I'm baffled, is there merit in mediocre playing?

[wervel]

Hi all,
Something strange happened. I stumbled upon this video on youtube the other day, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76oUfPErCk.
Now clearly, this is technically mediocre and rythmically unstable playing. So, why did the likes of Sofronitsky and (to a lesser extent) Horowitz get away with this all the time? Of course, one does not want to listen to Hamelin - kind of note spitting machines (unable to produce "music"), but let's face it, in this recording Sofronitsky sounds like the average amateur pianist on youtube.
What am I missing?

PS.
Let it be clear, I very much like Sofronitsky in technically less demanding Scriabin pieces, because he can set 'the right kind of atmosphere' (something for instance Hamelin almost never can), which is very imporant for this (if not any) composer.   

[richard black]

What am I missing?

I think you're confusing 'rhythmically unstable' with rubato. For what it's worth, most of Scriabin's music effectively demands rubato, if only because of the way he writes huge chords (bigger than 2 hands can manage) and rapid jumps which, if played in tempo, would cause injury to the player. I just listened to that recording and don't hear anything mediocre about it. He uses more rubato than Hamelin tends to (haven't heard him in that particular piece) but, like Hamelin, has a fantastic sound (to the limited extent one can hear it through the unusually rubbish sound quality of that upload), which is something most amateurs on YouTube signally fail to achieve.

[pianowolfi]

Hi all,
Something strange happened. I stumbled upon this video on youtube the other day, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76oUfPErCk.
Now clearly, this is technically mediocre and rythmically unstable playing. So, why did the likes of Sofronitsky and (to a lesser extent) Horowitz get away with this all the time? Of course, one does not want to listen to Hamelin - kind of note spitting machines (unable to produce "music"), but let's face it, in this recording Sofronitsky sounds like the average amateur pianist on youtube.
What am I missing?

PS.
Let it be clear, I very much like Sofronitsky in technically less demanding Scriabin pieces, because he can set 'the right kind of atmosphere' (something for instance Hamelin almost never can), which is very imporant for this (if not any) composer.  

I don't agree, whether with your opinion about Sofronitzky nor with that about Hamelin. Perhaps you might read a bit on this site:


https://www.sofronitsky.com/index.html

To see whom you are judging

[quantum]

That vid is far from mediocre.

[tds]

i listened to the vid n now i wonder when i can be mediocre..

[db05]

Hi all,
Something strange happened. I stumbled upon this video on youtube the other day, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76oUfPErCk.
Now clearly, this is technically mediocre and rythmically unstable playing. So, why did the likes of Sofronitsky and (to a lesser extent) Horowitz get away with this all the time? Of course, one does not want to listen to Hamelin - kind of note spitting machines (unable to produce "music"), but let's face it, in this recording Sofronitsky sounds like the average amateur pianist on youtube.
What am I missing?

wervel, I have to say that I sympathize with you and it seems we are both missing something. Though I don't blame the pianist that I don't understand the piece. It is more the fault of the composer. A good composition played by an average pianist on Youtube still sounds okay, and the melodies are recognizable. Here it is not, and if I were to hear that piece without prior warning, I would have guessed it was composed by some Chopin wannabe. Not that I don't like Scriabin, but I don't like pieces like this at all. Seems only to show off technique.

Care to enlighten us, guys? What are we missing? A copy and/or analysis of the score/ music would be nice...

[mad_max2024]

Care to enlighten us, guys? What are we missing? A copy and/or analysis of the score/ music would be nice...

Now that would be great. A thread to analyse a score, any score, by some helpful volunteer would be more than great. I've always wanted to see how people who knew what they were doing would approach such thing.
Any volunteers?

[communist]

Now that would be great. A thread to analyse a score, any score, by some helpful volunteer would be more than great. I've always wanted to see how people who knew what they were doing would approach such thing.
Any volunteers?

volunteer for what exactly?

