The Worst Piano Recording of all Time? My Reaction to Nyiregyházi's Liszt
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- 0:00 Intro
5:10 Nyiregyházi in B cinema from the 40’s
6:17 Nyiregyházi’s recording of Liszt’s 1st Legend
7:59 Why the comparisons to Liszt and Anton Rubinstein are unfounded
10:30 Arnold Schönberg’s comments
11:07 Full commentary on Nyiregyházi’s performance of Liszt’s Vallée d’Obermann from the 1970’s
Nyiregyházi’s complete performance of Liszt’s Vallée d’Obermann:
• Ervin Nyiregyházi play...
Nyiregyházi’s appearance in 1944’s “The Soul of a Monster”
• Ervin Nyiregyhazi in T...
Music in the intro and outro is Earl Wild’s Etude no. 1 after George Gershwin’s “Liza”
Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon.com
/ independentpianist
Or make a one time donation to Paypal:
paypal.me/independentpianist?...
Revolut is another way to make donations, particularly good if you are located outside of the US: revolut.me/coleakrhv
I am also on Venmo: @Cole-Anderson-31
To book me for a live performance, send me a message at cole@independentpianist.com
I am available for one-on-one online teaching. For a free consultation contact me at: cole@independentpianist.com - เพลง
![[UNCUT] รัฐสั่งหยุดปล่อยคลื่น! แต่หยุดพลังปะทุ “น้องหญิง” ไม่ได้ I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RmQh47eIiV0/mqdefault.jpg)
In terms of the overall issue of loudness and slow tempo i think the key is that he can do these massive climaxes like at 37:51. This is why he can do things like the early climax at 14:54: for most pianists that's as big as their sound will ever get, and so unleashing it that early is a mistake, but Nyiregyházi has even bigger sounds to unleash later. Overall what his style is about in pieces like this is expanding the scale of the work to massive proportions; small climaxes become big and big climaxes become titanic. The increased scale is what necessitates the slow tempo. Much of the issue then seems to hinge on whether those huge moments like at 37:51 work for you; are they the music bursting and falling apart under the pressure of Nyiregyházi's grand vision, or are they just an old man smashing wrong notes? You seem to believe it's the latter, i think it's a bit of both.
Another example of this issue of scale is his recording of the Dante sonata (one of my favourite recordings). He stretches it to 20 minutes, but when you finish listening it's like you've just heard a 1 hour symphony.
This is an interesting point that you raise about expanding proportions. It reminds me a bit of some of Frederic Rzewski's performances of standard repertoire (his Hammerklavier for instance). It does cause the music to become a very different kind of experience. And really, I can see how an interpretation like this of Vallée d'Obermann could work if it was a little more focused and held together. For me, there is a little too much pure randomness and chaos in his manner here!
@@TheIndependentPianist Exactly a lazy indifference to the progression and commuicativeness of the music . I say hear Michelanegeli in the Totentanz you won't believe its the same pianist you thought you knew.
I agree with a lot of your points(although not all). and yet i like Nyiregyházi a lot.... I think that's his appeal in a lot of ways; despite his often completely illogical playing there is such a tremendous force of personality behind it that I still find it very moving. I know many reputable pianists who feel the same.
Thank you for watching! I agree, his personality has a certain mesmerizing quality, and in certain pieces it seems like his unique kind of "recipe" works really well.
This is a very interesting topic. I think Nyiregyhazi was of course not in form in his later years, and unfortunately that’s mostly what we have of him.
His piano roll recording from 1928 of Tchaikovsky-Grainger The Flower Waltz and his early attempt of Liszt’s Mazeppa from the same period is astounding.
On the other hand, Vallee d’Obermann he clearly had ideas on what he wanted to do, but no longer had the form to execute it. I think there’s some value in what he did regarding tempo in that piece, I find a slower tempo actually benefits Vallee d’Obermann. (Not that I’d attempt it myself, but it certainly creates a more longing line if done right.)
Nyiregyhazi could definitely have sounded like Liszt at one point - actually, that point would have to be his early period - he did study with Liszt’s student Frederic Lamond. But the recordings of his late period? That more or less resembles MacDowell, certainly not Liszt or Anton Rubinstein.
I make that comment because MacDowell was known to have played his own works superbly, but in the works of other composers (Beethoven, for instance) he often sounded harsh and erratic.
Many thanks for covering the topic. I think his Tchaikovsky has always been pretty solid.
Thank you for your comment! Actually right after I posted this recording I stumbled upon a delightful recording of Nyiregyházi playing Tchaikovsky's A-flat Waltz. He definitely could do some things marvelously well even later on, and as you said, the evidence of his earlier recordings and rolls suggest that he was an amazing pianist in his prime.
Thank you for reviewing Nyiregyhazi! You and RachManJohn have different views on it(yours in a musical perspective, while his in an expressional perspective) and it's really informative to hear the different sides of the argument for or against his playing
I like it when big noise occurs.
@@RachManJohn I agree. Watching youtube shorts has decreased my attention span to such a degree that i can only be entertained by music played as one constant crescendo…
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
@@maestoso9165 based
I really enjoyed the 'journey' you took us on in this (for me) sensitively balanced and well argued analysis of Nyiregyházi’s performance of Liszt’s 'Vallée d’Obermann'. I shall be interested to read your response to the points raised by 'RachManJohn' (I apologise for adding a personal comment before you!). I was particularly amused by the film clip (with its wonderful ham acting!) as I see the facial expressions during the thunder claps as the perfect metaphor for how some of us might feel about the thunder Nyiregyházi achieves in his fortissimo playing! Bravo, Cole!
Thanks Graham! The film was one of my favorite parts of this research project. It’s not often I laugh so much while making these videos!
I'm fascinated with this artist too - certainly not consistently great but there are flashes of magic in his playing that are utterly unique. It's worth mentioning that I'm both a lover of Classical Piano and Heavy Metal music - and in a way I can draw a parallel in his playing - that his violent playing produces effects that are equivalent to distortion used when amplifying electric guitars.
Of course the primary reason most pianists never do this is because they prize accuracy - but I think at a certain point Nyiregyházi must have acknowledged his technical limitations and made a conscious decision to create sonorities that are gargantuan and unique - they're certainly not faithful to the score - they're more like playing a Classical Guitar piece on an Electric Guitar through an amplifier - but they're very effective some of the time!
I suggest that people search for Pierre Alain Volondat's live recordings of Lyapunov's Transcendental Etudes numbers 4 and 6 - they remind me of this kind of pianism!
Utterly lacking in subtlety but I find it strangely compelling - the violent sweep and dramatic effect does work. I know many people just see that kind of playing as a complete mess...and it is in a sense, but there's something really satisfying about the way it sounds.
If the contour of the primary melodic and harmonic elements are maintained - all of the wrong notes just add 'flavour'.
I think that part of the reason people love Nyiregyházi is because he makes sounds with the piano that no one else does - he's wildly inconsistent, but there's a unique magic to the parts in which it works.
I think people who love those moments where it works maybe wish that more pianists would adopt that approach - combined with more technical skill, taste, and judicious use of those effects.
Modifying Romantic-era music to occasionally use wild chromatic tone clusters for effect is an idea I'd get behind. I'd never want it to become the norm but I'd like some brave and bold souls to attempt it!
I think of Metal in relation to Nyiregyházi as well. Both are not for everyone, and that's okay. You either feel it or you don't...
Very interesting. Actually I agree that more pianists should be willing to take risks and play some fistfuls of wrong notes once in awhile-when a musician really goes for it and goes beyond what even they can achieve cleanly, it can be very exciting, and sometimes that is exactly what the music needs. Sterile, antiseptically clean playing is not to my liking either... On the other hand, maybe one can aim for a nice mid-range between complete chaos and over cleanliness?
Anyway I'll check out the Volondat recording, thanks for the suggestion!
Nyiregy was all about sound effects. Well, one sound effect, his trademark ringing basses.
Definitely. Although I'm not sure if ringing is the adjective I would think of... maybe earsplitting, or strident?
appreciate the video and how in depth you got into what was happening and how you felt about it.
I do completely agree the lack of phrasing esp. in the first half can make it drag, and I think all the funny note value changes would definitely frustrate me if myself had learned the piece prior to hearing N play, but as a listener, disconnected from the score and invested in the qualities N brings to the table, it definitely impacted me a lot (positively) on first listen.
as for why I enjoy nyiregyhazi, or rather this recording in particular, I find the desperation and exhaustion in his playing to be very moving. it probably boils down to the relationship people have with watching people go down in a blaze of glory, incredibly magnetizing, like its about to fall apart at any moment.
Thank you for your comment. I also find this quality in Nyiregyhazi's playing to be strangely attractive. It is as though we are hearing a great pianist who hasn't played for 30 years sit down and improvise on what he remembers of Liszt-which is basically what is happening! It's a pretty cool idea, but I guess for me, in this piece, there doesn't seem to be enough left of the music in him to make it work. So although it's kind of enjoyable in a strange way, the music itself, separate from the performer, doesn't come out on top here, if that makes sense.
Your commentary on the Vallée-recording mirrors my feelings pretty much exactly. It puzzles me how people can enjoy it (and many certainly do genuinely enjoy it). I am not sure I can even think of it as a recording of Vallée d'Obermann. Maybe that's the key and we should listen to it without considering that it's a pre-existent composition and treat it as an improvisation or a stream of consciousness of a troubled mind.
However, I also need to thank you for bringing to my attention his Legende No.1 recording. I have only heard a couple of Nyíregyházi recordings and I found all of them to be astonishingly awful (hence not looking into more of his work), but this excerpt from the Assisi-legend is really quite special. (The Spanish Rhapsody quotation doesn't do it for me at all, personally. I hear nothing noteworthy in it.)
I once had the misfortune to listen to an MA recital at my old university where a piano performance MA student attempted to play the b-minor Sonata. The phrase "one correct note to fifty wrong ones" was actually accurate. What made it even more absurd is that the second half of the recital was an improvisation on the same sonata... as if we had actually had a chance to hear it as it was written (also, the final piece was John Cage's Piano Concerto, which - in this context - was adding insult to injury). And most of the audience had never heard the b-minor Sonata up to that point and as a result have probably made a vow to never go near it... if crime can be committed via playing the piano that was it.
Yes, I think you are probably right. Unfortunately I know Vallée d'Obermann too well at this point, so I can't really hear his version with fresh ears. Oh well.
@@TheIndependentPianist Perhaps what bothers me is that the attribution to Liszt is there, and the level of carelessness in this performance goes beyond what any reasonable person might consider to be within the bounds of "doing justice" to the composer. Just call it a paraphrase or change the attribution to Liszt-Nyíregyházi. But then again, it doesn't sound like a paraphrase, it sounds like someone flailing with a piece that is no longer in their grasp technically. It might be appealing to people that from a certain angle it seems he doesn't care at all what anyone thinks - but then again, some of the empty masking effects hint that he is trying to get away with not having the notes.
