However, I do believe Richter plays better than Cziffra, just my humble opinion after little practice and banging out Op.10 No.4 faster than Richter himself as well as the Ballad @@howardlitson9796
This is a supreme example of what Liszt meant by transcendental technique; supreme virtuosity with the sole purpose of realising the poetic idea behind the music.
I'll take a chance. Richter never bores me, and at his best, he lifts me very very high. Most all of us feel that. His tempi, in a way similar in idiosyncracies to those of Glen Gould, can be too fast, and as I listen now to the altogether reasonable 2nd etude, the first and the introduction that precedes it--did that count as etude 1 (I forget)--were just way too fast and the power and resonance of the music suffered as it always does when playing becomes hysterical. I could argue for his approach, but that grand faux Andalusian etude is first and foremost great music. I am more interested in its true grandeur than its function as a very hard etude> I might add that I always preferred his first version of that work, but Liszt understandably backed off from it. The long passage that alternates thumb and thumb-octave is impossible, but he threw out some of the baby with the bath when he rewrote. I also prefer the first version of Mazeppa. Too often a composer gets it right the first time and then screws the works by gildfing the lily. Well, whatever, this here is one hell of a document.
Rachmaninoff overworked his own pieces to death. It's part of the reason I think he never could be considered in the first tier of composers -- even just restricted to romantics
Didn't forget except hungarian virtuoso pianist cziffra 20 century, there was hungarian virtuoso pianist and composer and conductor tamas vasary. Tamas vasary's teacher was pupil of Istvan Thoman and his name was Ernst von Dohnányi
@@howardlitson9796 I prefer, the flying idiot etudes. All I hear is some idiot flying and crashing and flying and crashing, poor guy, living for the thake of virtuosity and nothing meaningful.
@@howardlitson9796 Yes agree that Cziffra had a very good and coming excellent technique coupled with exceptional composing skills but his playing of Liszt in the virtuosic passages is marred by heavy handed thumping, his playing of pieces requiring less virtuosity is really beautiful.
@@marksmith3947 Mark, I respect your valued opinion but you know Cziffra, in certain performances, was anything but impressive and his virtuosity though immense was sometimes short of the performance: Perhaps different to the perfectionist Lipatti...and the great Richter as well.
I couldn't disagree with this comment more. Richter was an incredibly dextrous and capable pianist, sure, but it's simply wrong to suggest his dexterity was comparable to Cziffra or MAH. I think Richter was, undoubtedly, a better musician than Cziffra or MAH (which, combined with his quite impressive technical capacity, makes him one of, if not, the greatest pianist(s) of the 20th century), but Cziffra and MAH are simply different animals; literally different types of musicians too (the ultra-rare hyper-virtousi)
@@jackcurley1591 Yes absolutely wrong to compare pianists because firstly their selection of music differs and is coupled with our personal likes (and dislikes too).
@@jackcurley1591 And I disagree in some respects with your comment. First of all, Cziffra and Hamelin were/are not just incredible virtuosi, but were/are thoughtful musicians. I am a bit acquainted with Marc-Andre Hamelin and I know how much he cares about the musical aspect of his playing, not just the technical wizardry. And I think he's very convincing, producing beautiful, moving playing in some music. And he's less strong in other repertoire. In other words, he's just like everyone else in this respect -- he doesn't do everything well. No one does, Richter included. As for Richter, I think technically he was pretty nearly a match for Cziffra and Hamelin, especially when he was young (have you seen the video of his Op. 10 c#-minor Etude at Chopin's tempo? Astonishing.). And I am surprised that other people who were at the absolute top technically weren't mentioned -- Rachmaninoff, Lhevinne, Hofmann, Busoni, Horowitz, Friedman, Pollini. And I think Argerich is in that class, as well.
+Marcos ribeiro Arthur Rubinstein once said that comparing great pianists was ridiculous, and was like "comparing" Michelangelo with Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael. THERE'S NO COMPARISON---THEY'RE ALL ORIGINALS!!
@@CLASSICALFAN100 This strikes me as an idiotic comment. There may be no comparing Michelangelo and Raphael. But we CAN compare other artists at the time of these and say, "No, nowhere near." That is how it is with most other 20th-century pianists (all good) and Richter.
@@jamesnickoloff6692 comparing artists, in general, is idiotic, every artist learn different repertoires, have different thoughts on music, learn music differently, and artists may struggle with one piece but not another depending on the techniques required but then again, what is the point of it? you can never expect perfection in this world anyway, looking for perfection is just a fool's errand
True. Somehow, newer pianists attempt this and bang it raw and slow, or play with so much nuance and facial arrogance, and most people yet still worship them. Sigh..
Unfortunately,these are called 'trolls'. People with nothing better to do but cause shit for no other reason other than to get a reaction. As long as you appreciate good music,that's all that matters. Just ignore the trolls. Nice music btw.
Penny Brown People who vote "vegatively" [sic] are called "trolls?" They do it only to "cause shit?" You think all that matters is that "you appreciate good music." And your critical comment is "nice music btw." Penny, you're not only gorgeously named for your role, but as a Philistine hell bent on an exegesis of trolls, you're beyond compare!
Penny Brown Sorry Penny. It's English all right. Your struggle with the language seems to be occasioned by that that troublesome low IQ of yours, and your helplessness in reply: "Yeah...what ever" [sic: you mean whatever, sweetheart]. You obviously think you can improve on your lack of content by adding "fuckin ENGLISH" in your winsome schoolgirl way, but it's easy to see right through it all. Can't think. Can't write. Can't defend her views, such as they are. Okay there Skippy? Is it sinking in? When you tell me U0001F612, I know I've located the bottom of your barrel.
I believe that if a person were to listen to this "blind," that is without knowing who the pianist is, the common response would be: great technique but the playing is often brutal and coarse. The second Etude, for example, is dispatched with nary a problem technically but damn near bludgeoned to death. Just my opinion...and I should also state that I fidget when people play Liszt -- especially pieces that were obviously intended to challenge the player technically and gobsmack the audience -- as if they were part of the WTC. Smoke and flying gravel are integral to much of virtuosic Liszt, but a considerable portion of this playing strikes me as brutal and savage. Of course the recorded sound is glassy and percussive. It might very well be that the effect in the hall during this recital was quite different. I guess we can never know. Richter was one of a handful of great pianists, not only of the 20th century but of all time but I just don't think this serves him well.
I agree with your statement about the performance of the 2nd etude, speed should never be an excuse to compromise the clarity of the harmonies and massacre such beautiful music the etudes are meant to transcend both technical and musical limits, and it would be unwise to focus only on the technical aspects of the etudes, I think Leslie Howard's lecture explains quite a lot about Liszt's etudes d'execution transcendante: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-31WcUAxV_ss.html I do hope you see Liszt in a new light
@R_ Reveley I agree, it was recorded with 1950s technology. Richter's playing brings out the right aspects of the various interwoven melodic lines at the right times and has a perfect sense of timing with his subtle rubato (he's mostly on tempo which I love).
We've got to remember that musical conservatives have always equally hated and envied liszt. They prefer to stick to safe and near moribund 'classical' composers with the correct number of repetitions and predictable key changes- they like their music by numbers, solid like mendelssohn or Brahms with nothing to upset them. Like the people in the Saki story who understood art providing the frame carried subtitles. Well, when did you last find a concert of music byAnton Rubenstein, or Hanslick? Liszt forces you to listen to the music.