[pianowolfi]

wervel, I have to say that I sympathize with you and it seems we are both missing something. Though I don't blame the pianist that I don't understand the piece. It is more the fault of the composer. A good composition played by an average pianist on Youtube still sounds okay, and the melodies are recognizable. Here it is not, and if I were to hear that piece without prior warning, I would have guessed it was composed by some Chopin wannabe. Not that I don't like Scriabin, but I don't like pieces like this at all. Seems only to show off technique.

Care to enlighten us, guys? What are we missing? A copy and/or analysis of the score/ music would be nice...

Scriabin wrote some very complex music. Of course in a piece like this, which is from his early middle period (as far as I know), the influence of Chopin is obvious. But already in his Préludes op 11, which are much more Chopin-like, Scriabin composes in his own, unique style. His late style is even much more complex. But in all his periods he composed highly structured music, I read somewhere that he even took very much care about how many measures the particular parts have, and was not content until he could work out missing measures. His development of motifs is very refined. This is music that doesn't reveal itself to you if you only listen 2, 4 or 20 times. This music needs to be thoroughly experienced, like many other great compositions. Are you ever done with listening to (or playing) a Beethoven Sonata or a Chopin Ballade? As a listener you can not just consume it, you are supposed to go in depth. Then you will hear more and more about the structure, about the melody and the very subtle and meaningful harmony in his works. In my book he never wrote music just for the sake of showing off technique, that would have been in contradiction to his musical intentions.

Scriabin's approach was also very metaphysical, he was a searcher and had many lofty ideas and projects that were way ahead of his time, but that's a different subject, which I won't elaborate here.

[thierry13]

Hi all,
Something strange happened. I stumbled upon this video on youtube the other day, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76oUfPErCk.
Now clearly, this is technically mediocre and rythmically unstable playing. So, why did the likes of Sofronitsky and (to a lesser extent) Horowitz get away with this all the time? Of course, one does not want to listen to Hamelin - kind of note spitting machines (unable to produce "music"), but let's face it, in this recording Sofronitsky sounds like the average amateur pianist on youtube.
What am I missing?

PS.
Let it be clear, I very much like Sofronitsky in technically less demanding Scriabin pieces, because he can set 'the right kind of atmosphere' (something for instance Hamelin almost never can), which is very imporant for this (if not any) composer.   

This guy is definitely a troll. Or he is not a musician? Or he is deaf? Or maybe he's used to listen to midis. The recording you posted was great in all aspects.

[db05]

This guy is definitely a troll. Or he is not a musician? Or he is deaf? Or maybe he's used to listen to midis. The recording you posted was great in all aspects.

Probably a beginner who has trouble understanding that type of music. I also lack the understanding, too, hence the question.

Scriabin wrote some very complex music. Of course in a piece like this, which is from his early middle period (as far as I know), the influence of Chopin is obvious. But already in his Préludes op 11, which are much more Chopin-like, Scriabin composes in his own, unique style. His late style is even much more complex. But in all his periods he composed highly structured music... This is music that doesn't reveal itself to you if you only listen 2, 4 or 20 times. This music needs to be thoroughly experienced, like many other great compositions. Are you ever done with listening to (or playing) a Beethoven Sonata or a Chopin Ballade? As a listener you can not just consume it, you are supposed to go in depth...

Thank you sir, for a great post. So I am listening to it a second time now. I have to admit to feeling this way about a few other "complex" works, for example, Busoni's transcription of the Chaconne. However, I do like a lot of Beethoven and Chopin, and so far I've appreciated such work on the 1st hearing, although there is a lot to uncover in later hearings, as you have suggested. And then there are compositions, like Bach and some classical era, that I needed background knowledge (and usually a copy of the score) to appreciate. My point is that the very best composers have a gift for capturing the listener's imagination, whether it was 1st or 100th listening, or if the listener was a little kid or an experienced musician/ virtuoso/ artist.

4th hearing now. I cannot say this is mediocre playing, let's just say it's not my taste. It may also be the sound of the piano itself, but the (assuming it's) LH accompaniment sounds rather dull. And having heard the melody, I don't see the point for all those other notes. The ending is unsatisfying, and would leave me thinking, "That's it?" if it weren't for the clapping.

