best performance for each scriabin sonata?

[hodi]

want to hear your opinions
which performance is the best for each sonata?
i have the hamelin set which is excellent and some richter recordings.
i have the ashkenzy set too but i think he plays is poorly both techincally and musically.
richter is also superb at scriabin.. especially at the 2,9 sonatas.
now... what's your opinions?

[jakev2.0]

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.
2. Sofronitsky, Fiorentino, Demidenko
3. Gilels, Horowitz, Gould
4. Ogdon, Sofronitsky, Gilels, Gavriov for second movement
5. Horowitz, Koji Attwood, Richter
6. Richter
7. Not sure -  haven't heard enough to judge
8. "
9. Horowitz
10. Horowitz
 
For complete sets I recommend either Szidon or Austbo. Hamelin's set is boring. Ashkenazy's is junk, but he absolutely owned some of the later sonatas in live performances.

[quantum]

Jake2.0, are there existing recordings of Horowitz playing 9 and 10?

[iumonito]

Jake2.0, are there existing recordings of Horowitz playing 9 and 10?

Sure.  Several of 9 in fact.  He played it in the return recital in '65.

For me, Ashkenhazy's set is second to none.  I love Horowitz, but I think he did not have much interest in the structural aspects of the music, which come out Classical in Ashkenhanzy's recording, particularly 8 (what a great piece of music!).  I also like Olga Kern's and Hough's 9, but not as much as Ashkenhazy's.

Sofronitsky is the other I like for all Scriabin.

A vote against Gould's 3 (and 5).  He doesn't understand the music (or I don't understand him).

[jakev2.0]

A vote against Gould's 3 (and 5).  He doesn't understand the music (or I don't understand him).

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.

[iumonito]

Sofronitsky was Scriabin's son in law, right?  I wonder whether they ever talked about how to play the music or whether Sofronitsky had any respect for what Scriabin did at the piano or told him over his shoulder.

 

Preference, of course, know no normative.  If you prefer it one way or the other, who could quarrel with that?

[opus10no2]

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.

Love that piece, and yes Uematsu is unmatched in it.

I actually really like Kissin's no3.

[chopiabin]

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).

[hodi]

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).

hamelin recorded a set of the complete sonatas including the early sonata-fantasy from 1886 and fantasy op.28
great set.

[bflatminor24]

Honestly, I can't find any flaws in Hamelin's recordings. I haven't heard every recording, but I've heard Horowitz, Hamelin, Szidon, Kissin, Sofronitsky, and Ogdon.

So far, Hamelin:)

[jakev2.0]

Your Hamelin phase will soon pass. Hopefully.

[bflatminor24]

Why do you care?

[jre58591]

hes on a rampage to "convert" all those who like hamelin.

i would have to admit that hamelin isnt the best for all these sonatas, but he sure owns number 8, and he excels at pretty much all the late ones.

[jpowell]

Igor Zhukov is very good. There is at least one early Medodiya vinyl LP with four sonatas, then a complete set from the later 1990s, as far as I remember. Also, Samuil Feinberg recorded nos. 2 and 4 and these are superlative. Scriabin for one considered Feinberg's playing of the 4th unmatched. I also have a complete set by Yevgeny Mikhailov, of which 7 and 8 are both fine readings. Also Igor Nikonovich - a Sofronitsky student - is very interesting. Yuri Paterson Olenich (a student of Tropp, who has recorded the op.11 preludes excellent) has made a remarkable CD of later pieces including several sonatas.

[jakev2.0]

Zhukov and Feinberg are excellent suggestions, jpowell. I'll have to check out the others you've mentioned.

[jre58591]

mr powell, is there any possibility of you recording a few of these?

[steve_m]

n

[jakev2.0]

Heh, well, I'd never buy a CD for the cover art/packaging...but in the past I've decided NOT to buy a few CDs based on the cover picture. Some Lugansky CDs come to mind - He's a good looking guy, but 1) I'm not a woman and 2) I don't swing that way! 

[opus10no2]

But does this suggest Hamelin is not a good looking guy?

As a good looking guy, I enjoy looking at other good looking guys, but that doesn't mean I am gay, it just means i feel a kind of empathy with their state of mind as artists.

[ramseytheii]

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 the complete opposite approach to the piano as him.  Someone else described Rachmaninov's performance as "earth-bound," while Scriabin's floated to the heavens.

Ashkenazy is not bad for #8, I think overall I prefer John Ogdon's.  I haven't really found a performance that I like all the way through.  Hamelin's is amazing in that all those double note passages are perfectly clear, and although some people divide them into two hands in the beginning, there are several passages where that is impossible and they have to be done in one hand.  Hamelin somehow makes them sound exactly the same each time.
But he just doesn't produce the atmosphere that John Ogdon does, although Ogdon's recording is wild and at times unintelligible.  The first two pages are just unmatched, and I think it is not possible to play them better than Ogdon.

