Thank you for posting this. One of my favorite performers. He is a wonderful pianist and led the way for pianists and conductors being more aligned. It had gotten to a point that it was almost like a battle as to whose interpretation was going to be performed: the pianist, or the conductor. That is many pianists were choosing the very brilliant Steinways as a means of being heard over the orchestra. Some of the performances were audibly indicative that the conductor and the soloist did not get along. One performance, Horowitz was unhappy with the tempo that the third movement of the concerto he was playing. He felt it was too fast. The night of the concert, the conductor played it at the tempo he felt was right, but Horowitz surpassed him and finished first. And while the orchestra was playing got up and said "I won. I beat you." When Ashkenazy came on the scene, he was a winner because his performances were always a cooperative one with the orchestra and conductor. You knew it would be an evening to enjoy. He is fantastic as a conductor also, so I guess he does not fit Horowitz' statement. :-)
Miki Dash Absolutely true. I've heard many many interpretation of this piece and by far and away Ashkenazy is the most in sync with his composer and the piece is all the better for it. Even the heavyweights like Bronfman and Horowitz and Volodos never achieved this type of harmony. Thats why Ashkenazy will always own Rach's 1st.
![Scriabin - Piano Concerto in F sharp minor, op. 20 (Vladimir Ashkenazy/Maazel) [Complete]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ylSrzlphVq0/mqdefault.jpg)
A superb performance by a phenomenal pianist.
And orchestra, too.
0:00 is an excellent place to start.
Thank you for posting this.
One of my favorite performers. He is a wonderful pianist and led the way for pianists and conductors being more aligned. It had gotten to a point that it was almost like a battle as to whose interpretation was going to be performed: the pianist, or the conductor. That is many pianists were choosing the very brilliant Steinways as a means of being heard over the orchestra. Some of the performances were audibly indicative that the conductor and the soloist did not get along. One performance, Horowitz was unhappy with the tempo that the third movement of the concerto he was playing. He felt it was too fast. The night of the concert, the conductor played it at the tempo he felt was right, but Horowitz surpassed him and finished first. And while the orchestra was playing got up and said "I won. I beat you." When Ashkenazy came on the scene, he was a winner because his performances were always a cooperative one with the orchestra and conductor. You knew it would be an evening to enjoy. He is fantastic as a conductor also, so I guess he does not fit Horowitz' statement. :-)
Miki Dash Absolutely true. I've heard many many interpretation of this piece and by far and away Ashkenazy is the most in sync with his composer and the piece is all the better for it. Even the heavyweights like Bronfman and Horowitz and Volodos never achieved this type of harmony. Thats why Ashkenazy will always own Rach's 1st.
@@chrisreinhart6421 Previn and Ashkenazy had a huge respect for each other, this is evident through this wonderfully cohesive performance.
Magnificent playing.
Piano is wonky...?!
Michael, are you listening to music or to the way piano sounds? If you cannot separate these two, then I would advise you not to listen at all
@@SuperArkleo You're not making any sense. How can one differentiate the instrument's quality and this so-called "music"?
Ashkenazy is of course superb, however the piano sounds in need of tuning.
+Meredith Foster I'm not sure about tuning, but its sound is definitely not good - you can hear it clearly at 1:20