You are obviously passionate about music, but you are most certainly a lover of discipline... That reflects a very "modern view" of classical music, which is entirely at odds with the spirit of time at which it was composed. I encourage you to listen to the recordings of Francis Plante, who is said to have heard Chopin himself play as a youth. Perhaps the limiting factor is not the pianist's lack of focus, but your love of order?
Fascinating comment. I believe a thoughtful interpretation requires consistency to prove the musical ideas aren't random. Those two views of music can be debated endlessly, which I wouldn't mind. At the end of the day there are a lot of beginners in listening to music. If there are no rules to judge a recording by, what's there to improve your playing? I like to write people to come up with personal principles to listen by. If at the end they chose to prefer a free approach, that's totally fine. At least I was able to help on their journey. -Classitope
Actually Cziffra had one of the best rhythmic sense of all, listen to some of his small Schumann’s pieces and such. He just toyed around with the effect of rushing with big crescendo sometimes little way over the top but he had the technique to pull that off without falling apart
I have to comment and state that the criticism of Cziffra is actually the exact reason I love his recording the most. In a piece which is often played 'metronomically' - he varies the pace. Of course it's too wild for many people, and it's fine to not enjoy it. But to people who love his play - we look at the flexibility of pulse in his playing as a kind of 'rhythmic dynamics'. Imagine a recording with no variation in volume dynamics - it would be colourless. This is what other recordings sound like to me when I am used to Cziffra - they often feel relatively colourless. Lacking the dynamics of pulse that his playing has. It is not for everyone! But it's worth noting that the reason he is controversial is this element of his playing. It's the reason he is loved, and loathed.
Interpretation also has a style element behind it. Each pianist interprets a piece not only based on the composer or piece but also based on his pianistic learning background. In your first example, Cziffra is well known for his rhythmic variation, although it may not suit all listeners, disregarding the interpretation based on rhythmic fluctuations isn't the way to go about it. It has a strong a powerful character to it and doesn't sound as strict and robotic as Richter's. Cziffra's interpretation conveys the essence of the piece whereas many are just a strict technique study with dynamics. Chiu's interpretation is very pleasing to listen too, but his again falls under the "sound quality" category focusing more on different sounds that the piano can produce. When looking for interpretations I tend to search for a general atmosphere and intention of the composer on how the piece should sound while also taking into to account that pianist's particular style. I feel your pillars apply when you are working on YOUR interpretation as it definitely helps in getting a balanced sound. But I always feel that recordings should sound different rather than the same perfection over and over. Take a look at Cziffra's interpretation of Rachmaninoff prelude op 23 no 5, it is different, but nevertheless gives a whole new perspective of the piece. Many pianists tend to repeat the same style over and over, making them boring to listen to. Having variation and by that I mean pleasing variation is always good. One only has to keep the mind open to accept it and not stay stuck to conservatory rules.
There are too many 'clone' pianists, and Cziffra is unique. His 'pulse dynamics' are the primary reason I love his playing. His control of the pulse of a piece is very exciting, it's always at the service of generating the maximum possible excitement and passion.
Style plays a crucial part in piano playing, but should a pianist change the score for the sake of being unique? I listened to the Rachmaninoff prelude and I definitely get your point.
@@ClassiTope Staying true to the score is a very "purist" approach towards it. Its not bad, but it tends to be repetitive with one interpretation sounding almost indistinguishable from another. Adding an element of uniqueness is always associated with changing the score as if you need to be unique, you need to either change the dynamics, legato, tempo or overall mood of the piece. So yes, the score will get a bit altered, but pianists of the 19th century were renowned for this and considered it an important part of piano playing. Although large deviations may be avoided, an element of uniqueness is always pleasing to the ear and fun for the brain
Lmao I can't even listen to another version of Torrent other than Cziffra's anymore. He rushes and drags in all the right places and hearing it played straight just doesn't feel right, no matter how immaculately phrased.
