a

[pies]

a

[skorpius]

Scriabin was an amazing composer. I thought not a lot of people knew about him, but his music is extremely unique but with a romantic style. One thing though that probably drove away his initial popularity was the fact that he had some mental issues. (Some people thought he was a satanist)

I love two of his pieces in particular:


Nocturne for the Left Hand (performed by humorist peter taussig) -

[/youtube]

Prelude -

[lelle]

The videos are pretty self-explanatory in my opinion

[neardn]

"Scriabin isn't the sort of composer whom you'd regard as your daily bread, but is a heady liqueur on which you can get drunk periodically, a poetical drug, a crystal that's easily broken."


you might want to listen to Gould play sonata 3, Horowitz play sonata 5, and ashkensky play no. 4 and 7.

Scriabin takes some listening to get into. melodies are there, but you only hear them after the third listen.

[lelle]

you might want to listen to Gould play sonata 3, Horowitz play sonata 5, and ashkensky play no. 4 and 7.

not Horowitz, you mean Richter

[m]

Can someone explain Scriabin's popularity to me?  I don't get the hype.

May I ask what did you do in order to get it? Do you know his biography and historical and theoretical aspects of his art? Do you know all of his Symphonies, Prometeus, all the Sonatas, Preludes, Etudes, smaller pieces?
Have you ever made a structural and leitmotif analysis of his late music? Have you ever read about his philosophical ideas. If you did, then what aspect you don't get?
Or are you just BSing around, trying to "show off" what kind of "intellectual" you are?

Best, M

[scottmcc]

May I ask what did you do in order to get it? Do you know his biography and historical and theoretical aspects of his art? Do you know all of his Symphonies, Prometeus, all the Sonatas, Preludes, Etudes, smaller pieces? If you do, then what aspect you don't get?
Or are you just BSing around, trying to "show off" what kind of "intellectual" you are?

Best, M

marik, it was your recording of scriabin's waltz op 38 that convinced me to give scriabin a chance.  masterful playing.

I can't say I understand scriabin or his life, but I'm going to at least give it a go.  from what little I know so far, I can say that his art is much less transparent than that of the "major" composers with whom everyone is familiar.  as such, it really makes it difficult for me, as I have only a limited amount of time to devote to music.  should I make myself listen to things that I don't like repeatedly, in vain hope of eventually "getting it?"  or should I stick to the familiar, knowing that one can always learn something more about "mainstream" works such as the beethoven sonatas?

that said, you raise a very important question:  how much effort must we the listeners undertake in order to properly evaluate a composer?  must we listen to works many times before dismissing them?  must we know the composer's life story, within the greater context of history?  or should their music speak for itself, from the first moment it is heard, and absent the benefit of context?  clearly not all music is easily accessible, and great music is never fully appreciated on the first run-through, but where does one draw the line? 

[communist]

Can someone explain Scriabin's popularity to me?  I don't get the hype.

his music...

[quantum]

I was much attracted to the Scriabin sound long before I started looking into his philosophies and techniques of composition.  My interest in his musical thinking resulted out of an affection toward his music.

Maybe for you, looking a bit into his life will give you a bit more appreciation to his music.  Then again, Scriabin may not be to your taste. 

[lontano]

Scriabin's music enjoyed a bit of a boost in popularity in the 1970's as his (mostly later) works and his mystical philosophy found an audience in the mindset of the times, including the somewhat drug-like hallucinatory strange new harmonies in his sonatas 6-10 and his 4th and 5th symphonies ("Poem of Ecstasy" and "Prometheus, Poem of Fire", respectively).

His early works are quite influenced by Chopin, but he took his own course and by his 5th Sonata he had reached the end of his first stage. Beginning about the time of his 6th sonata Scriabin was working in a new musical language that made more use of forths and tritones along with more advanced rhythmic inventions and names and directions in the score that indicate strange and exotic ideas.

He wrote many poems, preludes, 3 sets of etudes, mazurkas, dances and so forth. Somewhere in all of that is music that should appeal to just about anyone who wants to better know the composer. Admittedly, if one where to just dive in to something like his 6th Sonata (or nearly anything from that point on) it might seem like a strange world, but there are many recordings available of his 10 sonatas, which is as good a way to see how he developed over his entire career.

