horowitz is in the first category, as Gould would have said. For Richter, the piano is a tool, not an end.
@@ahdyabdelatif
I completely disagree with Hofmann and Richter!
Horowitz was also a composer and a virtuoso and a musician at the same time.
Nobody could play the Chopin Mazurkas similar to him. His Mendelssohn Songs
'without words' were unique and the Rach 3 not to forget!!!
@@berlinzerberus In fact, Richter did not completely ignore Horowitz. He liked some of Horowitz's recordings, but disliked some of them. I don't think Richter had a problem with recordings like Horowitz's Chopin mazurkas. But they approached some composers very oppositely. Consider, for example, Schubert's final sonata. Horowitz focused on more pianistic colours: contrasts, orchestral resonance of the piano, etc. Richter is more abstract. Richter can get a very nice tone if he wants to, but he doesn't always pay attention to it, sometimes his tone is really colorless.
It is also widely believed that Horowitz unintentionally sets a bad example for some modern pianists. Benno Moiseiwitsch: "(...) with all my respect and admiration for Horowitz, i blame him for it. because since he came, it was something of a hurricane and everybody started to emulate him, but Horowitz is a great artist, a great musician, but there are so many teachers and pianists that try to say 'oh! i can play this as fast as Horowitz and as loudly!' and they do, and that's all there is to it. naturally there are a few exceptions, and these exceptions will eventually emerge as good or great pianists." Maybe Richter thought similarly? I don't think it's Horowitz's fault, It was misunderstood.
No mention of his rival as the last stone at the very top of the pyramid?
Wow...fascinating. Thanks so much putting this together. I was hoping there would be a comment about Britten. Although he was primarily known as a composer, I know the two of them were friendly and played together. Btw, I'm curious. What did Richter think of Browning's Barber?
Thanks! "An eclectic concerto written in a thoroughly professional manner and brilliantly played by John Browning (a serious and thoughtful pianist whom I heard and got to know at Spoleto). A good recording."
"As for contemporary non-Russian music, I’ve essentially tackled Britten, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Berg and Webern.The first work of Britten’s that I played was the Cello Sonata, which I performed with Rostropovich, and later with that extraordinary musician Natasha Gutman, one of the people with whom I’ve derived the most pleasure from making music. Then there was the Piano Concerto, a work full of youthful energy, written under the influence of Ravel and Prokofiev, perhaps a little immature, but extremely likeable in its English way. I recorded it under Britten him- self, but he was already ill, he hadn’t long to live and had little energy. As I didn’t really feel on form myself, the recording isn’t very successful. We also played duets together, Mozart and Schubert and his own Rondo alla burlesca for two pianos. I staged two of his operas in Moscow as part of the December Nights Festival at the Pushkin Museum, Albert Herring and The Turn of the Screw. A long time ago the young Lorin Maazel sug- gested that I should stage the Ring; of course, I was tempted by the idea and could already imagine a revolving set, with a rock in the distance on which enormous trees rose up; a rock turning all the time, avenues, horses, and sopranos who remained seated, never moving, while everything around them revolved; clouds scudding past and trees swaying, the whole scene being visible only in flashes, as if in flashes of lightning. The effect of movement produced in this way would have reflected the waves of music. It never happened. But I can still picture those productions of Britten’s operas. Moments of great excitement. I firmly believe that Britten is one of the century’s leading composers, as is Paul Hindemith, perhaps the last great representative of ‘Germanness’ in music."
On Britten's Peter Grimes: "This was the first opera - and the first piece in general - that I heard by Britten. It was in Budapest. I was immediately ensnared by it. Right away I felt that, if ’'d been a composer myself, this is how I'd have written. I became a fervent admirer of Britten’s music and have remained so ever since."
On Britten's Cello Symphony: "Very interesting work, written specially for Rostropovich. With Britten, speculative powers are always combined with human feelings - he’s a representative of what’s called ‘human music’ - and you notice this both in his choice of subjects for his operas and in his other works."
