Slower IS Better: Sviatoslav Richter
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 07. 2024
- 0:00 Intro
0:57 Background on Richter
1:57 My early aversion to his style and philosophy
4:37 The turning point: Richter and Schubert
5:13 Examples of Prokofiev Concerto No. 5 and Sonata No. 6
6:24 Richter plays Schubert’s G major Sonata D 894
10:25 Analysis of Richter’s rhythm, compared with Alfred Brendel
11:13 Brendel’s Schubert G major Sonata
12:43 Brendel/Richter side by side comparison
Richter’s complete G major Sonata Performance:
• Sviatoslav Richter - S...
Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon.com
/ independentpianist
Or make a one time donation to Paypal:
paypal.me/independentpianist?...
Revolut is another way to make donations, particularly good if you are located outside of the US: revolut.me/coleakrhv
I am also on Venmo: @Cole-Anderson-31
I am available for one-on-one online teaching. For a free consultation send me a message at: cole@independentpianist.com - Hudba
Just a few remarks. Richter was born in Zhytomyr in 1915, but the family moved to Odessa in 1916, so he spent his young years in Odessa, and never hated the city, he only refused to give concerts there for reasons already mentioned here - his father was shot after the war began, and his mother flew to Germany with a very bad man who additionally took Richter’s name in Germany.
Richter was not Ukrainan, a good joke His father was German and his mother was from Russian nobility of German origin (her mother was German as well).
Now, the most important thing is that his decision to become a pianist has nothing to do with those employment problems.
He heard Vsevolod Topilin, then accompanist to Oistrach, in a recital, and was so impressed by Chopin 4th Ballade in Topilin’s interpretation that decided to become a pianist.
There are only two pianists named genius by Richter - Topilin and Cliburn.
Topilin had lived a tragic life: when prisoner in a German concentration camp, he was asked by the camp commander to play Beethoven, and was given a special regime, and then played to field marshal Fedor von Bock, was released from the camp, and gave concerts in Germany. After the war, he was accused of collaboration with Nazi, and sent to a Russian camp this time. He taught at a musical school and later Kiev conservatory after release, I know a pianist who worked with him for 6 years there, and told me fantastic stories about Topilin’s musical talent.
Thank you, Cole, for impressive presentation. Paypal does not work in Russia because of this crazy war, so I cannot make donations, but I will subscribe and let my friends know about your analysis.
Thank you for this Alexander. It is a very interesting summation of Richter's background, and interesting also to hear about Topilin. I think I ran into a couple short recordings that Oistrakh did with him in the 30's, but I never found any solo recordings. Very interesting to hear about Richter's admiration for him.
No solo recordings exist, Topilin had only given a few recitals while touring with Oistrakh before the war, and was a spavined man after the camps, he had never restored psychologically and probably physically. His last public appearances were in camps when camp bigwigs gathered a team of famous artists from camps. In addition, it was impossible for a person with his biography to make a career in the USSR.
Richter and Vedernikov (pianist of close to Richer's scale and Richter's friend) always visited Topilin when in Kiev to see and support him, and Vedernikov recollects a case when he played duets with Topilin the whole night. I would go long to be in that classroom that night.
I beg your pardon for stupid mistakes like flew instead of fled :)
The story about Richter's decision to become a pianist is his direct words.
I should say that your analysis is very unusual in that it is an open presentation of your impressions of great masters in an attempt to find the truth, a rare thing requiring qualification and passion.
Thanks!
thank you for this wonderful description of richter's life... everybody right now is fascinated by the chinese pianist yuja wang and then these great masters of piano are kind of forgotten...
Dear Roberta, Yuja is a good pianist. I remember to occasionally see her mixed program on youtube. The first impression was her dress :), but then I suddenly heard Scriabin's Etude No. 9 (Alla Ballata) from op. 8, and was impressed. I have never heard it live, although it is one of my favourite ones, but the main thing was that she definitely did understand the main principles of playing Scriabin, a very rare thing. I would not say she is an outstanding pianist, but she definitely is a very talented and honest professional. I agree with the second part of your message that those high standards are lost, and people like... let me omit names as everybody has its merits... govern the world of piano.
@@nicolaspeters2555
there is a wide gulf in regard to opinions. i value some opinions far more than others .
Richter’s interpretation of the G Major enchanted and transported me from start to finish. I couldn’t unhear it. His opening movement had more in common with Baroque performance practice. There was a post Romantic era reaction circa 1930s, however, most of us who grew up during the ‘modern’ school of piano instruction (a highly edited instructional score) or under the tutelage of teachers trained during this strict uncompromising fashion in which every note played metronomically with every staccato, every editorial addition played without question or omission, historical performance practice would rebel (except most music conservatories would stay modern). I wouldn’t call this Urtext, as you did in the video, which was in reaction to Busoni’s Bach editions. Urtext is refers to a score as the composer wrote unencumbered with the later layer upon layer of extraneous additions (some added by publishers in to keep the original out of public domain).
The first Urtext edition I purchase, J S Bach WTC Pt 1, in the 1970s, was an eye opener. Rather than just a piece of software to be played unquestioned, the pages became an artist’s canvas to create upon. And in some measures one could find a paradox, which required research, aka musicology and historical performance practice, something Glenn Gould never bothered with, which I continue to the present day.
Colin Booth’s book, Did Bach really mean that? subtitled Deceptive notation n Baroque keyboard music, shows examples from a variety of composers, not just the understood cadential trills that haven’t been written but were understood, examples where what appeared to be 3 against 2 were actually synchronized, or Gigues written in duple meter to be played as though written in compound time.
Sandra Rosenblum’s Performance Practices in Classic Piano Music, is another book, however if you can get over her confirmation bias on the rise of the fortepiano over the harpsichord (she’s wrong, and her famous pianist quote on the subject doubly wrong in the preface and elsewhere) the classical into the Romantic early decades however has excellent information all in one text, a convenient resource. (BTW, besides piano, I play organ, and harpsichord, and although not the clavichord, these lasted longer, Beethoven’s nephew Karl was trained on the instrument, Beethoven payed for a tuner for the instrument after his hearing wouldn’t have noticed circa 1821. )
Thank you for a thoroughly interesting talk and demonstration. This is the first time I have come across such a knowledgeable comparison between performances.
A video finally struck the algorithm! Nice to see the channel growing!
Glad to see a channel like this... thx
Thank you. I have no time, I am tired and ill, but let me say this : you put your finger exactly at the right place.
Brutal animality (Prokoviev) and incredible slowness ( Franz Schubert) by the same man.
And the sensation, the inner sensation of the listener when Richter in playing the late Schubert ... this is unique, a deal with pain, fatality and death, the whole thing expressed in utter beauty.
Making Brendel some of a sad clown.
Not everybody should try to climb the Everest.
