EVERY great piece is technically demanding. Brahms Intermezzi!! The thing is... let's focus on MUSIC instead of perpetuate Alkan myths that let listeners and pianists to run away from him... most of his etudes are easier than Chopin's, or at least have different technical difficult. not MORE or LESS.
@@bloba6969 they are very hard. But these are different techniques. Can't measure as one is harder than the other in absolute terms. To me, the Symphony is much easier than CHOPIN. For my body conformation and hands
@@davisatdavis1 perpetuating Alkan myths does no favor to his work. Alkan lacks sensitive performers because of these, and even audience prefer to keep distance, since technical difficult is not a musical thing. Those who love music do not care about it.
If u r looking for d page used in d thumbnail, it’s at 2:02:40, d last etude. This composer and his work, this pianist and his recording, and this channel and his upload - truly monumental! Thank you!!
Ronald Smith's playing here is truly impressive and places him among Alkan's best performers. The touch, articulation and dynamics are very natural, never too harsh in the more powerful passages (and there are many! see 26:57 for example). His magical touch always shines more brightly in the quieter, more peaceful sections (see 1:43:00, one of the most brilliant section in Alkan's music). Last, but not least, his performances show probably the greatest attention to score and subtlety I have ever seen with those etudes, with many details that Smith brings to the fore!
We are now experiencing Alkan-Renaissance worldwide - Gibbons, Hamelin, Maltempo, Yui Morishita...., . Yet we should admit it's Ronald Smith who sparked such Alkan boom.
Glad you mentioned morishita, my recent discovery. Dont forget the guy who played le preux last year - but its painful watch him play, morishita is just a great pleasure
Alkan must have been high when writing some of these studies. I've always loved the Scherzo Diabolico. It is indeed diabolic both in a musical sense and in its difficulty. Thank you for this amazing upload. Happy new year!
Thank you very much for this. Despite the newer recordings by Jack Gibbons, Stephanie McCallum and Vincenzo Maltempo of the complete set, Smith's pioneering recording is still hard to beat. It always amazes me that he preferred to make recordings in a single take too, which makes these basically live performances even more visceral in their impact.
@@arthurhogan3047 And I'd like to add the young Yeol Eum Son to that list, also a great performer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m52MJ6hJx3I.html
In particular I love her superfluent intepretation of Le Festin d’Ésope... The speedy right-hand variation - you know the one I mean - is amazing, so crisp, fluent and playful... Here a direct link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m52MJ6hJx3I.htmlfeature=shared&t=299
Had heard of Ronald Smith but my first introduction to Alkan was via Marc-Andre Hamelin! which makes you think there is nothing else out there, the guy was so phenomenal. But now having heard Ronald Smith's own versions, can see why pianophiles of the 1970s-1990s might have had to get their jaw re-set (after it dropped to the floor). The dynamics, the control,-the precision are all spectacular, as is the overall timing and understanding of the pieces. These may have been the pioneering recordings before Hamelin's light brought them into a new awareness. Seriously more than impressed with Ronald Smith, can see what all the fuss was about now.
The part at 58:07-58:19 is as gorgeous as Ronald Smith plays it here. There are so many bars and lines in this music that are highly evocative, more so than in any other piano music written during this period, from Schubert to Liszt.
@@DavidBadilloMusic , guys, no, that's not how they work. @eralezzyt3200, it's JUST an A double-sharp. It leads into the B-sharp, otherwise it would be two enharmonic "C's" played in a row. If you see a Cx in the key of D-major, you don't play a D#/Eb. Same thing here.
OMG! I’ve been telling people for ages that my favourite piano composers are Alkan and Medtner. Never expected to find out someone else out there agrees.
Smith's recording of Mvt.I for the Symphony is night and day from Hamelin's. I have to appreciate them both for different reasons. I find Hamelin's live performance (available on RU-vid) way over-pedaled. Plus, it feels like he'd rather have the melody be super straightforward in the 6/8 time setting. Nevertheless, it's still a very beautiful performance if you can get past the neglect of Alkan's writing. Smith actually makes this movement sound like a symphony is playing out in front of you. The mindful pedaling and attention to detail allows the different elements to shine with greater contrast from each other. If I was skilled enough, I would attempt my own orchestration of the Symphony using Smith's recording as reference. That being said, Hamelin is a beast when playing live, and it's extremely swoon-worthy when he loses himself in a piece - and he certainly does when performing this movement live! His tempo choice is insane (and I do find myself wishing Smith's recording was a bit faster, but also idk how fast 108 bpm (Alkan's indicated bpm) is without a metronome lol), which adds to the ferocity of his performance which culminates at the section at 26:56, where I think Hamelin very much outshines Smith. Smith's dynamics here are just not powerful enough for this climax, unfortunately. And weirdly enough (although this could be attributed to differences in edition), Hamelin's pedaling is a lot more appropriate in this section. While Smith's pronunciation/rhythmic pulse is a lot better, Hamelin's rubato is more preferable and his touch on the very last chord is so juicy in comparison.
PS I LOVE Smith's tempo in the Ouverture - much more in line with what I would expect from a symphony orchestra, the sound of which is easily brought to mind in much of this piece.
