ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- Raoul Koczalski (1884-1948), piano (Chopin's Pleyel 1847)
Live recording from the concert celebrating the 138th anniversary of Chopin's birth, 1948-02-21 (the Pompeian Hall, Belweder Palace, Warsaw)
00:00 Nocturne in D-flat major, Op. 27 No. 2
05:13 Waltz in E-flat major, Op. 18
09:22 Berceuse in D-flat major, Op. 57 - เพลง
What a wonderful post. Thank you.
It is well known that R.K. studied with Mikuli, who was a pupil of Chopin himself. But Koczalski was, regardless of pedagogical pedigree, a great pianist. He had a refinement of phrasing which was rare and startlingly beautiful. He did not bang.
About the piano: I understand why some are not favorably impressed, as the piano here is slightly out of tune, and also tuned flat, and the recording equipment used is not up to modern standards. However, I beg you to listen closely with an open mind. I recently had the chance to play a nineteenth century Pleyel, and it was a revelation. The tones are so clear, and the instrument exemplified the utmost in what I might call tonal finesse, a capacity to respond to the full spectrum of character and coloration of sound. The eight or so extreme treble notes are the clearest, most sustained, most musical tones I have ever heard on any piano bar none. The piano seems to have been made by and for a truly civilized people. Modern pianos, by comparison, seem to have been designed to hold up to combat and to accommodate brutal treatment. I know we like what we are used to, but if you were really used to playing a fine old Pleyel, one in which the tonal ideal was still what it was when Chopin lived, you would feel a terrible loss moving on to a modern Steinway (as wonderful as they are) or Fazioli, Yamaha, Kawai, Bösendorfer, and all the rest.
so beautiful....
@Orlando Gonzalez oh my gosh, how exciting! I hope it will be wonderful, and that you will enjoy it for many years!
"It is well known". No, it isn't. Please keep sharing the seemingly obvious things so we the marginalized can learn more!
Who ever had a chance to hear a Pleyel instrument of that period in its original state (hammer heads, felt etc), will be impressed by the beauty, flexibility and profoundness of timbre. Treble is as clear and singing as the bass, which is not the case by Erard pianos of the time. It obviously takes the right pianist for making it sound. A Pleyel piano will not sound if it's not approached with utmost delicacy, unlike a modern grand that requires muscular strength even for playing "piano". We may hope that in a few years from now, similar materials will be again available as the ones used by Pleyel before 1849. Not only materials were different, but even the tension of felt on hammer heads was pretty lower than we may think. (Researches are on their way.)
Philippe Fritsch hopefully, alas I believe we may have ventured too far into the future. People don't care about this enough, but I do :).
Beautiful! Thanks for posting!
Thank you
I had that chance. After that, i don't consider modern pianos to be of the same specie. A pleyel feels more than an object, like a person and a magic and happy one, that feels close. Now when i approach a modern piano i sometimes think of steel trash dumpsters and ten ton trucks that absolutely do not feel like an extension of the musician like a Pleyel does.
The Pleyel in the Gemeentemuseum,den Haag is a challenge but revealing and enlightening.I had the occasion of playing
a Chopin recital there . However let"s not forged the beautiful recorded sound of Modern Pleyels -Cortot, Landowska, and Perlemuter...!
We can't get any closer to Chopin than this...:(
Rachmaninov played Chopin as well
But he didn't play in the Chopin tradition like Koczalski did.
idk about these traditions just know what sounds good xd
there are amazing pianists from 1800s, i feel like the older the pianist is the more musicality he has. Cortot played the etudes but he made so many mistakes i can barely enjoy it. Rubinstein didnt record his etudes same with Rach
Chopin1995 op25 no1
Best Chopin... really...never heard a sound so intimate and free
Typical performance for all those who played Chopin, who grew up in those days. Listen to Moritz Rosenthal or Vladimir Pachmann, here at TH-cam. You will love it!
@@beasheerhan4482 not so. Raoul Koczalsky is above that lot.
@@@onegineeNo way, Dear One - LKoczalsky is great, but not above Pachman and Rosenthal, and certainly not the equal of Friedman.
@@beasheerhan4482 When comparing pianists there is personal bias, or in less diplomatic terms a limitation to discern, a saturation determined by one's own culture, background and sensibility. It's perfectly normal then for a saturated mind to be convinced they know which is better. However, we'll have to disagree, i think Friedman is a much lesser pianist compared to Koczalsky, less worthy to be remembered. Any pianist who's name ends in -stein or -man usually must be taken with circumspection given the historical monopoly and bias of the media. Blatant examples of this like A. Rubinstein make it plain.
@@Joel Levine Sir, if you are referring to Mr. Kocalsky's politics, I'll tell you this - my Jewish blood does not care. His playing is great.
