Spirituelle, sensorielle et rebelle, la musique de ce compositeur reflète des impostures secrètes, explore des plaisirs sereins, un monde de rêves renaissants🌺
c'est n'importe quoi mais c'est magnifique; c'est autant du Sokolov que du Rameau, ça n'a rien d'une interprétation fidèle, mais ça ouvre mille portes à l'imaginaire. Quelle invention!
Je ne suis pas sûr que le concept d' « interprétation » fidèle ait du sens dans le contexte de la musique baroque… Elle était souvent prévue pour laisser libre cours à l'improvisation de l’interprète. Je pense que M. Sokolov prend moins de libertés que les interprètes de l'époque.
@@ZAWARUD00Sokolov a une aptitude toute particulière à effectuer des trilles même si cela dépend aussi de la qualité du piano. Parfois il en fait un peu trop mais le résultat est magnifique. Tout à fait d'accord sur le coté improvisation de la musique Baroque, d'ailleurs Rameau sur ses partitions était assez sobre, il y a mille façons d'interpréter sa musique , c'est ce qui la rend aussi passionnante.
Ah! Truly extraordinary - but when you are listening to Sokolov, perhaps the extraordinary becomes merely par for the course! Simply some of the finest performances ever recorded. May we ever hope to see a glimmer of such greatness in our own little talents!
Merci beaucoup pour cette vidéo incroyable! Juste une petite question hors sujet: J'ai un portefeuille SafePal avec des USDT et j'ai la phrase de récupération. (air carpet target dish off jeans toilet sweet piano spoil fruit essay). Pourriez-vous expliquer comment les déplacer vers Binance?
it looks like it could be a detail from a painting by Meindert Hobbema. he made around 500 paintings of landscapes with trees. or it could be Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. He made over 3000 paintings, so it's kind of tough to locate the specific one. i don't think it is by Claude Lorrain, nor do i think it is J. M. W. Turner, as the subject is clearly the trees, and they wouldn't have been interested in that. Hobbema and Corot were. it might be something by John Constable, but i doubt it. he painted a lot of trees. but they were in Britain, and the light is different from that on the Continent where Hobbema and Corot were. good luck.
It doesn't matter that Sokolov is a fabulously skilled and expressive pianist; Rameau on the piano sounds terribly quaint and one-dimensional compared to the harpsichord. The ornamentation and counterpoint sound perfectly clear for plucked strings, but sound like a congested mash on even a well-behaved piano with little pedal.
You have no clue. This music was written for the harpsichord, decades before the first fortepiano was heard. Would you dispute Rameau's own taste ? Dynamics are NOT what baroque counterpoint is about, but articulation is. The harpsichord has a lot of tone variation because it has the ability to assign its two sets of strings on its two manuals, or to couple them. I have both a grand piano and a harpsichord and I use them for their respective repertoire. Listen to these pieces played by a world-renowed harpsichordist such as Trevor Pinnock or Kenneth Gilbert and discover a whole range of colours that Sokolov is absolutely unable to produce.
Maybe you could stuff it? If you feel that way about Rameau on piano you can choose not to listen to it. Instead you're choosing to listen to it and then bitch about it. Do you put your hands in the fireplace at home and then bitch about how they hurt? I think much of the ornamentation that is not intended for piano has fascinating and unintended acoustic consequences when played on it - colors that would be impossible to produce on any harpsichord - and that Sokolov is playing music he loves on an instrument he knows extremely well as articulately as he can, and he's doing a bad-ass job of it. And in regards to your response to musizaful, yes it was written for harpsichord before piano existed - so it was impossible for Rameau to have a "taste" about it at all. That being said it's even more unlikely that you have any clue whatsoever what Rameau would have thought about it if he had a chance to hear the piano. So it looks to me like you're the one who has no clue. Just another period-performance worshiper putting their personal ideology/taste above music. Sux. I for one am glad we live in a world where Sokolov doesn't need to give even one shit about what you think. That way we continue to live in a world of increasing musical variety rather than be suffocated under people's petty ideologies. I can't wait for the pianist who plays J.S. Bach on a 1792 Walter.
I'm sure Rameau would have loved the piano....so would have Couperin, who complained about the lack of expressivity of the harpsichord!! I'm so bored with those baroque purists, for me music only matters!! and I'm titular of one of the most ancient historic organs in France!! 1627...
I think it's a great pity that we judge the choice of instrument and not the quality of performance, the relationship of the artist to the material. Generally there's no question this music speaks more fully on harpsichord, where we feel Rameau's deep love for his own instrument. But Sokolov makes an extraordinary case for the piano through his own love for his. Why close doors to oneself when artists everywhere are opening them?
i am in the mood now to find pianists/composers that are less known and i am having a good time! to hear arrangements that I am not familiar with is enjoyable.
Sokomeau et Ralov... quel merveilleux couple !
Spirituelle, sensorielle et rebelle, la musique de ce compositeur reflète des impostures secrètes, explore des plaisirs sereins, un monde de rêves renaissants🌺
0:00 - 1:41 1. Les Tricotets. Rondeau
1:42 - 4:20 2. L'indifférente
4:21 - 8:06 3. Menuet I - Menuet II
8:06 - 12:22 4. La Poule
12:23 - 16:55 5. Les Triolets
16:56 - 19:00 6. Les Sauvages
19:01 - 25:28 7. L'Enharmonique. Gracieusement
25:29 8. L'Égyptienne
c'est n'importe quoi mais c'est magnifique; c'est autant du Sokolov que du Rameau, ça n'a rien d'une interprétation fidèle, mais ça ouvre mille portes à l'imaginaire. Quelle invention!
