merci monsieur Sokolov,,j'ai 58 ans et écoute ces pièces depuis toujours,,,,je suis pianiste ,et votre jeu dans son intelligence et son invention, quelle beauté,,, MERCI
Gould came, some hated him for being to expressive and "unlyrical" with Bachs works, Richter came people claimed he's "to lyrical", Harpsicord artists came and said "everything shall be played as original as possible. Everything else is heresy", Sokolov came and ended the "discussion". people want originality? All right then remove the teachings of ALL epochs that came after Bach. Eradicate them out of peoples minds. Romanticism, Impressionism, Expressionism... EVERYTHING. And then don't wonder why your interpretations are boring and toilet paper "clean". If you want to make good music TODAY, you have to combine ALL of the teachings and ADD your own "cream" on top of it. Sokolov is probably the only one who accomplished it so far. Historical plays are good for archives.
Sokolov is horrendous in almost everything. He'd be a much better pianist if he DIDN'T think for himself. He's eccentric to an extreme degree and it detracts from all of his performances.
@@flouz2 it's tough to say. Gould's attack is more true to the sound of a harpsichord, but what Bach would have done with the modern piano? I'm just happy to have all these interpretations of this amazing work
To each his own. Sokolov has such an individual approach to music that, being well outside the norm, his playing will offend some. I personally cannot stand him on the basis of musicianship, nor do I think his pianism merits special praise. Trifonov, to give an easy example is a better pianist and musician than Sokolov ever was, at any age
Remarquable interprétation qui rappelle un peu celle de Gould mais en plus chantant. A mon avis supérieure à celle de Richter, beaucoup trop sec et rapide . Tempo parfait dans le second prélude. Un véritable artiste.
I stared at that picture for at least 5 minutes trying to figure out if the book in the picture has a slight blue tint or if it’s just an optical illusion
François Asselineau Sokolov est particulièrement profond et intéressant. Remarquable avec Couperin et Rameau qu'il nous donne à redécouvrir. Vive l'UPR ;-)
I AGREE WITH U.......MAYB TOO MANY STACCATI....? BUT WE MUST NOT FORGET ANYWAY, IT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THE PIANO....SO MAYB ITS CLOSER TO THE HARPSICHORD IN A WAY....?ITS HOWEVER GREAT AND INTERESTING ....
I'll take Sokolov over any other pianist today.But, here, I think he is a bit over-enthusiastic.BTW-anyone else hear problems with the tuning of the piano? a metallic overtone with a few notes?
Nobody can deny Sokolov's pianistic and artistic abilities, nor his ability of polyphonic playing and feeling for the harmonic tension. However, I find he uses an excessive staccato playing, which rather irritates at least me. Maybe it helps clarify the voices? However, it isn't Baroque - only a misunderstood Baroque performance practice uses excessive staccato. Likely Sokolov doesn't care about that though.
The slight staccato is to imitate the plucking of the harpsichord strings, imho.... You need a genius pianist to carry it through... His pedaling is interesting.
Playing Bach properly is not a matter of imitating the harpsichord or following any superficial notions of the "Baroque style". What makes Bach unique from most Baroque composers is his pieces are not tied down to a specific sonority. Meaning, playing a harpsichord will not necessarily capture all the nuances or clarify the structure of the piece. In fact, the piano offers quite a lot of advantages (e.g dynamic range, which are necessary to highlight the ups and downs in energy of Bach) over other keyboards. And yes even the pedal is a perfectly usable tool even if many professionals avoid it like the plague based on superficial understanding of Bach's music. I find Richter's interpretations for some of the WTC to be ingenious for instance. The first prelude - as TheNimbleTurtle - mentioned is incredible. He does not bring over articulate some phrases as most pianists, plays with a steady tempo, meticulous dynamic nuisance, etc. Actually he does not even use the pedal that much, he simply recorded it in a setting with more reverb than usual. Reverb is necessary in Bach's music. Without it, you hear all the nuisances of the instrument that distract the brain from the structure of this great music.
It could be an attempt to intimidate the harpsichord, Gould modelled his playing and the way he had his particular piano set up around such notions. But I think it is more likely his bringing a new light to the works. Sokolov is a wizard, there seems to be no limit to what he can achieve. We can be very sure he wanted it to sound exactly like this. The staccato gives a delicacy and precision in the C major. I suspect he wanted to catch some of the dance like elements rather than the lyrical line that someone like Richter highlights.
