Wow. I am blown away. I had goose bumps by listening this performance. Really great and well done. Nice voice leading, big dynamic range, tone volume, emotions, control, agogic... This performance has another dimension. 💪🔥🎶🎵
Astonishing...easily the best I've ever heard this work played. Such fire, yet such control...such abandon yet such awareness of the structural flow from one variation to the next.
Ausgezeichnete, interessante und konsistente Interpretation. Im abschließenden Presto überzieht die "Virtuosin" allerdings etwas: es wird rhytmisch zum Teil etwas unscharf / schwammig (zwischen rechter und linker Hand).
Very interesting interpreatation. But her Var. 13 is so slow, it sounds like a practice session. Terrible. Which part of 32nd notes combined with the markig "sempre assai leggiero" didn't she understand? The whole purpose of this variation is to be played fast and light feeted, not slow and clumsy. FLYING staccatos! My god, why do so many pianists just ignore the intention of the score at this point? It's not just Larrocha - so many interpretors make this mistake, it's unbelievable. Poor Mendelssohn.
Variations 5 and 15 are played too fast, Variatios 6, 7, 13, 16 and 17 too slow. Especially her interpretation of Var. 13 drives me crazy. Var. 12 is played SO perfectly powerful and fast, and so should be Var. 13 as well. Larrocha completely kicked me out of the mood and simply ruined the entire piece. You need to put the video's velocity on 1.5 or 1.25 to make her Var. 13 sound bearable. Larrocha should have played Vars. 6, 7, 13, 16 & 17 exactly the way Glenn Gould did it. She was a great pianist, there's no way she wouldn't have managed that. I really don't understand the reason why she didn't. Maybe her persoal "artistic" taste or smth. It would've been better if she had simply done what Mendelssohn intended to be done by the pianist. He didn't write tempo markings and dynamics to be ignored by some ignorant arrogant performer who thinks he's as much as an artist as the composer.
How I despise those who can't accept a different interpretation.. "Should do this, should do that, too fast, too slow, that's wrong, that must be played differently because I know exactly what Mendelssohn would have liked." Some ignorant arrogant commenter who thinks he's as much as an artist as the composer.
@@PianoJFAudioSheetIt's not like if music interpretation was like postmodern philosophy where objectivity doesn't exist. If you study a composer, his entire biography in detail, his euvre, his diaries, his letters to other people, what people wrote about him and his performances (in short: if you do a bit of historical research), you can get a clear picture of how he VERY likely played himself, and which renditions he would have critisized and why. But you don't even need to do that. If you want to know what Mendelssohn intended the pianist to do, you can read the score and respect it. There is a reason why composers write their music down. Sure, a false interpretation can be called "different", as well as claiming that the earth is flat can be called a different opinion although it's objectively wrong, which is fine. But that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.
@@allahuakbee846 You surely don't want to compare interpreting a piece of music to arguing about the shape of the earth? Still, we can have as many letters, diaries etc., we can NEVER know what he really might have liked and what he might not have liked, because performance has changed immensely within the past 200 years. We have countless recordings of pianists born in the 19th century and we encounter a much greater freedom with the score and huge differences in interpretation - in comparison more recent performances seem stiff, boring and uninspired. But that's being ignored and many musicians of today argue that we somehow would know better. Descriptions in letters and diaries are only one part of the truth. The other part is what it actually meant. The freedom you despise might not even be considered much freedom at all in the 1800s. And historic recordings confirm that.
This comment is completely valid though. I don't agree with it, but it's an difference of interpretation which everyone is entitled to. They liked one interpretation over another. I think that saying "it would have been better" objectively is rather close minded, but ultimately a fair opinion of the piece. When you said "like Mendelssohn intended," that's when I had a problem with this comment. Very cringe to assume you know what Mendelssohn is thinking. He is a tremendously celebrated composer and you aren't for a good reason.
@@rowanjones1435 Bro, Mendelssohn literally writes down what he intends - why do you think composers write sheet music? What an absurd argument. You don't have to be a genius composer yourself to know what some geniu composer intended to be done - just read the score and respect it. But the much more important philosophical question here is: should musicians respect the composer and his commands or should they narcissistically display what they themselves believe to be the correct interpretation? In short: should interpretors do the composer's thing or shouldl they do their own thing? Should an interpretor act as if he was an artist himself or should he know his place and accept that he is a tool himself - a tool to display the creativity and the will of someone much more genius and important than he himself ever could be?
![Liszt - Rhapsodie Espagnole, S.254 (Audio+Sheet) [Cziffra, live, 1976]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yl8IionLgmE/mqdefault.jpg)
My hands are cramping just from listening to this work
Wow. I am blown away. I had goose bumps by listening this performance. Really great and well done. Nice voice leading, big dynamic range, tone volume, emotions, control, agogic... This performance has another dimension. 💪🔥🎶🎵
Astonishing...easily the best I've ever heard this work played.