"c'est n'importe quoi mais c'est magnifique" est une phrase qu'on devrait tous employer plus souvent. :)
Je ne suis pas sûr que le concept d' « interprétation » fidèle ait du sens dans le contexte de la musique baroque… Elle était souvent prévue pour laisser libre cours à l'improvisation de l’interprète. Je pense que M. Sokolov prend moins de libertés que les interprètes de l'époque.
@@ZAWARUD00Sokolov a une aptitude toute particulière à effectuer des trilles même si cela dépend aussi de la qualité du piano. Parfois il en fait un peu trop mais le résultat est magnifique. Tout à fait d'accord sur le coté improvisation de la musique Baroque, d'ailleurs Rameau sur ses partitions était assez sobre, il y a mille façons d'interpréter sa musique , c'est ce qui la rend aussi passionnante.
Very Awesome! Without unnecessity, full of light....
Ah! Truly extraordinary - but when you are listening to Sokolov, perhaps the extraordinary becomes merely par for the course! Simply some of the finest performances ever recorded. May we ever hope to see a glimmer of such greatness in our own little talents!
thank You Mr Sokolov !
Over and over and over again : -))))
Merci beaucoup pour cette vidéo incroyable! Juste une petite question hors sujet: J'ai un portefeuille SafePal avec des USDT et j'ai la phrase de récupération. (air carpet target dish off jeans toilet sweet piano spoil fruit essay). Pourriez-vous expliquer comment les déplacer vers Binance?
Bravo! Finally I no longer have to listen to the wrong note in 'the hen'.
I love this music♥♥♥♥♥
For once we have a decent sound quality take on Sokolov's recording!
By the way, who is this paint from? It's fascinating.
Thks for posting.
it looks like it could be a detail from a painting by Meindert Hobbema. he made around 500 paintings of landscapes with trees. or it could be Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. He made over 3000 paintings, so it's kind of tough to locate the specific one. i don't think it is by Claude Lorrain, nor do i think it is J. M. W. Turner, as the subject is clearly the trees, and they wouldn't have been interested in that. Hobbema and Corot were. it might be something by John Constable, but i doubt it. he painted a lot of trees. but they were in Britain, and the light is different from that on the Continent where Hobbema and Corot were. good luck.
It's a photograph run through photoshop...
@@dugitomiIt is indeed very obviously a photograph.
Grigory Sokolov ~ what more is there to say ;o)
The choice of the photograph is not up to the quality of Sokolov's Rameau's music...
great stuff ... :-)
Seems to me it´s a photo. No painter could be that good.
That photograph is very mediocre.
Why so fast? Why rush over such loveliness?
It doesn't matter that Sokolov is a fabulously skilled and expressive pianist; Rameau on the piano sounds terribly quaint and one-dimensional compared to the harpsichord. The ornamentation and counterpoint sound perfectly clear for plucked strings, but sound like a congested mash on even a well-behaved piano with little pedal.
You have no clue. This music was written for the harpsichord, decades before the first fortepiano was heard. Would you dispute Rameau's own taste ? Dynamics are NOT what baroque counterpoint is about, but articulation is. The harpsichord has a lot of tone variation because it has the ability to assign its two sets of strings on its two manuals, or to couple them. I have both a grand piano and a harpsichord and I use them for their respective repertoire. Listen to these pieces played by a world-renowed harpsichordist such as Trevor Pinnock or Kenneth Gilbert and discover a whole range of colours that Sokolov is absolutely unable to produce.
Maybe you could stuff it? If you feel that way about Rameau on piano you can choose not to listen to it. Instead you're choosing to listen to it and then bitch about it. Do you put your hands in the fireplace at home and then bitch about how they hurt?
I think much of the ornamentation that is not intended for piano has fascinating and unintended acoustic consequences when played on it - colors that would be impossible to produce on any harpsichord - and that Sokolov is playing music he loves on an instrument he knows extremely well as articulately as he can, and he's doing a bad-ass job of it.
And in regards to your response to musizaful, yes it was written for harpsichord before piano existed - so it was impossible for Rameau to have a "taste" about it at all. That being said it's even more unlikely that you have any clue whatsoever what Rameau would have thought about it if he had a chance to hear the piano. So it looks to me like you're the one who has no clue.
Just another period-performance worshiper putting their personal ideology/taste above music. Sux. I for one am glad we live in a world where Sokolov doesn't need to give even one shit about what you think. That way we continue to live in a world of increasing musical variety rather than be suffocated under people's petty ideologies.
I can't wait for the pianist who plays J.S. Bach on a 1792 Walter.
I'm sure Rameau would have loved the piano....so would have Couperin, who complained about the lack of expressivity of the harpsichord!! I'm so bored with those baroque purists, for me music only matters!! and I'm titular of one of the most ancient historic organs in France!! 1627...
this guys spams every video with Rameau on piano. what a narrow-minded troll :)
I think it's a great pity that we judge the choice of instrument and not the quality of performance, the relationship of the artist to the material. Generally there's no question this music speaks more fully on harpsichord, where we feel Rameau's deep love for his own instrument. But Sokolov makes an extraordinary case for the piano through his own love for his. Why close doors to oneself when artists everywhere are opening them?
i am in the mood now to find pianists/composers that are less known and i am having a good time! to hear arrangements that I am not familiar with is enjoyable.