Ferruccio Busoni's piano transcription of Johann Sebastian Bach's masterful Chaconne in D minor (originally written for solo violin), played by Marc-André Hamelin, live in concert.
I have known this music for six of my nearly eight decades. I never tire of it. This palace of sound authored by Bach/Busoni and executed by Hamlin must rival the music of eternity.
I swear, once one understands the historical background to the Bach Chaconne -- here glorified by Busoni and played by the superlative Hamelin -- one may not find a more astounding and triumphant work of art. Unforgettable.
enfin un commentaire en francais ! ca me rassure , je ne suis pas le seul francais a ecouter de la musique de bach et a metre des commentaires !merci a vous et a marc_ andre hamelin / m pierre xavier de chassot .
I had the privilege of listening to Hamelin, in Sao Paulo. His mastery of sound, expressiveness and technique are unbelievable. Definitely, he is one of the greatest pianists of today.
This is a hermit depicting a hermit, a saint depicting a saint, a sacred performance of a sacred piece of music. Do not tell me any other performances, for I will dismiss you. This is rendering Bach as a godly musician which he really was. I can hear the organ through this absolutely majestic performance!
Hamelin's performance of Chaconne is one of the best (if not the best) I've heard so far. I own his all recordings and I am convince that he is on the path to become one of the greatest pianists of the XXI century. Incidentally, it's a pity that Chaconne performance by Rosalyn Tureck is missing on RUclips. I mention it because it's been suggested in some comments (see below) that Hamelin is playing on Bosendorfer. It so happened that Tureck's played on Bosendorfer, which sounds with its characteristic deep timbre, which I cannot hear in Hamelin's recording. Of course, I may be wrong because it's known what a skilled piano tuner can do with/to the instrument.
Dans ma correspondence avec Maestro Hamelin, il a écrit qu'il est quelque peu fâché avec la description de son art par le musicologue amérian, Harold Schonberg, qui disait qu'il était un 'super virtuoso'. Il a dit que sa conception de 'musical performance' n'est pas un show narcissique d'une virtuosité quelconque, mais un effort authentique de trouver la meilleure possible interprétation d'une pièce, en accord avec l'intention du compositeur. Il a aussi donné des examples pour prouver son point.
SUCH A STUNNING PERFORMANCE! The only two people on earth that can play the chaconne with such virtuosity and monumental phrasing are Hamelin and Ogdon. Thanks for sharing 13:15
Listening to this performance over and over i realised that this is the best rendition of chaconne, at least for me. Sadly, there is no HQ recording of it by Marc-Andre
Hamelin is without a doubt the best living piano player in the world. You can obviosuly find something where another performer is better than him, if specifically referred to a particular thing. but if we look more broadly i think no1 reaches his levels
MrLocalitaItalia I’d say Hamelin probably had the best technique in the world from the mid 80s up until the late 2000s. Age has caught up to him a bit, so a few pianists have surpassed him in this regard, but he’s still one of the all time greats and has impeccable phrasing
I'm going to surprise you.. Pletnev even better than Hamelin. In terms of technique & interpretation. Because technique it is not only speed and beauty of fingers movement. Try to listen any Rachmaninoff's works. Hamelin is mediocre. Pletnev is smarter, has profound interpretations
THANKKYOU FOR USING GOOD TASTE IN A PIECE THAT IS MOST USUALLY AN OCCASSION FOR FAST NOISE. RUDOLF LUTZ HAS A WONDERFUL ORGAN PERFORMNCE TOO FROM TROST CHURCH IN SWITZERLAND.
@username14991 I'd say it's a Steinway grand (since he usually plays those), but considering the richness of sonority he conveys, it can be a Bösendorfer Imperial, too. I've never seen him playing a Bösendorfer, anyway.
Well it's my personal belief that one can never too recommend the all-time underestimated Lazar Berman and his version of this chaconne, I always wonder how little it's known. It's even better then Michelangeli, I would say.