Beautifully said 😂
I only had one Richter album when I was a little boy, and it was a recording of him playing a Liszt concerto. I'm pleased that the author of this CZcams mentioned Horowitz and Bolet (who I had the pleasure to see/hear in recital in Carmel in the 1990s). The beauty about classical piano is that you can play the same piece differently every time you play it. As a composer myself of piano pieces (neoclassical) I often play my compositions differently in tempo and accentuation. It keeps them fresh and alive. My 9 movement "Rasputin Rhapsody" is played by me every time differently.
Thanks for covering my favourite pianist! Just came from your recording of Liszt's S173 "Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude". Absolutely love your channel :)
Thank you for this short but great clip on Richter and his art, and for mentioning the wonderful documentary Richter the Enigma (French title: Richter l'insoumis, German: Richter der Unbeugsame). That masterful documentary is a must see for anyone who cares deeply about music in general and classical music in particular. The use of the Schubert D960 sonata (played by Richter of course) in that documentary is unforgettable, it still moves me to the core and I am not a person who is very easily moved. I am also not a professional musician, nor am I a pianist, but Richter is one of my top three of all recorded classical pianists. The other two are Michelangeli and Gould, who incidentally like Richter always were and still are very much misunderstood.
Thank you for your perspective!
Bruno Monsaingeon is Richter of music documentary.
@@krasw Yes, you are right that Bruno Monsaingeon is the director who made Richter the Enigma. I should have mentioned that. In turn, he relied heavily on footage from old Soviet documentaries and short films on Richter, Gilels, Neuhaus, Oistrakh and other great musicians of that era.
I never really listened to solo piano music - I know, I'm a Philistine! - until a friend gave me a CD of Richter playing Schubert's G Major. Each note was an experience in a way that unlocked a whole kind of musical performance for me. I listened to that CD obsessively for months. I've enjoyed other performances, but Richter's Schubert is very special to me, as it is to a lot of folks.
Strangely I'm the opposite. Non stop listening to solo piano works and comparing them 😂
I remember buying that video on vhs tape. I watched it over and over with tears in my eyes
I heard Richter's B-flat Major with no idea what was in store for me, and I agree - a rarity! with Glenn Gould: it was one of the most revolutionary musical experiences I ever had. "Die Winterreise" without text or voice, even intensified - the entire world is paralyzed, frozen into ice!
A while back I tripped over a video of five pianists playing the Rachmaninoff G minor prelude. The five aren’t even all identified, though Kissin and Richter are included. Listening led to my looking up every CZcams recording of the piece I could find. I’m pretty sure I found over thirty, everything from Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff piano rolls to Lugansky and Lang Lang with all sorts of pianists in between. I can’t tell you my second favorite recording. My favorite, and it wasn’t close, was Richter. He found more and brought it out more, including than the composer. His crescendo in the third section was longer and more controlled than any other. He took his time. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for the suggestion, that's a great prelude to comparison and to give a chance to Richter! I checked it out and in my opinion, the more restrained, controlled rhythms are significantly better than the faster ones (Horowitz). ('Slower' is better). I like Gilel's recording the best (has something unique) and then Richter's, but they are certainly very close to each other. Interesting.
I think Benno has the best G minor, then Gilels..but interesting opinion!
Richter playing Rachmaninov is unbeatable! Especially his Preludes and Etudes Tableaux…. Incredible pianism and musicality.
Once again really good stuff Cole. Richter was such a master at communicating the composers intentions and telling us what is particularly beautiful. He was remarkable at getting the audiences attention by being so different.
Wow, I just found your channel. Am going to watch/listen more. Schubert's Bflat + is definitely one of my forever favourites, I have a recording by Imogen Cooper (and I have a lot of her Schubert recordings). But I have always been fascinated by and in awe of Richter and will definitely listen to these 2 Schubert sonatas performed by him. Al la prochaine!
In my mind, Richter plays slowly in later life because that is how older lovers speak. There is an undercurrent of deep understanding, so the words are true and deliberately delivered. Gould brushes this off with the phrase "Slow enough for government work", but true romantics aren't so quick to dismiss. Thank you sirs for your wonderful contributions to music and understanding. Cheers!
This Shubert Sonata was played at the famous concert that he gave just before a medical cardial operation: he looked in the face of...pissible future.
I find this recording of the sonata so interesting! I had never heard it before and it was a stark contrast to my impression of Richter! The recording I associate him with is of Chopin Etude op. 10 no. 4 (the famous one that is ludicrously fast). That recording has such accuracy and is almost metronomic. I’m going to check out the documentary you mentioned, as I would love to learn more about him! Great video :)
Definitely, check out that documentary, it's great! That Chopin recording is incredible, although that's one of the recordings that didn't exactly endear Richter to me at first.
m.czcams.com/users/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=richter+l%27insoumis+#menu
This is the documentary in two parts - this is the part 1
@@Marco1281 Where?! Oh dear.
Thank you for sharing your feelings about music, your explanation is absolutely WONDERFUL
Will make the experience of 45 minutes, but for sure, richter is one of my utmost favorite
Thank you for putting music at the “next level”
Played slowly with an ultimate conviction: great video !!
I absolutely love this performance. The 'logic' of his tempo choice for the first movt becomes apparent in the development section. There the long line he sustains up to that point becomes a breaking point emotionally and the tension becomes almost unbearable.
Great vid. Thanks.
I found this same recording a few years ago when I was exploring what I liked and didn't like about Richter. One of my favourite recordings, which I've been known to have on repeat, is a BBC record of him playing Schubert Sonatas. Not the G major but I found the CZcams performance as a result of searching for more of him playing this composer. Initially I was a bit puzzled by why I liked my recording so much. On the face of it, there didn't seem to be a "fit" between this lyrical, sometimes strange, almost bi-polar composer and this hugely powerful artistic presence at the piano. (Since then I've learnt more of Richter's biog and the fit now seems obvious). For me, this performance sealed it. The first two bars had me hooked. It was the absolute identification with this intense music. I listened to the whole thing on my laptop, completely spellbound, my admiration for both artist and composer renewed.
For all the power and excitement that he generates in Russian and other repertoire, for me it is with Schubert where his real greatness lies.
Thank you for this reminder.
I have bookmarked this Richter’s interpretation of Schubert sonata many years ago and I’m glad to hear you sharing the same feelings I’ve got . His Debussy’s Clair de Lune is remarkable too (for me, at least)! Thank you
Fascinating, Cole - as ever! Reflecting on your comment about 'surprise' and Richter believing that finding the unexpected in music can engage an audience in a way that is often lost in the ordinariness of the orthodox is, for me, only legitimate when it is 'honest' communication - an interpretation truly felt by the performer - as opposed to some trickery that shifts the focus from the music to the antics of the player in some sort of attention-seeking eccentricity. And I think Richter is an honest performer.
