This class brings back memories of attending Mannes while Perahia was a classmate back in the sixties. While in the little snack area a fellow student asked, Murray are you getting any more technique? His answer, was, "no, learning more repertoire-- but whatever technique I have is what it will be." Second, the same classmate asked what Beethoven Sonatas scared him the most and my recollection was of his citing the trills at the end of Op 101, and also finding op 109 treacherous. As for the present I would like to comment about whether he is too prescriptive in his instruction. I met him then as a teenager. As a man in his eighth decade (as I am as well) I admire his warmth, total commitment, and deep immersion in listening to every note the students play. Yes, he is heavily invested in Schenker analysis. It was a mainstay at Mannes. To this day I see it yields insights for him as to form, structure, and the origin of every phrase. (It wasn't my strength but clearly it is his.) Plus what pianist can't benefit from harmonic analysis since their instrument lends itself to it. I do quibble over whether it is too reductionist a system, wonder why it never really caught on in its birthplace Germany, and don't think a player's instincts about heartfelt emotions should be diminished even if they can't explain everything by analysis. I am sure Artur Rubinstein would fail to match the force of Perahia's sonic Weltschauunung. But scholars and reviewers have made their verdict clear as to Perahia's achievements. For me, his teaching is part of a life well spent, probing the depths of the composers he plays. Some of what he offers will be long remembered by his students. Some, will recede as they find their own musical voice. But these lessons are part of his legacy. Of course he is human. So he has shortcomings. But they pale in the shadow of his majestic life as a musician. Mount Parnassus has room but for a few-how lucky I think to see him now, having richly earned the place he occupies!
The thing with this master classes, in general, is that they focus too much on the performance as the master would do it. Which, I’m sure many would find great value in that, but to me it’s not that interesting. I think the classes should focus more on correcting the student on technique, where they struggle, clear difficulties and such. As it’s obvious this student has quite a few technical flaws that need to be addressed. It’s easier to find your own voice in music when you have mastered those difficulties. The thing with teaching interpretation at such meticulous level is that it is too difficult and frankly unnecessary, because in the end, no one can play the same, nor should play the same. Argerich, Horowitz, Richter, Gould, Rubinstein, etc. They all play Appasionata sonata and each version is very different, different accents, different rubato, different dynamics. Etc. But what do all of them have in common? Superb technique, they can nail the piece beginning to end with little error and with their own mark of musicality. In, in the end a pianist who is well develop technically will find room to find their own emotion in music. Otherwise, playing with tension, bad posture, unnecessary movements will just hinder the ability to connect with the sounds and thus create a moving performance. Just my 2 cents.
Murray Perahia is an Orthodox saint of classical music repertoire...His Mozart, Schumman, Chopin piano concertos are perfectionistic...God, New Jerusalem, New Heaven New Earth revelation of eternity and eternal life and Divine love of the Judeo Christian moorings cultural orientation...
I've read that Perahia is the greatest living pianist - then I remembered Richard Goode. His recordings of the final three Schubert sonatas (D.958, 959, 960) are so beautiful, they followed me everywhere on my trip to the Berkshires years ago, and I have them still. So Richard Goode must be remembered as a great living pianist.
Why the hell Students don't know Sviatoslav Richters Interpretations?! - They wouldn't have these trouble. And someone should forbid there grimaces. Music is not SHOWING feelings, but hearing them!
@@bsmusicd It's not a question of closing the listeners eyes! Pianists themeselves should close there optical reflexion in order to open there ears and minds. That is the point.
I seem to be the only one scathing of these masterclasses. They are what ruins imagination and the classical world by putting it on a pedestal. Murray is of course paid to give feedback on some level but in many ways it is of little value. Notice how he suggests how 'he would play it'. Everyone has their own experiences and interpretations and this pianist has done nothing wrong. The beauty of classical music is hearing it differently which is why it has lasted so long because it can feel so fresh.