Just my 2 cents,

Lontano   

[pies]

a

[retrouvailles]

Which recordings of the sonatas are the best?  I think the set I have sucks; maybe that's why I'm not warming to Scriabin.  I have no idea who the pianist is in my recording.  I've had this sitting on my hard drive for a couple of years and the mp3s aren't tagged.

There is no perfect set of the Scriabin sonatas. However, I mix and match between Hamelin, Glemser, and Austbø. I do not like the recordings of Richter and Horowitz, which get a lot of hype for some reason.

[lelle]

Which recordings of the sonatas are the best?  I think the set I have sucks; maybe that's why I'm not warming to Scriabin.  I have no idea who the pianist is in my recording.  I've had this sitting on my hard drive for a couple of years and the mp3s aren't tagged.

Hey pies I posted a couple of fantastic Scriabin recordings a bit higher up in this thread, maybe you ignored them? Anyway, here they are again, Scriabin sonatas nos 2 & 5, in the best interpretations I have come across

no 2

no 5

[pies]

Yes, I listened to some parts.  I don't like youtube-quality audio and I'm looking for a complete set.
I will try to find Austbo's recording since I like how he plays Messiaen.  For now I'll avoid Hamelin for obvious reasons. 

[retrouvailles]

For now I'll avoid Hamelin for obvious reasons. 

Actually, the reasons are not obvious, because he has one of the best complete sets out there. It would just be foolish to avoid his set.

[communist]

Actually, the reasons are not obvious, because he has one of the best complete sets out there. It would just be foolish to avoid his set.

I did not like the way he played the fifth sonata. I thought he took the presto sections way to quickly.

[retrouvailles]

Well, I didn't say his set was perfect. It's far from that. But there really isn't such a thing as a "perfect" complete set of anything, really. Most especially Scriabin's sonatas. Btw, I can't stand his presto sections either. Glemser does them better.

[quantum]

For now I'll avoid Hamelin for obvious reasons. 

Try listening to his 7th or 8th. 

[pies]

I will check them out eventually.

I found Hamelin's recording of the 9th on youtube:

Interesting comment left by dvorsky 

[lontano]

Actually, the reasons are not obvious, because he has one of the best complete sets out there. It would just be foolish to avoid his set.

Despite my enormous admiration of Marc-Andre Hamelin's technique and devotion to great works that have slipped "under the radar" since "records, LPs, CDs, etc" have been around, I have a hard time recommending his complete recording of the Scriabin Sonatas. His technique is so smooth and rounded that the essential "edginess" of these last 5 sonatas makes them perfunctory, like they were some common fodder (I hate to say it, because Hamelin is enormously gifted in so many ways!).

This a rare case that I would advise the initiate to look for another, maybe more mystical, or edgy performer. (I've so many recordings I can't recommend one over another.)

Just an observation expressed,
L.

[sharon_f]

To answer your original question, let me tell you a little about my personal experience with Scriabin's music.

To be honest, prior to a year or so ago I never really enjoyed Scriabin. I liked the famous D-sharp minor etude, but everything else I had heard of his seemed obtuse, repetitive, boring and depressing. Nothing seemed to have any structure, rhythmic vitality. I didn't understand his music, I just didn't get him. When something by Scriabin came on the radio, I would usually tune in a different station. I didn't own a single CD with his music on it. (With the exception, once again, of the aforementioned etude.)

So one day, when my teacher and I were discussing new repetoire, she mentioned Scriabin and I told her I really didn't like his music. I found it boring. Well, you should have seen the look on her face. She was absolutely horrified, since Scriabin is one of her absolutely favorite composers after Rachmaninoff. Well, she did something she normally doesn't do. She told me I had to learn some Scriabin and told me to buy the Dover edition of the complete Preludes and Etudes.

At my next lesson, she played through a selection of the Op. 11 Preludes and made some recommendations and told me to chose a few to learn. So I picked #5,7,10, 13 & 14. As I started working through them I started to appreciate the writing. His music has these wonderful rich harmonies and strangely beautiful melodies that go off in the most unexpected directions, there are wonderfully hidden voices and extraordinary voice leading. I also first thought that the writing was awkward and unpianistic but after a while I started to get the hang of it. His music has a very distinct feel under the hand, much like Schumann whose music gets easier to play the more you play it. (If that makes any sense.)

Now I know the Op. 11 Preludes are very early Scriabin. But I find myself hearing his later music differently and I can see how he got from Op. 11 to, say, Op. 64. I finally "get him" but to be honest, I don't think I would have if I had not learned those five Preludes.