You highlight how Richter's manipulation of tempo seems to contradict his obsession with being a 'mirror' of the score and his conviction that there should be no deviation from, or embellishment of, what has been shoehorned into the score. As amazing and sophisticated as musical notation is, I believe it can never fully capture the imagination/spirit that lies at the heart of any composition. I can see why you comment that too rigid an approach to playing the score can make the music seem 'cold', especially when not even offset by emotion/instincts shaping a nuanced or even surprising tempo. I wonder why there is so much desire for seemingly definitive performances of music? I like to think I'm open-minded when listening to different performers and experiencing how I hear them feel the music and their desire to make me feel it the same way. A Brendel/Richter side by side comparison does not make me feel that one interpretation is superior to the other . . . rather that I can separately connect with what each of them is telling me about the music and how they are imagining and experiencing it. Thank goodness for such diversity! Sure, we might have our preferences, but I'm glad that musical imagination remains boundless and free from the straightjacket of notation!
I appreciate all your reflective contributions to this channel Graham, thank you, they are interesting to read!
I agree 100%! I like both versions as well, and I think we are lucky that there is always more that can be revealed about wonderful pieces like these.
I played the G major sonata many years ago, and even now I find Richter's first movement intolerable. To me, a sense of underlying pulse is essential in this music. However, I can say without the slightest doubt that Richter is the greatest pianist I have heard. I was lucky enough to hear an incredible concert in the Royal Festival Hall in London, where Richter played a Beethoven recital: Op 2 No 3, a set of bagatelles, and Op 106. 106 was incredible, and, after tumultuous applause, Richter played the fugue again: more cleanly, and with less pedal. I remember a reviewer saying that it is a measure of the fugue's difficulty that Sviatoslav Richter needed a second go at it.
Interestingly I actually feel a strong sense of pulse to Richter's interpretation after the opening. It is a very slow pulse, but extremely well controlled. The opening he is treating more like a fantasy, so the sense of pulse is very free there. I'm so jealous that you got to hear Richter play Op. 106 in concert. I play that piece as well, so I'm very interested in different performances, and Richter has some of the best recordings of it!
I was schocked by the beginning of this video. I was asking myself if you had ever listened to Richter.
@@TheIndependentPianist I had a conversation with Katya Derzhavina, who teaches piano at the Moscow Conservatoire, and she pointed out that one important part of Richter's genius was that he could sustain the same tempo throughout a whole movement, which is extremely difficult, thereby forcing you to concentrate and listen, . This is exactly what he does in the Schubert which, if you don't resist it out of a preconception as to how the music 'should' sound, makes it mesmeric and utterly magical.
Richter's 1986 live Haydn recording (sonata 2,24,32,46) is out of this world.
In the end you can smell the rain..
Not only in Schubert, Richter recordered alive all Bach WTK I ^II in the Great hall of conservatory, i love his Bach!! Another fact Is that he traveled like a transiberian journey in Russia by a car AND he Made concerts in every little city.
It’s not often that I listen to a video of commentary and agree so fully with the speaker. This is one of those times.
Wow amazing channel! Subscribed!!
Rhythmic choices made can simply be the musician's emotional state while attempting to "get into" the world of the sound a composer has "indicated" by the notes on the page. I hear Richter's musicality, along with Gould's, as the kind of attention given to being with the notes, through profound awareness of how they move him, and not concerning himself with what others are hearing. This focus, as an expression of musicality, but more so, an inner dance with the joy of these particular sounds, is what I respond to most when listening to others make music. I think Richter was honest about his abilities to capture what he set out to say, and that is why we pay attention to his "words". They are real, they are alive and meaningful to him, and we know he was moved deeply somewhere to share those truths of feeling.
A lovely thought.
I remember listening to this interpretation of the Schubert G major sonata when I was preparing it for an exam at the conservatory. I mentioned it to my teacher and he told me to forget Richter and his "crazy" version.
In my experience it is far harder to play the first movement as slowly as Richter, because concentration becomes a key problem. It's much easier to rush along with a happy tempo, but then you miss a lot of the beauty Richter brings out. I was unable to play it as slowly as he did, because it sounded too boring when I tried.
This cemented my admiration for Richter. Afterwards I heard his recording of the Bunte Blätter by Schumann and I was equally mesmerized. I learnt that work and performed it in a recital, thanks to Richter.
You make great points here about what makes this version special... And I sympathize with your attempt to match Richter. I've tried myself and can never get it to sound right.
I just found your channel and I'm so happy I did
Glad to have you here!
Cole, it’s interesting how well this video did with number of views and comments. Why do you think that is? Maybe because you asked for the engagement with the homework assignment at the end? Ha. I’m very glad you had more of a reach with this video. The growing of your channel only helps us all!
I have no idea! For some reason the algorithm likes Richter videos this month I guess??
SR was the greatest! Brave of you to bring out the G major sonata. The thing about Richter is that one always have to see in what age and what situation he was in when he speaks or performs things. The great thing however is that he pretty much always in the latter years explains things he does or did in the past, unless if it is self-explanatory ofc.. So in that moment he says that slower is better. There are several factors into this interpretation of his. First of all, at this point in his life he pretty much has an unmoveable philosophy of the importance of reading the notes and capture the fresh interpretation of the music in the moment. And for some reason he also chose to play in this hauntingly dark setup. The piece was written at the end of Schuberts life in 1826. So even though he is a classical composer it is now actually in the romantic period. And one has to note that he isn't 30 yet at this point(so fairly young). Now if you hear how Brendel plays it in the faster tempi, then it sounds more "heroic". In Svata's slow tempo it sounds a lot more romantic, almost modern music. First of all it says a lot of how ingenius Schubert was in his melodies and chords(and he died waay too early), 2ndly how great an interpreter Svata was to be able to catch this. You hear the chord progression and melody a lot clearer in this way. And about the different tempo's, its because he understands chords and maybe also the transitional period Schubert was in his last few years.
A very fascinating perspective, thank you! I believe Richter liked to play in the dark like that because he said it helped the audience to focus on the music.
@@TheIndependentPianist Yes he did say that. And it's probably true. I mean it is not that often that SR deviates from scores. He is not one of those pianists who plays sub-par whenever he is bored or insufficient in his playing abilities. So whenever he does something and makes a weird comment about it afterwards i always check to see if there are any merits to it. And i have to say after all these years, I don't think i have found any fault in the things i have checked. It is not often that I get it straight away, but often when you play it after or read up on it, it will make sense. He exceeds in so many pieces and his repertoire is so impressive it is almost surreal. But he does explain that it is something the pianist has to work on and express through these fresh interpretations.
Just watched this.... Great commentary and insight, thanks.
I am of a 'scientific bent of mind' (physicist) and set aside time regularly to listen through an excellent old fashioned stereo system to favorite works.