To: TheBlackbeard2 Sorry did I reply correctly to your comment? I think I made a mistake in not putting the @you. Sorry for that. Hope you find my reply. Best, Pierre
Да даже фа без диеза или соль с бемолем не смогли ничего испортить! Я только что послушала исполнение фантастической « Чаконы» в Совершенстве! Это что- то непередаваемое: поёт каждая клавиша! Я всю неделю слушала эту незабываемую музыку в исполнении прекрасных пианистов, но так исполнить никто не смог! 💘♥️💘♥️
There are even two recordings, as far I know. One live (which I prefer) and one a little slowlier (which you can find on youtube). Both are great, in fact the best. Every other pianist (in the versions I know) tries to "show off", misuses rubato, rushes or slows down uselessly etc. Helene Grimaud for example, but also Michelangeli and Fazil Say. The people have difficulty to play it as a whole. Busoni's own recording is quite sloppy, I find. Sergio Fiorentino plays it VERY well, although fast.
@@avocatdenis he’s correct. 7’ Bosendorfers go down to the F, the 9’6” Imperial goes down to the low C. Not sure about the Petrof but i would be surprised if it has extra keys too.
hardly a satisfying interpretation: if you actually pay attention, you'll here passages that frequently are rushed and full of flubbery, no sense of overall musical tension (which is really what this piece is about) and a horrid enjoyment of just bang, bang, bang on the keys. (note the tepid applause at the end by the audience.) no matter what hamelin plays, he seems principally intent to prove he can play it faster than anyone. which is fine, if you go in for that sort of thing. but if he had a little less technical ambition and a little more musicality, he might actually be a pianist. the better performances of the better (brahms) transcription are on youtube by sokolov and zimerman.
In my opinion, Hamelin is the sort of artist best experienced live. I heard him play the Bach/Busoni Chaconne in concert this afternoon, and it was absolutely astounding. To hear that much sound from a piano (and I have heard a great deal of live piano) was a visceral experience, the effect of which cannot be recreated on RUclips or computer speakers--although I enjoy listening to this for the flashbacks to the sensation of hearing it live, which still gives me the chills. And when the beautiful single melodic line re-emerged from the reverberation of the crashing chords you could hear a pin drop. It was very moving. As for "flubbed passages", Horowitz was another pianist with staggering technique who was known to miss a note or flub a passage from time to time--generally when doing something superhuman. It is the risk you take when you push a performance to the limit, and you cannot compare some of their passage-work to that of a pianist who plays it safe (and who in most cases could not even generate the same sound if they tried, let alone do it with fewer mistakes).
As for the Brahms transcription being "better", it is a matter of taste. In my view, Brahms and Busoni approached the Chaconne from opposite directions. Brahms seemed to want to approximate on piano the genius of Bach working within the technical limitations of the solo violin to create a piece of astounding beauty and surprising complexity (as he so often did). Whereas Busoni cares not at all about the violin's limitations--his transcription shows no signs of the practical restrictions of the original composition. What Busoni recreates on piano is the opportunity for the performer to almost destroy their instrument with the passion and intensity that can be wrung out of Bach's composition. I consider both transcriptions to be great works of art. I agree that the refinement of Sokolov and Zimerman are very well-suited to the Brahms version, but you need a beast like Hamelin for the Busoni version, and you need to hear it live--it is an unforgettable experience (see above).
OK. I don't usually respond to posts, because what can one say, really? You enjoy the interpretation or you don't. But "rushed", "bang, bang, bang" and "full of flubbery" is more than I can tolerate without giving my two cents. First, I agree with John Smith - if that is his real name: Hearing him live is an even better experience. That said, this recording (of a live performance) is still phenomenal. Examples. 5:03 - The lines are clear, the timbre scintillating, the phrasing, impeccable. 7:21 - The way he catches the resonance of the sustained tone is nothing less than masterful and is testimony to an extremely acute and active ear. Can Hamelin play loudly? Oh yes! But he modulates his fortes densities to his desired effect. These therfore need to be understood in a larger context. Examples. The beginning - Note the contrast between the (purposefully) tight sound of the overture with the gossamer tone at 1:01. Note how that exact dense quality comes back in the dialogue between the two timbres at 2:06 and evolves into a much more rounded mezzo forte around 2:30 before the bony yet textured passage at 2:36, which is itself then followed by an anything but dense or bony loudness. I could go on. But, in short, Hamelin volume and density is always the result of a fine understanding of the music. He has one of the largest palettes of sound out there and he puts it to judicious and artistic use. Sure, one may prefer Kissin's interpretation, for example. I think they both have extraordinary merit. I certainly would never think of calling either one unsatisfying.