Gosh, my teacher is really smart.

[lontano]

I am very happy for you !
You have a wise teacher.

My first and future teacher (in childhood and as an adult) was Hungarian-born and has a strong bond with Bartok and Kodaly and managed to escape to the States sometime during (or just after) WWII. I remember her many fascinating stories of musical life in pre-war Hungary, and I learned Bartok over Bach in understanding elementary technique, which might be one of the reasons I grew up with a fascination for modern "difficult" music of the 20th century. Yet it was when I returned to her for lessons when I was in my 30's that I revealed Scriabin to her. I never got very far as a pianist, but I managed to get a lot of pleasure from playing what I could of both Bartok and Scriabin.

Sadly, after having taught many people for many years, she died penniless, and I was the only person who attended her funeral service.

In memorium,  Mimi Martin.

[point of grace]

which one do you think is his easiest piano piece to play?

[lontano]

which one do you think is his easiest piano piece to play?

That's hardly a question that can be answered. Try some of the preludes in the earlier sets. There are quite a few that don't demand great skill to play. Just paging through a Dover edition of his smaller works should reveal works that would fit your level of performance.

L.

[nearenough]

Quickly, Ashkenazy and Ogdon recorded all of the sonatas and other pieces. Richter programmed much material. Horowitz probably single-handedly popularized Scriabin first issuing selected preludes and the Sonata #3 in the 1950s. The composer progressed through relatively conventional romantic pieces, later discovering his "mystic" chord (I will post it later) and falling into "theosophy" with Madame Blavatsky leading him to compose his later fantastic and so-called white and black masses (sonatas 7 and 9)  and his mysterious Op 74 preludes. A full biography was written by Faubion Bowers (which I bought in circa 1969 explaining all this). He died suddently in 1914 from septicemia from a boil on his lip. At the time he was planning a stupendous composition, "Mysterium" for chorus, bells, orchestras, and the "Lumilux" (forgot the exact designation now) which would play colored lights according to each key signature ("synesthesia"). This was to be performed in India, with incense, lights etc. (almost a forecast of 70's hippy drug bashes).

Anyway, all this was fascinating to me. All of his music was expertly fashioned, exemplary and mostly listenable and enjoyable. Go for it.

[communist]

I am surprised to see no one mentioned Sofronitsky.

[nanabush]

I did a really 'on the surface' essay about Scriabin as a 'mystic in music' for a fluff class I took first year in university (this was while I wasn't in music, so I was allowed to take the joke classes for people without music background).  I found it so interesting researching about him!  I'm not saying I know every little detail, but I borrowed the Ruth Laredo CDs from my teacher and the information in the little booklet alone blew my mind!  After looking around online, I found piles of info regarding his synesthaesia (sp?) and his color keyboard and the Mysterium.  Look that up and you'll be intrigued... too bad all I had to for the essay was describe the composer (again, it was a very basic class), because I would have liked to go into detail about his pieces.

I'd also like to add that his Sonata-Fantasie in G# minor Mvmt 1 is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard.

[indutrial]

I recently picked up the Maria Lettberg set of Scriabin's complete works (well, at least the works with opus #'s), and I'm really enjoying it (aside from the fact that one of the CDs was misprinted and I have two disc 4's and no disc 5  ). Aside from that, I also like the Ashkenazy set and I appreciate the Ponti set for filling in some of the gaps in his oeuvre. I have almost no interest in stressing out over which performance of which work is most successful, etc., but I think I've avoided the worst lot.

Scriabin's work, for me, is some of the most rewarding music to study, at least at this point in my music life. As well, he's one of the modern-ish composers who, upon first hearing his music, made me do a mental double-take to the extent of "I want to know as much as I can about this guy's work", alongside other favorites of mine like Tansman (who very much admired Scriabin), Faure, Skalkottas, and Bartok. As well, his style imbued me with an endless interest in the many composers who followed his style and expanded it in their own unique ways (Protopopov, Feinberg, Roslavets, Szymanowski, Sorabji, etc...). I'm not even close to possessing a full understanding of the depths of Scriabin's artistry, but every step along that path is rewarding and musically rich.