This music is so nimble and interesting. He is not a composer I had ever heard or heard of until very recently. Thanks for posting this. So much to learn and observe about writing for the piano.
I'm still in the first 10 seconds trying to determine whether I can hear a difference between stacatto and stacatissmo demi's (32nd notes) in the left hand. In case anyone actually cares: The tempo works out at approximately 10 demis per second, which means, using the "nominal" definition of staccato (half duration) and staccatissimo (quarter duration), a staccato demi will last 50 milliseconds and staccatissimo will last 25 milliseconds. The right hand demi-triplets are played at 16 per second (fun with rounding) - a whopping 62 milliseconds per note. Obviously, the stacatto and stacatissmo are instructions to the performer, not rigid duration instructions. However, Alkan made the stacatto and stacatissmo distinction for . In conclusion, I need better ears.
3:44 - I'm a composer. And I do like this piece. But... taking more of a Birdseye view, I have to wonder - What is the point? of this piece. It frankly sounds less like an etude, and more like uncontrolled violent Anger. Let me ask.... Do you think Beethoven (Or Any of the other greatest composers) COULDN'T have written a piece like this??? They Could have - BUT THEY DIDN'T!
You made a good point there. But i have to turn your argument around! Composers like Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt (for Mendelssohn i make a little exception), they pushed music forward, all revolutionary in their own way. But i have the feeling that their music often suffered under their musical vision or mission. Thats why. But i agree No1 is probably the most uninteresting piece in this cicle and smiths interpretion is not good at all; really recommend the concerto, the symphony and no 12. if you listen closely Alkans melodic lines are so close to a natural human voice. I miss that in the Music of Schumann, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt, they're always unvoluntary instrumental, rather have the character of etheral gestures
I thought I'd try to sight read these. Pieces at a concert 😮. I was quite nervous and not overly pleased with my performance but the audience were ecstatic 😮😂🎉❤
I'm looking for a set of etudes that's as comprehensive as possible in all it covers, to refine one's technique to play anything within the romantic period. Would this be it? I've spent the past year and a half on the Concerto For Solo Piano but I am thinking of working on some of the others. Is this set missing anything?
I did not really enjoy any of these, except “le Festin d’Ésope,” a great set of variations, the theme of which is refreshingly repeated in all sorts of contexts. The rest is either just too dark or too loud and all over the place. Thanks for the upload in any case!
나는 희빈 장씨니라 꺄아하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하하
I really by all means dont understand why those pianists running for their life these days. I mean if you want to finish faster then why not dying right away? I mean the first seconds. Timing is off. Cant distinguish the notes one from another. Truly impressive playing in that tempo but not very musical.
@@wilh3lmmusic Fast yes. But not uneven. Imagine speaking like this. No one could understand you. I dont understand how this stupid trend even developed.
I’m probably going to catch some heat for this, but there is a reason why this music is so rarely performed and not better known. And it’s not because the music is so difficult. It’s because much of this music just isn’t very good. Just because a piece is difficult does not mean that it is good. And this music is indeed fiendishly difficult. But once you strip away all of the technical pyrotechnics, you have a series of pretty simplistic harmonic progressions and uninspired contrapuntal lines. If you did a Schenkerian analysis of the first etude, for example, there would be almost nothing there. But kudos to the pianist for his formidable technique and for doing his best to breathe some life into these second rate piano pieces.
I'd say it is pretty good. Not up there with the likes of Chopin, Schumann, or Ravel in terms of memorable melodies, charm, or masterful composition, but in terms of nearly inhumanly difficult piano music this would take the cake.
Well I would have to disagree. While your totally right about difficulty not making a piece better I do think these pieces (or some of them) are very musical. Especially the concerto ist just brilliant in the way of mimicking an orchestra. Schumann himself once wrote that alkan was "Das ultra der französischen romantik" meaning the absolut best of frencj romanticism. Not every pieces is great but the once that are, are way up the with all the other great composers. You should check his cello sonata out its serverly under performed and very beautiful.
What is the point of playing so fast that groups of notes are twitchy little clumps and grabs and all evenness is sacrificed completely? Listening to a pianist trying to play as fast as he possibly can - though I'm sure he could play even faster, this is the fastest he felt he could get away with - is uninteresting. Who cares about speed over musicality and clarity?
It’s about whether people like it, which some ppl do. People listen to piece because they like to, not because it is “musically interesting” or whatever.
Has anyone realised the key of each song goes up its 4ths? What I mean is for example, the first etude is in A minor, and the next is in D minor (which goes up by a 4th). If the 2nd etude is in D minor, D raised a 4th would be G, therefore resulting the 3rd etude in G minor.
Yes. As with Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, studies in all the keys are traditionally arranged in a sequential order. Bach wrote a prelude and fugue in C major and C minor, then D-flat major and C# minor, then DM, dm, etc. Alkan wrote first 12 studies in the circle of fourths for all the major keys (Op.35, 1848), then another 12 in all the minor keys (Op.39, 1857). Shostakovich arranged his preludes and fugues to follow the circle of fifths.