What a magnificent performance that raised goosebumps within the first 20 seconds! I love that this pianist played with his heart and soul....gorgeous Rubato ❤️🎶
Amazing! Such a richness of colours, once you started to hear this recording, you can't stop anymore.
I love the lack of pedal in old recordings. It's so refreshing. The Op 18 waltz sounds so good played this way.
What a wonderful and personal touch. Beautiful, brings tears to my eyes.
Gorgeous playing on a gorgeous original instrument.
I love the openness of the playing and of the Playel
This is a thing of wonder. When we consider that the pianist would have had to adapt to the slightly narrower keys, shallower key well and lack of double escapement of the Pleyel, the ease and freedom of his playing are miraculous. Never has Chopin's more florid writing seemed so natural and organic, utterly different from the fussy, 'note-y' impression that can be conveyed by the modern Steinway. Thank you so much for posting.
The great Raoul von Koczalski, without peers.....incredible upload...thank you so much, pianushko, coming back time and again to this...
Merci pour ce merveilleux enregistrement !!!
Il me semble entendre Chopin tel que j'essaie de me l'imaginer...et que j'aurais rêvé d'écouter. On y est...
Un pur moment de bonheur.
Amazing experience...
Thank you for sharing this wonderful treasure.
thank you so much for this upload, very precious for all of us, I am enjoying his rubato and his way of playing...it has the right tempo for me too (nocturne)
Stunning rubato and tone
Thank you for posting this.
Thanks for uploading this.
Wow, what a treat. Thanks for posting this!
Beautiful piano playing ! Thank you !
Marvelous!
Wow.. This is really something..
Amazing!
Beautiful
Wow!
superb musicianship!
Wow! What a recording!
Прекрасное исполнение
Meraviglioso da 12. al 12.20 minuti :Divino.
....very elegant !
Perfect! That's all.
参りました！
Too nice！
💝💝💝
What a pleasure to listen Koczalski's expressive playing and the clear, silvery tone of the Pleyel. One thing that slightly bothers me is the unusually low tuning - D flat major Nocturne sounds over semitone lower than it is written, sounding somewhere in between C major and B major. Perhaps the tuning is as low as it is because of the aged Pleyel? Perhaps the technicians of Koczalski's day felt that it's wooden frame cannot stand the tension that higher tuning would require?
And/Or it could be that the playback speed of the record didn't match the recording speed. There could be significant variance there, I've heard.
Or is it so that the piano is tuned in a different temperament. Today's standard is equal temperament so the middle key A is tuned at 440hz. Chopin didn't use equal temperament. He used a different temperament that I don't know the name of but I remembered that he had a piano tuner that died by drowning if I remembered right. Chopin was very devastated of this because he thought nobody else could tune his piano properly. In music from the baroque era musician usually tune their instruments at A 415hz. That is almost a whole semi tone down. Throughout history the tuning have change and how you tune. That's why we got tuning forks or now in the modern days, devices that can show you the pitch.
1640 Vienna Franciscan Organ A457.6
1699 Paris Opera A404
1711 John Shore's tuning fork, a pitch of A423.5 He invented the tuning fork, one of which still exists today.
1780 Stines, for Mozart, A421
1780 Organ builder Schulz A421.3
1714 Strasbourg Cathedral organ A391
1722 Dresden's chief Roman Catholic church organ A415
1759 Trinity College Cambridge organ A309
1762 Stringed instruments at Hamburg A405
1772 Gottfried Silbermann built the organ in the main Roman Catholic church in Dresden, and it had a pitch of A 415 at the time.
1780 Organ builder Schulz A421.3
1780 Stein's tuning fork A422.6
1751 Handel's own fork A422.5
1800 Broadwood's C fork, 505.7, which is about half a semitone lower than that of today
1811 Paris Grand Opera A 427
1812 Paris Conservatoire A440, as modern pitch
1813 George Smart adopted for the Philharmonic Society the pitch of A423.3.
1820 Westminster Abbey organ and possibly Paris Comic Opera used a pitch of A422.5.
1828 Philharmonic Society A 440
1834 Vienna Opera A 436.5
1835 Wolfels piano maker A443
1836 Pleyel's Pianos A446
1846 Philharmonic pitch was A452.5 (very high) which lasted till 1854
1846 Mr Hipkins piano tuner (Meantone) A433.5 (Equal) A436.0
1849 Broadwood's medium pitch was A445.9 which lasted till 1854
1858 New Philharmonic pitch C522
1860 Cramer's piano makers of London A448.4
1862 Dresden Opera A 440
1871 Covent Garden Opera House A 440
1877 Collard's piano maker standard pitch was A 449.9
1877 St. Paul Cathedral organ A446.6
1877 Chappell Pianos A455.9
1877 Mr Hipkins piano tuner A448.8
1878 Her Majesty's Organ A436.1
1878 Vienna Opera A447
1879 Covent Garden Opera A450
1879 Erard's factory fork 455.3
1879 Steinway of England A 454.
1879 British Army regulation pitch for woodwinds A451.9
1880 Brinsmead, Broadwood, and Erard apparently used a pitch of A455.3
1880 Steinway may have been using a pitch of A436. According to Steinway of New York, 1880 is right around the time they switched from three piece rims to the continuous rim that is used today. So it is unlikely the pitch was any higher before 1880, yet Steinway of London had a fork A454.7.