And it still feels like it was written by a Chopin wannabe, leaving me with a bad impression (bias, I have to admit) no matter how well it could have been played. You cannot mistake it for Chopin or another genius composer. It sounds second-rate. 5th hearing now. Still second-rate.

[quantum]

And it still feels like it was written by a Chopin wannabe, leaving me with a bad impression (bias, I have to admit) no matter how well it could have been played. You cannot mistake it for Chopin or another genius composer. It sounds second-rate. 5th hearing now. Still second-rate.

Perhaps you should take a different stance in listening to the work.  Read about the composer, look up the reasons and subjects that inspire his pieces. Saying he is a bad Chopin copyist is like saying an apple is a wannabe pomegranate.   

[db05]

Perhaps you should take a different stance in listening to the work.  Read about the composer, look up the reasons and subjects that inspire his pieces. Saying he is a bad Chopin copyist is like saying an apple is a wannabe pomegranate.   

More like a wannabe pear. But I get your point. 

[rachmaninova]

Please, I think you should listen to other Scriabin works. Try first the romantic and ultra-romantic ones and you can see he's pretty much influenced by Chopin, but never could be considered a Chopin wannabe.
For instance:

---> Fantasy Op. 28 by the same guy you called "mediocre"

---> 1st movement of the great 3rd sonata by Ashkenazy

---> Poems Op.32 by that "mediocre" guy

---> Étude Op. 42-5 by Sofronitsky




These are works before his 5th sonata, which is a turning point (well, some consider the 4th). This is not for everyone's taste (I appreciate more these works, but I like the others too), but this can prove you that Scriabin is simply an outstanding composer.
So, if your bold, try these:

&feature=related ---> 5th sonata by Richter (with score)

---> 9th sonata by Horowitz

---> 10th sonata by the "mediocre" guy

---> Poème de l'extase

---> 3 études op. 65 by Richter (I played the 3rd!!!)

---> "Vers la flamme" from that "mediocre" guy


I'm not trying to convince you to like Scriabin, but just let you know a little bit more of the composer. Like pianowolfi said, he had metaphysical ideas and theories behind his works (for instance, a ceremony with all the arts combined, with colours, perfumes, ending with an elevation of the souls). If you're interested, there are a lot of guys here who know much better than me about these subjects. Scriabin is a very original composer, and we certainly cannot be indifferent when listening to his works.

[rachmaninova]

And about the mediocre guy:

--> Chopin's Barcarolle

Think he's not an imitative monkey... You just happened to catch a not so good recording.

[db05]

Please, I think you should listen to other Scriabin works. Try first the romantic and ultra-romantic ones and you can see he's pretty much influenced by Chopin, but never could be considered a Chopin wannabe.

Many thanks. Let me just make this clear that I do not consider the pianist mediocre like the OP does, but like I said, simply not my taste. Neither is the composer mediocre, because I have heard some great works in the past. Just so happens that the particular work sounds second-rate to me. In all fairness, there was and probably never will be anyone like Chopin was.

[rachmaninova]

Many thanks. Let me just make this clear that I do not consider the pianist mediocre like the OP does, but like I said, simply not my taste. Neither is the composer mediocre, because I have heard some great works in the past. Just so happens that the particular work sounds second-rate to me. In all fairness, there was and probably never will be anyone like Chopin was.

My mistake, I was referring to Wervel's first post (the title). I'll take off the quote.

[wervel]

This guy is definitely a troll. Or he is not a musician? Or he is deaf? Or maybe he's used to listen to midis. The recording you posted was great in all aspects.

Well, I'm not deaf, far from it. Actually, I know the score and I can hear tons of wrong notes in the Sofronitsky rendition. So, what is so great about playing the wrong notes, could you elaborate? Isn't playing the wrong notes a kind of cheating? Where is the poetry or noblesse in that? Even in the easy first part of the piece, Sofronitsky's playing is an uncontrolled mess (nothing to do with rubato by the way). Now, if you can't hear that, you are obviously the guy with the problem and the lack of connaissance. I was asking a serious (moral) question.