I came across a similar problem of attribution once with a Khatia Buniatishvili live performance video on TH-cam of her own version of Horowitz's version of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 - the video just said (and still says) that she is performing Liszt's HR #2. It's at best a very lazy oversight, amounting to a lie, and it does a disservice to everyone involved, including Buniatishvili, Horowitz, Liszt and the viewers.
Bar 207 has to be some of the most unmusical playing I have ever heard from a recording in my life. In fact, I can't say I've ever heard someone banging the keys quite like that. I am baffled by this recording in all honesty.
Although I personally dislike it (a lot), I am fascinated by it! Going to be researching him lots now. Thanks for this video!!
I would point you personally towards this: th-cam.com/video/lha24IFf60I/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=GregNichols1953
@samsravel Thank you! Definitely worth taking a listen to some more of his recordings.
When I first started watching I thought this video was going to refer to his recording of Liszt's first legend - I was shocked then to hear you refer to it positively. Pretended apathy that is actually incredibly self deprecating and frustrated (the same is true of his Vallée d'Obermann). It's not that he doesn't have the same techqnique as he did when he was younger. His technique is still great.
I don't often speak so negatively and confidently about people's performances - but I just recognize so much of myself in his playing. When I am in a really, really bad mood in the practice room, it starts to sound like Nyiregyhazi.
I’m just learning this piece and I’ve actually learned a lot through this video ! Now I know what not to do !, thank you
Can you make a video on Josef Hofmann? His 4th ballade is one of my favorite recordings
And his Beethoven also
@saxon4625 Yes, I would love too! A very interesting pianist indeed.
I like your analysis. For me personally music is the artistic union of both technicality and musicality, and while this has highly romantic and dramatic musicality (which is very appealing to some). It lacks technical ability clearly. What I enjoy most in a performance is the necessity for the performer to hold back at times. The edging and control makes the climaxes all the more impactful for me personally.
I agree. Freedom with control is the highest artistry to me as well.
Thanks for the acknowledgment! I thoroughly enjoyed this video, as well as the discussions it has inevitably generated. I've often wondered what it is about this performance that elicits such strong reactions, as I cannot nor want to challenge your critique, since from a technical standpoint I can't disagree. Maybe it's those fleeting glimpses of beauty and nobility that you mentioned, combined with the idea of squandered genius in the context of this philosophical piece, that speak to a deep desire that some have for this kind of unfiltered, raw expression. And at the same it very well could just be him using another great piece of music as a vehicle for egotistical bluster.
Combined with the philosophical content that surrounds Liszt's work and the novel it was inspired by, as well as Schoenberg's comments on listening from more of an expressionist perspective than a pianistic one, I can see why Nyiregyházi might be described by some as a "Lost Genius," as the title of his biography suggests. So for some, I can see how he may still be managing to "get the gist across" for this piece, despite it being essentially a free improv on it.
Thanks Joseph! I had a lot of fun researching this video, so thank for suggesting it. I found myself finding more and more things that I liked by Nyiregyházi as I went along, to the point that I became pretty enthusiastic (just not in Vallée). It does seem like such a shame that he wasn't better recorded when he was in his prime. Any more ideas like this one I should cover? 🙂
@@TheIndependentPianist How about Cindy Elizondo's Showpan Sharzo No.1?
You here some of this type of distortion in late Pogolerich.
Yes no doubt you are right. Even in his earlier recordings I remember some extreme rhythmic freedom.
@@TheIndependentPianist Yes, somewhat, but later it becomes much worse. The music becomes woozy, almost unrecognizable. (I don't know what it's like now.) We also have the tapes of Horowitz's Tokyo recitals in which 'effects' are hopelessly exaggerated. He was drugged up then, but later his Rachmaninoff 3rd was bizarre even though he was supposedly cleaned up and back on track. Then again with Nyiregyházi you may be hearing the effect of years of alcoholism. Certain predilections and tendencies - noticeable but contained - often become unrestrained 'under the influence.' Hofmann's last concerts were also distorted and rhythmically hobbled (his Chopin c minor nocturne.) Again, the effects of inebriation. All this needs to be taken into account. Sometimes there's a tendency to regard virtuosos as superhuman. In their prime and health they seem so, but they're just people.
I was hoping someone would bring up Pogorelich. It’s perhaps in bad taste to a make a ‘what happened’ video about someone who is still performing. But if anyone could do it, I believe Cole could! With Pogorelich, we have what Cole wishes we had from Nyiregyhazi - a great selection of pieces recorded in his absolute prime. With Deutsche Grammophon no less. They are very clearly at the absolute top level of piano playing, admittedly with some controversial interpretative approaches. But the player he has become is very hard to recognise; his technique still there at times but making the most bizarre choices; distorting pieces out of all recognition.
I agree this must be one of the worst piano performances ever put on record. It is truly distressing to hear it - the dragging tempi, constant banging tone, total lack of rhythm worsened by the constant hands out of sync effect (which makes a nonsense of Liszt’s very deliberate device of leaving out the bass notes on the beat so frequently), also almost every chord broken, stupid constant addition of octave bass notes, other horrible noises and complete disregard for the composer’s intentions. One can only attribute it to mental illness having caused him to half forget how to play the piano generally, and this piece specifically.
Worst piano recording?? *Hold my beer... Lol, thanks for the great video! (Also, good for you for using the word "meretricious" , great word.
Yeah, it actually is the worst piano recording ever
Yes, "meretricious" is our word of the week!
In a nutshell, Nyiregyházi was always playing the blues. And he was usually drunk .I guess you either like that or you don't, but I do :)
Haha, interesting! I guess I conceptualize the blues sounding a little different than this, but the part about being drunk is spot on.
wow--surprised and delighted to find such a channel--thank you, indy pianist--i'm coming back
Great commentary, just subbed! I've been meaning to do this type of recording analysis on my channel. I do a lot of musical analysis with my own playing, but I've always shied away from critiquing recordings for fear of getting copyright strikes from the TH-cam overlords... Have you had any issues with this? I just did a video on a Beethoven sonata movement and got a copyright strike from my own playing saying I used the playing of some Japanese pianist I've never heard of!
Hi Josh, sorry I missed your comment before! Yes, copyright issues can be a problem. I'm surprised you got a copyright strike. Usually what they do is make the video so that it can't be monetized and the copyright holders get any ad revenue etc. When you get a false copyright claim, you should definitely dispute. I've always succeeded in getting rid of fraudulent copyright claims (like the one you mention) using the dispute option. I have a template that I use-I'm happy to share it with you over email if you are interested. cole@independentpianist.com (TH-cam creators unite!)
I attended an EN concert in the early 1960s. We arrive early and sat for half an hour in the hall. The stage had an entrance on either side. EN came out of the left, played his programme, and went back out on the left. I tried to listen critically but then merely kept quiet and thought of other things. As I rose to leave, my companion mentioned that the door on the left was a closet. EN had apparently been put there before the hall doors were opened and was let out after the hall cleared. I was told that someone ties his shoes for him. I marveled that it is fortunate he has people looking after him. I had only heard him on reproducing piano rolls which must have been recorded before 1925 and were acceptable, but they were usually edited in that medium.
Although I agree with most of the opinions you voiced, I still see his rough playing refreshing because of how rare it is. There are infinitely many polished interpretations, and sometimes I like a pallet cleanser
I stumbled upon this video somehow, and I'm so glad I did! I absolutely loved your commentary, humour and analysis. I'd never heard playing described as spastic before, but that is an incredibly insightful observation - which might explain the lack of synchronisation between the hands, frequent rhythmic abnormalities, and the excessively loud and incessant smashing of the keys. Those problems, plus the lack of shape, form, context, and any kind of musical sense combine to make this the worst recording I've heard. However, I disagree with one statement you made when you said there were a couple of moments of great interest and beauty - I could find only one moment at 35:18 bar 180 - 183.
A serious, in-depth criticism, backed up by your own respectable recording of this piece.
I generally find it difficult to appreciate Liszt's music. Nyiregyhazi is a pianist that brought Liszt's works to my attention, whether his interpretations are true to the score or not.
For me, Nyiregyhazi's appeal is in his sound, as well as the uniqueness of his interpretations, even when they stray off the bizarre end. There is absolutely no one that sounds like him. The thunderous sonority that he commands is one that I aspire to possess as well. Both of these qualities I find lacking in many contemporary pianists. Hence the infatuation. His playing is refreshing, if somewhat exhausting.
I do agree with your criticism that his performance lacks the finesse and accuracy that I'm sure he was capable of in his prime.
Let's learn what we can from him, and evoke his best qualities in our own playing, according to our own tastes.
Yours I've found a balanced and fair comment re this subject.
To-date, the only environmental sound sampling (recording) of
Nyiregyhazi's from his earliest days, are shot bits heard in the
early sound film "The Lost Zeppelin." They are torturously short
but do provide at least a glimpse of his youthful genius. Also we
catch a view of the fellow at his instrument just briefly.
I here append part of a letter sent to Otto Klemperer by Arnold
Schoenberg (not exactly a fool as our youthful pianist-host here)
commenting fulsomely on the mid-Thirties impression Nyiregyhazi
had made upon him then (actually, it is a brief analysis):
" . . . a pianist who appears to be something really quite extraordinary. I had to overcome great resistance in order to go at all, for the description I'd heard from Dr. Hoffmann and from Maurice Zam had made me very skeptical. But I must say that I have never heard such a pianist before...First, he does not play at all in the style you and I strive for. And just as I did not judge him on that basis, I imagine that when you hear him, you too will be compelled to ignore all matters of principle, and probably will end up doing just as I did. For your principles would not be the proper standard to apply. What he plays is expression in the older sense of the word, nothing else; but such power of expression I have never heard before. You will disagree with his tempi as much as I did. You will also note that he often seems to give primacy to sharp contrasts at the expense of form, the latter appearing to get lost. I say appearing to; for then, in its own way, his music surprisingly regains its form, makes sense, establishes its own boundaries. The sound he brings out of the piano is unheard of, or at least I have never heard anything like it. He himself seems not to know how he produces these novel and quite incredible sounds - although he appears to be a man of intelligence and not just some flaccid dreamer. And such fullness of tone, achieved without ever becoming rough, I have never before encountered. For me, and probably for you too, it's really too much fullness, but as a whole it displays incredible novelty and persuasiveness. And above all he's only [sc. 33 years] old, so he's still got several stages of development before him, from which one may expect great things, given his point of departure... it is amazing what he plays and how he plays it. One never senses that it is difficult, that it is technique - no, it is simply a power of the will, capable of soaring over all imaginable difficulties in the realization of an idea. - You see, I'm waxing almost poetic."
This, I am sure, will serve as no weak antidote to what The Independent Pianist here-attempts (even if-so subconsciously), he and his barely disguised hate-filled allies.
"ALL things in moderation and to caring measure."
"Nyiregyházi plays Liszt En Rêve,
Liszt Nuages Gris for Piano - Krystian Zimerman"
Rhapsody 19
th-cam.com/video/qxCge23mOR0/w-d-xo.html
I find this video very educational, even if in this case it is fairly obvious, do you have any other video review “bad” piano playing?
No... generally I try to keep things more positive!