[lontano]

I did a really 'on the surface' essay about Scriabin as a 'mystic in music' for a fluff class I took first year in university (this was while I wasn't in music, so I was allowed to take the joke classes for people without music background).  I found it so interesting researching about him!  I'm not saying I know every little detail, but I borrowed the Ruth Laredo CDs from my teacher and the information in the little booklet alone blew my mind!  After looking around online, I found piles of info regarding his synesthaesia (sp?) and his color keyboard and the Mysterium.  Look that up and you'll be intrigued... too bad all I had to for the essay was describe the composer (again, it was a very basic class), because I would have liked to go into detail about his pieces.

I'd also like to add that his Sonata-Fantasie in G# minor Mvmt 1 is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard.

Interesting. I discovered him during the mid-70's in much the same way (but post-college), but it was the VOX-BOX LPs of Michael Ponti doing the complete piano works (including (I think) 3 pieces his son wrote at age 11, in his father's later style, shortly before he drowned). Then I got the Lorado LPs and the rest is history. That Sonata-Fantasie 1st movement has remained one of my all-time favorite works as well. Probably the only works I can say I haven't really learned to appreciate are his first 2 Symphonies, but I may return to them someday...

Lontano

[lontano]

Just the other day I was reading a short bio of pianist Michael Ponti, who worked hard on recording the complete works of Scriabin and several other composers under the very tight-budgeted situation that resulted in several VOX-BOX LP sets. It certainly was my greatest discovery of a fascinating composer I had not heard of less than a year or so since my introduction on a compilation LP.

What I didn't know, and might explain something, is that due to a very tight budget, etc., Ponti had to record all these works (not only Scriabin, but several others) on an Upright piano, and frequently slept on the floor between recording marathons! I'd have to say, considering all of these factors, I can easily forgive, and understand any of the criticisms I had for the generally low fidelity results of some great recording projects that VOX generated during the 1970's on.

While I thought long ago that I'd heard everything I needed to hear of Scriabin, I just bought M. Ponti's complete Scriabin, now on CD for $15 (or less). Hearing these renditions will take me some 35 years back, and it seems that nobody has ever completed such a detailed project as Ponti did in the hey day of the VOX-BOX "complete works of <composer name here>". They were cheap, readily available, and covered many of the composers I was enthralled with at the time. Those sets may not be the finest performances of the composers works, but they were diligent in their survey; rarely anything was left out.

So, with these considerations, I'd recommend the Michael Ponti "Complete Piano works of Scriabin" to anyone who has "the itch" to really get to know what that strange man was up to. And reading Faubion Bowers biography would help a lot more!

Lontano

[indutrial]

So, with these considerations, I'd recommend the Michael Ponti "Complete Piano works of Scriabin" to anyone who has "the itch" to really get to know what that strange man was up to. And reading Faubion Bowers biography would help a lot more!

The two Ponti sets were my initial exposure to Scriabin and, since I try not to fret over 'this-recording-that-recording' concerns, I found it to be fantastic. True, the recording quality is severely tinny and dated, but the performance is just fine for getting a solid gist of how the music sounds. I got the sets at about the same time I bought the CDsheetmusic disc with Scriabin's and Rachmaninov's scores, so I was mostly interested in having something to play while I studied the sheet music. The Lettberg set buries it in terms of sound quality, but Ponti's set carried me for more than five years.

I would recommend people buy the Ponti sets as well as Martin Jones' complete set of Szymanowski pieces (Nimbus records). Though I'm sure some of you will be mortified, I also quite like Idil Biret's ten-disc set of Rachmaninov works on Naxos. 

[artsyalchemist]

I have to admit, on my first listen of Scriabin, I didn't like him at all.  I'm guessing it's an acquired taste for classical music.  Now if I can find a way to get his fifth sonata (which I hope to start working on)..I'll be set. 

[franz_]

Is there a Scriabin HYPE ? :s

[richard black]

Scriabin is an acquired taste for many people. I acquired it rather gradually, one piece at a time - I think the 4th sonata was the first one I felt comfortable with. It doesn't help that performance tastes vary pretty widely too, so you may have to hunt around (especially with late works) before finding a performance that does it for you.

Incidentally I heard a really outstanding recording of a Scriabin work the other day - can't remember which work it was (doh!) but the pianist was a Russian of the early 20th century called Igumenov, recorded on a piano roll. Don't know if it's available on CD 'cos I heard the actual roll on a very nice Steinway Welte at a friend's house. Igumenov was a new name to me, though I understand he's part of the pantheon in the former USSR countries.

