I don't care you like this interpretation or not, I listen to this sonata now since about 40 years, and Trifonov made it interesting again for me and I loved it. People who use words like "I hate this interpretation" or something else are the cancer of good music. Here is a quote by Hamelin: "To me a performance is not an exhibition-- it's an offering."
@@DynastieArtistique How about stating your views on the matter instead of calling people braindead? Or do you assume that we instantly recognise you as an authority on the matter, as it seems like you view yourself to be?
@@fredsiksure, “People who use words like ‘I hate this interpretation’ or something else are the cancer of good music.” Pretty self explanatory I think. This person has either never been in the musical world or refuses to accept the way things work in it
I think this interpretation is one of the best I've ever heard: skriabin represents madness (horowitz himself said he was crazy) as a rule breaker in his late period. The perfect interpretation exists only in Skriabin's head but I believe that trifonov recreate this madness in such a good way.
@@cadenzalien4554 This is most likely the case because of how Trifonov in this case doesn't exactly follow the score and indicated instructions by Scriabin. Compared to someone like Rachmaninoff as a performer, who is very strict with playing the music according to the sheet music.
@@cadenzalien4554 They're generally older people that look at the likes of Rubinstein, Horrowitz, Richter... as gods. They just shit on modern pianists despite the fact many modern pianists have far greater recordings of certain pieces from the older pianists.
Trifonov’s awful forced artificial rubato just adds to his plastic-sounding Scriabin. The imagination here is absent, and the dramatic elements surrounding Scriabins music, the roaring waves, thunder, flashes of light, caressing breeze, are all gone and replaced by an attempt to imitate them rather than embody them
@@Jamesphilipjfrydude wtf is your point😭 the “sonorities” are great and therefore it’s a good interpretation? Also trifonovs tone and sound production is far from special anyways
He distorts a lot of the rhythms, I mean a little rubato is fine but in excess it comes across as distorted and sacrilegious to the written music itself.
Yes! I thought I noticed that. The opening has him cutting things short, elongating them, and that happens throughout... I think this piece is best when played with a lot of rubato, but the way he's done it here just feels inexact and odd.
Whilst I totally agree that what he does here is very unique and oftentimes in disagreement with the score, I find Trifonov's interpretation to be very refreshing in most of this piece. There are only a few parts where I'd rather he did something different, but with all of his decisions I feel like there is musical justification for it, even if you might disagree! I've been searching for the "perfect" interpretation of this piece for years and still haven't found it, so I'm starting to believe that it just doesn't exist...
I quite like that actually. I think this is somewhat of an ignorant comment as it does not take into account the majority of musical history where there was much much more room for interpretation, including adding notes and slight improvisation if it is justified. I think Trifonov clearly makes it work whilst being true to the score.
Were he playing the music of another composer like Ravel I would agree, but it’s Scriabin - who was known for his erratic rubato and almost always played his own works differently from the score. It’s also a piece about rapturous ecstasy - I’m not exactly looking for a pianist to take a controlled or measured approach when performing it.
Trifonov gave an all Scriabin recital in Montreal in February 2020 and that was the best concert I've ever attended.
I would've loved to be there
I don't care you like this interpretation or not, I listen to this sonata now since about 40 years, and Trifonov made it interesting again for me and I loved it. People who use words like "I hate this interpretation" or something else are the cancer of good music. Here is a quote by Hamelin: "To me a performance is not an exhibition-- it's an offering."
Players needs a premium audience like u
@@1872scriabinI’d say this is more braindead then premium but ok
@@DynastieArtistique How about stating your views on the matter instead of calling people braindead? Or do you assume that we instantly recognise you as an authority on the matter, as it seems like you view yourself to be?
@@fredsiksure, “People who use words like ‘I hate this interpretation’ or something else are the cancer of good music.” Pretty self explanatory I think. This person has either never been in the musical world or refuses to accept the way things work in it
Such a poetic sonata
Великолепное , роскошное исполнение ! Вдохновенно ! Уверен Александр Николаевич прям , обнял бы с благодарностью за такое прочтение !! Браво !!
Trifonov creates an unbroken continuity. Many try bu end up with sewn together fragments. He tells the whole as a story.
I think this interpretation is one of the best I've ever heard: skriabin represents madness (horowitz himself said he was crazy) as a rule breaker in his late period. The perfect interpretation exists only in Skriabin's head but I believe that trifonov recreate this madness in such a good way.
Oh, Scriabin, I absolutely adore his music.
hello medtner
First time I hear it and i feel flabbergasted ❤
Love it!
If you dislike the style of this interpretation, listen to any extant piano roll recording of Scriabin playing his own pieces. It can be stranger.
Why all the bad comments about the interpretation? I find it very great
I don't know, I'm a musician and this interpretation is remarkable
It is very great, perhaps Trifonov's style isn't appealing to some hardcore conservative musicians
yes, the more "conservative" musicians usually dislike him, idk why tho
@@cadenzalien4554 This is most likely the case because of how Trifonov in this case doesn't exactly follow the score and indicated instructions by Scriabin. Compared to someone like Rachmaninoff as a performer, who is very strict with playing the music according to the sheet music.
@@cadenzalien4554 They're generally older people that look at the likes of Rubinstein, Horrowitz, Richter... as gods. They just shit on modern pianists despite the fact many modern pianists have far greater recordings of certain pieces from the older pianists.
Trifonov's Scriabin n.5 =
almost like Glenn Gould's interpretation
BUT with Regular Tempo as scores indicated
ONE OF MY FAVORITES RECORD!!!
this is really cool
좋은 연주 듣고 가요!
music note: 1:46 (and maybe 10 seconds before)
1:41 windows 10's sound effect?????
1:54
Hi
2:34 ?
10:40 Coda
10:56 con luminositá
Trifonov’s awful forced artificial rubato just adds to his plastic-sounding Scriabin. The imagination here is absent, and the dramatic elements surrounding Scriabins music, the roaring waves, thunder, flashes of light, caressing breeze, are all gone and replaced by an attempt to imitate them rather than embody them
I noticed the Medtner night wind pfp
@@KaikhosruShapurjiMedtner yes
Not a good interpretation.
Ouch. Could be better
Dude grow some ears. The sonorities he gets out of the piano are INSANE in this one
@@Jamesphilipjfrydude wtf is your point😭 the “sonorities” are great and therefore it’s a good interpretation? Also trifonovs tone and sound production is far from special anyways
He distorts a lot of the rhythms, I mean a little rubato is fine but in excess it comes across as distorted and sacrilegious to the written music itself.
Yes! I thought I noticed that. The opening has him cutting things short, elongating them, and that happens throughout... I think this piece is best when played with a lot of rubato, but the way he's done it here just feels inexact and odd.
I noticed that at 3:20
Whilst I totally agree that what he does here is very unique and oftentimes in disagreement with the score, I find Trifonov's interpretation to be very refreshing in most of this piece. There are only a few parts where I'd rather he did something different, but with all of his decisions I feel like there is musical justification for it, even if you might disagree!
I've been searching for the "perfect" interpretation of this piece for years and still haven't found it, so I'm starting to believe that it just doesn't exist...
I quite like that actually. I think this is somewhat of an ignorant comment as it does not take into account the majority of musical history where there was much much more room for interpretation, including adding notes and slight improvisation if it is justified. I think Trifonov clearly makes it work whilst being true to the score.
Were he playing the music of another composer like Ravel I would agree, but it’s Scriabin - who was known for his erratic rubato and almost always played his own works differently from the score. It’s also a piece about rapturous ecstasy - I’m not exactly looking for a pianist to take a controlled or measured approach when performing it.
More romantic with rubato
Less dream-like
It sounds horrible :/
@@cmcom893 Technically, it is a stunning piece, but unfortunately with a stunningly poor interpretation.
Why does it sound horrible? Maybe it's because he wrote very difficult piano music? Or isn't it because of the sound of the introduction and the coda?
@@IAmDylanPowers It has a meaning
This is one of the last pieces you can call horrible.
@@CatkhosruShapurrjiFurabjiI think he’s talking about the intepertation (and I agree)
3:52