A much better rendition (including the -very hard to play- bar that Sofronitsky partially skips, undoutably because he is way out of his depth there) of the same piece can be heared at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8QNt8-Zx9Q.

Cheers.
 

[wervel]

And about the mediocre guy:

--> Chopin's Barcarolle

Think he's not an imitative monkey... You just happened to catch a not so good recording.

Shows exactly what I mean. Sofronitsky (typically) has problems with every single technically awkward passage in this piece!

[G.W.K]

Or he is deaf?

I fail to understand ~ how is it possible for a musician to play if they are deaf?

G.W.K

[aewanko]

I fail to understand ~ how is it possible for a musician to play if they are deaf?

G.W.K

Hearing aids.

[G.W.K]

Hearing aids.

Hearing aids do not help all people who are deaf. People who are "stone deaf", for example.

G.W.K

[rachmaninova]

A much better rendition (including the -very hard to play- bar that Sofronitsky partially skips, undoutably because he is way out of his depth there) of the same piece can be heared at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8QNt8-Zx9Q.

Cheers.
 

This is a little out of the theme, but I simply adore Margulis (hope to catch him in Obidos' summeclasses!)! You know, I have a CD with some preludes and études and he really alters the text in the beginning of op. 45-2 for phrasing purposes. Isn't this questionable? Despite that, it's from a far distance the greatest recording I have of that étude. You should also listen to his performance of Chopin's Op. 10-2 (simple genius, but not really what is at first sight on the score and I never heard anyone do what he does).

Another question: do you prefer all the notes correct but lack of character, or good sound, or phrasing, or stamina, or soul? (I think this question has been thoroughly discussed on this forum) The ideal is to have them all, but usually you can't find a pianist who is complete: simultaneously efficient, correct and also a true musician... (in this moment I'm thinking of Rubinstein, who has the most exquisite interpretations and doesn't lack on mistakes)

[rachmaninova]

Only one more thing: this is the kind of discussion that leads to nowhere. "Mediocre playing" is a concept with different meaning for different people. I'm now talking in general terms and not referring to the Sofronitsky recording. I think this matter is not going to be consensual (as in many things regarded to music)...

[thierry13]

Well, I'm not deaf, far from it. Actually, I know the score and I can hear tons of wrong notes in the Sofronitsky rendition. So, what is so great about playing the wrong notes, could you elaborate? Isn't playing the wrong notes a kind of cheating? Where is the poetry or noblesse in that? Even in the easy first part of the piece, Sofronitsky's playing is an uncontrolled mess (nothing to do with rubato by the way). Now, if you can't hear that, you are obviously the guy with the problem and the lack of connaissance. I was asking a serious (moral) question.

A much better rendition (including the -very hard to play- bar that Sofronitsky partially skips, undoutably because he is way out of his depth there) of the same piece can be heared at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8QNt8-Zx9Q.

Cheers.
 

Wait, did I really get what you just said? Are you trying to say you know what you're talking aobut more than I do? You are freaking asking people here how to play Bach's prelude in C major, and you're telling me I can't judge sofronitsky's playing as well as you do? Go home punk. Sofrinitsky is an amazing pianist, in every aspect. Great pianists can have less good days, but the performance you originally posted was great. Who cares about wrong notes, every pianists do some. Good ones do anyways. As you said yourself, you are a beginner and still have much to learn. Learn your little C major prelude and then learn some humility.

[pianowolfi]

Lol the only comment on that Margulis vid says "Sounds like Sofronitzky"

Anyway, @Wervel and Rachmaninova: Margulis is a very interesting pianist, quite a bit bizarre in some of his interpretations. Where is that summer course?
Thierry, I agree mainly but where did wervel ask about prelude in c

[rachmaninova]

Margulis is a very interesting pianist, quite a bit bizarre in some of his interpretations. Where is that summer course?

The Summer Course is in a portuguese historical village called Obidos (it's more or less near Lisbon, the capital).
You can have the details here: https://www.pianobidos.org/

[thierry13]

Thierry, I agree mainly but where did wervel ask about prelude in c

He created another thread for that purpose