[franz_]

Scriabin is an acquired taste for many people. I acquired it rather gradually, one piece at a time - I think the 4th sonata was the first one I felt comfortable with. It doesn't help that performance tastes vary pretty widely too, so you may have to hunt around (especially with late works) before finding a performance that does it for you.

Incidentally I heard a really outstanding recording of a Scriabin work the other day - can't remember which work it was (doh!) but the pianist was a Russian of the early 20th century called Igumenov, recorded on a piano roll. Don't know if it's available on CD 'cos I heard the actual roll on a very nice Steinway Welte at a friend's house. Igumenov was a new name to me, though I understand he's part of the pantheon in the former USSR countries.

Could you please try to send it to me, or to upload it on the internet?
Igumenov was the teacher of my former teacher.

[michel dvorsky]

not Horowitz, you mean Richter

There is also a wonderful live Horowitz recording from the 70s, also on Youtube.

[michel dvorsky]

Hamelin does not shed any light on Scriabin.  He plays Scriabin in a dull and academic manner.  Avoid his expensive Sonata set.  The Autsbo's is better, and the cheap Szidon set is alright too.  Ogdon's set is also nice for its spontaneity but he plays a bit glibly in places. 

Get ahold of all the Horowitz and Sofronitsky you can get ahold of.   Horowitz plays with more colour and imagination than anyone else I've heard.  Sofronitsky is remarkably intense, and his playing is riveting.  I also like Richter's later Scriabin (including the etudes Op. 42 and later). All of Gould's Scriabin is wonderful.  Gilels' live recording of the 3rd sonata is wonderful, and his live no. 4 is also pretty damn good.

[richard black]

Could you please try to send it to me, or to upload it on the internet?
Igumenov was the teacher of my former teacher.

As I said, it's a piano roll and I'm not aware of a sound recording made from it by anyone. But I'll ask my friend who has the roll. He does at least have recording equipment.

[lontano]

The two Ponti sets were my initial exposure to Scriabin and, since I try not to fret over 'this-recording-that-recording' concerns, I found it to be fantastic. True, the recording quality is severely tinny and dated, but the performance is just fine for getting a solid gist of how the music sounds. I got the sets at about the same time I bought the CDsheetmusic disc with Scriabin's and Rachmaninov's scores, so I was mostly interested in having something to play while I studied the sheet music. The Lettberg set buries it in terms of sound quality, but Ponti's set carried me for more than five years.

I would recommend people buy the Ponti sets as well as Martin Jones' complete set of Szymanowski pieces (Nimbus records). Though I'm sure some of you will be mortified, I also quite like Idil Biret's ten-disc set of Rachmaninov works on Naxos.  

The Ponti complete Scriabin is nothing to be admonished, other than the general poor conditions of the recording situations. If we put the mechanical issues aside, Ponti really made some remarkable recordings.

I had one opportunity to see him perform, at the college I was employed, fairly early on (probably before 1980), and he played Listz's "Totentanze" for piano and Orchestra (it's been a while, so forgive me if i have sloppy memory). He had to perform in a gymnasium with pre-1960 issue bleachers, and when I cornered him in the men's lavatory he had few words to say, but seemed to understand what a giant leap forward his Scriabin recordings had on me. He took a piss, acknowledged me with very little warmth, and went back to whatever "green room" our gymnasium offered him.

It was a somewhat awkward moment for me, and no doubt for him.
But he made an indelible impression on me, and I thank him for that.

[lontano]

Hamelin does not shed any light on Scriabin.  He plays Scriabin in a dull and academic manner.  Avoid his expensive Sonata set.  The Autsbo's is better, and the cheap Szidon set is alright too.  Ogdon's set is also nice for its spontaneity but he plays a bit glibly in places. 

Get ahold of all the Horowitz and Sofronitsky you can get ahold of.   Horowitz plays with more colour and imagination than anyone else I've heard.  Sofronitsky is remarkably intense, and his playing is riveting.  I also like Richter's later Scriabin (including the etudes Op. 42 and later). All of Gould's Scriabin is wonderful.  Gilels' live recording of the 3rd sonata is wonderful, and his live no. 4 is also pretty damn good.