Richter's Bflat Minor was a revelation as, on subsequent listening, was his G Major. Prior to that (40 years ago!) I was stunned on first hearing his Rachmaninoff 2nd piano concerto, the first movement is taken WAY slower than most but just sounded 'right' - and seriously Russian!
I feel somehow, more than any other pianist, he has a clear personal conception of the shape of the complete work in his head and every note and cord is fashioned perfectly to fit into this whole.
Wonderful stuff. Thank you so much!
Thank you for watching!
My favorite performance. Not a musician, myself, but a total sucker for transcendent playing. Richter is in the Olympus of pianists. The documentary is devastating.
You are just as eloquent as Glen Gould. Your comments are rational and has clarity, which I really appreciate. The way in which you do your representation, is reminding me of the intellectual way in which Glen Gould used to analyse music. Thank you I really enjoyed your presentation.
I think it will be incredibly interesting to see an Arthur Rubinstein video. Btw, amazing content!
Great Idea!
Visiting Holland in the sixties Richter caught a cold and avoided our poor country for more than twenty years. In '86 he finally returned to Amsterdam to the Concertgebouw, where he was able to completely ignore the horribly tuned piano (or maybe some strings surrendered spontanously under his command) and deliver a literally breathtaking Diabelli Variations as if you were witnessing something you had no idea what it was. I remember clapping my hands sore but didn't dare to stamp my feet as many others did. Thanks for your videos.
Thanks for the video. I felt when I listened, his whole life is expressed in this performance. So no one other than him can play like this. Imagine you go through craziness of history, tragedy of father, playing through war. His life experiences and feeling. coming through his performance. No one can copy that unless you experience that.
I disagree that his playing is cold, but also understand. His Bach well tempered clavier is so warm to me. Simple but warm. Thanks.
Yes, I think it just seemed cold to me at the time in comparison to Rachmaninoff, Lhevinne, Horowitz, Cortot etc. Simply for stylistic reasons. But actually, as you say, there is a simple warmth and humanity in his best playing-sometimes also a piercing, lonely sadness which is very powerful.
I’ve been enjoying the contrast between both Richter and Gould in performances of the Well Tempered Clavier.
As opposed to the contrast between only one of them.
Please listen to it on a Harpsichord.
I used to be addicted to Gould's wtc and other Bach works. Now however I vastly prefer Richter's. I think the reason is that musically Richter's take is less sharp and mechanical and more musical.
Nobody plays the WTC better than Richter. NOBODY
@@porcospino289 Heh heh
The way Richter performs the first movement of Schubert's G Major turns it into the deep, beautiful, emotional meditation that it really is. I recommend listening to it in the dark. Yes, his tempo is slow, but that slowness opens the beauty and richness and poignant emotions of the harmonies. Richter's concentration, his total sincere expressive presence with each moment makes this slow pace work. I don't think any other pianist could do this. This listening experience requires that we slow ourselves down...something that is hard to do these days for most of us. It demands a lot of the listener, but its rewards are some of the best of what music can offer (in my opinion anyway). Comparing this performance to the Brendal is educational. For me, the Brendel performance has no depth. Thank you for highlighting this performance by Richter!
I love how you describe the Richter version. I still think Brendel's version also has a lot of merit as well-but if you love one version a lot, it can be hard to accept any others (I know from experience)!
I see a diversity between his dictum about his relation to the score, as a mirror. Yet, he puts of his own personality in the style. Muscular, physical, heavier touch, yet with remarkable flexibility. He was no doubt a depressive, with buried anger coming into even his slow playing. Remarkable and unique techniques with hands and fingers. Hard and fixed, looks like a lot of tension but he made it work in a unique persona and legacy, the mark of authenticity. His hands were large and muscular, probably guiding his technical style. Thank you for posting about this, not so much an enigma, but a unique persona, controversial but greatness on his own. Brendel is completely different; despite his dictum, Richter took his own liberties, perhaps a seriously conflicted person. Very professional and prepared presentation. Richter played with power, always portraying strength.
Would love to know your thoughts on Wilhelm Kempff! Thanks for these lovely informative videos. Love n regards
My piano teacher used to tell me "the slower you play, the more music you need to put in", of which not all pianists are capable.
Depends on the player. Richter himself had lightning fast interpretations of Chopin's and Beethoven's works. Tempo isn't really a big deal most of the time, it's all about the performer convincing us why the chosen tempo works.
I completely agree, although in the case of the Schubert I think the tempo is a major factor in the very unique effect that Richter creates.
I might be completely off base here but I feel like playing lilting and waltz-like passages slowly can be a very effective way of evoking tragedy and a sense of wistful reminiscence of an earlier care-free time that will never again be replicated. It's like there's the prototypical remnants of a dance but with none of its vitality or like a stained glass window in the fading light of a sun that will never again rise.
That's a lovely idea. In that sense maybe Richter was influenced by his knowledge of fin de siècle Vienna in his playing of this piece. He might be experiencing it, subconsciously, through the eyes of Mahler et al.
I remember attending his concert long time ago. He is genius at playing the piano.
Yes The first time I heard Richter play the Schubert, my entire nervous system woke up and the hairs literally rose on the nape of my neck. Tears filled my eyes. It still happens to a certain extent every time I hear it. He fathomed a profundity in Schubert that most pianists fail to disclose. You can hear a similar depth in Dvorak, who was clearly influenced by Schubert. Their melodic inventiveness and immediacy of appeal tend to disguise this depth. Yes. Poetic and creative. Richter's idea of finding the unexpected is closely related to earlier Modernist ideas of art as essentially the opposite of the conventional and the routine. An authentic interpretation is unrepeatable, is, in an essential way, new. The same applies to one's own reading of literary works, or the act of listening. Richter's recorded performances tend to reveal something new at each re-hearing.
Richter was the first to play Schubert after a long period of common neglect of this music. When he announced the first Schubert program, his teacher Neuhaus and other pianists said Wow, why? Nobody will listen to this dull music! - You sure know Gould''s story about his listening to B flat major: 'My friends asked me to attend a concert where some Russian pianist was to play B flat major. I was going to have a good sleep for 40 minutes, but caught myself attentively listening to every note after a while...' I would add that slow tempo is not a key to his performance, go try to play that slowly so that people listen to you! The key is lost, and pianists merely enjoy acoustic beauty like e.g. Lukas Debargue does, no more.
@@alexandersemenov424 This is absolutely NOT true! Neuhaus (Richter's teacher) was fond of Schubert and he certainly never said that his music is 'dull' (how on earth? He even had German origins...). Gilels, another of Neuhaus pupils, played it as well (D784, D850, Moments musicaux, some impromptus: all is recorded on disc). Not to mention Radu Lupu, another late pupil of Neuhaus that became perhaps the greatest Schubert player around. This is certainly not by accident. And, by the way, Richter was not the first to rediscover Schubert. It was Artur Schnabel and Edwin Fischer who did so. Richter was one of the first to champion Schubert in Russia, but Yudina and Sofronitsky played it as well at the same time and even before him. Being Russian does not mean that you know the truth about Richter, especially when you report unverified anectodes and conservatory chit chat.
