He started doing this after he suffered once from a "blackout" in concert and later he said that, with the score in front, it brings the performer back to what really was written in the score and prevented from "inventing" things that weren't there!
Superb, masterful and completely compelling - the antithesis of so many gutless so-called sophisticated Bach performances, this is magic and almost Stravinskian!
amazing, the guy plays from the orcestra partitur, he doesnt play from the piano part, but he has the same score what the conductor has. an amazing performance. Richter...everything is thought... another amazing thing is that, oleg kagan, a pupil oistrach, and a great violinist, is the first violinist here.
Why compare? You like something else? Go listen to something else! This is Richter playing Bach. If you could possibly want something else....go find it. Just be quiet for those of us who want to hear exactly this. Please don't show off your "knowledge" by comparing Richter with anyone. You want to hear a harpsichord. Do it. Sviatoslav Richter and J.S. Bach are way beyond anyone's comparisons.
Wow, I was going to get Richter's WTK recording, but after reading that I'm not sure I want to anymore. Since I love all of Gould's recordings, I guess we're basically opposites. Let me give you some advice: you really don't need to insult one great pianist in order to complement another. Both Richter and Gould are great-and if you prefer one to the other, then that's fine for you, but you DON'T need to call all of Gould's recordings "the same."
What a contrast between the 1st and the second movement. The first movement is at lightning speed and the second is slower than other versions. But you can never acuse Richter of not being intense, that said I still prefer Gould's interpretation.
Clavicembalo o pianoforte? ...dovrebbe essere una discussione ormai superata. Lo stesso Bach non disdegnava di trascrivere lo stesso brano dal violino al clavicembalo (strumenti completamente diversi tra loro). Sebbene io preferisca altre versioni di questo concerto, questa di Richter è comunque godibilissima.
The day you play better than he did, post it and we can have a conversation. Criticism is for those who cannot create. It is supercilious and boring. Ouch. I just made a criticism. May it be my last.
Gould's best recording of the D- Concerto is his performance live in Leningrad.
Richter is complete and extremely bright musician.He plays all the music, from Bach to Prokofiev, at the same highest level! He is the best one!
You can never get enough of this piece.
He started doing this after he suffered once from a "blackout" in concert and later he said that, with the score in front, it brings the performer back to what really was written in the score and prevented from "inventing" things that weren't there!
The concerto remains the same.
Richter and Bach rule.
end of argument.
Superb, masterful and completely compelling - the antithesis of so many gutless so-called sophisticated Bach performances, this is magic and almost Stravinskian!
Sviatoslav Richter? Yes a legendary pianist!!!!
amazing, the guy plays from the orcestra partitur, he doesnt play from the piano part, but he has the same score what the conductor has.
an amazing performance. Richter...everything is thought...
another amazing thing is that, oleg kagan, a pupil oistrach, and a great violinist, is the first violinist here.
three words - dope !
Why compare? You like something else?
Go listen to something else!
This is Richter playing Bach. If you could possibly want something else....go find it.
Just be quiet for those of us who want to hear exactly this. Please don't show off your "knowledge" by comparing Richter with anyone.
You want to hear a harpsichord. Do it.
Sviatoslav Richter and J.S. Bach are way beyond anyone's comparisons.
Wow, I was going to get Richter's WTK recording, but after reading that I'm not sure I want to anymore. Since I love all of Gould's recordings, I guess we're basically opposites.
Let me give you some advice: you really don't need to insult one great pianist in order to complement another. Both Richter and Gould are great-and if you prefer one to the other, then that's fine for you, but you DON'T need to call all of Gould's recordings "the same."
What a contrast between the 1st and the second movement. The first movement is at lightning speed and the second is slower than other versions.
But you can never acuse Richter of not being intense, that said I still prefer Gould's interpretation.
You are right mltube..you cant improve on perfection...
I prefer the tempi and musicality of Gould. I like the clarity of the small ensemble in this performance.
Clavicembalo o pianoforte? ...dovrebbe essere una discussione ormai superata. Lo stesso Bach non disdegnava di trascrivere lo stesso brano dal violino al clavicembalo (strumenti completamente diversi tra loro). Sebbene io preferisca altre versioni di questo concerto, questa di Richter è comunque godibilissima.
so listen to Gould. He's great.
get off my cloud.
It's a Rolling Stones quote.
No, I have not heard of David Fray.
Excellent, but at the end one longs to hear Glenn Gould next time.
Here is an enigma:
why are you listening to this?
I don't exopect [sic] an answer.
then I suggest you listen to it.
Richter rulz.
Capolavoro.
Bach....mitt Gott
Gott: Mitt Bach.
haaa!
as a great glenn gould fan, i can say that, richter is better than him on bwv 1052 recording. magneficient richter, salute you.
I'm not on your cloud. Have you heard David Fray?
The day you play better than he did, post it and we can have a conversation.
Criticism is for those who cannot create.
It is supercilious and boring. Ouch. I just made a criticism. May it be my last.
I have to say...this is way too fast for me..but this is just my own opinion, I personally prefer the great glenn goulds performance.