Видео

Or Samuel Barber, or anybody else. What on earth do you mean by such a ridiculous comment?

@@ZL54JK8 Sorry samuel barber. Never heard about you.

@@fellow7091 It doesn't matter. For Barber substitute any other composer you please. My point was that to drag Chopin in at 1040 or anywhere else here is a nonsense.

@@ZL54JK8 Speaking about music is hard with a man who has just ossified ideas about the topics and no respect for thoughts of other people.

@@fellow7091 Why do you assume you are speaking here with a man? Your recent riposte is a mixture of unfounded assumptions and predictable insult, and you have failed to grasp, or chosen not to grasp, the point I made. "Bach begins to play Chopin", has no valid meaning. I have checked the time reference you quote and I am certainly familiar with Chopin, but I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to say. Of course, you could always have said what you wanted to say in plain English.

It is indeed astounding playing! I wonder why you would know each note of this piece if you are not an organist? I however am an organist and I too know each note of this piece, but that is only because I have taken the time to memorize it. I do agree with you that it's faithful, a great transcription and a "huge" rendering, and certainly it has been wonderful to listen to. I would say however that as a piece of music it is no more than a superficial reading. Many of the piano transcriptions of these organ works are in my estimation superior even to the organ performances themselves. I think for example of some of the piano transcriptions played by Artur Pizarro, and perhaps especially of the powerful piano account of BWV 543 from Svetla Protich (all accessible on RUclips). In my view what we have here is not in that class.