well, story is that liszt in later years used to play one of his fearsome fireworks with a lit cigar lodged between the third and fourth fingers of his right hand. why? well, because it produced a thrill in the audience. anything to do with the music, as art? not really. but it had, you know, that thrilling effect on the audience. and, note that both comments refer to the "visceral live experience" and whether or not the audience is silent or wildly appreciative. the replies actually make my point for me by illustrating the kind of listener who finds hamelin's cigar, i mean his penchant for rush rush, bang bang, compelling. their musical sensitivity to loud is joined to a microscopic curating of "special moments" and textures that completely misses the big picture of the chaconne as an architecture -- even in busoni's blubbery travesty -- in favor of exciting contrast. music for hamelin is very much the presentation of highly contrasted and stimulating vibration, i'll give you that. no musical sensibility is necessary, just bring on the contrast. significantly, where the apologists claim to hear gems in this chaconne i only hear a choppy presentation that loses track of the architecture of the whole. this is best sampled in the middle, major variations of the chaconne, where he vaguely perceives that the music should be stately and build to something uplifting but only manages something bombastic and trudging. true, hamelin does not perch a candelabra on his piano, but he's in the same class of circus musical performer. and while i acknowledge the contemporary musical economics of selling tickets and banging out a real demonstration of whatever it is that hamelin does so well, i've pointed to two musicians who know better.
I remember now why I don't respond to these posts. So, Hamelin's playing is not a candelabra on a piano, but it isn't, but it is? And how exactly does one get to the "big picture" architecture without considering microscopic "special moments", never mind talk about the music? And what exactly are we talking about when we talk about the "architecture as a whole"? We can philosophize about such issues, and the discussion could be potentially interesting, but that's not really the point, is it? My point is that Hamelin's playing is masterful and thoughtful. You may not agree with his interpretations and strategies, but I fail to see how one can disparage a pianist and musician of such obvious high caliber. I don't like cigars. I'm out.
I have known this music for six of my nearly eight decades. I never tire of it. This palace of sound authored by Bach/Busoni and executed by Hamlin must rival the music of eternity.
Thank you Hamelin; a pianist who isn't afraid to use FFF fortissimo where it is needed.
I swear, once one understands the historical background to the Bach Chaconne -- here glorified by Busoni and played by the superlative Hamelin -- one may not find a more astounding and triumphant work of art. Unforgettable.
I agree.
Remarquable ; amplitude des dynamiques, stabilité de construction, variété de toucher, du grand art. Bravo. Merci
enfin un commentaire en francais ! ca me rassure , je ne suis pas le seul francais a ecouter de la musique de bach et a metre des commentaires !merci a vous et a marc_ andre hamelin / m pierre xavier de chassot .
I had the privilege of listening to Hamelin, in Sao Paulo. His mastery of sound, expressiveness and technique are unbelievable. Definitely, he is one of the greatest pianists of today.
A beastly performance! Hamelin is a piano playing jedi knight.
Josh, perhaps you need to listen to it once again. The jedi knights seemed quite intriguing and had hidden depths. This performance is both. Cathy
The sounds of Hamelin in the Chaconne are pouring like the
rays of the Sun
This is a hermit depicting a hermit, a saint depicting a saint, a sacred performance of a sacred piece of music. Do not tell me any other performances, for I will dismiss you. This is rendering Bach as a godly musician which he really was. I can hear the organ through this absolutely majestic performance!