1885 In Vienna a pitch of A435.4 was adopted at a temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit for A.
1885 At an international exhibition of inventions and music in London a pitch of A452 was adopted.
1896 Philharmonic pitch A439, giving C522
1925 On the 11th of June the American music industry adopted A440.
1936 American Standards Association adopted A440. yet; New York Philharmonic and the Boston Symphony Orchestra, use 442 Hz
1939 At an international conference A440 was adopted.
The tuning of an A historically is around 1 semitone less than a modern 440hz tuning. This is standard for many historical performances and what the original instruments were designed to accommodate in terms of tension.
@@CelloSounds1 Didn't I wrote that you wrote In a way?... sort of... maybe I did... Yes I think a did!
@@CelloSounds1 This recording seems to be tuned to A=405 hz. I checked this in PianoTeq 7 using the Pleyel sound/Werckmeister tuning.
Waltz in D-double-flat-and-a-half major Op. 18
Not just Chopin's piece on Chopin's instrument does Koczalski play, but, with Chopin's interpretive approach. A very macabre, and fascinating approach, made only the more interesting by the ghostly sound of the original 78rpm recording. Thank you, and, I guess, Happy Halloween!
Yes, quite a rarity indeed....Bravo from México!
what a stupid comment, it tells more about you, than the music.
The performance of op.27, no.2 is a rhythmic phenomenon. I hope some computer scientist with a musical ear devises a program to notate the rhythm as played here, then superposes it over the score as Chopin notated it.
Unfortunately, this is not possible, as we will never know what Chopin really had in mind. We must always remember how imperfect our notation is. As we know, Chopin was beside himself, trying to put his pieces on paper. He broke pen after pen in anger because the notation simply does not allow to express his "freedom of speech".
@@aspeck_of_dust_from_alien_land You are right. When one gets into Chopin autographs, one starts to see this struggle. Sometimes it was very particularly rhythmic troubles that he would have when putting ideas down. The accounts of what the rhythms 'felt' like to listeners is always very intriguing, particularly the 2/4 vs. 3/4 argument Chopin had with someone (I forget who) over the pulse within the Mazurek.
@@Contracrostics ...and many young pianists of today mostly don't know or don't care. this is why we often hear "Chopin from a conveyer belt". Sad...
What a great option to hear Chopin's piano as he did himself! I tried to find a setting in PianoTeq 7 that could create this beautiful sound and found a Pleyel which I tuned to 405 Hz, using the Werckmeister III System. It comes very close but not exactly. Does anyone know what tuning systems used at the time of this recording?
🍑🌲🏵️🌿
"" His countryman and rival Artur Rubinstein described Koczalski when both were members of the 1938 Ysaÿe competition jury: “Poland sent Raoul Koczalski, an ex-child prodigy who was covered with medals when he was six, some of them hanging on his little bottom; he lived in Germany and developed into a very bad pianist” while Claudio Arrau said “in Germany, a man named Koczalsky was an idol. He played only Chopin. It was awful.” ""
I just don't get it. Maybe he gave very lazy performances sometimes, or just appeared to be hopelessly old-fashioned? Or because he never played German music and therefore wasn't "serious"? Or professional jealousy? Some of this playing is completely magical.
I think Rubenstein and Arrau were very jealous. They don't play Chopin with any grace or charm at all.
I wouldn't go by what Arrau said. Arrau reportedly despised the piano-playing of Josef Hofmann, for some reason; even though Hofmann was an even greater pianist than Array. Maybe Arran didn't like Hofmann's spontaneity, which was the opposite of Arrau's playing. In any case, I've never heard Arrau play Chopin like this.
This piano sounds better than modern Fazioli, Yamaha or Steinway.
Piotr Grzeszczuk 👍and my KAWAI digital
@@zvezdinki7998 I don't like digital pianos at all, because they not have the special sound effects (hammers, damper, pedals etc.), string feeling and that specific sound when you hit the key too slightly. All digital pianos sounds too unrealistic for me.