As probably the leading "public" defender of Nyiregyhazi and likeminded pianists on this platform, you called, I came! I notice that you view this piece and performance through a very technical lens - "No phrasing," "No ritard.," "Ugly sound," "Wrong notes" and so on. I, for the most part, agree - on a purely technical basis, this is one of the "worst" piano recordings of all time, although 50 wrong notes to every right one was obvious hyperbole. However, I view music as an emergent quality of ordered sound as is made by humans - primarily as a way to communicate that which is sublime, infinite and entirely unsuitable to expression in a verbal sense (this may seem hypocritical coming from both a written defense and a piano commentary channel, but bear me out!). This means that I listen less to a recording as dissectible parts secondarily (be it grotesque, enormous and bloated) - but their effect as a whole together first and foremost, when they become more than the sum of parts. So while I agree with many of your criticisms, I do not see them as such. Rather, the art of Nyiregyhazi was to express his way of life and worldview - messy, ugly, savage yet with moments of immense nobility and, despite what you say, utmost clarity. That appeals to many of us (perhaps you may refer to us as "the unfortunates!"), to whom aspects of this chaotic, crumbling but ecstatic life is a daily reality.
But beyond mad music for mad people, I love the great conviction behind the playing of Nyiregyhazi that can only come from deeply personal and utterly self-sustaining musicianship. His effects seem purely pianistic to you perhaps because you see them only as what they are separated from the rest of the musical identity - a method of analysis that served you well for artists such as Cortot but not those who are unafraid to make unappealing, uncompromising sound in order to express the darkness and pain they feel. To me, looking at it from both a narrative and idealistic perspective, they are entirely transcendent due to the divisive style with which they are delivered (As if to say, "this is Nyiregyhazi, and this is how he lives, there is no other way.").
This is the music of brokenness and pain, and flawed redemption. It contains stretches of "loud melody," which I don't find arrogant so much as accurate to the state of mind of the unfortunate, despondent depressed case, wherein nothing changes and the daily agony only grows (Hence why I find the form in which this is played entirely appropriate, perfectly expositing the patterns of a fevered yet forlorn mind). The hands are separated because life is lived in a waking, boring nightmare, surrounded by leering faces and distrust. I know for a fact that in the writings of Liszt he speaks about such existentialities - same goes for Anton Rubenstein - I find that the link of philosophies and worldview is far more compelling than the link of playing style, simply because I have no preferred playing style except the one that expresses the most to me. There are many other things that I could go on about, but already I feel a little self conscious. Thank heavens we have an artist like Nyregyhazi to speak for us! Let me simply say this - if you are satisfied with your life and content with yourself, you will not understand this. I hope for your sake that you do not!
But as for the rest of us, this is highly representative of the way we live, and therefore the way we make art. It is not arrogant, it is not mocking the audience. It is music as it should be - complete conviction and truth, through sublime communication. I look forward to your response, from one TH-cam denizen to another.
You’re not a leading defender of him, you’re a living contrarian saying controversial things for clout. You’re no different from Win Winters except your insatiable ego prevents you from saying stuff too outrageous for fear of being alienated by the elitists. So you chose, perhaps subconsciously, a retarded idea that you could always chalk up to subjectivity.
What a fascinating response to Cole's upload - thank you for expressing your perspective with such candour and passion and conviction! I confess to being very ignorant about Nyiregyhazi, but I have read he was also a prolific composer. Your observation that his 'art' was to 'express his way of life and worldview' carries for me (for what it's worth!) the greatest credence when maybe applied to his own idiosyncratic compositions, exploring a life you see as 'messy, ugly, savage yet with moments of immense nobility'. But you really raise a controversial issue. What is the 'true' responsibility of a performer? Is it to interpret the works of a composer in order to present the performer's own intense personal response to a score, using (abusing?) the music as a vehicle to express and communicate how the performer experiences and feels about life . . . or should a performer first and foremost look to find the 'truth' of what the composer might personally have been seeking to convey to the audience? I suppose we're lucky to have performers who deliver across the full spectrum when it comes to where interpretations can be rooted. I was particularly struck with your comment that if we are satisfied with our lives and content with ourselves, we will not understand the points being made (and you sweetly add that you hope we do not!). Well, my opinion again (for what it's worth!) is that great artists can help us imagine and understand what we may never personally experience . . . and when they do this, they certainly deserve to be celebrated. But I remain ambivalent about how far a performer can deviate from the specific notated wishes of the composer! Your points are all beautifully expressed and I certainly appreciated reading them.
In essence, what you like about this playing is that it expresses (no doubt perfectly) the existential experience of being Nyreghazi. The place of Liszt's wonderful artwork in this is not obvious. Perhaps the fact that we know what Liszt wrote (to some degree of approximation) is necessary to enable us to calibrate the Nyreghazi elements? The word most used for these elements in the video commentary is "meretricious" but actually it is worse than that; we don't even get our money's worth.
This is exactly what I mean by pretentiousness. Nyiregyhazicists want to be against elitism in music so bad that they end up inventing the most ridiculous, cult-like statements to justify their forced opinions and by doing that, end up writing what feels like 100-page essays with zero substance.
"the art of Nyiregyhazi was to express his way of life and worldview - messy, ugly, savage yet with moments of immense nobility and, despite what you say, utmost clarity" it's sentences like this that make me roll my eyes. You guys don't even realize how elitist, humiliating and snooty you sound with these empty claims. Music is obviously a way deeper art than just the technicality playing, but nobody needs to pretend that out of all recordings ever only Nyiregahazi's fulfill their artistic, mind-transcending purpose.
It is so annoying when people cannot admit that they are the ones injecting their presupposed beliefs onto his recordings and instead feel the need to be a part of some awaken cult that was chosen to interpret Nyioregahazi's garbage playing correctly. The actual music, the piece itself is not even of interest to you Nyiregyhazicists: his erratic playing always becomes the center of attention, and while that can certainly be a good thing (looking at fantastic pianists like Gould, Horowitz etc), it is just nothing but pretentiousness and circle-jerking with Nyiregahazi. There is a reason why he fell into obscurity is all I'm saying
@@zugzwang2007 Well, I don't so much like him as identify with him, and that is only by virtue of Liszt's great craftsmanship. After all, we do not know how Liszt would wish for it to be interpreted - the score is a visual aid but contributes very little to the qualia of musicianship.
Absolutely fascinating. It is how interesting opinions in art exists. I find myself agreeing with you that the recording was just...weird.
Thank you for watching!
I think your comments are very sensible, and this performance is definitely not something I would call my favorite. His interpretation is overly dramatic indeed, and it shows very little consideration for what the actual piece could have been about. HOWEVER, pianistically, his sound production and the singing tone shows that he is up there at the top of the top. That is why it is still appreciable for me, and not unlistenable as you say. As "childish" as it may seem at times, he still conveys and expresses that "childishness" perfectly well with refined control and singing horizontal line, no matter how loud or slow he plays. You also get a sense of his personality from his playing; someone who has a lot of pent up energy to give off, and crippling psychological troubles. Very interesting, and glad we have his recordings, but definitely won't be returning to it for a while haha
A bit late to the party! I agree with everything you said but I still find myself thoroughly enjoying the banging of the keys. There is nothing discreet about him and while I can't say that he has my favourite recording of any piece I can appreciate and even find myself saying let's listen to some Nyireghazi. I would love if you made a video on some of his compositions/transcriptions. There is some very interesting piano writing in them and in my opinion they are very good.
Glad you admit that you "hate" the performance. It makes your starting point apparent.
Fascinating topic, but I actually had to stop at 15:32, I couldn't take it any more. I did forward to 37:51 based on comments, and it somehow got even worse. I fell in love with his piece a long time ago, and know it rather well. For me, when performed well this piece has some of the most beautiful moments in all music. And these moments are completely lost behind a bunch of random rhythms applied to ridiculously loud chords (no crescendo, just loud)!
However, I was amazed by the sample of his Legend performance, that was something special.
You always want think his playing as something larger scale, if standard performance represents human emotion or speech, his playing represents destruction of planet, the world itself, or how god, higher dimention existance would express
That is quite the encomium! For me, this kind of estimation of Nyiregyházi's playing seems like hyperbole. I don't actually think his approach to art was that deep or introspective, although undoubtedly he could make a huge sound.
I think Ervin is fun
Oh sure, I think he was pretty entertaining to be around... in small doses!
Debunking the Debunker no 6
Now i have chosen a comparison, between Brendel and E. Ny.
I pick the "evening bells " and the christmast piece to show after the madness of Olbermann valley or Mephisto how touching and exquisitely hypnotizing in his effective tenderness and grace E.Ny. could manifest pure heavenly grace...
At least at the same level than Brendel... If not, i will say that E.Ny. play with a suplement of grace in my opinion... Because here E. Ny. is more delicately fluid than even Brendel and the total resulting piece is more integrated as usual with E. Ny. with pulse behind the horizontal melodic line ... With Brendel it is more like many small successive scenes...
I had only Liszt: Weihnachtsbaum with Brendel :
th-cam.com/video/Rn9zi8cLAoA/w-d-xo.html
The same piece by E. Ny. for the 4 first minute and a few seconds.. but observe that E.Ny. is repeating the complete first section, though it's not written in the score.
th-cam.com/video/O0S1KDOC8is/w-d-xo.html
After 8 minutes 19sec. : The "evening bells" is in the E. Ny. youtube selection . But i did not have Brendel playing to compare with...
I feel thr attention given to EN is almost cruel, even mocking. Not one person can defend the playing in his dotage on its own merits: instead they wax poetic about what might have been, or some imagined profound intent. Whereas in fact the playing from his old age reminds me of what you hear when some homeless guy wanders into a church and starts banging on the crappy piano. It's so bad you hardly can guess the piece
I can!
It's amusing how the detractors of Nyiregyhazi are the ones who often resort to hyperbole ... 😀
I really enjoy your content (as much as I dislike this recording). Now, I'd love to hear your take on Dutch pianist Cor de Groot. A very underrated master in my opinion.
I never heard of this pianist before but after viewing this video, I did some research on him. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how this person could be considered a piano great, let alone his obviously troubled and despicable attitude and life choices.
Whose performance do you prefer? All the others seem weak to me.
Ironically, the most interesting performances are Nyiregyhazi's and those seem to follow him temperamentally (and actually make similar choices), like Berman and Lugansky.
I am with you on this Cole. This is one of my favorite Liszt pieces and this is an awful recording of it. It feels jarring and completely disjointed! My favorite recording of this particular piece would be by Lazar Berman. Maybe you could do a video of his performance as a contrast to this POS interpretation.
What is music?
@theindependentpianist 10:50: there indeed is a recording from 1929 on yt of a chopin etude he played!
to some, he is an absolute dumpster fire (which he kinda is)
but to others, he is a *absolute genius*
I think its better when listing to Nyiregyahzi, to say you are no longer listing to the said peace, but you are listing to him. Whatever that may mean. I am agreeing with on about everything. He over uses the same technique and style, and plays pretty flat. Yet I really like it. I love the last five minutes especially, it is very dreadful and, cataclysmic, i love the raw energy it projects , it feels like a more intense, version of Japanese noise rock, or free jazz. Something like this th-cam.com/video/D_fR_2dE7t0/w-d-xo.html. I can see why people don't like, and how its completely horrible.