Yes i wasabout to say the sale, that Schnabel already gave recitals and recirfing of Schubert.
No relation to this but listen to Kempff's Schubert which is really beautiful abd emotionnal, too.
Ha! You got my comment on the G Major right at the very top.
I enjoy your videos very much. In regard to the slowing of the triplets in the second movement of the Schubert Sonata, those quote hair clip marks under the triplets we're in the 19th century not volume indications but rather indications where to stretch the tempo. This is found in Chopin and Brahms piano music. It's worth going out and doing some reading on the subject. In this respect Richter is actually following a nineteenth-century convention. Randy
Yes, this is a very interesting topic, although perhaps not completely airtight as a concept. It isn't clear to me how widespread the practice was of treating hairpins as tempo modifiers. At least Liszt probably didn't treat them as such, since he experimented with other indications for slight accel and rit in his early works. I'm definitely going to look into this idea more though, thank you!
Thank you so much for responding to my comment. As I go back and read my comment, I realize I should have soften the message to say that it was sometimes a practice in the 19th century. There are videos of Joseph Levine giving a lesson in Chopin where he speaks of this practice. It's a pleasure to watch and listen to him. Randy
@@randya7578 That is fascinating! Are those videos available anywhere?
Slow movement of B-flat major sonata with Richter are never done as beautiful ❤️I was privileged to hear him in Copenhagen in the 80es (playing Beethoven op 109 a.o.) The film you mention is really worth watching 👍Thanks 😊
Neuhaus on Richter:
Roughly speaking, the more intelligent the pianist, the better he can manage
a large-scale composition, and the more stupid he is--the less well he can
manage it. In the first case it is perspective thinking-i. e. horizontally; in the
second case it is short-term thinking-i. e. vertically. That is why I so much
admire the rhythm of Richter's performances: one feels clearly that the whole
work, even if it is of gigantic proportions, lies before him like an immense
landscape, revealed to the eye at a single glance and in all its details from the
eagle's flight, from a tremendous height and at an incredible speed. I ought
to say once and for all that such unity, such structure, such a wide musical
and artistic horizon as his I have never encountered in any of the pianists I
have known,
and I have heard all the great ones: Hofmann, Busoni,
Godowsky, Carreno,
Rosenthal, d'Albert,
Sauer, Essipova,
Sapelnikov,
Medtner and a lot of others (I am not speaking of the younger generation).
Unfortunately, there are two that I have not heard but whom I would
probably have loved more than any others; they are Rachmaninov and
Scriabin.
Also, richter is not an objectivist. It’s like calling Hoffman or Anton Rubinstein one, just because they say “follow the score” doesn’t mean they actually do in the urtext fashion.
Thanks for the quote from Neauhaus. I wouldn't want to pigeonhole Richter as an objectivist! I only say that because he identified himself as one who wanted to follow the score exactly, so he seems to be part of that trend in the 40s-60s. Obviously he sometimes contradicts that in his playing. At the same time, he often times does play in a very "objective" way, certainly when compared to figures like Hoffman, or what we know of Anton Rubinstein. Rubinstein seems to have spoken of "following the score" as a first step. Once you had sufficiently learned the original you were allowed to make changes if you felt justified, but I think this was not Richter's philosophy.
@@TheIndependentPianist Yeah, I think Richter was an objectivist in the sense he believed he was one. But, I think his true spirit is dialectical, he is a subjective objectivist.
Either way though, I don't really believe in true "objectivism", because if you say something like you are just a vehicle for the composer's score or something, by doing that you kind of are putting your own inflection into the music. Even if your beliefs are to be objective, it still to me in some sense implies a kind of subjectivity. Arrau, Schnabel, Late Rubinstein all attempt to be objectivist, but, when you listen to their recordings I think it's clear there is three individual personalities. It's interesting, to think about, even when I practice I wonder if it's best to just play it straight, or play it free, and I always feel like playing it free the composer would prefer more, but who knows...
What do you think about these recordings of him? I feel like this is some of the most free playing I've seen from him..
czcams.com/video/er3a8yYPgWY/video.html
czcams.com/video/NBGZX_mm2RQ/video.html
Oh and one more thing I realized recently, and find it to be a big truth... Live performances will always be more free and spontaneous, then a studio recording. Even for Richter, his live performances are so much more free/interesting than studio.
If you have time check out his 1949 Pictures at an Exhibition (just listen to first promenade), then listen to his studio recording. In this instance I prefer the studio recording, but, probably have more respect for the live performance, it's very daring.
Thank you for uploading great videos, they help me a lot as a novice pianist.
@@TheIndependentPianist Richter has anything to do with the objectivism movement in music. He harshly criticized Pollini and Brendel for their literal, ideological playing, for instance (it's in his diaries). You just got a comment of great generality (that the interpreter should be a mirror of the score can mean everything...) and forced it into the Urtext cultural wave. A wave to which Richter was completely extraneous. In fact, the Urtext priests (Schiff, Brendel, etc) despise Richter's approach to music. Apart from that (big!) misunderstanding, yours was a nice video.
@@daniele8716 Well it's not true that Schiff despises Richter-I've heard him speak of him with great respect. And describing Schiff and Brendel as Urtext priests might be misleading, but let's lay that aside for the moment! I think either I misspoke or you slightly misunderstood my idea here. It's true that Richter was his own person and was not part of any particular "school" or "wave." On the other hand there was a trend towards objectivity among classical musicians in the mid-20th century, and in many ways Richter was obviously in sympathy with many of those ideas: i.e. precise textual fidelity, along with avoidance of any romantic mannerisms. This is simply objective fact.
For instance, you will never hear Richter play with his hands not exactly together. The kind of rubato where the hands don't line up, described by Mozart and Chopin and liberally practiced by many late 19th century pianists, didn't exist for Richter, as well as for Arrau, Rubinstein, and the vast majority of younger artists playing in the mid 20th century. Similarly, you will never hear Richter (intentionally) change a single note, or introduce any unwritten embellishments or improvisations. Therefore, no embellishments in Mozart, Haydn, or Bach, and no attempt to complete unfinished mvts from Schubert, just for example.
This doesn't mean that he was boring or unimaginative, quite the reverse. But he was approaching the whole business of music making through the lens of objectivity, which was the prevailing philosophy at the time. Other musicians, particularly those trained at the end of the 19th century, have a very different starting point from which they approach a composer's score. It's fascinating to me how evocative Richter could be-just as interesting as those other pianists in his own way, while approaching things from this angle.