Besides the fact both of them are preferring the Steinway's sound to that of the harpsichord, I don't actually feel that 'influence' you're talking about... ;-)
Like almost everyone, he plays the second prelude like a jackhammer. Don't pianists realize the piece sounds horrendous when it is banged out like that? This may be one piece where the piano can't compete with the harpsichord
Темпы во второй прелюдии спорны, такая пошлая манера неприсуща Соколову, трудные долгие dim and cresh тоже отсутствуют, а они под силу такому мастеру и т.д. Много еще важных мелочей, но я не собираюсь вас учить. Вам нравится? Cool!
merci monsieur Sokolov,,j'ai 58 ans et écoute ces pièces depuis toujours,,,,je suis pianiste ,et votre jeu dans son intelligence et son invention, quelle beauté,,, MERCI
The D Minor prelude fast passage is some of the most terrifyingly accurate playing I have ever heard.
I love the new A.Schiff performance, but this unleashed Sokolov is a favorite for me for a long time and it still remains.
Bach's WTC on steroids - well done, Bravo!
This has a sublime beauty. Fantastic!
Unusual tempi-J.S. Bach was waiting for Sokolov
A very surprising interpretation,
But ofcourse Sokolov!
Браво, интересное исполнение !
Gould came, some hated him for being to expressive and "unlyrical" with Bachs works, Richter came people claimed he's "to lyrical", Harpsicord artists came and said "everything shall be played as original as possible. Everything else is heresy", Sokolov came and ended the "discussion".
people want originality? All right then remove the teachings of ALL epochs that came after Bach. Eradicate them out of peoples minds. Romanticism, Impressionism, Expressionism... EVERYTHING. And then don't wonder why your interpretations are boring and toilet paper "clean".
If you want to make good music TODAY, you have to combine ALL of the teachings and ADD your own "cream" on top of it. Sokolov is probably the only one who accomplished it so far.
Historical plays are good for archives.
Sokolov is horrendous in almost everything. He'd be a much better pianist if he DIDN'T think for himself. He's eccentric to an extreme degree and it detracts from all of his performances.
@@marksmith3947you're obviously clueless
@@chrrev1 many people can't stand Sokolov. Few bother commenting to this effect, because the Sokolov fan boys are so insistent - - and tedious
@@marksmith3947 as if "many" meant anything... yes there are many deaf idiots, on this I agree...
Quel bon réveil, Merci
Is Sokolov's interpretation the new "Gould"-standard for this great Bach work? For me, I can answer this probably with a "yes".
hear hear!!
I actually think for this particular piece this is better than Gould.
Eventhough I still believe Gould's "dry" touch suits Bach more
@@flouz2 it's tough to say. Gould's attack is more true to the sound of a harpsichord, but what Bach would have done with the modern piano? I'm just happy to have all these interpretations of this amazing work
To each his own. Sokolov has such an individual approach to music that, being well outside the norm, his playing will offend some. I personally cannot stand him on the basis of musicianship, nor do I think his pianism merits special praise. Trifonov, to give an easy example is a better pianist and musician than Sokolov ever was, at any age
Remarquable interprétation qui rappelle un peu celle de Gould mais en plus chantant. A mon avis supérieure à celle de Richter, beaucoup trop sec et rapide . Tempo parfait dans le second prélude. Un véritable artiste.
What an advertisement for Henle..
Of course! :)
Funnily enough it actually is from a Henle advertisement... I believe the motto was "I pick Henle blue'
Well, Henle is the best for Bach after all.
I believe I have the ABRSM version of book 1 and I've never had a problem with it.
Me encanta este pianista. Se habla poco de él, pero para mí es uno de los mejores.
Es el mejor pianista vivo.
y el más humilde...
Beauty
I stared at that picture for at least 5 minutes trying to figure out if the book in the picture has a slight blue tint or if it’s just an optical illusion
Très différent de la version de Rosalyn Tureck. Tout aussi intelligent et sensible avec l'avantage de la qualité de son.
François Asselineau
Sokolov est particulièrement profond et intéressant. Remarquable avec Couperin et Rameau qu'il nous donne à redécouvrir. Vive l'UPR ;-)
Like Gould Richter Horowitz Gilels: a genius but what to say about Bach?
wow.
5:22
Where is the D# minor prelude?
Yes, sir.
I AGREE WITH U.......MAYB TOO MANY STACCATI....? BUT WE MUST NOT FORGET ANYWAY, IT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THE PIANO....SO MAYB ITS CLOSER TO THE HARPSICHORD IN A WAY....?ITS HOWEVER GREAT AND INTERESTING ....
In this performance Grigory is too mechanical. For Bach my heart resonates with Till Fellner. Gregory is great with Rameau and Schumann.
How much of the staccato is due to his use of less pedal than many performers? M. Sokolov seems more attuned to using his hands than his feet.
