I think Horowitz's are incredible. For a great set of the etudes, try Piers Lane's on Hyperion records. Many people will boo me, but Asgkenazy's set of the sonatas is pretty good, especially the 5th (my favorite). I really like Ashkenazy's because the recording is clear, unlike many of those by the older masters, such as Horowitz.
I think Ruth Laredo does a very creditable job with Scriabin as well. I have her complete Scriabin piano sonatas and the Etudes, Op. 42 in a Nonesuch boxed 2-CD set. I like her playing there a great deal, enhanced by the Baldwin SD10 she plays.
Complete Sonatas: Hamelin, Zhukov (if you can find it)AVOID the Ashkenazy, great sound, boring performances. As far as individual sonatas, the holy trinity of Scriabin players is Sofronitsky, Horowitz and Richter.
I have a CD featuring 5 different pianists playing Scriabin pieces: Goldenweiser, Feinberg, Neuhaus, Sofronitsky and Scriabin himself.
I dont know of the precice recording but Mr Sofrontitsky is reputed to be the greatest or at least most accurate interpreter of Scriabins music. He was i believe his so-in-law and spent considerable time with scriabin by all accounts if you want to understand scriabins pedalling - the most ellusive aspect - then sofrontitsky is the person to listen to. There arent so many recordings available of him though as He was at his height when Russia as a nation was isolated from the west and many recordings are lost/unpublished but i believe there are a few now. I think the Great pianists series has a disc devoted to sofrontitsky but im not sure how much of it is devoted to scriabin. When i studied his complete piano works for a project I listened to Vladimir ashkenazy for the sonatas and various people, Horowitz,Ashkenazy,Mosevich etc for the etudes Berman would also be good to listen to. Becarefull when selecting recordings though because its easy to fall into the trap of thinking Russians will understad this music. Not all do! Many will play him like Rachmaninov and this is incorrect because where Rachmaninov favoured a very rich rooted sound where all the main gestures in his piano writing plunge down into the keys Scriabin is the opposite He floats and lifts up above a cloud of bass sound and a good performance of his music should catch this upward moving energy and sense of elevation. Hence Rachmaninovs recordings of Scriabins music whilst being fascinating and of course very well played actually often miss essential ingredients of fine Scriabin performance. Happy hunting
I would like to get a cd featuring Scriabin's Sonatas and Etudes. What would you recommend as the best performance available?
no comment.
hamelin's sonatas are first rate, for every performance. ashkenazy's are ok, but dont come close to hamelin. also, ive heard some recordings of sonatas on their own that are god, like kuzmin's 4th sonata, which is the benchmark for me. for the etudes, there is really no perfect set. each one has its problems. the ones i least like are piers lane. i think his tempos are too unconventional. also, he seems to lack the passion ive heard in other recordings, like arthur greene, for example.id say to mix and match recordings for the etudes. different people's recs work for different ears. in my case, i least like lane's. it does vary from person to person, keep that in mind.
In case it is of interest, you will find Scriabin himself playing his Počme, Op. 32, No. 1, at:www.pianola.org/reproducing/reproducing.cfmI have also made an mp3 of him playing two of the Opus 11 Preludes, and I'll upload it to the audition room. All these recordings were made in Moscow in early February, 1910, as far as we can tell.The modern audio was recorded on a Steinway Welte-Mignon piano in the suburbs of London earlier this year. It's not a resonant studio acoustic, but then neither was the room where Scriabin recorded.
Horowitz did not have the talent for interpretation that his contemporaries did. He is the Lang Lang of that era.
what the f**k....... are you talking about. *no comment*.... we are talking about his scriabin and not his Chopin, right?
Since this surfaced, i'll comment. These are opinions, but i've lived with this music for a long time and played most of it. It'd be interesting to hear opinions:Fergus Thompson - came across these very early on with my acquaintance of Scriabin, i think some are still very good. I'd have to relisten to them. I remember his 5th being very good.Ogdon - impossible to surpass, his resources are monstrous, and dedication to the strength of the music is the best there ever will be. His 4th and 5th are not always my favorites.Hamelin - his pianistic resources are up to the task but i find they don't produce the correct emotional delivery, if there is one. I found them fairly hollow, and the technique almost too easy and perfect. It's not that he cannot deliver something of substance (his night wind still has moments where i cannot find better) but usually there's something weak about his playing. I can't find any better words.Laredo - an imposter, weak pianist, fallible technique, unconvincing performances. The piano has an interesting soundAshkenazy - Never really interested me. Szidon - generally very good.Ponti - poor recording quality, i should listen to these again, but from what i recall i generally find his approach rushed, but has strength if you dislike slow performances. Lettenberg - Not convincing, at some point i did listen to her but recall being uninterested.Richter - needless to say committed and convincing. Probably not the best, but highly recommended.Sofronitsky - Definetly highly recommended, but i have not listened to these recently either.Boris Berman - i distinctly recall his late sonatas being very good in places.Zhukov - He appears to think Scriabin is synonymous with Bruckner. Those are some unusual negotiation skills.Taub - not a good idea
Interesting, as several of the performances you are rather critical of are ones which I like.
Feinberg is quite underrated in this regard, most people either know him by his Bach or his 6th sonata, and I think that his Scriabin is superb, one of the best I've encountered even if he didn't do many recordings.
I just ordered Anatol Ugorski's set of Sonatas. The timings suggest rather slow tempos, but he always has something interesting to say, so I eagerly await its arrival.
Sofronitsky is the way to go. If you want to really enjoy the pieces go with him. If you do not want to enjoy it go with Horowitz. Horowitz did not have the talent for interpretation that his contemporaries did. He is the Lang Lang of that era.
I could not agree with "theholygideons" more. Obviously, you have not listened extensively to Horowitz' early studio recordings nor any of his live recordings from the same period.The man was both rhapsodic and lyrical at a very high level. As further proof, in regards Scriabin, I list a late live recording for your listening pleasure:
I have listened to Horowitz extensively enough to know I cannot find any pleasure in listening to his playing.
Might I remind people that "my taste is better than yours" is a pretty pointless argument.
yes, yet to say with absolute conviction that a performer is of no good (horowitz in this case) is equally dangerous. Maybe some people have gotten too old that they can no longer taste youthful emotions anymore.
here is, some youthful potatoes
Hah your comment on youthful emotion in piano playing totally reminded me if this!
Because Horowitz isn't pleasing at all to your sweet tooth. You like muddy sound with rubato all over like most conservatory pianists nowadays. You should check out ROBERTO SZIDON and his Scriabin Fantasy for the sonorities he is able to achieve is phenomenal as well.
Are you serious? First, many people including me, have listened to Vladimir extensively and do not get much pleasure from it. Did someone claim he's no good? Must have missed that. He is good but I do not care for his playing much. Yet I definitely don't like a "muddy sound with excessive" rubato, quite the opposite.But I definitely agree about Szidon
Topic: Scriabin performers 