I like him for very specific moments, but there are many things I would hate to hear him play.
this is an unexpected video. :))
i came across this pianist a couple years ago and i read up a little about him and listened to some of his stuff briefly back then..
i understand your horror, but i think you are approaching this from a generally valid, albeit in this case not the most or best applicable perspective.
if you want to judge him as a concert pianist, i think you have to pick the pieces back from when he was actually trying to be a reasonably "conforming" professional.
we know that didn't work out for him too long.. :))
whatever else there is available from him, i'm getting the impression that wanting to perform the scores in the tradition they were written in and intended was the last thing on his mind.
i think playing the piano became some sort of peculiar self-expression for him, where the scores were just some rough canvas to project his mood and current emotion upon, just basking in the sounds and rhythms he made, just very approximately matching the composers harmonies and other intentions.
i think you have to forget all about Liszt or whomever, the nuances of their scores, other interpretations of them, etc. .. and just listen as if you heard it for the first time. and then he can either draw you in into his somewhat oppressive and desolate sound-world and you can flow with it.. or not..
I couldn't listen further than measure 27. Truly ghastly!!
It's worth it to listen all the way, if only to revel in his pure audacity! Whatever one can say about his musicianship, he certainly had confidence.
Confidence, yes. Judgement - none whatsoever.
Sounds like a sequel to Hindemith’s pastiche of the Flying Dutchman’s overture.
as well, maybe Chopin`s ballads by gavrilov ...
Art without constraints or adherence is still art and often quite provocative. We can measure all sorts of things but does it matter when the artist purposefully doesn't give a crap and does what he wants? Today often we hear just clones reciting music as perfect as possible, will they be remembered, do they create provocative art? I may not always agree with Nyiregyhazi's playing but I must admit I still enjoy it a lot.
No right or wrong way to play the music? There are certainly wrong ways, some of which you have pointed out. I would argue that there would be a fairly defined spectrum that Liszt would have recognised. From what I have read about LIszt, I would expect that he might have been open to different interpretations so long as they were faithful to his overall conception (as indicated in the title).
I am not sure what conception (if any) that Nyiregyházi has here.
Oh thanks for some debunking of this monstrous incompetence. I am quite amazed you stuck with it long enough to be objective about the issues. I wanted to ask if you feel the nausea (that I do) with some of the recordings of Mark Hambourg. Some of his recordings are lovely, and he was renowned and respected and recorded in his (theoretically flawless) prime... but yet, listening to very similar frankly hideous volcanic tonal outbursts, clusters of ham-fisted nonsense, and rhythmic and phrasing perversities of his Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies in particular, I wondered what you made of those!
Yes, Hambourg is sometimes mystifyingly chaotic in his playing-at other times really wonderful as you note. Obviously there was a little bit of a difference in standard at the time, as you can also here similar things in some of Paderewski's recordings: for example his recording of the Chopin A major Military Polonaise, in which he often times seems to be playing random cluster chords in the LH! Maybe it was a result of a great deal of playing for audiences that reacted positively to these kinds of effects? Maybe also a lack of reflection on pieces that became "warhorses" for those pianists. They may have become accustomed to a certain way of playing that got applause in concert. Particularly before widespread recordings, it might not have always been obvious to even the performer how off putting these things could sound for people who knew the piece well.
...and then on the last note, he adds a wholly inexplicable lower B doubling the melody to make sure he emphasizes arrival on the dominant? (and destroying the voice leading). Ouch. Great video, tho.
Well, in his defense, he does have the low E in there also, so it is still a root position chord. He is actually tripling that inner voice. I think Horowitz did that as well there. But I agree, it sounds really bizarre and muddy, I don't care for it myself at all!
"I am the mozerpucking Nyiregyhazi and I can play whatever I like!"
Worst????? Eh? It’s the best Valleé d’Obermann I have heard.
Distorting absolutely everything in such a grotesque way does not make for a "best" performance.
It's like saying "Toooo.... beOR NAUGHT (sic) ........ to.. BEEE" is somehow the best or even interesting or even acceptable interpretation of the opening of the Soliloquy....
Did you even watch any of the video? Or did you just see the headline, write the comment, and leave...
I completely agree this is the best record ever and an apex of classical music n the XX century but not everyone is agreeable in that matter unfortunetly
Somebody tune and voice that f#@%ing MOTH-BOX!!
I think you missed the point..I listened to Mephisto walze 2 played by Richter and Arrau,which were truly great, but was blown away by Nieraghazi, .and had similar feelings in this piece, with his unusual melodic approach and savage base..it's not just loud and chaotic, as you suggest..
I feel like I could do worse
Excellent reviews of Nirejazi come from serious critics such as Richard Aldrich and Harold Schonberg of the New York Times or Arnold Schoenberg as well as piano history experts Gregor Benko and Kenneth Hamilton. He had the great gift of having a massive and brilliant sound from another era while also giving a panoramic view of the work he was playing. He could give an improvisational feel to Liszt unlike most pianists today who play shallow, boring, unimaginative unless you are more intelligent and superior than Arthur Nikis, Erno Dohnanyi or Liszt's student Frederic Lamont...
Don't make a fool of yourself. Ervin Nyirejazi was perhaps along with Horowitz, Cherkasky, Bollet, the last legacy of a huge class playing.
Obviously, of course, you like libels, derogatory comments towards charismatic musicians, something that demonstrates your obvious irrelevance..
I’m not very impressed by appeals to authority-there is no reason I should like a pianist just because others did, even if those others are Benko and Schonberg. Of course you are welcome to like whatever you like. I myself found many moments to enjoy in N’s playing as I mentioned in the video. Hardly a libel, but rather an attempt at a balanced commentary on the actual concrete qualities in his playing.
@@TheIndependentPianist I'm afraid you are not objective at all, not even honest when you refer ironically to a video not seeing that you are talking about an era where the piano was, at least a melodic instrument and not the nonsense that is said today about a percussion instrument.
You refer to a time when musical freedoms were much greater for performers who were usually educated and not concerned with self-promotion on Instagram and Facebook.. You are a "worthy" follower of Arrau's perhaps silly comments about the pianists of that era apparently because he himself couldn't reach them... As far as I'm concerned I've never depended on musicians or critics to appreciate a great talent but you just don't understand that you're insolent towards an unconventional talent...
Also, you are silent that too many reviews today refer to mediocre pianists as Liszt or Horowitz continuations...
Nyiregyházi's playing is huge not because other great musicians and critics have said so but because apologists of a flattening culture, which mixes everything up without substance, do not understand it. Of course, from what I understand, you consider yourself far superior to the aforementioned Nirejazi appreciators... Apparently, even to master musicians like Arthur Nikisch...
You are still too young to be so malignant...
@@antonvl7able Hmmm, there don’t seem to be many concrete points to respond to here-calling me ignorant and malignant is simply childish and doesn’t say anything in your favor. I don’t consider myself superior to those who appreciate Nyiregyházi’s playing, as I make clear in my video and my comments (did you watch the whole thing? I suspect not). It’s a little rich to always fall back on the argument that others simply “don’t understand” Nyiregyházi’s playing in lieu of saying anything specific. Not denying that there may be wonderful qualities about his art, but I think it doesn’t detract from whatever his good qualities were to take a balanced view and acknowledge negative aspects in his playing as well.
@@TheIndependentPianist First of all, I can't watch an entire video because the speaker rambles on while I clearly understood his direction. Nor do I have to watch all the videos of some modern narrow-minded people who think they have become piano players from nothing... Learn to be comprehensive and not verbose. Learn to appreciate the overall feel a pianist gives to the work rather than nitpicking pointlessly about "burying" him? Wrong notes, sudden outbursts, and unexpected quirks are a virtue in great musicians... I would call such an interpretation "panoramic contemplation" but, anyway, I think you're not doing well with the philosophy of music... Also , you rail against the aforementioned teachers in the usual style of modern uncomplicated chatter. I don't know many pianists who have the rhythmic freedom, the many colors, the rubato, the generally exuberant, classy sound of a Nyiregyhazi but much more the personality he brings out on the keyboard? Don't you consider these arguments too? You probably didn't notice my previous reply against your juvenile chatter...
@@antonvl7able Ah, so you in fact did not hear my complete comments. In that case there is no more to be said, as you have merely set me up as a straw man encapsulating everything you think is wrong with the music world! If you want to have a genuine discussion I recommend actually listening to the people you set out to insult and criticize-otherwise you risk looking a bit silly!
fwiw I think if Floyd Cramer had played Chopin with Floyd's "style" - that would have been "bad"....
TALK ABOUT LANG LANG
DO PLEASE. With scores but not his face.
would love a vid about his don juan
These are all interesting ideas! I guess I shy away from talking about modern pianists, since I don't want to be overly critical towards currently active professionals-somehow it seems a bit in poor taste. But on the other hand, maybe there would be some constructive things to be said. Definitely I would steer away from discussing his facial expressions!
Hmmm, the Florence Foster Jenkins of the piano. I should keep quiet, since so am I!
Ah, Florence Foster Jenkins, the Mrs. Miller of the 1930s!
Did he play what Liszt wrote? In many places, No. If you heard it in a concert hall, without looking at the score, would you have an interesting musical experience? I think so. Would I enjoy repeated listenings, especially if I had alternative, more true-to-the-score, recordings? Probably not.
Debunking the debunker no. 0 :
Think a second about this : Half people able to perceive "clarity" as the ultimate quality and the execution of the melodic line in horizontal time as the peak of the mountain are here, if i read the many disparaging comments, unable to perceive texturing expressive chords in the vertical time surging from rythmic improvisation as the peak of the mountain...
Singing a melody is one road taken by the crowd of pianists because the melody is dead here for all to see in the written score...But we can speak and chant the words ( the notes and chords) suggesting and inviting and evocating a "possible" melody which is not the ready made one dead on the score as all played it and a genius can take the road of a musical timing coming from his feeling more than from the metronymic interpretation of what is written like a student...
How many believe that Liszt mesmerized all countries of the world by "clarity" , all great pianists are "clear" anyway and they dont created trance and manifestations and woman dont lose their mind because the pianist is "clear" as crystal, ... (Sofronitsky first quality playing Scriabin is not CLARITY, many bad pianist may own clarity easily, it is mesmerizing expressiveness through texture and color hues control of each notes.The genius of Sofronitsky and Scriabin exceed the only mastering clarity of the melodic line and it is not enough at all here, we need the expressive spoken imprevisible improvized incantation )
In complete opposite of what our debunking pianist claim the quality of Liszt , manifested by the greatest pupil of the last Liszt disciple Frederic Lamond, is not clarity, any pianist student must be clear and can be taught clarity mastery... pure expressiveness nobody can taught it to someone who do not perceive it FIRST... You dont teach how to be a genius...