Listen to his Chopin. His pedalling is outstanding.
I'll take Sokolov over any other pianist today.But, here, I think he is a bit over-enthusiastic.BTW-anyone else hear problems with the tuning of the piano? a metallic overtone with a few notes?
Thank you for the "overtone" comment. I was about to reach for a Q-tip.
7
Nobody can deny Sokolov's pianistic and artistic abilities, nor his ability of polyphonic playing and feeling for the harmonic tension. However, I find he uses an excessive staccato playing, which rather irritates at least me. Maybe it helps clarify the voices? However, it isn't Baroque - only a misunderstood Baroque performance practice uses excessive staccato. Likely Sokolov doesn't care about that though.
The slight staccato is to imitate the plucking of the harpsichord strings, imho.... You need a genius pianist to carry it through... His pedaling is interesting.
absolutely , he plays harpsichord, I thought the same
Playing Bach properly is not a matter of imitating the harpsichord or following any superficial notions of the "Baroque style". What makes Bach unique from most Baroque composers is his pieces are not tied down to a specific sonority. Meaning, playing a harpsichord will not necessarily capture all the nuances or clarify the structure of the piece. In fact, the piano offers quite a lot of advantages (e.g dynamic range, which are necessary to highlight the ups and downs in energy of Bach) over other keyboards. And yes even the pedal is a perfectly usable tool even if many professionals avoid it like the plague based on superficial understanding of Bach's music.
I find Richter's interpretations for some of the WTC to be ingenious for instance. The first prelude - as TheNimbleTurtle - mentioned is incredible. He does not bring over articulate some phrases as most pianists, plays with a steady tempo, meticulous dynamic nuisance, etc. Actually he does not even use the pedal that much, he simply recorded it in a setting with more reverb than usual. Reverb is necessary in Bach's music. Without it, you hear all the nuisances of the instrument that distract the brain from the structure of this great music.
It could be an attempt to intimidate the harpsichord, Gould modelled his playing and the way he had his particular piano set up around such notions. But I think it is more likely his bringing a new light to the works. Sokolov is a wizard, there seems to be no limit to what he can achieve. We can be very sure he wanted it to sound exactly like this. The staccato gives a delicacy and precision in the C major. I suspect he wanted to catch some of the dance like elements rather than the lyrical line that someone like Richter highlights.
how do you know? were you there in 1700 ?
23:21
"Like" on 26 December 2017
❤️☀️🎶🎶....^_^
Much influenced by Glenn Gould
I would say Richter. Auf jeden Fall, wunderschön!
y a quién no influenció gould?
Besides the fact both of them are preferring the Steinway's sound to that of the harpsichord, I don't actually feel that 'influence' you're talking about... ;-)
I would have thought much influenced by Bach.
Un grand artiste ! Certes, mais ces tempi "allègre" et cette sonorité par trop brillante ( à mon goût dans cette œuvre) ne sonnent pas très "Bach".
Ah bon, vous alliez aux concerts de Bach en 1720? 😂
When red john is in a hurry...
Das Staccato in BWV 846 P ist unnötig prätentiös, m. E.
no
Like almost everyone, he plays the second prelude like a jackhammer. Don't pianists realize the piece sounds horrendous when it is banged out like that? This may be one piece where the piano can't compete with the harpsichord
Sokolov ain't "everyone"... World class concert pianist. Heard of the word humility?!.
@@chrrev1 some people like him. I accept that. I can't stand him. More to the point, he is not a top pianist by any stretch of the imagination
@@marksmith3947 he isn't? And says who? you and a bunch of retards? Seriously 😂
Хуже только Гульд
quel enregistrement lamentable!! dommage pour cet artiste originale et excellent
Émettre de telles affirmations sans les étayer d'un solide argumentaire frise le ridicule, Monsieur ! ;-)
Great technic, but give me Andras Schiff.
Schiff is good, but boring.
@@chrrev1I agree that Schiff is dull, but at least he's not so offensive that I grind my teeth.
@@marksmith3947 well stick to Schiff then , buh bye.
Две первые Прелюдии неубедительно исполнены. Сомнительно, чтобы Соколов так интерпретировал Баха.
Темпы во второй прелюдии спорны, такая пошлая манера неприсуща Соколову, трудные долгие dim and cresh тоже отсутствуют, а они под силу такому мастеру и т.д. Много еще важных мелочей, но я не собираюсь вас учить. Вам нравится? Cool!
Where is Eb minor prelude?
Really looked forward to hearing that. A pity.
ruclips.net/video/vXbBOWlkR9g/видео.html