Unfortunately Marc-Andre Hamelin has reached a level of perfection that seems to place him outside the realm of powerful, insightful and beguiling performers for much of the repertoire that is already represented by gifted performers. His absolute ease with which he seems to perform some works that need some "edge", can evaporate under his fingers making the most difficult works appear to flow with the greatest of ease.

But is that something that should be held against him? I don't think so. It may take many years, but I believe Hamelin will be highly honored for his work, not too long after we all have passed on.

Lontano

[weissenberg2]

There is no perfect set of the Scriabin sonatas. However, I mix and match between Hamelin, Glemser, and Austbø. I do not like the recordings of Richter and Horowitz, which get a lot of hype for some reason.

Whats wrong with Horowitz's Scriabin? I am not a huge fan of Richter's either.

[lontano]

Whats wrong with Horowitz's Scriabin? I am not a huge fan of Richter's either.

Hmm, I don't know if I've heard all 10 sonatas played by either Horowitz or Richter, but I've certainly heard most of them, and for my buck Horowitz is the best interpreter of Scriabin (not just the sonatas) I've heard, but there are some who are nearly as fine. I place Richter's recordings of nearly everything he played (with a few minor exceptions) at the pinnacle of pianistic perfection, and I'm curious what it is that you find lacking. His late recording of Bach's "Great 48" is heavenly! 

[retrouvailles]

Whats wrong with Horowitz's Scriabin?

I don't feel that he really colors Scriabin's music as well as the other interpreters I've mentioned, especially for the late sonatas. Also, I don't like that his technique was failing in a lot of those recordings.

[rob47]

my fav recs of sonatas s 7 and 8

[/youtube]

[lontano]

I had not heard the Zukov 7th before, and I must agree that he has found some very interesting ways to express the deepest mysteries of this work. At first I was put off a bit thinking it was rather slow, but it worked very well overall. Too many times I've heard this (and others) sonata played too fast and the delicate interior of the music is lost. It's possible that might be my issue with Hamelin (I'll need to compare them to be sure).

I have the complete set of Austbø and while it's been a while since I listened to them I recall liking the set very much.

Thanks for the post!

L.

[kay3087]

Anyone that has played the second sonata, any ideas, suggestions, etc. on how to bring out the melody here—where I circled the notes—


https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6550/picture1ku.png

?

Richter does it very easily, god knows how.

[communist]

Anyone that has played the second sonata, any ideas, suggestions, etc. on how to bring out the melody here—where I circled the notes—


https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6550/picture1ku.png

?

Richter does it very easily, god knows how.

Make sure you hold the melody notes. Practice it slowly and make sure you bring out the melody notes (whilst holding them)

[lontano]

This work is out of my league, so I'm just looking at the score while listening to Richter play it.

It's not easy to figure how Richter pulls it off so well, but it is the melody, and I'm taking a guess here, but possibly a very refined use of the "true" sostenuto pedal may be used in controlling the phrasing, and precise attack on the melodic notes. This theory would not work without the full function of the sustenuto.

Most music writers consider this to be the easiest of Scriabin's sonatas, and in some ways it may be, but when played very well I don't consider it "easy" in any respect, and your question is a good one. Keeping that beautiful, soaring melody cleanly distinct while the harmonic web of the background is maintained consistent takes work.

Likewise, I'm suggesting practicing playing the non-melodic notes separately, leaving out the melody and reserving the fingering in your head, and once you have some facility there, bring in the melody with the sostenuto phrasing and see where it leads you.

It's one of Scriabin's finest works, so treat it well!

My 2 cents. 

[lostinidlewonder]

I was introduced to Scriabin by David Helfgott when I was a young kid, he played the Etude Op2 no1, probably one of his most famous etudes of all.

I've always loved this etude from him as well.

[michel dvorsky]

Hmm, I don't know if I've heard all 10 sonatas played by either Horowitz or Richter, but I've certainly heard most of them, and for my buck Horowitz is the best interpreter of Scriabin (not just the sonatas) I've heard, but there are some who are nearly as fine. I place Richter's recordings of nearly everything he played (with a few minor exceptions) at the pinnacle of pianistic perfection, and I'm curious what it is that you find lacking. His late recording of Bach's "Great 48" is heavenly! 

Heh.  I'm a huge Richter fan (I've thousands of his wonderful recordings)... but I cannot share your enthusiasm for his Bach Preludes and Fugues.

Anyway...I can't understand how anyone fails to appreciate the colour in Horowitz's Scriabin.