Valentina Lisitsa Review

[vlhorowitz]

https://www.examiner.com/piano-in-san-francisco/review-youtube-phenom-valentina-lisitsa-san-francisco-review

[lelle]

This writer would have preferred a more colorful pianistic palette, reminiscent of the subtler readings of past pianists (see above). However, this is easier said than done – and it is only fair to recognize that Lisitsa offers her audience what they come to see – namely, a glowing stage presence and a mechanism capable of sweeping through a beautiful concerto with the rarest of ease.

I thought this was interesting. I agree that Valentina is more technique than real artistry and her readings are often flat and uninteresting (to my ears). Personally I'd want to go to a concerto to hear a brilliant interpretation before fireworks with little substance. But I guess I seem to be in a minority then?

[perfect_pitch]

lelle... have you heard her recording of Liszt's Totentanz for Solo piano???

BLOODY MARVELLOUS... Seriously - check it out. You think of her playing as flat? You might change your mind after seeing that.

[lostinidlewonder]

Some exponents of impeccable technique sometimes play too "neatly" for musical peoples ears. Sometimes people are confronted when they hear things phrases sharply rendered or absolute evenness of a scale or arpeggio run and consider it sterile or technical playing. Or if they hear a melodic line played too measured or without enough this or that whatever. They can't get over the fact that someone is playing in a way which does not conform to their own ideological model of music.

Music is beyond that, who is to say we need to separate technical from musical and consider the greatest players those that are technical and musical? Music is not that one dimensional, listen to the person play without criticizing and you will feel the magic of a performance. Being there in person is a much different experience as you witness the music being given birth to and can hear its natural source.

Music is mostly SUBJECTIVE it is not a very objective issue when it comes to what sounds right among the professional recordings. So when someone says I want to hear more "color" they are not even saying anything intelligent in all honesty. Who gives a damn how they played, you want to know how they effected the audience and how they effect listeners, that is what is important. If you listen to someone and say, oh it effected me in the way that I wanted to hear more different types of sound come from their playing. That means that you totally missed out on what the music was trying to tell you and the experience of a live performance. If you really want to critique her playing take out the score, mention the bars, but then, which layman is really going to care about your review?

If you deconstruct every single performance in terms of critical thinking you are simply missing out on the beauty of music. There is a reason not to ever read what critics write about you whether it be good or bad, you can fall into the trap of believing what people say who have really no idea about your musical journey and have only ever witnessed one small snippet of time when you performed or recorded something. I have been to performances where the person might not have played the best but the entire audience was eating out of their hands. As apposed to witnessing people who play wonderfully but have no connection to the audience at all, what a bore!

These days we don't want the playing to be top notch, we want the performance to be top notch.

[edward]

lelle... have you heard her recording of Liszt's Totentanz for Solo piano???

BLOODY MARVELLOUS... Seriously - check it out. You think of her playing as flat? You might change your mind after seeing that.

I couldn't agree more.  I think the problem for someone like Lisitsa, whose prodigious technique allows her to overcome most of the serious challenges in the repertoire, is that her facility is then erroneously judged as mere mechanism.  By contrast someone like Alfred Brendel, who has a much more limited technique, is given a free pass because his body language and demeanour (at least part occasioned by the technical challenge of the music he's playing) are interpreted as artistic sensibility.  It's true that her popular series of recordings of the Chopin Etudes (recorded in 2004) are "dashed off", but with what elan!  What panache!  Furthermore, as a pianist, it's instructive to see her technique in action, in close-up; and while the Etudes are lovely, they are still studies, with only a handful worth listening to in their own right (in my estimation, of course) so for my money the performance is secondary to the education.  In other words, I don't judge her on the Etudes, as so many do.

Her YouTube channel contains other treasures; her Beethoven sonatas are very fine, her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LocyxtmZ4tQ Rachmaninov Sonata No. 1 prodigious.  it's also worth checking out her version of Schubert's Schwanengesang.