Now compare the relative clean playing of Zimerman but without the hypnotic dreamlike quality and the intensity of E.N. ( Zim. is my favorite pianist for Brahms concerto no 2 ) compared to the supreme expressiveness of E. N. ... The fact that many are unable to understand this genius dont shock me ... Most people dont understand poetry or number theory anyway... But the fact that a pianist title his video : "The Worst Piano Recording of all Time? My Reaction to Nyiregyházi's Liszt" means IGNORANCE, narrow mind, and insensibility.... It is so easy to point to some defects and put the real greatness under a rug and walk on it without even feeling shame... Philistine vouch for clarity...I vouch for the heart intensely beating... Music can be leisure,distraction, snobism, empty form, thin previsible or motoric clarity and virtuosity but in some case spiritual revelation and nothing less...And it is the only thing that matter before our death...
Now read the letter of Schoenberg put here by one of the commentator, throw to the head of his ghost that he was deluded by someone of the most vulgar kind and unable to play with "clarity"... Wait for the despising look you will receive from him ...
Now compare Zimerman certainly a great pianist among those of today and E.N. and say to me E. N. is the worst pianist ever as suggested here and adopted by some classical snobs or lover of "clarity"... By the way the "rumble waves" in the piece are more clear and controlled and modulated and keep the basic pulsation in a more impressive and subtle way under E.N. hand than in Zim hand.. E.N. never lost the pulsation behind the melody, zim. lost it at some time...Yes melody is also pulsation not only succession of notes... By the way listen CAREFULLY the three first notes of the piece, only the THREE notes of the beginning , and the comparison is already over.... And Zimerman is for me one of the great pianist today if not certainly not the worst... Then "independant pianist" i think you must go back to school not to learn to play piano but to learn how to listen WITHOUT READING A SCORE... I am not a pianist but i know how to listen because i dont bother with a score... I am not a musicologist either...
I forgot to say that Liszt wrote this piece after a debilitating accident which let him desesperate... Now ask yourself between the 2 versions which one give us the most sad and desesperate feeling with no hope or no unvolontary playing embellishment of any chord but a sesation to stay in a void... It is not Zim.
th-cam.com/video/PIYnv38rZgY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/RnkzBbuyy1M/w-d-xo.html
Hello there, thank you for your thoughts. You seem to have really gravitated towards my comments on clarity. This word was used in reference to Liszt’s playing by an intelligent observer (I believe it was the conductor/pianist Hallé, much admired by Wagner). I take clarity to not only refer to technical clarity, but also to the extreme communicative clarity that was referred to by those who heard Liszt-that music came to life under his fingers as under no one else’s. The main problem for me is that the emotional core of this work in no way comes through with any kind of clarity in this performance. This is entirely personal, and if the performance does resonate with you, so much the better! That is the great thing about all art.
Also, taking all the recordings that we have of Nyiregyhazi together, I think that objectively it can’t be denied that he had largely lost his abilities by this time-at least from a technical perspective. I would argue also that in large part, his control over musical ideas had left him in his later years-notwithstanding some lovely and powerful moments, which I note in the video.
I take such a methodical approach to explicating my impressions in detail so that the viewer can see exactly why I come to these conclusions, as well as is possible, and to avoid vague generalizations.
Unfortunately, owing to the length of the video, I get the feeling that many viewers have not actually heard everything I had to say-if they had they would realize that I attempt to be as unbiased aa possible, and that I point out what I perceive as the positive elements of his playing. He was certainly a very interesting artist, and there is nothing inherently wrong with liking this performance. Perhaps you feel that I am trying to say no one should like this performance? That is not the case, as my statements in the video bear out.
Also, I did include that quote from Schoenberg in the video already-in fact it is timestamped in the description box! All I would add to that, is that the Nyiregyházi of the 1930s and 40s that Schoenberg was writing about was demonstrably a far cry from the way he played in the 70s and 80s! Still a fascinating encomium and worth taking seriously. Nonetheless it doesn’t redeem this particular performance for me!
@@TheIndependentPianist You talked about "debunking" and you said "the worst pianist ever"...
The fact you used these expressions cannot be erased by backpedaling in the "clarity" assumed to be the MAIN CHARACTERISTC of Liszt playing which is erroneous completely for simple reason... There is plenty of great pianists today able of supreme clarity playing and able of some but not so much powerful expression ... Then there is a difference between clarity, and intense provocative texturing expressive powerful playing in a musical time dimension of his own .. I illustrated this with Zimerman and E. N. in " nuage gris" a 3 minute piece...
Then you cannot erase your choice of word and modify the concept of clarity in playing to absorb even the concept of expression in it... It is the reverse sorry, it is impossible to be expressive in a meaninful way without a minimal clarity, by contrast i can give you pianist name supreme master of clarity with only a minimal power of expression.. The main difference is that in piano school as in poetry school , or painting school , nobody can really learn expressiveness, ( Hitler was never able to learn expressiveness in his painting days) but everybody can learn clarity using the means of expression if the expression is ALREADY there in them , because nobody thaught expression, we can teach bits and advices to give to expression his primal importance on the front scene, but we had it or not... Clarity by contrast can be exercised and developed and be growing...The expressiveness of Scriabin cannot be thaught...We can learn counterpoint and write it with clarity but expressiveness in counterpoint cannot be taught.. Then you miss the boat... Liszt seduced women and crowds and mesmerized people better than Mesmer not by a "clear" playing save for esthete who taste him nowadays , Liszt was a PROMETHEAN creative improvizing volcano of powerful improvized expression as Scriabin was and as Chopin never was too much in bach influence and he was never a slave of the written score and it is the reason why he revolutionize piano playing and put it on another level... E. N. gives us a taste of that EVEN in the ruin of his past self.. And the way you formulate it to create a stir and attraction to your site provoked sadness and distaste for those of us who learned how and why to appreciate the genius ruins of E. N. and what in these ruins is nowhere to be seen anywhere or rarely nowadays...Think again...
Debunking the debunker no 1 :
The reason why Olbermann played by him is so powerful is the way E. N. dont picked the usual metronomical time used by all other interprets, between 13 and 15 minutes but 20 minutes of metronomical time ..
Why ? Because the musical time is NEVER a mere measure of time applied from the external as the physical time is used in all human day to day enterprise to rule our deeds... The musical time is an EVENT spontaneously appearing in the playing improvising process itself not before it , even if we use a written score... Furtwangler is my favorite example of this... Listen to the 4th of Schumann recorded in one fell swoop of 32 minutes with no interruption... Futwangler is known , as Ansermet and Gergyev claimed he was THE MASTER, for his mastery of musical time... A fact a so great master as Toscanini missed COMPLETELY in his metronomical imposition of timing on his musicians slaves... Furtwangler listen the music WITH his musicians and invite them to go with him in a road never walked before...He is the master of his orchestra as Toscanini was, but he did not go with a clock hammer to impose this to the musicians...
E. N. in the Olbermann valley created the same miraculous descent in the depth of emotions, as Furtwangler did in other works, in Liszt works no one before him ever demonstrate even to exist...Especially in the Olbermann valley, one of the greatest Liszt work...
I explained in my first commentary the difference between horizontal melodic musical time and vertical time pulse as i felt it in Olbermann where E. N. first TALKS and SPEAKS and do not SING first, the melody in Olbermann is in the process of birthing from vertical time and is not merely transcribed passively from the written score going only with horizontal external melodic metronomical time...
As Liszt was before him and BECAUSE through Lamond E. N. was a true Liszt disciple, he is not a slave of the written score, for the pleasure and leisure of those elite who will read it instead of listening and will wait to spot errors or too much freedom from the score... E. N. despised concert life where he felt exploited from the craddle to his 35 birthday... He always played how he felt it not for a public of "connoisseurs" but to impact those with heart and ears...He was more as Liszt was a magician, an alchemist, than a musician worker in the field of music ... ...
Speaking is not singing... Words ( notes and chords) exist with their meanings constellation alone, in a way a SINGLE note cannot, because a note can only be fully meaningful in a played melody...There is dictionary for the meanings of words there is no dictionary for note or even chords meanings... The genius of E. N. is walking his path between speaking and singing in the Olbermann valley ... The genius of E. N. here is to speaks and spell the melody phrase sentence and parts without singing it in the horizontal time axis FIRST but putting it in the vertical pulsating time dimension FIRST from which the melody can only speaks before singing in the other dimension ... If someone dont pick this to begin with by feeling it in his heart moved by these words in the first minute BEFORE they became a song, before the singing begun to serve first the poetical meanings behind the words choice , felt as a pulsation crossing all the twenty minutes , then it is only a mere " heavy playing" for sure and wrecked non sense as our host claimed it is, by reason of "good taste" or by the written score law ...
But then why insulting people, and "debunking", not only E. N. playings as meaningless, but debunking also their choice as music lovers who felt this work as meaningful and think otherwise than the debunker; then why is he claiming with this choice of words about this genius they love that he is only a wreck in Olbermann and his playing" the worst piece ever" ? I hate this word : "debunk "...
I know myself WHY i love Olberman E. N. interpretation and HOW i can explain it... But you cannot make explanation meaningful for those who dont feel THE MUSICAL EVENT to begin with because they sense it as immediately meaningless. A musical event must be truly felt before we can perceive it consciously; and we will , only then, being able to describe it rightfully for those others who will be also able to feel it before their " conscious" perception arise ... A felt moving sensation is NOT a perception... An explanation may link a sensation of time to a perception of time for example... A musical explanation is not condemned BY LAW to stay near and inside the written score and his "suggested" horizontal metronomical imposed time dimension ...
Vertical time is not taught in musical school.. ( Ansermet taught about it in a 1200 pages book in french he call it simply musical time ) Music is not mathematic.. Poetry is not mathematic, it is more than mathematic (but this is one complete other subject)... Then as you can guess it by my answer i do not merely defend ONLY my "taste" here about E. N. BUT i claim that there exist a reason why this choice of 20 minutes exist, and this reason is to be look for by a meditation on horizontal and vertical time musical dimensions and relations...Musical time own 2 directions not one as physical time... Then my defense of E. N. playing is based on my feeling yes, but also on OBJECTIVE perceptive ground...And they dont teach in school expressiveness, nor the two musical time dimensions as i experienced them in Olbermann specifically , they teach clarity and melody... They dont teach genius.. We are a genius or not...E. N. was and is one in spite of old age mania and technical limitations...Schoenberg was right and cannot be debunked even by old age playing by E. N. it is because the time dimension where the playing is done EXIST objectively , nevermind the limitations of the pianist...
In the Olbermann valley played by E. N. each note speaks as a bullet coming toward us from a rifle , metronomical time is suspended in vertical dimension in heights and in depths...No other musician dare to do it guiding us from and toward above and under depths ... The interpretation is out of any recognized standards... It is not good or bad, it is revelatory in a way which make all the others interpretation i listened to : tasteful perfect moment for sure but never a disturbing new understanding... Is it madness? for sure... is it mediocre? no... mediocre is a routinely well played conservative piece ofmusic with nothing bad or intense, no risk no originality... Call E. N. interpretation the word you want to pick, mediocre is not this word...I will call it horribly beautiful, a beautiful madness resembling nothing else... Who was Liszt? a man able to go in the abyss of the human heart , where even Chopin never goes...E.N. proves it, and in the depth of the human heart it is not esthetical pleasure who dwell but ectasy and fears...
