Hepl with S. Richter

[daniel patschan]

I need some help/advice with Sviatoslav Richter: i try to understand him now since almost two years. I own and heard so many recordings that he made but i am simply not moved ! He has such a reputation, H. Neuhaus talked about him as if Richter was the godfather himself (he actually cites someone who said that there are only two pianists in history: Liszt and Richter). There is no doubt that he played a huge repertoire on a very high level (technically and musically) - but then: i find almost in every single case a recording which i prefer to his rendition. There are two exceptions: Schumann Toccata and Schubert D960. Almost everything else is so aggressive, without patience, so ... not matured. It is like he is rushing through a piece only to start the next one, it is like he ,i don´t know, like he hates the instrument. So much anger ! I hardly heard a recording of him that could compete with a number of recordings made by Gilels, Michelangeli, Zimerman or Pogorelich. What am i missing ? 

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I have listened to his Schumann pieces and was very surprised to find a quality in his playing that I haven't heard before. I don't know how to say it, primarily because it is much about individual preference, but I find him breathing a certain life into the pieces. Something beyond the notes.

This is really about preference so no need for such "penitence".

[pianistimo]

everyone seems to have preferences, so i don't think it's unusual.  for me, i've never heard another version of beethoven's moonlight (1st movt) that i like so much as richter's.  it is a sort of feeling that you get of a true understanding of the magnetism of the moon.  of love.  of the ebb and flow of life.  it's realistic.  not romantic in the sense of schmultzy.  there are no wild fluctuations of tempo - but a sort of reined in confidence that what he is playing is representative of a real thing.  he seems to be a realist.

[nicco]

so ... not matured. \

Or the other way around. Maybe you are not mature enough to understand. Just a suggestion. After all, the guy was as close to a pianistic genius as you come.

[jakev2.0]

Help with Richter you say? *sigh* I'll get my shovel and flashlight, meet me at the graveyard at 2AM. 

[pianistimo]

richter's father was one of the victims of stalin's purge...and yet richter had to play at stalin's funeral.  or chose to?  perhaps a gesture of goodwill lest he be shot.

www.newcriterion.com/archive/16/oct97/coleman.htm

[thierry13]

richter's father was one of the victims of stalin's purge...and yet richter had to play at stalin's funeral.  or chose to?  perhaps a gesture of goodwill lest he be shot.

www.newcriterion.com/archive/16/oct97/coleman.htm

I would have played Rachmaninoff's prelude op.23 no.2 for the occasion.

[jakev2.0]

I would have played this.

[cloches_de_geneve]

For a long time I felt similar about Richter. Then, a few years ago, I listened to his recording of Bach's WTC. That has completely changed my view of his playing. Once I got rid of my negative Richter bias, his interpretations started to speak to me; perhaps most of all his interpretations of Schubert and Liszt. For example, Schubert's D major sonata, D850, can appear as a convoluted net of motives and enticing melodies, seemingly without structure extending over 40 minutes (or more). When you listen to Richter's interpretation, you understand what Neuhaus meant when he said that Richter always has the entire work in mind when he plays, like a landscape seen from a hill or mountain. You don't get lost. The logic, the architecture of this work emerges with great clarity under his fingers.

This being said, I still feel that ocasionally he tends to be too brutal, too aggressive, too harsh. Indeed, if I can see a weakness in his playing it is that his quality of sound in the forte/fortissimo range is suboptimal. His fortissimos often sound harsh. In contrast, Gilels and Pollini, who like Richter have a lot of vigor and power in their playing, almost never sound harsh in their fortissimos.

[counterpoint]

"too brutal, too aggressive, too fortissimo"

Alltogether: too monstrous - yes, that's my feeling in many Richter recordings as well.
He often seems to me like a bull in a china shop. But there are some works, I really like a lot, for example Schumann's Symphonic Variations, which he plays extraordinary well.
When I hear Richter playing Bach, Haydn, Schubert etc.  I don't feel very comfortable.

[kempff1234]

You know why he plays brutally?