I'm not a fan of neither Cziffra nor Richter for this Chopin etude. Actually I find Richter in many ways overrated. They both have their brilliant moments tho, but in other pieces - Cziffra is fantastic in Liszt, Richter is sometimes better than Gould in Bach and fantastic in Rachmaninov, Grieg, Beethoven. Lugansky's Prokofiev, if so fresh in repertory, should mature a bit. He can do it much better, he is capable of much more beautiful sound, voicing and phrasing, let's not be too critical to him. Horowitz's Scriabin etude is famous, no one ever comes close; it's a bit unfair for Kissin. Also, I've noticed a kind of slight indifference installed in his playing lately compared to his youth recordings. Lang Lang vs. Sokolov: they are totally opposite but both in the wrong way, Sokolov is way too reserved. I usually tend to like both of them, and in spite of the excessive rubato and showiness of Lang Lang, he is sometimes capable of a very beautiful tone, more than Sokolov. Trifonov: some are very excited about him, but I am not a big fan, he seems sometimes to lack passion, even stamina. Just compare his "Feux Follets" with Yunchan Lim's, Kissin's or even 14 years old Yuja Wang (by the way, Yuja Wang is often unjustly diminished). But Ovchinnikov is quite captivating. And Lang Lang in Chopin's nocturne is really great, no matter what detractors say! Chopin doesn't mind too much rubato and the sound is beautiful 🙂(Actually I have one of his Chopin vinyls, he is good in the etudes too, see the op.25 no.1)
Thank you for the comment! I listened to the op 25 no. 1 and I see what you mean, his character fits quite well in the étude. He didn't go "all-out" as I was expecting.
You are obviously passionate about music, but you are most certainly a lover of discipline... That reflects a very "modern view" of classical music, which is entirely at odds with the spirit of time at which it was composed. I encourage you to listen to the recordings of Francis Plante, who is said to have heard Chopin himself play as a youth. Perhaps the limiting factor is not the pianist's lack of focus, but your love of order?
Fascinating comment. I believe a thoughtful interpretation requires consistency to prove the musical ideas aren't random. Those two views of music can be debated endlessly, which I wouldn't mind. At the end of the day there are a lot of beginners in listening to music. If there are no rules to judge a recording by, what's there to improve your playing? I like to write people to come up with personal principles to listen by. If at the end they chose to prefer a free approach, that's totally fine. At least I was able to help on their journey.
-Classitope
Actually Cziffra had one of the best rhythmic sense of all, listen to some of his small Schumann’s pieces and such. He just toyed around with the effect of rushing with big crescendo sometimes little way over the top but he had the technique to pull that off without falling apart
I have to comment and state that the criticism of Cziffra is actually the exact reason I love his recording the most. In a piece which is often played 'metronomically' - he varies the pace.
Of course it's too wild for many people, and it's fine to not enjoy it.
But to people who love his play - we look at the flexibility of pulse in his playing as a kind of 'rhythmic dynamics'.
Imagine a recording with no variation in volume dynamics - it would be colourless.
This is what other recordings sound like to me when I am used to Cziffra - they often feel relatively colourless. Lacking the dynamics of pulse that his playing has.
It is not for everyone! But it's worth noting that the reason he is controversial is this element of his playing. It's the reason he is loved, and loathed.
Really interesting and open-minded take! Maybe your name suggests you prefer some more heavy performances?
Interpretation also has a style element behind it. Each pianist interprets a piece not only based on the composer or piece but also based on his pianistic learning background.
In your first example, Cziffra is well known for his rhythmic variation, although it may not suit all listeners, disregarding the interpretation based on rhythmic fluctuations isn't the way to go about it. It has a strong a powerful character to it and doesn't sound as strict and robotic as Richter's. Cziffra's interpretation conveys the essence of the piece whereas many are just a strict technique study with dynamics. Chiu's interpretation is very pleasing to listen too, but his again falls under the "sound quality" category focusing more on different sounds that the piano can produce.