By the way, for my last toughts, Scriabin was a master after Liszt, going in the road already drawn by him and in a more deeper way by some aspects; Scriabin is a master of vertical time; in his first works progressively, horizontal melodic time become pure vertical time , AND vertical time BIRTH horizontal time especially in the last sonatas... Why most pianists in the East and in America so talented in clarity playing they are and could be , dont even touch the feet of volcanic Sofronitsky for example and some other Russian masters for the perfect pulsating expression of vertical time , as Zukhov or Neuhaus etc where the melody is conceived without being born yet , in the abyss or the heights between tonality and atonality, (without the mathematical recipe systematic processing as in Schoenberg algebra) the melody staying as a child in the mother womb ? It is because they are more or less able to translate the passage between the two musical time dimensions...In Russia pianist were taught by Scriabin and his pupils as Sofronitsky , perceived there as gods... In non-Russia no masters exist in a tradition teaching how to do it...it is more difficult to discover great Scriabin interpreters then ... ( By the way there is reason why ONLY in Russia Scriabin is considered to be at least on par, if not a greater artist than even Stravinski , the reason is this conscious mastery of musical time dual dimensions and transformative spiritual effects over pure esthetical pleasure)
Why Scriabin could be so creative then if he had never dare to quit the jail of melodic horizontal time dimension first and gone vertically after to indicated to us all humanity ( as Beethoven did it before him in his own way and Liszt ) where are NOW for us the spiritual roots of creativity and freedom ....
We can understand why and how Liszt so deeply prepared the way for the like of Scriabin ? Listening Olbermann valley by E. N. teach us why and how Liszt is a so underestimated giant even today ... I will then call our host analysis of Olbermann valley by E. N. based on "good taste" and musical common places "clarity" about the written score the worst ever, sorry ... Is it not easy to " debunk" the debunker ? Yes it is easy, because without feelings ,music is only meaningless sounds, a pure mathematic which is a mere empty clarity...And myself i had feeling for E. N. music and thanks heartfully E. N. for his Liszt esoteric revelation who i explored years after thanks to him ...I recognized E. N. at first listenings because i was already a Scriabin admirer and E. N. plays a bit like Sofronitsky in his own way...... I did not recognize Liszt genius at first and E.N. rectified my short sight... Thanks to him...
This response contains an entire aesthetics ... thank you, from my heart, for sharing it.
I’d rather listen Nyiregyhazi than most of today’s "pianists"...
Kid
@@WEEBLLOM I'm definitely older than you.
Care to expand on what you like about his playing? I am genuinely interested to hear.
@The Independent Pianist Thank you for asking. Today we heart a lot of sterile, faithful to the score, academic playing. If you play a dozen today's pianists' recordings you can't necessarily say there is a much difference with them. I myself am very interested in historical recordings, and different national schools of piano playing. Nyiregyhazi is an exponent of the great Hungarian school, he studied with Dohnanyi and Lamond (whose recordings I also listen to). So if you read his biography he had some kind of a personal tragedy and ended to live on the streets, not playing the piano. There is a document about him on TH-cam. He feels things differently than others and plays in a different way. He clings to every note. Pogorelich had also a personal tragedy and his playing is also different than before tragedy, much slower tempi. I know that irritates many people.
I appreciate the comparison with Pogorelich. I saw a relatively recent video of his Islamey at an unbelievably slow tempo, but it was captivating in a slightly haunting way. I didn’t know anything about Nyiregyhazi until today. I was actually appalled by this rendition of Vallee but now feel I should know more about this unique pianist.
I thought his name was pronounced Nerrun-yah-tzee
Debunking the debunker no7
Here in spite of the bad recording quality of the piece "St-francis preaching to the birds" the two pianists in competition here are on the same level...
Wilhelm Kempf is triking...But E. Ny. is too... More contrast between the st discourse and the answering birds... It is not a superiority just the way E. Ny. plays always... here we have an idea that even if the recording is very bad, E. Ny. plays on the same levekl as the great Kempf...
Kempf :
th-cam.com/video/TvAod9KxsFM/w-d-xo.html
E. Ny. :
th-cam.com/video/95LCUHw50C8/w-d-xo.html
Our second comparison will be with Horowitz at the height of his power in 1947 , 44 years old in a relatively good recording against the 70 year old superhuman Nyiregyhazi with a very bad cassette recording...
Anyway the playing of E.Ny. is so on another level of expression that WE CAN FEEL THE SAINT WALKING ON THE WATER REALLY... So great is Horowitz he can only create a beautiful metaphor without the titanical force of E. Ny. he does not staging the real miracle for us to see on a stage as the old Liszt disciple can do...If someone say that E. Ny. is not a supreme master , the opposite of an old ruins who can be debunk by anyone ... i dont know what to say about bad faith... Horowitz lack here the tremendous pulsative unity 9 themusical time vertical dimension ) behind the horizontal melodic line compa to the Liszt reincarnationE. Ny. who did not and recreate for us a real miracle...
Observe that the insanely magical version of E. Ny. is 4 minutes longer... Here like in Mephisto waltz as the devil was playing, here the miracle happen on stage and the saint walk really on water.. Pure madness... But huge mastery... you will not give that to your mother for a sunday relaxing silent moment... Miracles are not a cake to taste ...
Horowitz:
th-cam.com/video/lnp2HQ-RCDE/w-d-xo.html
E. Ny. :
th-cam.com/video/L7MhY-2-Kj4/w-d-xo.html
Debunking the debunker no 9
i was stunned by comparing the geat Yakob Flier and E.Ny. rendition of the Faust symphony...
Alas I only have the second movement by Flier...it begins at 25 minute in the E. Ny. version... for sure the recording with E. Ny. is bad... But it gives enough to understand his playings..
If our host debunker was right about the old E. Ny. how then he can favorably rival Flier genius... One of the great of the Russian school ?
Ask always yourself the same question : who better translate the implicit intention of the work? Dont ask yourself what version i prefer, this is not the point...Most people for examplke will prefer the best recording and the less disturbing playing... Here what matter is the way the pianist communicate the poem Faust deep turmoils in sound and musical understanding ?
My opinion is that the interpretation of E. Ny. is nowhere behind Flier genius... Which means our debunker miss that because it is the same pianist doing what he does : powerful expression...
Flier :
th-cam.com/video/aeZca7rbrZg/w-d-xo.html
E.Ny. :
th-cam.com/video/edk69hf1ecM/w-d-xo.html
Any recordings of him playing Bartok? or Debussy?
Yes.
Bartok, "Evening in Transylvania": th-cam.com/video/ULEtqlD8S1s/w-d-xo.html
Debussy, "Pagodes": th-cam.com/video/EnxTdhgi1PY/w-d-xo.html
Someone I remember being presented as a genius of legend but who I think was mostly hype.
nice
Thank you!
Wow, his incessant labored loudness is really off putting. We know these pieces so well it's pretty hard to accept this kind of one dimensional pounding. He plays so loud so much of the time there is no place for him to go but he does try to play even louder. I hear great technique but no sophisticated musicality. I am fully aware that in his day he was considered to be a Liszt reborn by some of the greatest pianists of the time. It wasn't just his superlative technique which impressed the great artists, it was his musicality that was the great wonder.
Debunking the debunker no 8
Here an interesting comparison between the young E. Ny. recorded on ampico rolls piano...
And the great Lazar Berman
In mazeppa...
It is not necessary to listen much to immediately spot that the E. Ny. and Berman are not league apart here... But great masters....
I will not go longer , my point is made... The debunker reveal only his lack of understanding and perception in olbermann valley... E. Ny. is among all the pianist we had listen in a class of his own , andin raw power can only be the one contender to play as Liszt was playing... Without peer in expressive power force ... You dont tame crowds of men, women and beasts with delicacies ...
The greatest difference between E. Ny. and any other pianists is not his virtuosity , even if his virtuosity is astonishing ( without the cleanliness and perfection, at 70 years old lacking his own piano for 30 years, of a chineese prodigy practicing 20 hours a day at 20 years old ) ... No...
The great difference come with his mastery of the two dimensions of musical time ... The pulsating vertical time respiration which you FEEL and the melodic horizontal time dimension which you MANIFEST in the playing ... For E. Ny. the melody surge and come into being only from the vertical pulsative dimension in the course of the playing itself... The melody as written as suggestions difficult to interpret sometimes in the composer score dont rule over the living artist ... What command is the beating heart of the interpreter who RECREATE the flowing melody FROM his pulsating vertical source in the spirit now incarnated in the flesh through his own body gesturing in horizontal physical time ...
It is why as Liszt was, our hero dont respect any jail for him , nor the written melodic score because it is a dead ghost body embalmed in melodic horizontal metronomical time , instead he summon the living spirit behind to incarnate through him anew... Liszt certainly played the same way ... As a magician not as a first prize applicated virtuozo, and boy! they can be clear and clean!... ( see the marvellous Chineese first prize) The life of Liszt is the transformation of a pure Faustian musician transformed by life into a meditative mystic living now in silence and peace...The "Christus" is on par with the greatest mass of Bruckner or on par with Bach mastery by his controlled perfect orchestral minimalism ( the first 20 minutes show it perfectly ) ...And Bruckner had take note for his future symphonies and even for his more mystical mass...
E. Ny. did not live the same life... He stay a young rebellious soul, exploited by his mother as a prodigy from the craddle to his death... But he was a prodigy, from the beginning till his death... Not a fraud to debunk...No one merit these words on a public space ...Save real fraudster ... And those who love this pianist dont like it... I apologize for my comments but they are necessary and will give to others a different tone and another way tu use ears and brain,....
Some people love Boulez's works, I find it's an aberration to music. Some people enjoy experimentalism, some don't. I just think his interpretation is experimental, asking if it's the worst of all time is stretching it too far. One thing that is certain to me is that Nyiregyhazi doesn't play badly, the interpretation is unarguably filled with emotion, unlike the smooth emotional void you can find with the likes of Rubinstein and Lang Lang.
texture and clarity are OPPOSITES! why people think clarity is so fancy? a MIDI player has clarity.
Um... I'm afraid this is incorrect! Texture refers to an entirely different concept from clarity. The opposite of clarity would be "obscurity" or "opacity." Texture refers to how the musical materials are combined to create a musical whole. So you could have a homophonic texture, a contrapuntal texture, a monophonic texture-or you could refer to a texture as rich, or thin, or clear or opaque etc. But clarity and texture are not opposites!
@@TheIndependentPianist music is not about clarity. piano needs to blend notes in ororder to create effects. clarity is mechanical. and boring. no one wants to hear every note of a texture.
@@LuisKolodin I completely agree with you that in many textures it is very important that the notes should be blended together. To me this is not at odds with the essential notion of clarity. Clarity doesn't necessarily mean having your attention drawn to individual notes. You might indeed want to hear every note separately in certain textures-a Mozart Sonata for example. In the case of Mozart it is by no means boring to hear every note clearly, but is indeed a large part of the beauty of the music.