Ashkenazy also tends to lack atmosphere.  He seems to me to be a pianist who cares more about how the notes are attacked, then how they are sustained.

Walter Ramsey

[jakev2.0]

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=19
Post replye complete opposite approach to the piano as him.

I meant to say that I think that Scriabin would have approached his music with the kind of structural sobriety typical of all great composer pianists.  I could not hear Scriabin - or for that matter even Friedman or Hofmann at their most extravagant, playing the Third Sonata as hysterically as Sofronitsky...structures blurred, weird accents and unpredictable changes in volume and tempo. Spontaneously and colorfully? of course. My point is, that it's equally possible that Scriabin would be unimpressed by some of Sofronitsky's playing. This is not to denigrate Sofronitsky's accomplishments. Musicians far greater than I have underscored his contributions to the interpretation of Scriabin music. But we should be careful about what we call "right" and "wrong", because we just can't say for sure what right and wrong really is.

What really grinds my gears is when people say "that's not how Bach would have played that!"...1) We don't really know how Bach would have played it. ...2) You might not even like how Bach would have played it. Judge a performance its own merits.

Someone else described Rachmaninov's performance as "earth-bound," while Scriabin's floated to the heavens.

Yeah. I think that it was Harold C. Schoenberg describing Rachmaninov's lone Scriabin recording of the 11/8 prelude as "all earth and no fire" or something to that effect.

[chopiabin]

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.

[jakev2.0]

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.

[minor9th]

Hamelin's is well played and recorded, but it doesn't sound "Russian" enough to me! I bought Zukov's more recent set on the Telos label...what a bore! Yakov Kasman's is very dramatic but rather closely recorded.

[chopiabin]

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 wasn't suggesting that Rach wasn't phenomenal - his style is just very different from Scriabin's. Rach could never have composed something like Scriabin's 6th sonata, and Scriabin could never have composed Rach's 3rd Concerto. Their personalities were very different - Scriabin is often described as being "more French than Russian" (he DID spend much time in France), while Rachmaninov was the embodiment of "Russian" character - reserved, somewhat austere, "quiet and strong".

[opus10no2]

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.

He did, Gandalf, He did.

[chopiabin]

Why Gandalf?

[opus10no2]

From one of my fave LOTR scenes, and Rach recorded a prelude or 2 if i remember correctly, it's interesting that he did, it'd also be interesting to know what he thought of his music.

[chopiabin]

Well I do know that they went to school together for years, and, after Scriabin's death, Rachmaninov toured playing only Scriabin to raise money for Scriabin's widow (Vera, I think).

Apparently, the audience began yelling for Rach to play his own stuff!!

[pianowelsh]

Im sorry but actually Sofrontitsky's performances are MUCh more representative of Scriabin's style of playing than Rachmaninovs.  Indeed many contemporary sources threw out Rachmaninovs interpretations of his works as being far too heavy and grounded! Scriabin was a true eccentric his music does have odd twists and flights of fancy and has a floatimg quality unlike really anyother composer before or since. A good performance will sound like someone keeping a balloon constantly in the air. It must be lifted and elegent...remember one of his principle early influences was Chopin! with wild flights of fancy and grand gestures simplomatic of his condition (delusions of grandeur). People who wring out the phrasing and ground powerfully all the bass notes like their digging for oil and play all the repeated chords ffff like their sawing through the piano have very little clue as to what Scraibin was actually going for - his music is much more subtle and exotic - even errotic than people give it credit for.  Pedalling is also a huge give away. This isnt Rachmaninov where you are going for big romantic washes of sound. its much more subtle with little escape pedals and flutter pedalling - manny insatnces of half pedalling and half and even quarter changes...many instances where una corda can be adopted not to mention sostenuto pedal to handle some of the extremely dense passages. Scriabin by contemporary accounts was a total master of the pedal to the point where this was a distinguishing feature of his playing.  He didnt have large hands so you can see that by necessity to be able to play many of these technically challenging works he would have had to skillfull manipulate the pedal. Scriabin was a spritelly man too capabale of excessive energy and dynamism...he was a visionary and would run with the greatest enthusiam after the most hairbrained of ideas. So this needs to be captured in the music. Heavy and laboured performances are not what is called for ...airy and fleeting, energetic are often characteristics in his sonatas and these sit right up against ideas which are grand and monumental. So its really VERY challenging music to get right.  Sorry Chopiabin I just read your post which is excellent and says a lot of similar things - but I think we are in agreement.

