Jake2.0, are there existing recordings of Horowitz playing 9 and 10?
A vote against Gould's 3 (and 5). He doesn't understand the music (or I don't understand him).
1. Don't care for the piece...A Japanese amateur by the name of Uematsu plays the hell out of it though. Fiorentino's is also good.
Horowitz for 9 and 10....Pletnev's 4 and 10 are both good.Sonata #5 is my favorite, and I actually think Ashkenazy does a good job with it - though I'll agree that his playing of the later sonatas with lots of trills is kinda rickety.Did Hamelin record all the sonatas? I want to find another great version of # 5 (as well as #2 and 7).
Saying how Scriabin should be is a normative statement. Certainly Gould is not the greatest Scriabin interpreter - but he is interesting. Personally, I think that Scriabin would certainly not have played his own music like Sofronitsky. I think he would have brought out the contrasts in his music with subtlety Rachmaninov-style. This will undoubtedly earn me the scorn of some here...but I much prefer listening to Gould's relentless, eerie, and dramatic Scriabin 3 than Sofronitsky's paranoid and exaggerated version.YES, Ashkenazy does do a great performance of 8. Pletnev is also good for #10.
I disagree with you about Scriabin-Sofronitsky-Rachmaninov. It is a well known story that Scriabin burst into a rage when he heard Rachmaninov play his music, because it was thhttp://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=22307.0;num_replies=19Post replye complete opposite approach to the piano as him.
Someone else described Rachmaninov's performance as "earth-bound," while Scriabin's floated to the heavens.
Rachmaninov's interpretations - he was very "solid", unsentimental, and literal.
As a pianist, Rachmaninov was full of wonderfully original ideas, color, tone, limitless technique...but was at the same time a musician of exceptional artistic purity. I think Scriabin just didn't like the way Rachmaninov interpreted his music for whatever reason.
I would agree with you that most Scriabin is meant to be languorous and atmospheric - almost "impressionistic". That would explain his opposition to Rachmaninov's interpretations - he was very "solid", unsentimental, and literal. Though I do think it would be cool if Rach had recorded some Scriabin.
Maybe itīs just me but I donīt associate Rachmaninov with someone with limitless technique. Didnīt he say that anything harder then his 3:d piano concerto was too hard for him?
I've studied Rachmaninoff rather closely and have read several biographies and his personal correspondence. I have never heard that remark before. Do you know where you heard it? Perhaps you're thinking of Rachmaninoff's remark that nobody played his 3rd concerto better than Horowitz?
I think that a certain candidate who knows more about Scriabin than most people and who has on more than one occasion given convincing accounts of all ten Scriabin sonatas in public as a single programme (which works remarkably well as a programme - if you can do it!) is well overdue for a mention...Best,Alistair
Please take pity on my honest ignorance and say who you mean here!thank you, s.
He is referring to Jonathan Powell.&feature=related
I frankly can't stand Horowitz's renditions of the Scriabin sonatas he recorded. Some might claim that he has a lot of color and whatnot, but what good is all that when it is executed with so many technical flaws? If you were to play a recording of that to a professional pianist without them knowing who it is, they would no doubt dismiss it as just another problematic recording.
Dear oh dear Retrouvailles, you must listen to Horowitz's Scriabin 5. Firstly it is incredibly exciting, secondly it captures Scriabin's extremeness and madness and thirdly from your comment, it is abundantly obvious that you have never heard it before. Look it up on YouTube!