The g major Schubert sonata is incredible. I do like Richters version but I do like the way it almost phases in and out with those semiquavers and playing it that slowly you lose that quality. I always love how in Schubert there is this deep pathos but with quite kinda quirky ideas. Richter abandons all sense of that.
I think that's a fair argument. With such an extreme interpretation of course you lose some things, whatever else you gain.
Richter’s interpretation of this sonata is a true masterpiece and unmatched to date. Genius!
I agree, it's an amazing performance. Thanks for watching!
I read somewhere that it was Richter's favorite Schubert sonata, which may explain why his reading of it is one of the best Schubert recordings ever.
I have always immediately found unique musical beauty in Richter's performances since I first heard recordings in the early 1960's. I've read that he actually wasn't over-concerned with playing for the audience, rather interpreting and playing the music. He often had no lighting on stage apart from a lamp. He also doesn't spend too much time greeting the audience or leaving the stage when he is finished. A formal, private man with two sides to him. I will always find him truly human and honest.
Thanks much🎉🎉 you are amazing🎉
Открою небольшой секрет: в России очень любят медленную музыку. На мой взгляд, это навеяно северным колоритом, что возымело влияние и на центральные, и на южные регионы. Нас увлекает устройство звука, как разнообразить звучание. Я мог сидеть часами и вычищать звук. Одна нота с одинаковой громкостью может звучать по-разному и по характеру, и по настроению. Подобный подход улучшает слух и отношение к произведению. В этом плане мне очень нравится Рихтер. Также мне очень нравится польско-советский пианист Артур Рубмнштейн. Он с такой невозмутимостью сглаживает звуки... Больше всего мне нравится концерт Грига в его исполнении. Лучший концерт Грига у Рубинштейна. У Рихтера мне больше всего нравится Бах. Многие предпочитают Баха Гульда, но мне он кажется слишком легкомысленным и не совсем серьёзным. Рихтер предал фугам Баха футуристичное звучание, глубокое, быстрое, будто движение вселенной и космических объектов в ней, но при этом очень спокойное. Будто ты попал в космическое пространство с мельтешащими звёздами, и ты не чувствуешь никакой угрозы, только покой и умиротворение. Я это состояние называю "суперкомфорт".
You make an interesting comparison with regard to the differences in tempo between Richter and Brendel. I recall reading somewhere (several years ago) that Brendel was rather scathing against Richter's playing of Schubert for the very reason of his slow tempo. Listening now to this excerpt of Brendel playing the G major Sonata, it makes no impression at all on me. And I have given it several listenings with the same result each time. I am not saying that I see Brendel is a poor pianist or musician, in fact I have very much enjoyed his recordings of Mozarts piano concertos on Phillips. But some people have described Brendel as a "cerebral" pianist and I can see why.
When Richter disliked the playing of certain pianists (as written down in his personal notebooks), one of his most severe criticisms was that there was no poetry. This is exactly what I feel is lacking in the brief excerpt of Brendel playing the D894. Also, and probably related to this impression, certain passages sound simply too rushed to my ears. Overall, the music sounds like it is not allowed to be expressed fully.
Richter is the complete opposite. He seems extremely sensitive to what the music itself requires and asks of the interpreter, and as a result it sounds like it is allowed to flow completely naturally. A key element in his art is his spontaneity, for which he was famous. The very perceptive and extremely articulate Glenn Gould lavished praise on Richter for his spontaneity which according to him was in union with an intense analytical calculation at the same time (see Richter the Enigma for the clip where Gould talks about Richter). Lazar Berman made a similar point, saying that "Sviatoslav Richter amazed me by his spontaneity" and emphasizing that "the spontaneity of Richter's art of the 40's-50's is a unique phenomenon in pianism". This natural music-making, for want of a better term, is precisely what appeals so much to me and undoubtedly many others, in addition to his sheer physical power and his unique range of expression, which is unsurpassed and has been approached by very few others, Michelangeli being one of these selected few in my opinion.
Brilliant video. Also, could you please tell me what the piece in the intro is called?
He is an extremely dynamic performer! A personality like his needs to write his own music so it can fit his character into his work rather than restraining his abilities within repertoire that will not allow his way of playing. So fellow pianists, if the old works don't fit for you, write new music that works for you. The music world can stand some new piano music.
Well I wholeheartedly agree about the desirability of new music! But still, I think figures like Richter can be inspiring in everything they do. I guess it is a matter of personal feeling if you feel the music doesn't allow his kind of treatment. Such a shame that someone like Richter didn't continue composing-apparently he did quite a but in his younger years. The split between executant and composer is not such a great thing.
I think he tried to compose and conduct.
Richter wasn't born in Odessa, but in Zhytomyr. Btw he's always hated Odessa.
Thanks for catching that. I was working fast and must have misread it. Luckily Richter is no longer with us, so I don't have to worry about incurring his displeasure. I can just imagine the entry in one of his notebooks "Where on earth did he get this information (stated very confidently), that I was born in Odessa? I've always hated Odessa!" 🙂
Correct info!!
So what. You whole life just sticks with these nonsense to be self satisfied? Miserable
It may be a slight exagerration to state that he always hated Odessa. It is true that he associated the city with some very negative experiences, but some very important events in his life took place there as well. He worked as an accompanist to singers and also at the theater as a repetiteur, and he even improvised music to silent movies at local cinemas. In the 1930s, he heard many great pianists in Odessa, including Arthur Rubinstein, Egon Petri, Ignaz Friedman and Robert Casadesus. He made his first public concert there in 1934, before his studies in Moscow with Heinrich Neuhaus. It was also in Odessa that he heard and met Neuhaus for the first time. Without those formative experiences, he might not have become a concert pianist. So my guess is that he looked at Odessa with mixed feelings, although the negative ones probably weighed heavier later in his life.
@@SR71YF12 Thank you for this, it’s very interesting and gives a valuable perspective.
Great video.
Richter's performances of Schubert's Gm and B flat sonatas mesmerize me. I listen to these several times a year.
I thought the same thw first times I heard him. Now, I love him.
Celibidache: Slower IS the Best
Except when he does it , Klemperer is better in that style
Celibidache is great unless you want a musical experience.
Furtwangler on Bach: HOLD MY BEER
I ( a professional musician but not classical pianist 😂) am enjoying your words. thank you keep it up
Thank you! 😃
I was fortunate enough to approach Richter several times at a festival which he was organizing every year and where he was easy to talk to during the breaks. A truly formidable presence, on and off stage. He was very generous with young artists who got their first openings thanks to his name behind the festival.
To me his most extraordinary recording is Schumann's Papillons, which he plays differently from anything I have heard anywhere -- absolutely stupendous, like walking on the moon.