When looking for interpretations I tend to search for a general atmosphere and intention of the composer on how the piece should sound while also taking into to account that pianist's particular style. I feel your pillars apply when you are working on YOUR interpretation as it definitely helps in getting a balanced sound. But I always feel that recordings should sound different rather than the same perfection over and over. Take a look at Cziffra's interpretation of Rachmaninoff prelude op 23 no 5, it is different, but nevertheless gives a whole new perspective of the piece. Many pianists tend to repeat the same style over and over, making them boring to listen to. Having variation and by that I mean pleasing variation is always good. One only has to keep the mind open to accept it and not stay stuck to conservatory rules.
There are too many 'clone' pianists, and Cziffra is unique.
His 'pulse dynamics' are the primary reason I love his playing.
His control of the pulse of a piece is very exciting, it's always at the service of generating the maximum possible excitement and passion.
An easy solution: classical pianists need to learn to improvise
Style plays a crucial part in piano playing, but should a pianist change the score for the sake of being unique? I listened to the Rachmaninoff prelude and I definitely get your point.
@@ClassiTope Staying true to the score is a very "purist" approach towards it. Its not bad, but it tends to be repetitive with one interpretation sounding almost indistinguishable from another. Adding an element of uniqueness is always associated with changing the score as if you need to be unique, you need to either change the dynamics, legato, tempo or overall mood of the piece. So yes, the score will get a bit altered, but pianists of the 19th century were renowned for this and considered it an important part of piano playing. Although large deviations may be avoided, an element of uniqueness is always pleasing to the ear and fun for the brain
Lang Lang : Classical Piano :: Anime : Fine Art
Disagree with you about Trifonov as I found this utterly enchanting unlike Vladimir O's performance.
Yep I love his transcendental etude performances, absolute madman. Actually got into piano after hearing them..
What discussion??
Lmao I can't even listen to another version of Torrent other than Cziffra's anymore. He rushes and drags in all the right places and hearing it played straight just doesn't feel right, no matter how immaculately phrased.
I'm not a fan of neither Cziffra nor Richter for this Chopin etude. Actually I find Richter in many ways overrated. They both have their brilliant moments tho, but in other pieces - Cziffra is fantastic in Liszt, Richter is sometimes better than Gould in Bach and fantastic in Rachmaninov, Grieg, Beethoven. Lugansky's Prokofiev, if so fresh in repertory, should mature a bit. He can do it much better, he is capable of much more beautiful sound, voicing and phrasing, let's not be too critical to him. Horowitz's Scriabin etude is famous, no one ever comes close; it's a bit unfair for Kissin. Also, I've noticed a kind of slight indifference installed in his playing lately compared to his youth recordings. Lang Lang vs. Sokolov: they are totally opposite but both in the wrong way, Sokolov is way too reserved. I usually tend to like both of them, and in spite of the excessive rubato and showiness of Lang Lang, he is sometimes capable of a very beautiful tone, more than Sokolov. Trifonov: some are very excited about him, but I am not a big fan, he seems sometimes to lack passion, even stamina. Just compare his "Feux Follets" with Yunchan Lim's, Kissin's or even 14 years old Yuja Wang (by the way, Yuja Wang is often unjustly diminished). But Ovchinnikov is quite captivating. And Lang Lang in Chopin's nocturne is really great, no matter what detractors say! Chopin doesn't mind too much rubato and the sound is beautiful 🙂(Actually I have one of his Chopin vinyls, he is good in the etudes too, see the op.25 no.1)
Thank you for the comment! I listened to the op 25 no. 1 and I see what you mean, his character fits quite well in the étude. He didn't go "all-out" as I was expecting.
Lugansky's sound can be awfully harsh. A bit like Kissin.
True!
9:34 - hints of fur elise.
❓Who’s that Pianist? 👤
…
❗️It’s Tiffany Poon! 👧🏻
🎸🎵 ~Pianist~ 🎵🎸
Lang Lang! 🙂
the mystery pianist is lang lang ?
Correct! (Just a guess? Or did you cheat? 🤨😏)
Have you listened to dinu lipatti's interpretation of this nocturne live in zurich?
I would highly recommend it
@@maandahhan4900 The best definitive performance I think.