It has to be Martha,Ed
Is it possible / just asking for trouble / actually quite common to play the opening with tre corde?
Gavrilov literally owns the three pieces.
hahahahahaha!!!!! that made me laugh out loud. it really did. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.i could name loads of people that are better than gavrilov, not just at gaspard but in general lol
Ravel's father was an engineer you know lol. i read his biography. the precision that goes into making Swiss clocks and watches influenced his piano writing apparently. i think any performance that brings out every note, even it's slightly laboured, sounds great in this piece and others by Ravel. that's why i don't like Argerich's. too smudgy, the effects cloud the detail we need to hear IMO
hahahah Gavrilov owns Gaspard??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahahahhahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhhhahahahahahahaahahahahaahahhhhahaaahahhahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahahahaahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahah
Seriously, was that needed?Phil
yes it was. gavrilov doesnt own anything. except apparently a small pair of boxers and a vest.
Gavrilov's studio recording of Gaspard is fantastic. His live Scarbo may be messy as hell but no one captures the effect and essence of the piece better than he does. Gavrilov also plays a hell of a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2.
His live Scarbo may be messy as hell but no one captures the effect and essence of the piece better than he does
i think even i capture it better! i also think most others do too, particularly jean-phillipe collard & berezovsky.in my opinion pogorelich's is slightly rushed, but still better than gavrilov's.
i think even i capture it better! i also think most others do too, particularly jean-phillipe collard & berezovsky.
in my opinion pogorelich's is slightly rushed, but still better than gavrilov's.
Plainly and politely put, no. It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins. There are not that many in Scarbo' anyway.Take note that I am a "fan" of not even one of the aforementioned. I am a fan of the music itself.
It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins. There are not that many in Scarbo' anyway.
i WISH people wouldnt just say "no"
Plainly and politely put, no. We are always discussing about the studio recording of Scarbo by Gavrilov (EMI). He simply does play it better because he does convey what he has to convey. I really do not see the issue here since all performers may have their ups and downs everywhere. If you do not like him it is fair enough for me. But you could learn a lot should you ever take your time analyzing his crescendos and his clock - like precision in timing them correctly with what comes before and after. There are just no beautiful passages lost, while in many others i only see boring romantic style bravura. Pogorelich is simply put, predictable. I can always feel ahead of him and there is no surprise. Gavrilov is surprising in sheer intensity.
playing it in under 9 minutes is not a good thing. it either means that the slow sections are rushed, the silences are not long enough to create the full effect, or the fast bits are rushed. or all of the above.
so you dont think berezovsky captures the mood? what about in the slow section just after the main theme comes back for the 2nd time ? i think his placing of the notes is the best there is at the moment. SO so good, the timing is spot on.
but hey, i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. OBVIOUSLY i am a fan of the music as well!! and i know the score inside out
As you see, i did not just say "no".
why is berezovsky's scarbo horrible?
come on man thats got to be a joke. all you did was put "plainly and politely put" in front of it.and its not even politely put.
I like certain sections of the piece to be played in very specific ways. Two main parts that make or break a Scarbo for me are the sections leading up to the climaxes.
It is, and it is not a joke, just remember, next time you quote somebody to quote what has been written. There is an entire paragraph. Too bad you see what you wish to see.
I like certain sections of the piece to be played in very specific ways. Two main parts that make or break a Scarbo for me are the sections leading up to the climaxes. The first one, I like exactly what Gavrilov does in the live video recording--long agogic accent on the D octave, then chord run played lightning fast straight to the C octave downbeat, absolutely NO SLOWING DOWN. I cannot stand it when people slow down at the top of that run. The build to the second climax must get as horrendously massive, as if the apparition grows to obliterate the sky. The second climax must sound like the apocalypse.
but surely as things get horrendously massive they would have to get slower?at first i agreed with you, i thought they should be quicker like pogorelich does it, it sounds really cool. but my teacher recommended slowing down, so who am i to argue, he really knows his stuff
Dude, you are being a prick for the sake of being a prick! Sure, you put a whole paragraph of contradictory material, but it was still saying that elevates opinion was 'wrong' as you so implied! So I am completely on elevatemes side here, he expressed his opinion, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to imply that he's completely wrong!
you said "no", about my opinion. if theres one thing i hate its when people say "no" . its so rude.there wasnt even a yes or no question
Key words- the second buildup. I like for a contrast between the climax in the middle of the piece and the climax near the ending. With the run leading up to it played lightning fast, the first climax won't be as massive but will still be justly diabolical. I agree completely about slowing down before the climax at the end. Ravel even says so. That way, the sound can broaden and create an overwhelming nightmare.
It is not a "no", you can take out that word and still have the same content.