[steve_m]

j

[soliloquy]

There are a few that I haven't listened to enough recordings of to give a definitive answer, but:

No. 4- Laredo
No. 5- Glemser
No. 6- Glemser
No. 8- Hamelin
No. 10- Pletnev


I'm sure most would disagree on the No. 5 but it's the one I grew up listening to =P  You know how it is.  The other ones I would say are pretty much definite in my mind.

[pianowelsh]

Im told Laredo is very good across the board but I havent heard all her recordings.

[josh h]

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.

Rachmaninoff recorded one Scriabin piece, Op. 11 No. 8.  Ignoring the score's tempo marking of "allegro agitato", he plays it in a slow, singing style.  At a glance it seems like it shouldn't work - but once you hear it Rachmaninoff's way, it's hard to go back to listening to it played at the marked tempo - and hard to doubt Rachmaninoff's musical instincts.  What a joy it would have been to hear Rachmaninoff, the conductor, at work.

[sevencircles]

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.

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? 

[josh h]

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?

[ahinton]

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

[sevencircles]

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 can do a websearch of course 

There are several wrong notes and mistakes in his recordings and he never recorded any supervirtuoso pieces. I donīt find his technique that impressive actually. His interpretations however are really interesting and original in general though. His sense for tempo and dynamics was amazing.

[djealnla]

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

Indeed, I really like his rendition of the 10th.

[starlady]

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.

[djealnla]

Please take pity on my honest ignorance and say who you mean here!

thank you, s.

He is referring to Jonathan Powell.

&feature=related

[starlady]

Thank you for the answer, and also for posting those videos. Very impressive!!--s.

[ahinton]

He is referring to Jonathan Powell.

&feature=related

I was and am indeed - one of the leading international authorities on the composer; I would warmly urge those not especially convinced of Scriabin's immense importance to find opportunities to wrap their ears and minds around Mr Powell's traversal of all ten sonatas at one sitting - a Scriabinesque tale, of the kind that his younger compatriot and contemporary Medtner related (albeit very differently) in quite a few of his works. I accept that this is an unconventional way to approach and appraise Scriabin, but it works wonders in the right hands; I have no idea what thought (if any) Scriabin might ever have given to the idea of all of his sonatas as a cycle, but...

Best,

Alistair

[mousekowski]

Horowitz's Scriabin 5 is remarkable for it's extreme energy and colour. It's just a shame that that he plays the opening (and closing) 'rocket launch' passage so quickly that you can't hear what's gong on.

[retrouvailles]

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. I won't even mention the problems with sound quality (I know that comes out of the fact that the recordings were made ages ago, but recordings are meant to be aurally pleasing). Any great recording of the Scriabin sonatas needs to have a certain technical "pop" to it, and with much articulation, in addition to a sensitive ear for color. As hinted to before, there is no complete set that satisfies. There are many good recordings, and I would suggest the Hamelin, Glemser, and possibly Ogdon.

[lelle]

Richter for no. 2 and 5. Hands down.

[john11inc]

I don't know much about 1-3, because I never listen to them.  The ones I'd recommend are:

4- Laredo, Berman
5- Feinberg
6- Glemser, Richter
7- Laredo, Ogdon
8- Sofronitsky
9- Laredo
10- Sofronitsky, Pletnev

Overall, Laredo and Sofronitsky are my favorites.  Richter's tone is a bit dry and unexploratory for these works (although the sixth is randomly excellent, as I noted above), Horowitz' is very percussive and romanticized, and Hamelin's are all very safe and pretty, but you won't find anything there to really impress.  Conversely, Laredo might be too intent on timbre and sonority (as opposed to progression) for some people, and Sofronitsky's interpretations tend to be quite liberal and often lacking in interest in conveying an overall form.  So it can entirely depend on how the listener personally thinks Scriabin should be interpreted.  My strongest recommendations are Berman's 4th, Feinberg's 5th, Laredo's 9th and Sofronitsky's 10th.

[mousekowski]

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!

[john11inc]

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!

"Incredibly exciting", "extremeness" and "madness" are all personal opinions, and it is also personal opinion as to whether these qualities should be present in a performance of the 5th Sonata (not to mention I don't really consider Scriabin a very "extreme" or "mad" composer in the first place).  As well, I can assure you that he has heard that recording; everyone has.  Try this one:

Sound quality is pretty bad (recorded live somewhere between 1948 and 1952), but it's an exceptional, if not definitive, interpretation, although there are some technical flaws at the end of the piece.

[mousekowski]

Thanks for posting attempt Feinberg's attempt at playing Scriabin 5. He totally chickens out of the last three bars, so I don't know why you consider it a definitive recording. Maybe because he plays it faster than average?