Monsaingeon's film is magnificent but also very sad, showing an old and decaying Richter (after cancer recovery I assume), so different from the colossus he was in his prime.
I know this is a petty gripe, but I was disturbed in this video by the systematic mispronunciation, repeated many times, of Richter's name. To prepare a video like this one should check such details. Had I not known the topic I would have thought the speaker was talking about some pal of him called "Richard"! In English it should be pronounced "Rishter" (the closest approximation of the German pronunciation), or, to approximate the Russian pronunciation, "RiHter" a full "H" as in "high". Interesting text though.
I do very much enjoy the recording of Papillons as well and I am very jealous you were lucky enough to hear Richter in concert!
It's certainly true it would be more accurate to have pronounced the name more line with a Germanic accent. However I understood that the exact sound of the "ch" would vary depending on geographical location anyway, some areas having a harder, and some a softer pronunciation. At any rate since I'm neither a German nor a Russian speaker I tend to default to the English pronunciation-as many people do. After all, no one in the English speaking world says "Muscova" instead of Moscow (although maybe we should)!
Thank you for commenting!
The original version is in french. English may be is your language. Try a chinese version!
Interesting! I am not familiar with this Schubert Sonata, but looking at the score and the performance directions, Richter's interpretation doesn't struck me as a radical departure from what's written.
What I mean is that "molto moderato" asks for a lot of restraint, plus - for me - this is further emphasized by "cantabile", which usually brings with it the concept of giving every note individual attention as if they were carrying syllables. Richter's playing for me here is the perfect cantabile - the little ritardando is strictly speaking Richter's invention for sure, but I believe Schubert hints at it with the little cresc-decresc and the staccato-legato combination (ok, that might be pushing it:). The pianissimo direction also suggests a spiritual atmosphere. If I came to this score without having heard a performance, I might imagine something half-way between Brendel and Richter. The latter's tempo definitely doesn't feel alien, though the ritardando most probably wouldn't have occured to me.
Late-Richter's late-Liszt is also very worth checking out. His live recordings of Valse oubliée No.2 and Hungarian Rhapsody No.17 are some of my favourite recordings (also, who would ever think of programming the latter in a recital?:).
Thank you for another fascinating video!
This is an interesting and intelligent comment. Thank you
Thank you very much for the excellent analysis of Richter. I’m not at all fond of his overly fast and furious style of playing the Romantics and early modernists. On the other hand, I love his early 1970s recording of Bach’s WTC books I & II. I think only the recent live recordings by Thomas Schawn equal or surpass these. BTW, thanks for the heads up on The Enigma. Best wishes
I totally agree that slower adds clarity to the score and in this case an amazing emotional impact. In general I’ve found some pianists like to show off how quickly they can play, usually at the detriment of the composition 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Over many years, I’ve played through the G major many times, listened to many recordings - and multiple times to this one by Richter. While it certainly is striking on first hearing, it came to sound more like slow practicing to me than an actual performance, lacking the cantabile in Schubert’s tempo marking. That said, experimenting to shake expectations is always worthwhile, even if it ultimately doesn’t work. AKA Glenn Gould!
Nice executive assignment, I am in favor of undergoing music experiences. Coincidentally, at the end of last year I studied Schubert's sonatas to become more familiar with them. So I also came across recordings by Richter and Brendel. I must confess that I find it difficult to listen to Richter. I can handle his pace, but his touches of the keys feel to me like unexpected, detached and excruciatingly slow pinpricks. Brendel plays much more pleasantly and fluent to my hearing and feeling. I just tried listening to Richter's G major again, but it tests my patience too much, after 30 minutes of cringeworthy listening I turned it off, altough the sound of the piano itself sounds nice and I admire his consistency in pace. I'm curious about the experiences of your other fans, I'm probably overlooking something, or missing a certain antenna, or should encourage myself to listen to Richter more often? Anyway, I would be happy to learn from other visions...! But if you ask me, I prefer to listen to YOUR recording of the Schubert F# minor sonata :-) my all time favorite by far and forever!
Brendel's is the more "natural" version-so it's no shame to like it! It is a great recording. And also, no need to worry if you don't take to Richter. I found him an acquired taste, although there are things that are very inspiring about his ideas. And thank you for your kind words about my Schubert F# minor Sonata 🙂
Interesting. In the Brendel version of the Gmajor one can't tell the difference between the 16th note and the eighth note.
Very interesting!! As a side note, from what piece are the chords that are played in the intro? 0:00
Hi, great video! Your audio is too low though and has a strange spectral balance :) Which hard and software are you using to make the vids?
Thanks! The audio seems normal when I listen on my setup, but please let me know if you have ideas. I put the audio through a leveler in Adobe Audition.
@@TheIndependentPianist YW! I don't know how exactly the adobe leveler works but from what i hear i'd say it simply normalises your loudest peak and therefor without any compression before that stage you give away much potential. I uploaded a graphic for you here: i.paste.pics/L4H4C.png. You see the uncompressed audio with it's high runaway peak (orange dashed line), if this is not compressed (can be done in a sensible natural sounding way) two thirds of potential for core content is lost. So you want to strongly compress the runaway peaks (everything above pink dashed line) by at least 10 : 1 or even a limiter and very fast attack settings (possibly .1ms) Then you still can compress the "normal peaks" with a moderate setting of say 2.5:1. Core dynamic range still stays untouched this way. Normalize after those two compression steps and you have at least tripled the volume without sounding overly compressed. You can carefully watch the affected area with your tracks this way and undo and adjust settings and listen on reasonable monitors until you're happy.
With spectral balance there are two points that immediately jump into my attention. First you have room resonances that you could easily find by raising a slim eq band and then slowly sweep through the frequency range until it pops - that way you know exactly where it is and after that you can lower that frequency by attenuating by a few dBs. If you find two or three resonance spots that way you have way cleared up. That said, you can avoid most of the resonances by blocking it's path to the mic by hanging a Duvet or similar between you and the reflecting surfaces. Or between the reflecting surfaces and the mic. This must not be "seen" by the camera of course". After that you can still clean out with the sweet-eq method described before.
Right now your highs are well present but low mids are missing. Almost kind of like if you had two mics and they're cancelling each other. If you have two mics you need to pan them hard left and hard right so their signals don't interfere and cause comb filtering. That info should get you a long way and it's well worth of the very good content you're doing. Cheers! Rainer
I absolutely love this performance. The 'logic' of the tempo becomes apparent in the development section. The long line that he sustains up to that point creates a tension at the climax of that section that is emotionally unbearable.
I think he is emphasizing the "cantabile" part of the first movement. With the long pauses, keeping a steady rhythm doesn't sound like singing. It's more like "sing a note, wait a while, then sing a few notes in tempo, wait a while". As long as there isn't an orchestra/conductor in the background keeping tempo, it makes sense. I find it interesting in that same movement that when there is a steady triplet pulse in the left hand, then the right hand is playing at tempo.