Because he can. He had the power and the right to do so and unleashed his power all over the place. I wouldn't call it brutal playing. Richter just banging on the keys is worth thousands more than some idiots today who won't go higher than a F, coz it's too loud and we might pee in our pants

[franzliszt2]

I'm a total Richeter fanatic, I love his playing more than anyother pianists (obviously I like people recordings better for some things, but on the whole I like Richter),

I think it is his sound that attracts me, it is a real sound, such variety, such true dynamics. His pp is just so quiet, his ff so powerfull, and he has a full range of sound between those. His technique was amazing, and his repertoire was just so vast it's hard to imagine someone playing it all.

The thing I really like about him is that everything he plays, he plays like a piece of music, unlike so many pianists who are like..ohh Liszt sonata, hit the notes fast and loud! And forget about the music

[daniel patschan]

For a long time I felt similar about Richter. Then, a few years ago, I listened to his recording of Bach's WTC. That has completely changed my view of his playing. Once I got rid of my negative Richter bias, his interpretations started to speak to me; perhaps most of all his interpretations of Schubert and Liszt. For example, Schubert's D major sonata, D850, can appear as a convoluted net of motives and enticing melodies, seemingly without structure extending over 40 minutes (or more). When you listen to Richter's interpretation, you understand what Neuhaus meant when he said that Richter always has the entire work in mind when he plays, like a landscape seen from a hill or mountain. You don't get lost. The logic, the architecture of this work emerges with great clarity under his fingers.

This being said, I still feel that ocasionally he tends to be too brutal, too aggressive, too harsh. Indeed, if I can see a weakness in his playing it is that his quality of sound in the forte/fortissimo range is suboptimal. His fortissimos often sound harsh. In contrast, Gilels and Pollini, who like Richter have a lot of vigor and power in their playing, almost never sound harsh in their fortissimos.

O.k., that makes sense to me. It's propably a process of maturation.

[dnephi]

I suppose it takes some time.  At least you can appreciate the diabolic speed of Chopin Etude 10-4 or his Wilde Jagd. 
Eventually you will come to adore him, perhaps especially his scriabin.

Oh, how I deplore that fact that he never recorded the Mazeppa!  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[pianowolfi]

Wasn't it Richter who said that the audience would be impressed more by pp playing than ff?

[liszt-essence]

shilloshillos:
Richter is one of the few pianists who can make one feel the direction of a piece. As soon as he starts you can feel your in for a ride. A rare trait. He is one of the greatest!


I found this comment on youtube. I think it's very appropiate.

[henrah]

Wasn't it Richter who said that the audience would be impressed more by pp playing than ff?

I remember him saying that pianissimo is far more important when looking for a piano than its fortissimo.

[maxy]

Wasn't it Richter who said that the audience would be impressed more by pp playing than ff?

I think this was more about how to select a piano.  When playing loud the quality of the piano is not very important, it's in the pp that it can make a difference.  This being said, he hated the process of picking a piano.  

Personally I find Richter to be the best.

[pianowolfi]

I have watched that part of the "The Enigma" again and here is exactly what he said. He's been asked: "What do you require of a piano?" (Laughs):"I require more of myself. But what is essential for the sound- Yamahas have that- is the pianissimo. The extreme pianissimo. Nothing is more haunting. Not the fortissimo, the pianissimo."

[liszt-essence]

For the unknowing:

&mode=related&search=

&mode=related&search=

and there's much more Have fun.

[arensky]

I would have played this.

ROFLMFAO 

[counterpoint]

ROFLMFAO 

Thank you so much to point to  Stalin's Funeral Music.mp3  again

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=21469.0;id=2196

I didn't try it previously, because I doubted, I would like it 

Boy, was I wrong

[liszt-essence]

&NR

Funny indeed

[imbetter]

Richter is a great pianist. My favorite pieces by his are his 3rd and 4th Chopin ballade.

[kreso]

everyone seems to have preferences, so i don't think it's unusual.  for me, i've never heard another version of beethoven's moonlight (1st movt) that i like so much as richter's.  it is a sort of feeling that you get of a true understanding of the magnetism of the moon.  of love.  of the ebb and flow of life.  it's realistic.  not romantic in the sense of schmultzy.  there are no wild fluctuations of tempo - but a sort of reined in confidence that what he is playing is representative of a real thing.  he seems to be a realist.

Btw. Sviatoslav Richter never played neither recorded Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata..