in summary, i find that arrau has been well liked all over the world for many decades becasue, for the simlple concertgoer he has an irresistible beautyfull singing sound that everyone loves. For the sofisticated musician, there more one knows and learns, he is the most complete and balanced artist because of his high finished pianism and musicianship..
My God why are some people so stupid and have to argue on a performance video who is a better pianist ? It is music, there is no better because everybody has a different taste.
Beethoven, in all his music does not have ANGER the way we understand it in people, i can hear passion, drama, tragedy, hopelessness, sadness but never a place where to be aggressive against the instrument one is playing. many a times i hear Richter bang the instrument. Arrau's legacy to art is precisely his uncanny abiluty to express tension and every emotion in the piano, this has been said by MANY of the great pianists, condutcors of the past. his sense of rubato is second to none.
Regarding the sound it´s pretty much up to the technician. Richter didn´t like studio recordings, and most of the records are live from concerts. But I´m glad you have so decisive preferences, and when it comes to piano playing so have I. And we are obviously in different worlds here, so let others choose for themselves.
@samsonno. the clairity, the sound, the legato, the power, the colors, the cantabile, etc, are unsurpassable to this day,.... Arrau performed in public the cycle of the 32 sonatas and recorded them more than any other pianist alive or dead. Spiritually speaking, and depth of interpretation, he is without peers, having said that, one may say, YES Arrau was a greater ALL AROUND pianist/artist, but you may prefer Richter, as a personal choice,...
@arturon111 I agree. In favor of Richter. Just listen to Appassionata 3rd mv: where is the sparkle, the tension, the dynamics in Arrau´s playing?You find both versions here on YT. I find Richter´s timing, his ability to build tensions and his structural overview outstanding. To my ears Arrau is pale and grey in comparison. I prefer Richter, you Arrau, it´s so simple as that.
dont know what long answer on any case, Arrau is FAMOUS worldwide precisely on the ability to project climaxes in a very dramatic and exciting way. His sound is HUGE without ever being harsh or stiff !!!. I acknowledge that Richter was a great pianist, however not in the same artistic/musical level as Arrau, and his sound was harsh at times and not as singing as Arrau or other great pianists. Just listen to Beethoven op 111 the arietta, between Arrau and Richter there is a world of difference
@zfarmboy09 I couldn't agree more, I was at an incredible concert yesterday of Zemlinsky songs and the woman sat behind me was moaning about the singer. I felt like knocking her out...
@samsonno so do i, iplay professionally, and agree there are many opinions, however the facts are the facts. it is documented that Arrau had the biggest repertoire of all pianists, he is the only pianist EVER to have played FROM MEMORY in public in 12 recitals ALL Bach's works, as well as Mozart's Beethoven's Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, Ravel, Brahms, most of Liszt etc... ALSO, hear the most difficult pieces such as Chopin Etudes/preludes, Hammerklavier, etc....the speed
Yes, I play piano professionally and I have listened to pianists both live and on disc for over 50 years. Let me just say that difference of opinion is what makes life interesting and always is the starting point for valueable discussion, so yours is of course as good as mine.
There is much anger in Beethoven´s music, he was a very eruptive man with a fierce temerament as you know. Richter isn´t angry in the sense you see him, but he is much stronger than Arrau both physically and emotionally and have a broader dynamic range. Arrau´s rubato is very unmotivated in my view, he does ritardandi and accelerandi in places where it´s not marked in the score and totally odd. Just listen to Appasionata once more or Mendelssohn´s Rondo Capriccio and you see what I mean.
I heard Richter in concert, I am sorry his sound is beautifull and his dynamic is under control from the pianissimi to the fortissimi. I like very much Arrau but he lacks humour. If you have no humour ,you don't understand Beethoven.Richter has a great humour .That is why he is also a great interpret of many Beethoven's pieces
I have written a long answer to you, but this page don´t allow me to post it. It keeps saying the answer is too long even if it isn´t, so I give up. I have posted it several times but it continues being rejected.
you have it all wrong. sorry to tell you, Colin Davis and Rozdetsvensky commented after playing with Arrau concerts, that there was no greater vitouso/musician than Arrau, his technique was limitless, and had nothing to do with physical power. he played with weight, so as de Larrocha, and both had more power (bigger souond) when they wanted than bigger physically speaking people like Bolet. Richter was a taller man, but he played the best one can play the russian way. Arrau was different
by the way, many of the above artists and many others praised arrau, including, bernsetin, barenboim, horowitz himslef, serkin, de larrocha, and many great conductors and singers like Callas, placido domingo, pavarotti etc,. i show modesty, this is a discussion in musical taste only,...
I could give you a million references, but the site doesn´t allow me to post links, that was the reason my postings were rejected earlier. I don´t think we will agree on this subject. I wish you happy listening!
I completely disagree. Of course a musician plays with agression when the music requires it. Richter was also highly praised for his legato and cantabile.Listen to the interview with Artur Rubinstein, and many many more outstanding musicians and critics feel the same. But what´s the point in arguing - it would be a dull world if everone argeed. Then only one pianist would be necessary, and that would be a shame, don´t you think? Some like the mother and some the daughter .
Your "facts" are not mine. Just listen to Richter playing Schubert´s sonata in A major or his execution of Debussy here on YT. I don´t think you can call that angry or harsh. It´s obvious that we don´t have the same ears, and you will not be able to change my mind. I have listened to Arrau more than enough and I don´t find him very interesting. I´m sorry, but that´s my fact.
Ok. As you say, it is a matter of opinion. So in your view Gould, Neuhaus, Rubinstein, Britten, Sofronitsky, Cliburn as well as Fischer Dieskau, David Oistrakh, Rostropovich etc. etc. were mistaken when they praised Richter´s pianism. It is not wrong trusting oneself, but in this case I think you ought to show a little modesty, my friend. From my side this discussion is closed.
@arturon111, plus i find Richter's Beethoven rather dry and sometimes dull, needs more polyphony, rubato. I have never been a fan of Richter, although i do recognize he was a great pianist, just listen to the winter wind etude of chopin or the fugue of the hammerklavier with arrau and richter,... the clarity, legato, speed and power that arrau achieves no one, to this day has been able to equal (these are 2 of the most difficult pieces in the piano repertoire).
You are dreaming! Bigger repertoire - hah, look up Richter´s discography! And in all other respects you are mistaken - forgive me! But you are of course entitled to your opinion, I just happen to have onother point of view.
@arturon111 . His technique was all natural - what is that? Please explain, what is "natural" in this matter? And why is other pianists technique not so? They play the music -- and that is the point? No? What do you think of Horowitz? Was his technique natural, or what about Arcadi Volodos, maybe the best pianist of today? - We know what you mean regarding Arrau by now, so please - stop this. You are surely the one person in the world who understand about piano playing.
as far as dynamics, Arrau mastered them all, he could play louder and/or softer,...than anyone plus because of his weight technique he was able to play very fast 16th notes loud, such as chopin prelude # 16 and many of the etudes,... almost no one can play like, that, people would play loud accents or loud chords but not fast loud notes, certainly richter did not play like that...
Have anyone measured in real life the loud-/softness of any pianist? How many decibel was Arrau´s fortissimo compared to other pianists --- this is ridiculous, and if you take the trouble listening to Richter play the cadenza of Britten´s piano concerto (here on YT) you can maybe hear his dynamic abilities that in my opinion (and many others) was beyond most pianists. I can say a lot more at this matter, but I think we ought to close this discussion now and agree that we disagree. Ok?
Of course Beethoven as well as Prokofiev needs to be played with anger and tension in much of his music, his whole life was filled with drama! Especially his later works are as far from pure "entertainment" music as they can come! And Richter of course understood this.
@samsonno: Contrary to your opinion, i dont like Richter's sound at the piano, it is harsh, and plays with agression, not with nobility, power or grandeur. he does plays accurate and fast, but lacks depth of emotion and spirit. I was very fortunate to have heard Arrau live with the Appassionata many times, and to this day no one can play it like him, full of drama, excitement and power was his playing even when Arrau was at his 80s.
personal taste for sure,... but facts are facts,... pianists that had a beautiful singing sound are Arrau, Rubinstein and de Larrocha, Kempff too,... anger and agression exist in music but not in the same way we, people do it, for instance, in Beethovens' and all barroque, classical, romantic and impressionistic music anger and agression are not against the instrument but in the volume of sound and rubato,
Arraus technique was all natural, he could play anything at any speed and volume,... as far as his rubato, again youre wrong, it is based on harmonic tension, and not on hysterical playing, like many russian/other pianist play. He adhere to the written score more than any pianist but he understood the harmonic tensions in each phrase and played them accordingly, his rubato ALWAYS makes sense, but again, it is at a higher level of understainging and you have to LISTEN.there is nothing random
We certainly disagree, but that is ok, not? Arrau and Richter were different kind of pianists, and I prefer Richter, listening to Arrau makes me fall asleep in comparison. i do not care by whom and how Arrau was regarded, I have reached my conclusions based on performing and listening to music for over 50 years (I am 65 now). I realise you are crusading for Arrau , but what´s the point in repeating yourself? These things are subjective, to claim objectivity here is sheer madness.
Of South American pianists I find Martha Argerich - and nowadays Ingrid Fliter - to be the most interesting, but Arrau and Barenboim are also good of course, but a bit boring. They don´t have the sparkle and humour in their music making that Richter was so renowned for.
@arturon111. Ok, you win. Satisfied? I don´t care to discuss this any more, you keep repeating youself and point to others in favor of your view. I could easily dig up thousands of statements in favor of mine, but I don´t think you would even take the trouble to let them affect you. So what´s the point? --- Sorry mate, you are very persistent - even if your view in this matter is all wrong.
@samsonno of course !!! Arrau, had a better sound, more cantabile, legato, and more clarity than Richter,... had, by far, more spiritual and deeper interpretations, had a bigger repertoire, greater technique,.. and more beautiful sound !!! not percussive as Richter's.
i disagree with you totally, arrau was regarded as the best interpreter of betthoven for several decades and played the cylce of the sonatas more than anyone else during his life, also, he does play with humor, but not bannaly like many others due. his humor was more intellectual,...but came across as "elegant/aristocratic humor" listen to op.7 4th mov, or op 10-2 1st movement, he plays with gracefullnes,...
no, horowitz technique was NOT "natural", meaning, that he played with weight and natural movements, from the russian pianists only Kissin and berezovsky mioht have a more natural technique as far as volodos, in my opinion is not at all the best pianist today, he has some great transcriptions and plays well, but that does not make him the best pianist, i am sorry but no, a great pianist is both a great technician and great musician, gieseking was a fantastic pianist who had a natural technique.
i could also point out 100's of statements supporting what i say,.. it is matter of opinion and character,... and how each person views arts/music. personally i find richter boring and agressive,... i acknowledge his ability to play fast,.. i am always looking in equal measure for the artisitc/musical/meaning that the performer is projecting,... and i have my personal favorites and people whom i respect but dont like,...
I'm right, you are wrong. no....I am right, YOU are wrong. Let me say it a different way...you are wrong and I am right!.... ok ok ...you think you are right but actually you are WRONG and I am right. You are right? no way...let me tell you..you ARE wrong and I am right ....etc etc etc ..end of discussion. (thank god!).
So straightforward
So brief
So clever
So fierce
So clear
So perfect
in summary, i find that arrau has been well liked all over the world for many decades becasue, for the simlple concertgoer he has an irresistible beautyfull singing sound that everyone loves. For the sofisticated musician, there more one knows and learns, he is the most complete and balanced artist because of his high finished pianism and musicianship..
Great interpretation and beautiful rendition!! Astounding ~
My God why are some people so stupid and have to argue on a performance video who is a better pianist ? It is music, there is no better because everybody has a different taste.
yes, stupid is the right word
Excellent !