Not all perspectives and experiences are of equal value. The young master class participant plays very well indeed, but he does not have the lifetime of experience maestro Perahia brings to Beethoven. That's what is so beneficial about a masterclass. A talented young artist just beginning their musical journey has the opportunity to learn from someone who has studied, performed, and edited all the major keyboard works of Beethoven.
@@bsmusicd The young master is always assumed to be the naive pianist who knows little to nothing, yet just channels his or her energy. I argue that although this reverent pianist offers his guidance, and his own skill notwithstanding, his interpretation and comments on the music are his own. Nobody should be judged. Ive seen so many masterclasses and I roll my eyes because the giver of the masterclass seldom is given the opporutnity to give his or her reasoning for their performance.
@@JaymesSinnah No need to worry here then. Maestro Perahia is always exceptionally clear in his explanations. Every point relates directly to the intrinsic structure of the music.
Agreed he offers valuable insight, but like an infinity mirror, where do you draw the line.? Ive seen Barenboim teach LangLang heand does give very good advice but this is of about 10% value. I believe the creative art of pianism should be moulded but not set in stone.
@@bsmusicd you are somewhat correct but Murray Perahia HAS NO legitimate reason why his opinions on how to perform a piece of music apart from performance practice are set in stone. His ideas are not revolutionary or are they interesting. He is just a skilled pianist paid lotsof money to critique quite frankly an excellent pianist.
This class brings back memories of attending Mannes while Perahia was a classmate back in the sixties. While in the little snack area a fellow student asked, Murray are you getting any more technique? His answer, was, "no, learning more repertoire-- but whatever technique I have is what it will be."
Second, the same classmate asked what Beethoven Sonatas scared him the most and my recollection was of his citing the trills at the end of Op 101, and also finding op 109 treacherous.
As for the present I would like to comment about whether he is too prescriptive in his instruction.
I met him then as a teenager.
As a man in his eighth decade (as I am as well) I admire his warmth, total commitment, and deep immersion in listening to every note the students play. Yes, he is heavily invested in Schenker analysis. It was a mainstay at Mannes. To this day I see it yields insights for him as to form, structure, and the origin of every phrase. (It wasn't my strength but clearly it is his.)
Plus what pianist can't benefit from harmonic analysis since their instrument lends itself to it. I do quibble over whether it is too reductionist a system, wonder why it never really caught on in its birthplace Germany, and don't think a player's instincts about heartfelt emotions should be diminished even if they can't explain everything by analysis.
I am sure Artur Rubinstein would fail to match the force of Perahia's sonic Weltschauunung. But scholars and reviewers have made their verdict clear as to Perahia's achievements. For me, his teaching is part of a life well spent, probing the depths of the composers he plays. Some of what he offers will be long remembered by his students. Some, will recede as they find their own musical voice. But these lessons are part of his legacy. Of course he is human. So he has shortcomings. But they pale in the shadow of his majestic life as a musician. Mount Parnassus has room but for a few-how lucky I think to see him now, having richly earned the place he occupies!
Perahia is a genius!!!
We’ve always known that! Since his youth it has been perfectly obvious.
The thing with this master classes, in general, is that they focus too much on the performance as the master would do it. Which, I’m sure many would find great value in that, but to me it’s not that interesting. I think the classes should focus more on correcting the student on technique, where they struggle, clear difficulties and such. As it’s obvious this student has quite a few technical flaws that need to be addressed. It’s easier to find your own voice in music when you have mastered those difficulties.
The thing with teaching interpretation at such meticulous level is that it is too difficult and frankly unnecessary, because in the end, no one can play the same, nor should play the same. Argerich, Horowitz, Richter, Gould, Rubinstein, etc. They all play Appasionata sonata and each version is very different, different accents, different rubato, different dynamics. Etc.
But what do all of them have in common? Superb technique, they can nail the piece beginning to end with little error and with their own mark of musicality. In, in the end a pianist who is well develop technically will find room to find their own emotion in music. Otherwise, playing with tension, bad posture, unnecessary movements will just hinder the ability to connect with the sounds and thus create a moving performance. Just my 2 cents.
