op 10 no 4 !!!

[piano89]

 Listen the best performance  op 10 no 4- Chopin ?
What do you thing ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ZI_LirSAs

[piano32]

It is the best, even if it's too fast. But so exciting.

[opus10no2]

Not quite fast enough for my tastes actually.

[jlh]

This one's been on the forum several times already...

[mikey6]

Not quite fast enough for my tastes actually.

Poss this one's more to your taste
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b3M8ygnOu-A&mode=related&search=

and this one's just funny
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J98kbRRU-S8&mode=related&search=

[piano89]

Poss this one's more to your taste
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b3M8ygnOu-A&mode=related&search=

and this one's just funny
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J98kbRRU-S8&mode=related&search=

hehehehehe

[jinfiesto]

Wow... I'm not really fond of Richter as a pianist... Fabulous technique, but rumor has it he was kind of an ass though. Oh well. I think Murray Perahia's version is better.

[hodi]

Wow... I'm not really fond of Richter as a pianist... Fabulous technique, but rumor has it he was kind of an ass though. Oh well. I think Murray Perahia's version is better.

perahia is playing it without any fire or fury... his touch is too "light" for this piece
IMO

[amelialw]

rachmaninoff's is amazing!

[joachimf]

That Richter video is fast-forwarded. See how the napkin lands on the grand when he throws it in the beginning, before playing. The napkin doesn't act like that because of great technique, it's simply against the laws of physics:P

[zheer]

That Richter video is fast-forwarded.

  No he was phenomenal.

[elevateme_returns]

perahia is playing it without any fire or fury... his touch is too "light" for this piece
IMO

richter's is too fast. you can't hear the notes!! wheres the excitement in that??

i would agree with jinfiesto, perahia's is better in my opinion because you can hear every note clearly, and all the phrasing/dynamics etc are there. at richter's speed, as amazing as it is, it's just a blur. which takes the interest out for me. i used to think wow wow amazing fast! but now it's about the music for me, not the speed.

[franzliszt2]

I seen Perahia play it live a few months ago           

The best etude I've ever ever heard! was astonishing! If I hadn't actually been there I would not have believed it

[opus10no2]

richter's is too fast. you can't hear the notes!! wheres the excitement in that??

i would agree with jinfiesto, perahia's is better in my opinion because you can hear every note clearly, and all the phrasing/dynamics etc are there. at richter's speed, as amazing as it is, it's just a blur. which takes the interest out for me. i used to think wow wow amazing fast! but now it's about the music for me, not the speed.

Either his playing is too fast or your ears are too slow.

The notes are there to be heard, comfort yourself with the fact that most people, like you, don't have the listening skills.

[franzliszt2]

I don't think your ears are fine enough to realise that notes are missing. It's also slightly out of tune, so you musn't have the finset ears becasue you have not mentioned that 

[counterpoint]

The notes are there to be heard, comfort yourself with the fact that most people, like you, don't have the listening skills.

Wow, this will start a new competition: who can hear how many notes per second    

But then, I can hear, that many fast-players have a very bad sound...  

[jlh]

  No he was phenomenal.

Yes, he was phenominal!  However, that doesn't prove the video is not sped up. 

[opus10no2]

I don't think your ears are fine enough to realise that notes are missing. It's also slightly out of tune, so you musn't have the finset ears becasue you have not mentioned that 

Oh, he's human, I know.

Do you prefer Ingolf Wunder's interpretation?

Same speed, all the notes, more even, and incredible clarity.

[franzliszt2]

hahahahahahahahah

comparing Wunder to Richter!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha It's like comparing Monet to a grade C  GCSE Art student!!

[opus10no2]

I'd advise you to listen first.

His performance is technically superior

[soliloquy]

I'd advise you to listen first.

His performance is technically superior

His performance is different.  Richter was an old-school pianist who had a lot more reserve for how he played; Wunder is a young kid trying to make a name for himself with some pyrotechnics.  It's really impossible to say whose technique is best.  Could Wunder outplay Richter in the 10-4?  No.  And that recording is one of the few truly solely technical feats Richter left behind.

But randomly I don't like Richter or Wunder.

[opus10no2]

It's really impossible to say whose technique is best.  Could Wunder outplay Richter in the 10-4?  No. 

You're only proving your own stupidity here.

If a pianist plays a piece at the same tempo as another, and one plays more evenly, only one conclusion could be arrived at.

With hope you'll arrive there, albeit slowly.

[counterpoint]

What about Freddy Kempf?