On Britten Concerto in D major op. 13: "I sensed that the acedemicians didn't understandt the work. Virtually no one expressed an opinion. The weight of tradition, and what a weight!"
my, that Hoffman!
In Josef Hofmann's Beethoven Scherzo, from op.31 the sforzatos are indeed there, but are not punched out ostentatiously like a spasm. Everything is proportionate. And of course technically, it is indeed perfection itself.
I agree. In Richter's recording of the same work, sforzatos are very prominent. Hofmann does not overemphasize like Richter, but he does not ignore it either.
Idea: 24 historic violinists play 24 paganini caprice
And the equivalents on other instruments? Just an idea
Thanks! I thought of this for Bach violin sonatas and partitas or cello suites. I usually list for works that I know better. Although I know many records for Paganini Caprices, I don't think I know very well, If I don't know very well, I won't make that list. Yet one of my draft projects is on Paganini-Liszt adaptations. I plan to do both the Paganini version and the Liszt version together with the best recordings. It can be nice for both violin and piano comparison.
Why there is no glenn gould?
Actually, I needed to include Gould's recordings of modern composers. While Richter respects Gould's playing, he finds his Bach superficial and his general style problematic. But he really likes some of Gould's recordings, like the Hindemith 3rd Sonata, I think I could add those.
@@OzanFabienGuvener yes :)
Richter respected Gould’s style because of Gould’s timbre.
Not saying every Gould’s recordings are fitted to Richter but think those two had a pretty good relationships
Where is Andrei Gavrilov?
2:07:30
@@OzanFabienGuvener sorry
@@jinwoobae7555 No problem :).
Sforzato not sfrozato (Hofmann)
🏆🏆🥇🇪🇬
:)
14:16
You forgot Sofronitsky
He's on the list
No Horowitz? Interesting...
Beethoven's Scherzo under Hofmann's fingers - unbelievable. Now I understand why Witold Lutosławski said that after hearing Hofmann's performance of Op. 111, he could not bear any other interpretation of this sonata.
славянские композиторы❤️👌👍
On dirait que Richter n'aime que les aristocrates. Où sont les névrosés et les charmants désaxés du piano? Nulle part...
C'est vrai, mais je ne pense pas que cela contredise ce qu'il a dit :"L'interprète est vraiment un exécutant, devant reproduire les intentions du compositeur à la lettre, il ne doit rien ajouter qui ne soit pas déjà dans l’œuvre. S'il est talentueux, il nous permet d'entrevoir la vérité de l'œuvre ce qui est en soi un élément du génie qui se reflète en lui, il ne doit pas dominer la musique, mais devrait se dissoudre en elle."
@@OzanFabienGuvener
On peut servir et dominer en même temps. C'est d'ailleurs ce que fait Richter, et c'est cela qui le rend unique et intéressant. Il n'a jamais été question pour lui de se dissoudre dans quoi que ce soit. Et surtout pas dans quelque chose d'aussi nébuleuse que les "intentions du compositeur".
@@tsiryoliva6636 Je suis d'accord avec ce que vous avez dit, mais je ne pense pas que le point de vue de Richter soit contradictoire. "C'est d'ailleurs ce que fait Richter, et c'est cela qui le rend unique et intéressant." Je pense que tu as tellement raison à ce sujet !
I beg to differ, these guys could NOT play everything, they weren't able, or shunned to cross over into jazz and the beautiful realm of ad-lib music of really accomplished MUSICIANS (vs sheet music robots) eg Liberace, Cavallaro, Fats Waller, Peterson, Beegie Adair...and remained hailed & celebrated virtuoso sheet music robots for the entirety of their lives.
Check out my "Improvisations by Great Pianists and Composers" video :).
We can also prefer a reality show with Donald Trump to a Shakespeare play with Laurence Olivier.
Así es el nombre de pila deStraus
Josef LEVINES ?
He also loved Horowitz very much
Miss benedetti Michelangeli