But the sense intended by Hallé in reaction to Liszt's playing was probably somewhat different, and a little harder to define, so I will quote the full passage:
"One of the transcendent merits of his playing was the crystal-like clearness which never failed him for a moment, even in the most complicated and, for anybody else, impossible passages; it was as if he had photographed them in the minutest detail upon the ear of his listener."
He seems to be speaking in a larger sense not only about Liszt's purely mechanical "clarity," but about how this transcendent mechanical ability translated into a musical experience of unprecedented vividness. For me, this is the clarity that is missing in Nyiregyházi's playing... at least of this piece!
Thank you so much for this video. This somewhat recent trend on TH-cam to pretentiously worship the horrendous, often embarrassing playing of this failed pianist is extremely annoying. To then go on and on top of that claim that this is what Liszt must've sound like is disrespectful beyond words. It is sad that soooo many good recordings of Valle d'obermann are overshadowed by far the most terrible recording ever just because some people want to be different so bad; not to mention how Nyiregyhazi's recordings further add to the bad reputation lots of Liszt's masterpieces have when most of Classical TH-cam thinks of Liszt as the "virtuoso music guy", which obviously couldn't be further from the truth as Liszt is easily the most profound and interesting Romantic composer of all time.
I do confess that I am still a little confused by how much reverence this recording is held in by some listeners. Still, I have heard some things from Nyiregyházi that have interested me, and there is no doubt he was a remarkable musician and personality at one point, so I understand those who might get fascinated by him. But I think your comment is well founded that a performance like this might help give Liszt a bad name in many quarters!
@@TheIndependentPianist There is no shortage of superb virtuoso recordings of d'Obermann (Richter, Horowitz, Ginsburg, Arrau, Volodos, etc.) for us unmusical types to educate ourselves as to how the piece "should" sound. And I celebrate the existence of these poetic and craftsmanslike renditions. But for unmusical types like myself Nyiregyhazi gives in this bootleg recording - despite his exhaustion at the end of a long recording session - is an ascent from the pits of despair to the summit of the sublime. His interpretation is entirely unified from start to finish. He didn't land on the tempo out of mere fatigue - but out of a titanic conception of the piece informed from his own insights. As an unmusical type I also admire the playing of Busoni, Leo Sirota, Josef Hofmann, Simon Barere, Mark Hambourg, Grigory Sokolov, etc. - but Nyiregyhazi at his most cogent shows me a Sublime conception of life that is only mirrored by artists like Joseph Turner in painting or Michelangelo in sculpture or Milton in poetry. I have no interest in the Bohemian drama of Nyiregyhazi's biography but only in his musical conceptions and his sound. If my point of view on Nyiregyhazi is unmusical - then so be it. I find his un-music more soul-expanding than the Salon-room treatment given to this existential piece by putatively greater pianists.
@@iianneill6013 Hey, if you find all this to be the case with Nyiregyházi's playing, who am I to tell you that you are wrong? Of course this is all largely subjective, so in a way there is little point in back and forth on the subject anyway... But I enjoy getting perspectives from others and sharing my own, so why not!
I do find it odd that you characterize yourself as unmusical, given the impressive list of underappreciated, but very great, artists that you list. Perhaps you feel on inferior ground owing to lack of experience with an instrument? That shouldn't necessarily cause you to defer in your opinions to those who are "musical." There are very few human beings who are unmusical, and I've never heard of one with your listening experience before.
So going beyond that, I am impressed by what you describe experiencing in Nyiregyházi's playing. All I can say is-I haven't felt it myself-yet! But I am guessing that we are just coming at this from different starting points. After all, I've played the piece myself many times, so that necessarily makes me prejudiced in favor of my own way of playing, and of my own interpretation of Liszt's score, and hard as I try, I can't unhear my own version of the piece. This is a serious drawback.
It's indicative of our different perspectives that you mention Horowitz and Volodos as examples of workmanlike interpretations which show us how the piece "should" sound... If such a thing is possible at all. To me Horowitz's version is an extremely erratic (but inspired) performance, in which he takes many, very marked libertiesfrom the original text. Volodos is certainly much more consistent, but from what I remember, his re-writes are even more elaborate, and he turns the final page into something much more akin to an acrobatic circus.
Not to say that either of these great musicians are wrong to take these liberties, but perhaps you can understand my perspective if you realize that for me, these two wouldn't really qualify as "craftsmanslike," or run of the mill. Arrau, or Richter (and I think Ginzburg as well if I remember) are very very different to my mind. They put Liszt's ideas first, but at the same time cannot avoid imprinting their own very strong personalities on the music in much more subtle ways than Horowitz, Volodos... or Nyiregyházi. From my perspective it took me a very long time to appreciate Arrau's version, for example, because my original aesthetic conception was colored by Horowitz's way of playing. Once I put away preconceived notions I was able to appreciate the subtle artistry that Arrau put into the piece, and realized that even if he wasn't pushing the limits of his own nervous system, or playing with enormous violence and harsh drama, there was a very deep experience to be had there in its own right.
So where does that leave us in regards to Nyiregyházi? You hear something incredibly powerful and moving in this performance-great! From where I stand, I can't help but hear a performance that seems to largely violate everything that I feel and understand about this music. To me it is a caricature. And this is not to say that it is even wrong for it to be a caricature-just that for me, a version that sounds like a caricature of the original can't satisfy me. I try to explain in technical terms in the video why it feels like that, in order to be as communicative as possible, but in the end, it all boils down to personal taste and subjective feeling.
These can be loaded terms for many, especially musical professionals. In my experience in music schools and conservatories (and even beyond), I often heard that there is a right and a wrong way to do things, good and bad taste-but hearing perspectives like your own more and more makes me reject this black and white view of art.
I'm not sure if sharing all this actually is helpful at all. I don't want to spoil your enjoyment of this performance, or tell you it is wrong or unmusical to like it. Perhaps getting my perspective in more detail will be as enlightening for you as hearing yours has been for me. It definitely has made me think, so for that I thank you very much!
@@TheIndependentPianist Firstly, thank you for your generous and open-minded response. It is a pleasure to have a discussion between two human beings who are willing to entertain opposing points of view and treat each other as human beings.
For my part, I greatly respect that you took considerable time to support your views on Nyiregyhazi's interpretation with commentary directly from the score. I am not musically trained - which is what I meant by 'unmusical type' - so I can't read all of the notation in real-time but I did start to get the points that you were making with reference to the score. Not being a pianist I cannot defend Nyiregyhazi's performance from a technical point of view and I have to concede to you that he wanders from the score, as you say due to memory slips, lack of practise, and in some cases deliberate alteration.
Please allow me to give one example of where I see your point but completely disagree with you. About the opening measures you point out that N. plays the melody in an oddly flat way, without the poetic phrasing it calls for. I agree that it is flat but for me this flatness has a quality of lugubriousness and dejection that perfectly expresses the extremes of duality that N. extracts from the score. The "Wanderer" of this piece (I say "Wanderer" because of the thematic connections between d'Obermann and Schubert's 'Der Wanderer' lied) begins in a mood of dejection and hopelessness. Nyiregyhazi's interpretation brings out the titanic struggle of the Wanderer to attain the heights of the Sublime (reaching the Valley) through a rather rocky and stormy journey. This dejection reaches its nadir, in my opinion, in the absolutely crushing descent beginning at 6:10 in the main TH-cam recording. For me these are the harshest and bitterest notes ever performed on the piano and convey the feeling absolute despairing-loneliness, beyond which is only self-oblivion. Nyiregyhazi is not a destroyer or nihilist here - but a man who has faced life and spoken from bitter and unflinching honesty. After this despair, the fragile theme of hope of emerges, tentative, like a white candle flame, and a long struggle between rejection and affirmation takes place over the battlefield of the remaining 13 minutes.
Here is that descent into the nadir I referred to at 6:10: th-cam.com/video/dLk6vqaxU1Y/w-d-xo.html
@@iianneill6013 It is truly heartbreaking to see people comparing Nyiregyhazi to arguably the greatest understander of the piano of all time: Busoni. Such a shameless and deeply disrespectful comparison, I just have to laugh it off… I’m sorry
Debunking the debunker , part 2...
Which one of these two interpretations of the emotional content of this piece which is , sadness, despair, void, despair , sadness and consolation ... Liszt ,( V. Sunt lacrimae rerum.).
Which one of these two pianists give the more effective feeling of despair and sadness enter in the listener not a "taste" of despair only evoked abstractly by the melody, but a real despair communicated through sounds and contrasts without any pleasing artificial effect distracting us from the BASIC PULSE behind the melody ?
I did not ask here which one of these 2 versions is the most pleasant for the ears to listen in a distracted manner in a relaxing evening one time after the other ( it will be Berman) ... I ask which one between these two interpretations incarnate the most ,the sadness , the despair the void and the waiting for consolation at the end, and which one interpretation will we pick to meditate on SORROWS and not for our own esthetical pleasure, but with all our attention focus on it in a sacred moment ( it will be E. Ny. ) ... After all music is not always about frequent esthetic easy pleasure to taste like a cake but also about disturbing rare concentrated experience in our life ...
I DID NOT CLAIM that one of these two remakable interpretations is better than the other one... Not at all... Saying that one of this two interpretations is better will only demonstrated our "taste opinion " and ignorance about music.... Each one of this interpretation is a justified esthetical and ethical choice by his own EXPRESSIVE CHOICES ...
Then what is my goal here ?
I claim that the pianist our host want so much to debunk RIVAL the other great pianist but in a way and in a road where there is no one save him....Thats my point... he is not better than Berman , he is totally different... But to understand in what way, we must listen the heart open and not for the mere fun of listening beautiful sounds...And especially not with the goal to debunk an artist... Deep poetry is hidden in the least easy version of E. Ny.
E. Ny. in spite of his mania and age or limitations stayed a unique pianist without any peer in his class...
Music is not only about esthetical pleasure and choices, music for the interpret as well as for the listener is about TRUTH and our own different way to look for it on our different road and with our own haven of rest and discovery... Artist dont exist waiting to be debunk by our "taste" or limited esthetical choices, they wait for us to discern the unique truth in each of them...
Lazar Berman :
th-cam.com/video/YihkDgcAjDM/w-d-xo.html
E. Ny.
th-cam.com/video/EzuO1B1p2PE/w-d-xo.html
Well, having cheated and skipped to the very last of your final commentary, what is there I find as positive and ameliorative!
But, how might one get around SUCH a cheap clickbait as "The Worst Piano Recording of all Time?" which nearly are as fight'n words, to Nyiregyházian respecters/devotes?
Just chill out.
@@leonardbernstein2285
Just get lost.
(Not your business.)
This has to be one of, if not the worst, piano interpretations and recordings of all time!!
Debunking the debunker no4
Which one here plays it more as a TRUE supplicatio more than a mere metaphor ABOUT a supplicatio ... I dont speak about the beauty of the playing...Ciccolini is marvellously beautiful in his own way here...
But E. Ny. is nearer the expression of pure supplication for forgiveness , his playing is not a beautiful image at all but more a real prayer than just a beautiful musical moment...