Hamelin's performance of Chaconne is one of the best (if not the best) I've heard so far. I own his all recordings and I am convince that he is on the path to become one of the greatest pianists of the XXI century. Incidentally, it's a pity that Chaconne performance by Rosalyn Tureck is missing on RUclips. I mention it because it's been suggested in some comments (see below) that Hamelin is playing on Bosendorfer. It so happened that Tureck's played on Bosendorfer, which sounds with its characteristic deep timbre, which I cannot hear in Hamelin's recording. Of course, I may be wrong because it's known what a skilled piano tuner can do with/to the instrument.
Грандиозно! Даже нет слов, чтобы описать всю это красоту и величие, рвущие душу!♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Marc-André Hamelin, un virtuose accessible, si vous avez l'occasion de le voir en concert, n'hésitez pas, il est incontournable.
Any song he plays is a guarantee of quality.
Hamelin never let us down
Dans ma correspondence avec Maestro Hamelin, il a écrit qu'il est quelque peu fâché avec la description de son art par le musicologue amérian, Harold Schonberg, qui disait qu'il était un 'super virtuoso'. Il a dit que sa conception de 'musical performance' n'est pas un show narcissique d'une virtuosité quelconque, mais un effort authentique de trouver la meilleure possible interprétation d'une pièce, en accord avec l'intention du compositeur. Il a aussi donné des examples pour prouver son point.
SUCH A STUNNING PERFORMANCE! The only two people on earth that can play the chaconne with such virtuosity and monumental phrasing are Hamelin and Ogdon. Thanks for sharing
13:15
Listening to this performance over and over i realised that this is the best rendition of chaconne, at least for me. Sadly, there is no HQ recording of it by Marc-Andre
Que gusto escuchar tan maravillosa version de esta hermosa obra.......
パワフルな中に優美さがあって素晴らしい！
Hamelin is without a doubt the best living piano player in the world. You can obviosuly find something where another performer is better than him, if specifically referred to a particular thing. but if we look more broadly i think no1 reaches his levels
Pollini and Martha Argerich are still with us though. I'd put him and Kissin up there for best of their generation for sure.
MrLocalitaItalia I’d say Hamelin probably had the best technique in the world from the mid 80s up until the late 2000s. Age has caught up to him a bit, so a few pianists have surpassed him in this regard, but he’s still one of the all time greats and has impeccable phrasing
I'm going to surprise you.. Pletnev even better than Hamelin. In terms of technique & interpretation. Because technique it is not only speed and beauty of fingers movement. Try to listen any Rachmaninoff's works. Hamelin is mediocre. Pletnev is smarter, has profound interpretations
Magnifico!
Bach è Sacro, il musicista - teologo - poeta. Grazie Busoni ed Hamelin.
Viva maestro!! Such a magnificent performance indeed,
Hu Man otras piezas no me satisfacen del todo pero en esta chacona de bach me quito el sombrero
Great!!!
Very nice rendition! Very clear.
che meraviglia,forse esageratamente marcato ma di immenso fascino!
best of best
Anyone knows from when and where this live version was recorded?
Wunderbar
THANKKYOU FOR USING GOOD TASTE IN A PIECE THAT IS MOST USUALLY AN OCCASSION FOR FAST NOISE.
RUDOLF LUTZ HAS A WONDERFUL ORGAN PERFORMNCE TOO FROM TROST CHURCH IN SWITZERLAND.
I absolutely agree! Thank you.
stellar performance. I know the sound source is far from perfect, but it doesn't really sound like a Steinway, .. a Bosendorfer Imperial perhaps ?
I would guess simply some Yamaha
god I wish he did a studio recording of this piece. I very much prefer this version to the violin one.
13:12
Powerful.
@username14991 I'd say it's a Steinway grand (since he usually plays those), but considering the richness of sonority he conveys, it can be a Bösendorfer Imperial, too. I've never seen him playing a Bösendorfer, anyway.
Oh, thanks for enriching me!
Spectacularly machine-like playing and certainly a wonderful photograph of the pianist, must be my fav.
thats Busoni on the image, the composer, not the pianist. The latter is Marc Andre Hamelin ;)
Sorry, later there is also Hamelins image, indeed! Mea culpa ;)
Passion in bright blue.
FANTASTICO !!!
is this played on a bosendorfer 97 key piano?
Well, if this is a Bösendorfer, I think I need to change my piano paradigm, for I was always a Steinway fan.