[opus10no2]

Good tech, wikid zpirit.

[counterpoint]

Good tech, wikid zpirit.

Could you please explain, what you want to say with wicked spirit?

[opus10no2]

His technique isn't much above average concert pianist level, but his emotion while performing comes through with more passion than many.

[counterpoint]

His technique isn't much above average concert pianist level, but his emotion while performing comes through with more passion than many.

Ah, I understand, wicked was meant in a positive way - that's good   

But the thing with the average concert pianist level -

You think Richter or Wunder have a better technique than Kempf...?  Never!

[marik]

His performance is technically superior

Cannot judge as I did not hear Wunder with this etude.
In any case, even if hypothetically Wunder's Op.10/4 is technically superior, how it affects the fact that Richter was the musician of the century, and Wunder is just some kid who can move his fingers fast?

[jakev2.0]

Agree with marik 100%

[franzliszt2]

op10no2 you are so blind to what technique actually is. Has tone production never occured to you as the cheif aim of technique? Speed is stupid. I've witnessed at least 20 people in person play the etude faster than richter, and are they better pianists? NO!! Richters technique was amazing and you are just showing your own ignorance and stupidy in saying otherwise. When will you ever learn that speed is not technique? Any idiot can move fast...look at Wunder!! And all these other pianists you rave about, and they are all nobodys. Little flashes in the pan, with people like hailing them as virtuoso.

[counterpoint]

Okay, I found a page with recordings of Wunder - there is among others op.10-4.
It is frightening fast.
And I'm very surprised (in a positive way) about the sound quality 

Wunder plays way too fast for my taste, but he plays very good indeed.

http://www.ingolfwunder.at/recordings_english.htm

[joachimf]

richter's is too fast. you can't hear the notes!! wheres the excitement in that??

...at richter's speed, as amazing as it is, it's just a blur. which takes the interest out for me. i used to think wow wow amazing fast! but now it's about the music for me, not the speed.

I would think that the video, in its original speed, wouldn't feel like a blur. I think that the blurred effect is there because it's an old recording w/ bad sound and secondly, because, as with a lot of other b/w movies they had to speed them up in order to get fluent motion on picture.

zheer: I'm not saying he wasn't phenomenal. Indeed he was! And I think that his phrasings, dynamics, etc. etc. would be very clear and simply fantastic if the video is played in the original tempo. It's not speeded up much, though, just a noch. Well, IMHO it's speeded up:P

[joachimf]

I didn't like Wunder's version of it too much. He doesn't play it to my taste at all. But he has brilliant technique! Absolutely amazing...

[opus10no2]

musician of the century

You said it. Who mentioned music?

Wunder has faster fingers than Richter, that's it.

Faster fingers facilitate faster and more even passagework, they do not imply musical genius.

[counterpoint]

the fact that Richter was the musician of the century

Was he?
Not for me. There are quite a few candidates for this title (Horowitz, Rubinstein, Cortot, Schnabel, Gilels, Argerich - to name just a few) but Richter is not on my list 

[opus10no2]

op10no2 you are so blind to what technique actually is. Has tone production never occured to you as the cheif aim of technique? Speed is stupid. I've witnessed at least 20 people in person play the etude faster than richter, and are they better pianists? NO!! Richters technique was amazing and you are just showing your own ignorance and stupidy in saying otherwise. When will you ever learn that speed is not technique? Any idiot can move fast...look at Wunder!! And all these other pianists you rave about, and they are all nobodys. Little flashes in the pan, with people like hailing them as virtuoso.

I'm aware of the purely musical elements of technique, but while I value them very much - I do not discuss them because it reduces discussions to infantile rants like yours.

Speed is ALOT more than you realise.

Without finger speed, someone wouldn't be able to articulate with staccato, legato, etc.

Wow, someone has the ability to articulate and dynamically shape a passage a 10BPM!

That is EASY, technique only becomes a challenge when time restrictions are imposed.

If we had 5 secods to prepare for every note and chord, it'd be quiteeasy

When we have 0.03 of a second to prepare, we have to involve much more technique.

Anyway, back to thepoint, speed and evenness are OBJECTIVELY calculable - a computer can analyze it, and figure out the pianist with the greater dexterity.

[opus10no2]

Was he?
Not for me. There are quite a few candidates for this title (Horowitz, Rubinstein, Cortot, Schnabel, Gilels, Argerich - to name just a few) but Richter is not on my list 

The precise reason I find 'musical' statements like this infantile.