Yes, but this is right high of sound automatic
It really doesn't. I love the playing here, but the piano is clearly inferior despite the sentimentalizing in these comments. The hammer attacks are brutal -- exhausting to listen to at length. Also ... must all period pianofortes be out of tune?? I have never understood that. I love this recording for Koczalski's lineage to Chopin, and as a throwback to what salon music of the 1830-40s must have sounded like. But I'll take the post-1900 piano materials and workmanship. Flame away. :)
@@bradbwh There are no more pianos as delicate as the Pleyel (at least the most famous ones). Also this was tuned in a different way because of the age.
Is Koczalski playing on Chopin's piano used during his trip in Scottland in 1848 ?
No, the piano used by Koczalski was Chopin's last piano. (Pleyel Nr. 14810). The one used in England was Pleyel Nr.13819. Listen to „Idil Biret plays Chopin's Pleyel No. 13819“ on youtube..
I am sorry. I was wrong. Koczalski played on Pleyel Nr. 13823. See my comment above.
@@wielandhartwich3184 is this how a piano sounded at Chopin's time?
Chopin > Mikuli > Koczalski
Chopin>Mukili>Moriz Rosenthal, Raoul Koczalski, Aleksander Michałowski, Jaroslaw Zieliński and Kornelia Parnas.
Gilles de BINCHOIS *Johannes OCKEGHEM *Josquin Des PREZ
is this how a piano sounded at Chopin's time?
Cortot playes a Pleyel. That's all you need to know
The instrument is pitched a tone lower than is normal for a modern piano. Presumably it has something to do with age
No. It has everything to do with sonority, clarity abnd the fact that "normal" pitch for the period was much more sympathetic to the surroundings, resonationg with the wood used in construction, not only of the pianoforte, but of the salons i which it was played. "Stamdard" pitch depended on your location and was anywhere from A=405 to A=435-6Pianos of tyhat period did noyt have heavy steel framesand the strings went straight , not criss-crossed. The higher string tension used for A=440--A+456 would rip apart a piano of this period.
I wonder what he did when he wanted to accompany a singer or play his cello sonata.
Andrew Woolley He just did not 🐝
@@wrdna58 String instruments can easily have their pitches changed by the player.just as the human voice can. Besides the different instruments of that day used a pitch that is not our A440. For the piano, its frame could not take the powerful tension 440 requires and it would have broken up, literally.
@@rogercarroll2551 I'm not convinced that this instrument was originally pitched a tone lower than A=440. All instruments have an optimum pitch at which they are designed to be played -- there's not much room for flexibility. It's possible that the original pitch was slightly lower than A=440 certainly -- perhaps even as much as a semitone -- but this would have had to have been a pitch that Chopin's cellist was accustomed to playing in (apparently the French standard in the 1860s was A=435). All in all it seems far more likely that this instrument could not have been tuned at A=440 in the 1940s for fear of damage but that it was tuned at a higher pitch in the nineteenth century.
Liszt, Alkan, and the novelist Andre Gide all made remarks to the effect that Chopin is usually played too fast and too loud, and playing like this tends to give those remarks credence.
竟然没有一个是中文打卡的，感谢油管分享了人类文明的美好。下面的评论更是让我增长了见识，知道了Pleyel，谢谢各路大神。
Sorry but I never could listen to Rubinstein. Not after he insulted Koczalski. I just cannot.
Whatd he say?
I worshipped AR until about '73, when he played a bland Beethoven 3rd with Haitink on TV. I heard him do beautiful things in concert, though. Later a pianophile friend of mine called AR "......flat beer. There's a whole level of Chopin playing above Rubinstein."
@@pianomaly9859 i dunno, A.R plays everything dolce, fine for nocturnes but everything else is…
Nahh….
Well obsession with Chopin is justified but with his choice of piano perhaps not. Chopin was often poor very poor & his choice of pianos could be determined by that. Playel is terrible choice with terrible sound for his type of music perhaps ok for ballet school, but it's possible was the best at that time at certain price range he could afford.. Steinway sounds much better
There are so many absurd things in your comment: Chopin was so poor, that he lived at Place Vandôme in Paris, which is still today one of the richest areas of the city. At that time, the Steinway factory didn't even exist and Pleyel pianos were the best produced. Of course, if you listen to a 100 years instrument, it will sound bad, because it is OLD. Ridiculous comment...
Excuse me, but what you write is pure nonsense. You should inform yourself about the matter, there is a lot of material to be found. Chopin highly praised the Pleyel instruments. They were, as he put it, the non plus ultra, the best pianos to be found.
Wieland Hartwich pleyels are so good, i wish to own one in times come.! Beautiful veiled tone
ker der, this Pleyel sounds much better for Chopin to my ears, so please bear in mind that some of us agree with Chopin.
morphixnm its has such a fat, inviting tone, essential for chopins intimate pieces of works. Its like seeing a painting in its true color. The piano is definately in a lower tuning too, keep in mind.