Fantastic! Can this be found on CD?
OMG...I have heard the very voice of God....
Yes, I heard him play it in concert this afternoon, I might have been in Valhalla.
A few choice additions to the score I noticed!
wow...
Very good question. As you are asking it, please reply first with your own personal view, then I will comment. Thank you!
Well it's my personal belief that one can never too recommend the all-time underestimated Lazar Berman and his version of this chaconne, I always wonder how little it's known. It's even better then Michelangeli, I would say.
To: TheBlackbeard2
Sorry did I reply correctly to your comment? I think I made a mistake in not putting the @you. Sorry for that. Hope you find my reply. Best, Pierre
Bosendorfer Imperial : 97 key
3:58 to 4:07 ... ♥
great!
Llevo catorce versiones con famosos y está es de las que más ,me gusta
Still no audio sound!
Which edition is this?
You forgot to mention Busoni....
No audio reproduction available today!
В последнем аккорде фа без диеза... I completely agree!
Да даже фа без диеза или соль с бемолем не смогли ничего испортить! Я только что послушала исполнение фантастической « Чаконы» в
Совершенстве! Это что- то непередаваемое: поёт каждая клавиша! Я всю неделю слушала эту незабываемую музыку в исполнении прекрасных пианистов, но так исполнить никто не смог! 💘♥️💘♥️
There are even two recordings, as far I know. One live (which I prefer) and one a little slowlier (which you can find on youtube). Both are great, in fact the best. Every other pianist (in the versions I know) tries to "show off", misuses rubato, rushes or slows down uselessly etc. Helene Grimaud for example, but also Michelangeli and Fazil Say. The people have difficulty to play it as a whole. Busoni's own recording is quite sloppy, I find. Sergio Fiorentino plays it VERY well, although fast.
Not bad
loud, louder, Hamelin......
Your posts and trolls?
Right you are...!!!
A concert grand has 88 keys, not 97.
Peter Fritz Walter the Bösendorfer “Imperial” has 97 for it goes down till the low C 😉🤷🏻♂️
97 tasti!
@@matteopagliari Are you sure? I think it goes down to the F. Unless I am getting mixed up with the Petroff Grand.
learn first, talk after
@@avocatdenis he’s correct. 7’ Bosendorfers go down to the F, the 9’6” Imperial goes down to the low C. Not sure about the Petrof but i would be surprised if it has extra keys too.
@ipublica
too fast. too light without emotional agony, I cannot advocate his Busoni's chaconne recording even though i'm a big fan of him for many years.
hardly a satisfying interpretation: if you actually pay attention, you'll here passages that frequently are rushed and full of flubbery, no sense of overall musical tension (which is really what this piece is about) and a horrid enjoyment of just bang, bang, bang on the keys. (note the tepid applause at the end by the audience.) no matter what hamelin plays, he seems principally intent to prove he can play it faster than anyone. which is fine, if you go in for that sort of thing. but if he had a little less technical ambition and a little more musicality, he might actually be a pianist. the better performances of the better (brahms) transcription are on youtube by sokolov and zimerman.
In my opinion, Hamelin is the sort of artist best experienced live. I heard him play the Bach/Busoni Chaconne in concert this afternoon, and it was absolutely astounding. To hear that much sound from a piano (and I have heard a great deal of live piano) was a visceral experience, the effect of which cannot be recreated on RUclips or computer speakers--although I enjoy listening to this for the flashbacks to the sensation of hearing it live, which still gives me the chills. And when the beautiful single melodic line re-emerged from the reverberation of the crashing chords you could hear a pin drop. It was very moving. As for "flubbed passages", Horowitz was another pianist with staggering technique who was known to miss a note or flub a passage from time to time--generally when doing something superhuman. It is the risk you take when you push a performance to the limit, and you cannot compare some of their passage-work to that of a pianist who plays it safe (and who in most cases could not even generate the same sound if they tried, let alone do it with fewer mistakes).