Such fire, yet such control...such abandon yet such awareness of the structural flow from one variation to the next.
The voicing in the first variation is astounding
Beautiful. Thank you, for posting this.
Beautiful!! Wonderful!!❤❤❤
HOT DAMN!
Why so sérieuse, Félix?
Ausgezeichnete, interessante und konsistente Interpretation. Im abschließenden Presto überzieht die "Virtuosin" allerdings etwas: es wird rhytmisch zum Teil etwas unscharf / schwammig (zwischen rechter und linker Hand).
やっぱりメンデルスゾーンはアルカンに似てる所がある
6:01
Very interesting interpreatation. But her Var. 13 is so slow, it sounds like a practice session. Terrible. Which part of 32nd notes combined with the markig "sempre assai leggiero" didn't she understand? The whole purpose of this variation is to be played fast and light feeted, not slow and clumsy. FLYING staccatos! My god, why do so many pianists just ignore the intention of the score at this point? It's not just Larrocha - so many interpretors make this mistake, it's unbelievable. Poor Mendelssohn.
Variations 5 and 15 are played too fast, Variatios 6, 7, 13, 16 and 17 too slow. Especially her interpretation of Var. 13 drives me crazy. Var. 12 is played SO perfectly powerful and fast, and so should be Var. 13 as well. Larrocha completely kicked me out of the mood and simply ruined the entire piece. You need to put the video's velocity on 1.5 or 1.25 to make her Var. 13 sound bearable.
Larrocha should have played Vars. 6, 7, 13, 16 & 17 exactly the way Glenn Gould did it. She was a great pianist, there's no way she wouldn't have managed that. I really don't understand the reason why she didn't. Maybe her persoal "artistic" taste or smth.
It would've been better if she had simply done what Mendelssohn intended to be done by the pianist. He didn't write tempo markings and dynamics to be ignored by some ignorant arrogant performer who thinks he's as much as an artist as the composer.
How I despise those who can't accept a different interpretation.. "Should do this, should do that, too fast, too slow, that's wrong, that must be played differently because I know exactly what Mendelssohn would have liked."
Some ignorant arrogant commenter who thinks he's as much as an artist as the composer.
@@PianoJFAudioSheetIt's not like if music interpretation was like postmodern philosophy where objectivity doesn't exist. If you study a composer, his entire biography in detail, his euvre, his diaries, his letters to other people, what people wrote about him and his performances (in short: if you do a bit of historical research), you can get a clear picture of how he VERY likely played himself, and which renditions he would have critisized and why.
But you don't even need to do that. If you want to know what Mendelssohn intended the pianist to do, you can read the score and respect it. There is a reason why composers write their music down.
Sure, a false interpretation can be called "different", as well as claiming that the earth is flat can be called a different opinion although it's objectively wrong, which is fine. But that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.
@@allahuakbee846 You surely don't want to compare interpreting a piece of music to arguing about the shape of the earth?
Still, we can have as many letters, diaries etc., we can NEVER know what he really might have liked and what he might not have liked, because performance has changed immensely within the past 200 years. We have countless recordings of pianists born in the 19th century and we encounter a much greater freedom with the score and huge differences in interpretation - in comparison more recent performances seem stiff, boring and uninspired. But that's being ignored and many musicians of today argue that we somehow would know better. Descriptions in letters and diaries are only one part of the truth. The other part is what it actually meant. The freedom you despise might not even be considered much freedom at all in the 1800s. And historic recordings confirm that.
This comment is completely valid though. I don't agree with it, but it's an difference of interpretation which everyone is entitled to. They liked one interpretation over another. I think that saying "it would have been better" objectively is rather close minded, but ultimately a fair opinion of the piece.
When you said "like Mendelssohn intended," that's when I had a problem with this comment. Very cringe to assume you know what Mendelssohn is thinking. He is a tremendously celebrated composer and you aren't for a good reason.
@@rowanjones1435 Bro, Mendelssohn literally writes down what he intends - why do you think composers write sheet music? What an absurd argument. You don't have to be a genius composer yourself to know what some geniu composer intended to be done - just read the score and respect it.
But the much more important philosophical question here is: should musicians respect the composer and his commands or should they narcissistically display what they themselves believe to be the correct interpretation? In short: should interpretors do the composer's thing or shouldl they do their own thing? Should an interpretor act as if he was an artist himself or should he know his place and accept that he is a tool himself - a tool to display the creativity and the will of someone much more genius and important than he himself ever could be?
❤️🎼🎹😍