Anyway even if someone dont feel the same as me, no one can claim that E. Ny. is not a very great pianist playing with the complete mastery of expression, NEVER playing safely for the main goal of staying clean and clear for the sake of esthetic.. His goal is truth in emotion not clarity for the written score sake...
Ciccolini :
th-cam.com/video/cj3AQt8PP64/w-d-xo.html
E. Ny. :
th-cam.com/video/EEMOYMZABvE/w-d-xo.html
@The Independent Pianist
The following I left as answerment to respondent Bjørn Hegstad's
fine comment, and here again as pointed to yourself, to make sure
YOU and ones like YOU do not miss it . . .
* * * * *
Yours I've found a balanced and fair comment re this subject.
To-date, the only environmental sound sampling (recording) of
Nyiregyhazi's from his earliest days, are shot bits heard in the
early sound film "The Lost Zeppelin." They are torturously short
but do provide at least a glimpse of his youthful genius. Also we
catch a view of the fellow at his instrument just briefly.
I here append part of a letter sent to Otto Klemperer by Arnold
Schoenberg (not exactly a fool as our youthful pianist-host here)
commenting fulsomely on the mid-Thirties impression Nyiregyhazi
had made upon him then (actually, it is a brief analysis):
" . . . a pianist who appears to be something really quite extraordinary. I had to overcome great resistance in order to go at all, for the description I'd heard from Dr. Hoffmann and from Maurice Zam had made me very skeptical. But I must say that I have never heard such a pianist before...First, he does not play at all in the style you and I strive for. And just as I did not judge him on that basis, I imagine that when you hear him, you too will be compelled to ignore all matters of principle, and probably will end up doing just as I did. For your principles would not be the proper standard to apply. What he plays is expression in the older sense of the word, nothing else; but such power of expression I have never heard before. You will disagree with his tempi as much as I did. You will also note that he often seems to give primacy to sharp contrasts at the expense of form, the latter appearing to get lost. I say appearing to; for then, in its own way, his music surprisingly regains its form, makes sense, establishes its own boundaries. The sound he brings out of the piano is unheard of, or at least I have never heard anything like it. He himself seems not to know how he produces these novel and quite incredible sounds - although he appears to be a man of intelligence and not just some flaccid dreamer. And such fullness of tone, achieved without ever becoming rough, I have never before encountered. For me, and probably for you too, it's really too much fullness, but as a whole it displays incredible novelty and persuasiveness. And above all he's only [sc. 33 years] old, so he's still got several stages of development before him, from which one may expect great things, given his point of departure... it is amazing what he plays and how he plays it. One never senses that it is difficult, that it is technique - no, it is simply a power of the will, capable of soaring over all imaginable difficulties in the realization of an idea. - You see, I'm waxing almost poetic."
This, I am sure, will serve as no weak antidote to what The Independent Pianist here-attempts (even if subconsciously so), he and his barely disguised hate-filled allies.
"ALL things in moderation and to caring measure."
Hi James, if you had watched my video you would realize that I already included the exact quote that you have copied here. It's even timestamped in the description box. I guess it is a good idea to watch videos that you plan to comment on!
I must admit, I don't particularly appreciate being painted as some kind of hate-filled entity. That seems to be what you are implying at any rate. I will just reiterate what I said in the video: I don't personally like Nyiregyházi's playing, but I can certainly admit that there is much to admire about it, and also that he must have been an extraordinary pianist in his prime. I bear him personally no hate whatsoever, and any criticism in the video is directed solely towards his playing. I do not count myself an ally with anyone who considers hate speech to be a valid means of communication. I feel that politeness and respect are a vital part of all discourse in a civilized society.
@@TheIndependentPianist
Well, I suppose it was all nice and fair and balanced what you did but it impressed myself more as a heartless dissection than say, a review or opinion piece or analysis.
That display such that it was as cut-short, along your gauche and bitching coterie of the like-willing in-support, by all of the spectacle in-toto I was thus animated to chime-in with something contributing as intended antidote to the smear scene.
Yes, at the point of the thunder and lightening that you chose to feature I cut-out, having seen well-enough to 'get it.'
That you knew of Schoenberg's flabbergasting opinion (for him!) as expressed to Klemperer, makes all as worse-still, your operation to the point I saw it, seeming as if done by say a coldly dispassionate surgeon with scalpel in-hand! There is something about you that impresses one thus.
I've not heard you at the 88, and likely now am to never.
YES! I can believe that you are offended and likely are-still but, putting yourself out there doing what and as you do simply invites contrariness sure, particularly where involving such controversy, as the subject of Nyiregyházi observably does.
Your protestations re not a hating sort are noted and registered.
I believe you contain within you much hidden prejudice despite a pretty outward appearance, impressing to the contrary. I suppose some will be seeing what is to develop. One of those will not prove as myself.
I had a friend who is now no-longer, Mr. Harry L. Anderson of San Diego. You might have heard of him as he wrote exquisite liner notes for Benko's IPL/IPAM L.P. record releases of some decades ago.
Well, he had 'heard 'em all' while in New York to San Diego/L.A. and would regale us with tales of The Greats concurrent with spinning their disks from his grand collection, one among them being Nyiregyházi of course whom he'd gone to see and hear numbers of times, and said to us much as Schoenberg had long before to Otto Klemperer.
A quote that Mr. Anderson had made I remember vividly because so strange actually. It was -- "He played like a house afire!" Ha!
Well, I am softening up here (my natural demeanor rather than the one you had sparked and, continue-to) which I really should not give into, as given all the forgoing.
If you are able and have not already, try and audition the precious few moments contained in that silly film "The Lost Zeppelin." It might add something to your forming a final and just judgement.
Also adding much to what I am about, is what I expressed in a shorter spate I left in your response column, regarding Competition and Art.
My God, what a destructive horror that misbegotten kind of thing is! And, so few can comprehend why-so!
Ta-ta!
@@jamesmiller4184 Someone seems not to kno that Schoenberg hated music!
@@NOSEhow2LIV Likely so but, the guy was 'a brain' no question and, most perceptive unlike many who are of the mindedly-narrow and lusting for pack acceptance.
@@jamesmiller4184 It's still amusing that the originator of most of the ugliest noises to pollute the 20th century is quoted as a defender of the ugliest noise-maker on a piano!
Don’t play Liszt while drunk…
I can't disagree with you. This is an aural atrocity. For some reason, this performance is very unlike his Liszt playing when he first came to the public's attention in the 1970's. His Hungarian Rhapsody No. 3 is a unique interpretation of an underappreciated and rarely performed rhapsody. With his volcanic outbursts of sound, following very delicate pianissimos, Nyiregyhazi transformed this rhapsody into a mini-opera, with a gamut of emotions that Liszt might not have even intended. Yes, we were listening to Nyiregyhazi-Liszt, and not the other way around, from a man who had spent 40 years composing and improvising on the piano rather than practicing his virtuoso technique. But that was the whole excitement that developed around Nyiregyhazi. His performances were so unlike the cookie cutter interpretations of the classics that the public had come to expect, you couldn't but wonder if he belonged in the 20th century at all. And if he was some throwback to 19th century performance standards, comparisons to Rubinstein and Liszt became inevitable.
Any sort of art handicapping I detest utterly.
And championing some one or another as if
a damned sport or, a racing competition is a
destructive, negational endeavor.
What IS IT that compels kinds of individuals
to it? I've my own idea but mercifully . . .
Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning. The word also applies to the various methods by which the advantage is calculated. -- Wikipedia
Having listened to the first 24 bars, I'm wondering if Nyiregyházi’s interpretation was inspired by watching a very inebriated bar patron trying to make it to the restroom.
Phew, I really hope Liszt played better than this. Maybe there are better performances by this pianist, but this doesn't convince me at all.
Maybe it's the local broadband here, or two small Bose speakers on my desk, but the first thing one notices is the extraordinarily tinny sound of the piano here. It's like a second-hand toy piano. More than his mannerisms and arbitrary left-hand "bombs", this is hugely off-putting. Speaking of which, Josef Hofmann also does left-hand "bombs" in public performances, if not in studio recordings. I wonder if it's a generational thing. One thing that I am impressed is that in spite of many wrong notes, he just forges ahead as if nothing happened. If it was me, I'd just stop playing then and there.
Morbidly fascinating, like those coffee table books about decaying 1920s movie palaces, abandoned insane asylums, desolate rust belt cities, and the like.
"wasteland of pianistic indulgence" perfectly describes his style of playing! thank you for "debunking" his performances, this is a fabulous video
I’m glad I wasn’t present at this performance
So am I. I would have gladly taken your place, if you were.
I don't see the point of this video. You seem to have put more effort on your comment than the effort that was actually spent by Nyiheryhàzi studing the score. Why don't you try to "destroy" one of Lang Lang's meaningless recordings? That would be more usefull (excuse my English, please).
I’m not trying to destroy this recording-I’m trying to give my own perspective (i.e. why I don’t like this recording) on a performance which garners widely differing reactions from listeners. Rather than just saying “I love it” or “I hate it” like most, I want to talk about why it makes a certain impression on me.
There's a really good point to the video... shame you missed it.
Debunking the debunker no3
Now more of a choice here unlike in my part2 between E.Ny. against György Cziffra in the Hungarian rhapsody no3...
My question is which one of these 2 great pianists plays more as Liszt himself must have played this piece with the greatest contrast possible between extreme parts in this piece and the most exquisite delicacy and grace possible ?
I put these two against one another because Cziffra is recognized as one of the best pianist among many others and a particularly great Lisztian...
I put this test to debunk the claim above by our host and debunker that E. Ny cannot play as Liszt must have been played himself , even if E. Ny. has two direct Listz students as teacher ...
I claim the opposite and the evidence is perfectly clear for the ears here, so much evident , we dont even need to hear and listen with our heart as for Olbermann valley interpretation by E. NY. to perceive this FACT and fact allegedly "debunked" by our host :
Cziffra :
th-cam.com/video/CcQOqISNzWQ/w-d-xo.html
E. Ny. :
th-cam.com/video/_9w1Ol9QuZI/w-d-xo.html
There is a TH-cam video of an interview with him. An obnoxious narcissist. Hard to listen to ..,
I was "pianistically" attacked when i voiced my opinion about these sloppy performances...It simply isnt what people make them to be...its just loud and sloppy
I like his style
I HATE this pianist but his approach is pretty clearly to interpret the high rhetoric of the literary source material in a quasi improvisatory fashion. I think you missed the point a bit. A lot of your valid criticisms seem to fit the programmatic elements vaguely, if not the actual score.
I really can't imagine an uglier opening of this beautiful work. It's just shameful.
In English, Nyiregyházi is pronounced nee-ren-d'-HA-zee
nyee-re-dy-HA-zee
He is weird but in a nicer way than, say, Gould in many a recording.
Well, for me that's hard to say-they are so different. Gould sometimes seems very cold and mechanical, which also turns me off-for different reasons. Pick your poison I guess!
Gould is also terrible
Gould was an excellent typist.
Ervin was a failed wunderkind. He should have been more careerist, à la Liberace. The Charles Bukowski of the piano.
Temperaments don't matter