Thanks
Beautiful !
Thanks
perfect!!!!! thanks soooo much !!!!!
Wuahu!
This is great, it's Divine!!!!
Beethoven, in all his music does not have ANGER the way we understand it in people, i can hear passion, drama, tragedy, hopelessness, sadness but never a place where to be aggressive against the instrument one is playing. many a times i hear Richter bang the instrument. Arrau's legacy to art is precisely his uncanny abiluty to express tension and every emotion in the piano, this has been said by MANY of the great pianists, condutcors of the past. his sense of rubato is second to none.
Perfect...
Regarding the sound it´s pretty much up to the technician. Richter didn´t like studio recordings, and most of the records are live from concerts.
But I´m glad you have so decisive preferences, and when it comes to piano playing so have I. And we are obviously in different worlds here, so let others choose for themselves.
@samsonno. the clairity, the sound, the legato, the power, the colors, the cantabile, etc, are unsurpassable to this day,.... Arrau performed in public the cycle of the 32 sonatas and recorded them more than any other pianist alive or dead. Spiritually speaking, and depth of interpretation, he is without peers, having said that, one may say, YES Arrau was a greater ALL AROUND pianist/artist, but you may prefer Richter, as a personal choice,...
@arturon111 I agree. In favor of Richter. Just listen to Appassionata 3rd mv: where is the sparkle, the tension, the dynamics in Arrau´s playing?You find both versions here on YT.
I find Richter´s timing, his ability to build tensions and his structural overview outstanding. To my ears Arrau is pale and grey in comparison. I prefer Richter, you Arrau, it´s so simple as that.
Un jeu subtilement fluide et cristallin...
Fucking perfect!! sorry for my words, but this is a piece of light for life!
dont know what long answer on any case, Arrau is FAMOUS worldwide precisely on the ability to project climaxes in a very dramatic and exciting way. His sound is HUGE without ever being harsh or stiff !!!. I acknowledge that Richter was a great pianist, however not in the same artistic/musical level as Arrau, and his sound was harsh at times and not as singing as Arrau or other great pianists. Just listen to Beethoven op 111 the arietta, between Arrau and Richter there is a world of difference
@beneludwig this may not be a "song", but Richter's beautiful singing legato is so nice
@zfarmboy09 I couldn't agree more, I was at an incredible concert yesterday of Zemlinsky songs and the woman sat behind me was moaning about the singer. I felt like knocking her out...
@samsonno so do i, iplay professionally, and agree there are many opinions, however the facts are the facts. it is documented that Arrau had the biggest repertoire of all pianists, he is the only pianist EVER to have played FROM MEMORY in public in 12 recitals ALL Bach's works, as well as Mozart's Beethoven's Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, Ravel, Brahms, most of Liszt etc... ALSO, hear the most difficult pieces such as Chopin Etudes/preludes, Hammerklavier, etc....the speed
Yes, I play piano professionally and I have listened to pianists both live and on disc for over 50 years. Let me just say that difference of opinion is what makes life interesting and always is the starting point for valueable discussion, so yours is of course as good as mine.
There is much anger in Beethoven´s music, he was a very eruptive man with a fierce temerament as you know. Richter isn´t angry in the sense you see him, but he is much stronger than Arrau both physically and emotionally and have a broader dynamic range. Arrau´s rubato is very unmotivated in my view, he does ritardandi and accelerandi in places where it´s not marked in the score and totally odd. Just listen to Appasionata once more or Mendelssohn´s Rondo Capriccio and you see what I mean.
I heard Richter in concert, I am sorry his sound is beautifull and his dynamic is under control from the pianissimi to the fortissimi.
I like very much Arrau but he lacks humour.