Yes, well put. When the steady LH enters Richter fully enters into a tempo-in the opening he is playing more in the sense of a fantasia.
I have a possible answer for richters seeming lack of counting and distortion of the rhythm in Schubert. I have an edition of schubert sonatas from around the 1920's and it has the G major sonata's first movement labeled as a fantasie andente, which some publishers called it. So he possibly was treating it as a fantasie and used a flowing rhythm to show that.
I like less sugar in my cereal, I love Richter, & I agree with everything said here. I hear what people mean when they call his playing is "cold." But I would describe it in a positive sense: clear. vivid. strong. measured. true. good. The "coldness" is necessary for Prokofiev, etc. You're right, though, to focus on the G major Sonata because part of Richter's genius is the extraordinary range: his Prokofiev is idiomatic, but then his Schubert is hypnotic, & bizarre, & not trite. Another foil would be his Jeux d'eau: that one startles by being "too fast," & then ends with some of the most gorgeous, genuinely-romantic playing ever recorded. All that and more is in his late-Beethoven Leipzig concert: which is one of the greatest recordings ever recorded. Especially the E major (Op. 109), my goodness.
This explains why a lot of people tend to like my piano playing compared to classically trained pianist. I have took lessons but I am mostly self taught and learn songs myself. I do not count when I play and just rely on how the music feels.
Muy interesante!!!!❤
I really like Richters slow and moving interpretation of the 1st mov of this sonata. It explores the dark and mysterious realms of Schubert. I think he probably would have loved it. :)
2nd, 3rd and especially 4th SR plays quite fast. Think I like Brendel's approach here. Quite slow, 2nd fex. Skipping the ornaments (actually deleted by Schubert himself, I've heard). Beautiful and expessively played by Brendel the 2nd!
Yes I love Brendel's version also-and leaving out those ornaments is probably a good idea. And who knows, even if it surprised Schubert, he might indeed have been amazed by Richter's take on his music!
Richter was and is the greatest piano virtuoso in history...bar none...his concerto #2 by Rachmaninov is better than Rachmaninovs himself...I love how he plays Chopin as well. Sometimes he plays too fast, but I never heard him miss a note in his early years, his concerts were epic.
well horowitz's rach3rd is better than rachmaninoff's own, and the third is way harder. Therefore horowitz is #1 piano virtuoso ever
I hope you know about the Prague recitals in the 80s that included Etudes Tableaux. Not to be missed.
I know that this isn't directly about Richter's speed , but just a personal view , something of that atmosphere and tension that Richter manages to convey here with his slower and broken speed in the Schubert D 894 seems to come across to me when Schiff uses a softer Franz Brodmann 1820 Viennese fortepiano
I have been lucky enough over the years to hear Arrau, Gilels, Cherkassky, Curzon, Lupu, Sokolov, Pogorelich, Gavrilov, Volodos, Berman, Brendel, Schiff, Pollini, KIssin, Zimerman, Rana, Grosvenor and Richter live. Richter was, without doubt, the greatest of them all.
So lucky. If I have time machine, I want to go back and listen Richter playing.
@@sungminblades9963 Go and hear Volodos. Astounding artist.
An impressive list! I can match it, except for Rana, and would add Serkin and Kempff. Richter was without doubt among the greatest.
Gould’s remarks on Richter are worth noting.
...oh, you did!
Intresting and educational!
After hearing Richter playing Schubert’s G major Sonata, when I hear anyone else playing it, it feels incomplete, almost wrong.
The greatest of them all.
The metronome indications of composers (and tempo therefore even when no MM indicated) was intended by the composers to be read as a pendulum reading, and not a single-tick over-and-back reading; people are wrongly reading it as double the tempo. Richter, and indeed others like Gould and Pogorelich, had the audacity to follow the heart to the true music and inadvertently unknowingly make this discovery.
Well, what can I say, I personally think the double-beat hypothesis is incorrect. However I absolutely agree with you about him finding the heart of the music in the case of Schubert!
For those who haven't heard Richter's "Wanderer Fantasy" by Schubert, that is a treat.
It has no equal.
Hi Cole, could you please tell me the name of the music is that opens the video? It's very nice. Thank you if you can share the details, Steve 🙂
Earl Wild's Etude after Gershwin's "Liza." You are very welcome!
@@TheIndependentPianist Thank you for that info Cole. Much appreciated, Steve 🙂
Thanks for a fascinating vid and excellent analysis/overview of Richter and his qualities. I heard him play this sonata in London and immediately with the opening tempo thunk: that's too bad for my timed cassette recording (broadcast by the BBC). His exposition repeat just turned the knife in the wound! But i was fascinote by the unique atmosphere after my initial shock and plunged in with most of the rest of the audience. Over the years, i've slightly moved away from appreciation of his slow tempi (another example would be Debussy "Pagodes"), which i now find a bit de-naturing. He could be contradictory in his writings and opinions. But Richter remains a great and fascinating artist even when one doesn't like or approve of all aspects.
Just noticed his page-turner (Roger Vignoles -distinguished accompanist), ...so this is that London performance!
Give me Liberace any day. Liberace grins, Richter grimaces. Richter, the guy who never smiled.
What is the piece that is heard in the opening 12 seconds of this video?
Earl WIld's Etude no. 1 after Gershwin's "Liza"
The fact that noone knows is that Richter had a different edition of that Schubert sonata, that's why he invisioned it to be played that slowly.
And after listening to many Richter recordings i must say that he is one of the rare pianists that combined intelect and emotion, in the end the result is a correct reading od the score (which is essential) played in the most free way.
I did hear this about Richter having a different score. Andras Schiff mentioned it in relation to D. 960. Apparently Richter's score wrote out one of the low trills in 32nd notes, so Schiff argues that Richter was taking his tempo from that. I'm not sure I agree really, because it doesn't explain why he also plays D. 894 (also Molto moderato) so slowly. This inclines me to think that he really thought that Molto moderato was this speed. From a certain perspective I can understand as well, because at the tempo most people use for these sonatas, by the time you reach the 16th notes, there is a definite feeling of a fairly rapid movement. I think Richter was trying to maintain a very moderate feel for these 16ths-as far away from an "Allegro" feeling as possible.
@@TheIndependentPianist Absolutely. Schiff's argument is ridiculous. Furthermore, Richter could do trills at insane speed, that would have not been a serious limitation in terms of speed.
I love how Richter plays the Schubert!
Listen to Christian Zacurias Lp of Schuberts G major. Very nice n slow.
SR's tempos could often be very slow and also absurdly fast, within a given multi-movement work. Schubert does not ask for an adagio in GM sonata. He asks for a cantabile. Richter refuses to. But there's no reason to be prosaic when playing at a moderate tempo. That is not a function of tempo.