Again I Appreciate the effort of Bravo Uri...G-d knows how intimidating would be ...playing in front of Maestro Perahia..
Murray Perahia is an Orthodox saint of classical music repertoire...His Mozart, Schumman, Chopin piano concertos are perfectionistic...God, New Jerusalem, New Heaven New Earth revelation of eternity and eternal life and Divine love of the Judeo Christian moorings cultural orientation...
I certainly am looking forward to the New Jerusalem 🙏
Thank you so much for this priceless gem!
🤦🏻😆🤦🏻😆🤦🏻😆🤦🏻😆
I would be so stressed with someone standing over me like that with an audience watching, feeling constantly punished
I've read that Perahia is the greatest living pianist - then I remembered Richard Goode. His recordings of the final three Schubert sonatas (D.958, 959, 960) are so beautiful, they followed me everywhere on my trip to the Berkshires years ago, and I have them still. So Richard Goode must be remembered as a great living pianist.
Martha Argerich is the greatest living pianist.
Aren’t we lucky to have both?
@@bifeldman Chacun son style! 2 grands maîtres!
Thank you!
Murray Perahia doesn't speak German? Oh, dear!
I hope the student takes a good look at this. There is a lot of energy and focus to gather up from wasted places and deployed on the keyboard.
Guy needs a haircut.
long hair don't care
@@v3lehe plays really well though
What a low-class comment.
Why the hell Students don't know Sviatoslav Richters Interpretations?! - They wouldn't have these trouble.
And someone should forbid there grimaces. Music is not SHOWING feelings, but hearing them!
thanks for your comment. exactly what I was thinking. no musicalty just show-off and key pressing
Apparently you've never watched a video of Richter performing. Grimaces were kind of his thing. 😂
@@bsmusicd That's what I'm talking about: watching never counts!
@@gunnarkoss9262 so close your eyes. 🙈
@@bsmusicd It's not a question of closing the listeners eyes! Pianists themeselves should close there optical reflexion in order to open there ears and minds. That is the point.
I seem to be the only one scathing of these masterclasses. They are what ruins imagination and the classical world by putting it on a pedestal. Murray is of course paid to give feedback on some level but in many ways it is of little value. Notice how he suggests how 'he would play it'. Everyone has their own experiences and interpretations and this pianist has done nothing wrong. The beauty of classical music is hearing it differently which is why it has lasted so long because it can feel so fresh.
Not all perspectives and experiences are of equal value.
The young master class participant plays very well indeed, but he does not have the lifetime of experience maestro Perahia brings to Beethoven. That's what is so beneficial about a masterclass. A talented young artist just beginning their musical journey has the opportunity to learn from someone who has studied, performed, and edited all the major keyboard works of Beethoven.
@@bsmusicd The young master is always assumed to be the naive pianist who knows little to nothing, yet just channels his or her energy.
I argue that although this reverent pianist offers his guidance, and his own skill notwithstanding, his interpretation and comments on the music are his own. Nobody should be judged.
Ive seen so many masterclasses and I roll my eyes because the giver of the masterclass seldom is given the opporutnity to give his or her reasoning for their performance.
@@JaymesSinnah No need to worry here then. Maestro Perahia is always exceptionally clear in his explanations. Every point relates directly to the intrinsic structure of the music.
Agreed he offers valuable insight, but like an infinity mirror, where do you draw the line.? Ive seen Barenboim teach LangLang heand does give very good advice but this is of about 10% value. I believe the creative art of pianism should be moulded but not set in stone.
@@bsmusicd you are somewhat correct but Murray Perahia HAS NO legitimate reason why his opinions on how to perform a piece of music apart from performance practice are set in stone. His ideas are not revolutionary or are they interesting. He is just a skilled pianist paid lotsof money to critique quite frankly an excellent pianist.