If you have no humour ,you don't understand Beethoven.Richter has a great humour .That is why he is also a great interpret of many Beethoven's pieces
I have written a long answer to you, but this page don´t allow me to post it. It keeps saying the answer is too long even if it isn´t, so I give up. I have posted it several times but it continues being rejected.
you have it all wrong. sorry to tell you, Colin Davis and Rozdetsvensky commented after playing with Arrau concerts, that there was no greater vitouso/musician than Arrau, his technique was limitless, and had nothing to do with physical power. he played with weight, so as de Larrocha, and both had more power (bigger souond) when they wanted than bigger physically speaking people like Bolet. Richter was a taller man, but he played the best one can play the russian way. Arrau was different
by the way, many of the above artists and many others praised arrau, including, bernsetin, barenboim, horowitz himslef, serkin, de larrocha, and many great conductors and singers like Callas, placido domingo, pavarotti etc,. i show modesty, this is a discussion in musical taste only,...
I could give you a million references, but the site doesn´t allow me to post links, that was the reason my postings were rejected earlier.
I don´t think we will agree on this subject. I wish you happy listening!
I completely disagree. Of course a musician plays with agression when the music requires it. Richter was also highly praised for his legato and cantabile.Listen to the interview with Artur Rubinstein, and many many more outstanding musicians and critics feel the same.
But what´s the point in arguing - it would be a dull world if everone argeed. Then only one pianist would be necessary, and that would be a shame, don´t you think? Some like the mother and some the daughter .
Your "facts" are not mine. Just listen to Richter playing Schubert´s sonata in A major or his execution of Debussy here on YT. I don´t think you can call that angry or harsh. It´s obvious that we don´t have the same ears, and you will not be able to change my mind. I have listened to Arrau more than enough and I don´t find him very interesting. I´m sorry, but that´s my fact.
@samsonno Richter plays chords that sound harsh, and stiff, that may be good for Prokofiev but certainly not for Beethoven
Ok. As you say, it is a matter of opinion. So in your view Gould, Neuhaus, Rubinstein, Britten, Sofronitsky, Cliburn as well as Fischer Dieskau, David Oistrakh, Rostropovich etc. etc. were mistaken when they praised Richter´s pianism. It is not wrong trusting oneself, but in this case I think you ought to show a little modesty, my friend.
From my side this discussion is closed.
@arturon111, plus i find Richter's Beethoven rather dry and sometimes dull, needs more polyphony, rubato. I have never been a fan of Richter, although i do recognize he was a great pianist, just listen to the winter wind etude of chopin or the fugue of the hammerklavier with arrau and richter,... the clarity, legato, speed and power that arrau achieves no one, to this day has been able to equal (these are 2 of the most difficult pieces in the piano repertoire).
No way man!
You are dreaming! Bigger repertoire - hah, look up Richter´s discography! And in all other respects you are mistaken - forgive me! But you are of course entitled to your opinion, I just happen to have onother point of view.
@arturon111 . His technique was all natural - what is that? Please explain, what is "natural" in this matter? And why is other pianists technique not so? They play the music -- and that is the point? No? What do you think of Horowitz? Was his technique natural, or what about Arcadi Volodos, maybe the best pianist of today? - We know what you mean regarding Arrau by now, so please - stop this. You are surely the one person in the world who understand about piano playing.
as far as dynamics, Arrau mastered them all, he could play louder and/or softer,...than anyone plus because of his weight technique he was able to play very fast 16th notes loud, such as chopin prelude # 16 and many of the etudes,... almost no one can play like, that, people would play loud accents or loud chords but not fast loud notes, certainly richter did not play like that...
Have anyone measured in real life the loud-/softness of any pianist? How many decibel was Arrau´s fortissimo compared to other pianists --- this is ridiculous, and if you take the trouble listening to Richter play the cadenza of Britten´s piano concerto (here on YT) you can maybe hear his dynamic abilities that in my opinion (and many others) was beyond most pianists. I can say a lot more at this matter, but I think we ought to close this discussion now and agree that we disagree. Ok?
Of course Beethoven as well as Prokofiev needs to be played with anger and tension in much of his music, his whole life was filled with drama! Especially his later works are as far from pure "entertainment" music as they can come! And Richter of course understood this.
are you a pianist??? do you know about pianists???