As for the Brahms transcription being "better", it is a matter of taste. In my view, Brahms and Busoni approached the Chaconne from opposite directions. Brahms seemed to want to approximate on piano the genius of Bach working within the technical limitations of the solo violin to create a piece of astounding beauty and surprising complexity (as he so often did). Whereas Busoni cares not at all about the violin's limitations--his transcription shows no signs of the practical restrictions of the original composition. What Busoni recreates on piano is the opportunity for the performer to almost destroy their instrument with the passion and intensity that can be wrung out of Bach's composition. I consider both transcriptions to be great works of art. I agree that the refinement of Sokolov and Zimerman are very well-suited to the Brahms version, but you need a beast like Hamelin for the Busoni version, and you need to hear it live--it is an unforgettable experience (see above).
OK. I don't usually respond to posts, because what can one say, really? You enjoy the interpretation or you don't. But "rushed", "bang, bang, bang" and "full of flubbery" is more than I can tolerate without giving my two cents. First, I agree with John Smith - if that is his real name: Hearing him live is an even better experience. That said, this recording (of a live performance) is still phenomenal. Examples. 5:03 - The lines are clear, the timbre scintillating, the phrasing, impeccable. 7:21 - The way he catches the resonance of the sustained tone is nothing less than masterful and is testimony to an extremely acute and active ear. Can Hamelin play loudly? Oh yes! But he modulates his fortes densities to his desired effect. These therfore need to be understood in a larger context. Examples. The beginning - Note the contrast between the (purposefully) tight sound of the overture with the gossamer tone at 1:01. Note how that exact dense quality comes back in the dialogue between the two timbres at 2:06 and evolves into a much more rounded mezzo forte around 2:30 before the bony yet textured passage at 2:36, which is itself then followed by an anything but dense or bony loudness. I could go on. But, in short, Hamelin volume and density is always the result of a fine understanding of the music. He has one of the largest palettes of sound out there and he puts it to judicious and artistic use. Sure, one may prefer Kissin's interpretation, for example. I think they both have extraordinary merit. I certainly would never think of calling either one unsatisfying.
well, story is that liszt in later years used to play one of his fearsome fireworks with a lit cigar lodged between the third and fourth fingers of his right hand. why? well, because it produced a thrill in the audience. anything to do with the music, as art? not really. but it had, you know, that thrilling effect on the audience. and, note that both comments refer to the "visceral live experience" and whether or not the audience is silent or wildly appreciative.
the replies actually make my point for me by illustrating the kind of listener who finds hamelin's cigar, i mean his penchant for rush rush, bang bang, compelling. their musical sensitivity to loud is joined to a microscopic curating of "special moments" and textures that completely misses the big picture of the chaconne as an architecture -- even in busoni's blubbery travesty -- in favor of exciting contrast. music for hamelin is very much the presentation of highly contrasted and stimulating vibration, i'll give you that. no musical sensibility is necessary, just bring on the contrast. significantly, where the apologists claim to hear gems in this chaconne i only hear a choppy presentation that loses track of the architecture of the whole. this is best sampled in the middle, major variations of the chaconne, where he vaguely perceives that the music should be stately and build to something uplifting but only manages something bombastic and trudging.
true, hamelin does not perch a candelabra on his piano, but he's in the same class of circus musical performer. and while i acknowledge the contemporary musical economics of selling tickets and banging out a real demonstration of whatever it is that hamelin does so well, i've pointed to two musicians who know better.
I remember now why I don't respond to these posts.
So, Hamelin's playing is not a candelabra on a piano, but it isn't, but it is?
And how exactly does one get to the "big picture" architecture without considering microscopic "special moments", never mind talk about the music? And what exactly are we talking about when we talk about the "architecture as a whole"? We can philosophize about such issues, and the discussion could be potentially interesting, but that's not really the point, is it?
My point is that Hamelin's playing is masterful and thoughtful. You may not agree with his interpretations and strategies, but I fail to see how one can disparage a pianist and musician of such obvious high caliber.
I don't like cigars.
I'm out.
Ice cold . Deep frozen . Absolutely boring .
Don't be so hard on yourself. One day, with lost of hard work, you may yet be able to achieve something with your life.
10:53
Still no audio!