@samsonno: Contrary to your opinion, i dont like Richter's sound at the piano, it is harsh, and plays with agression, not with nobility, power or grandeur. he does plays accurate and fast, but lacks depth of emotion and spirit. I was very fortunate to have heard Arrau live with the Appassionata many times, and to this day no one can play it like him, full of drama, excitement and power was his playing even when Arrau was at his 80s.
personal taste for sure,... but facts are facts,... pianists that had a beautiful singing sound are Arrau, Rubinstein and de Larrocha, Kempff too,... anger and agression exist in music but not in the same way we, people do it, for instance, in Beethovens' and all barroque, classical, romantic and impressionistic music anger and agression are not against the instrument but in the volume of sound and rubato,
Arraus technique was all natural, he could play anything at any speed and volume,... as far as his rubato, again youre wrong, it is based on harmonic tension, and not on hysterical playing, like many russian/other pianist play. He adhere to the written score more than any pianist but he understood the harmonic tensions in each phrase and played them accordingly, his rubato ALWAYS makes sense, but again, it is at a higher level of understainging and you have to LISTEN.there is nothing random
We certainly disagree, but that is ok, not? Arrau and Richter were different kind of pianists, and I prefer Richter, listening to Arrau makes me fall asleep in comparison. i do not care by whom and how Arrau was regarded, I have reached my conclusions based on performing and listening to music for over 50 years (I am 65 now). I realise you are crusading for Arrau , but what´s the point in repeating yourself? These things are subjective, to claim objectivity here is sheer madness.
Of South American pianists I find Martha Argerich - and nowadays Ingrid Fliter - to be the most interesting, but Arrau and Barenboim are also good of course, but a bit boring. They don´t have the sparkle and humour in their music making that Richter was so renowned for.
Richter is much better than Horovitz.
of course, no doubt:-)
song comes from singing
@arturon111. Ok, you win. Satisfied? I don´t care to discuss this any more, you keep repeating youself and point to others in favor of your view. I could easily dig up thousands of statements in favor of mine, but I don´t think you would even take the trouble to let them affect you. So what´s the point? --- Sorry mate, you are very persistent - even if your view in this matter is all wrong.
Arrau is a greater interpreter/pianist of Beethoven than Richter
@samsonno of course !!! Arrau, had a better sound, more cantabile, legato, and more clarity than Richter,... had, by far, more spiritual and deeper interpretations, had a bigger repertoire, greater technique,.. and more beautiful sound !!! not percussive as Richter's.
i disagree with you totally, arrau was regarded as the best interpreter of betthoven for several decades and played the cylce of the sonatas more than anyone else during his life, also, he does play with humor, but not bannaly like many others due. his humor was more intellectual,...but came across as "elegant/aristocratic humor" listen to op.7 4th mov, or op 10-2 1st movement, he plays with gracefullnes,...
no, horowitz technique was NOT "natural", meaning, that he played with weight and natural movements, from the russian pianists only Kissin and berezovsky mioht have a more natural technique as far as volodos, in my opinion is not at all the best pianist today, he has some great transcriptions and plays well, but that does not make him the best pianist, i am sorry but no, a great pianist is both a great technician and great musician, gieseking was a fantastic pianist who had a natural technique.
i could also point out 100's of statements supporting what i say,.. it is matter of opinion and character,... and how each person views arts/music. personally i find richter boring and agressive,... i acknowledge his ability to play fast,.. i am always looking in equal measure for the artisitc/musical/meaning that the performer is projecting,... and i have my personal favorites and people whom i respect but dont like,...
I'm right, you are wrong. no....I am right, YOU are wrong. Let me say it a different way...you are wrong and I am right!.... ok ok ...you think you are right but actually you are WRONG and I am right. You are right? no way...let me tell you..you ARE wrong and I am right ....etc etc etc ..end of discussion. (thank god!).
these endless discussion here is disgusting