[prongated]

\By contrast someone like Alfred Brendel, who has a much more limited technique, is given a free pass because his body language and demeanour (at least part occasioned by the technical challenge of the music he's playing) are interpreted as artistic sensibility.

Absolutely incorrect. Alfred Bren-dull has received his fair share of criticism too for his square, academic performances, in particular his studio recordings. And his technique is far from limited. Have a listen to, for instance, his live performance of Liszt's Vallee d'Obermann - I've never heard the last few pages performed with more fire, and it's pretty much note-perfect!

Some exponents of impeccable technique sometimes play too "neatly" for musical peoples ears. Sometimes people are confronted when they hear things phrases sharply rendered or absolute evenness of a scale or arpeggio run and consider it sterile or technical playing. Or if they hear a melodic line played too measured or without enough this or that whatever. They can't get over the fact that someone is playing in a way which does not conform to their own ideological model of music.

That is true to a certain extent. There are artists (for me, such as Richter, Fleisher, and Laplante) who tend to play "square" and strictly in time - "neatly" if you like. Yes, their playing comes across as solid, but beyond that there is power, there is intensity, and there is sincerity in what they do. Not my cup of tea (I prefer Rubinstein), but I have absolute respect for such playing.

Interesting that Laplante did have problems playing this way in his youth too - in competitions, people considered him unmusical. Of course, he went on regardless to become one of Canada's most respected musicians in the world.

...just don't confuse this kind of playing with Lisitsa's. There is a distinction between intensity and power in "square", "neat" playing, and one that is simply fast and loud.

[sordel]

...just don't confuse this kind of playing with Lisitsa's. There is a distinction between intensity and power in "square", "neat" playing, and one that is simply fast and loud.

I wouldn't have described Lisitsa with either of the adjectives fast or loud. What I associate her with is brilliance and transparency. I always feel that she will give a very good account of a piece ... a compelling reading of how it would appear in the score. I also like the fact that when she plays a heavy accent she never milks it: when she produces volume it is always strictly constrained by the timing of the piece, so her performances of Romantic music never become bloated.

I don't say she's the best pianist in all repertoire, but in any repertoire than she plays I would have thought she was a world class pianist.

[lelle]

I have been to performances where the person might not have played the best but the entire audience was eating out of their hands. As apposed to witnessing people who play wonderfully but have no connection to the audience at all, what a bore!

These days we don't want the playing to be top notch, we want the performance to be top notch.

I think this is so wrong. If it's the performance that matters rather than the playing, what is the point of striving for artistry? As long as you can put on a good show it doesn't matter? I guess that explains why Lang Lang gets so much exposure though. If the pianist plays something with electrifying artistry but doesn't connect to the audience, should he/she lower his artistic standards to put on more of a "show"? In terms of a live performance, I think the playing is the most important thing. Anyone who knows how to recognize good playing will be spellbound if the playing deserves it.

Her YouTube channel contains other treasures; her Beethoven sonatas are very fine, her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LocyxtmZ4tQ Rachmaninov Sonata No. 1 prodigious.  it's also worth checking out her version of Schubert's Schwanengesang.

Ugh, I've heard that performance before, and so many things are just so wrong in it to my ears. It's like she has learned the language but obviously isn't a native speaker of it. I've heard so much "better" (for a lack of a better word) recordings of that piece. It's technically brilliant and there are lot of things she handles better than many pianists I've heard but the overall musical impression she leaves is not my cup of tea.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ugh, I've heard that performance before, and so many things are just so wrong in it to my ears. It's like she has learned the language but obviously isn't a native speaker of it. I've heard so much "better" (for a lack of a better word) recordings of that piece. It's technically brilliant and there are lot of things she handles better than many pianists I've heard but the overall musical impression she leaves is not my cup of tea.

Could you be more specific? Sorry if I'm being rather blunt, but your post translates to no more actual substance than "I don't like it" would have. You have every right not to, but it would be far more interesting to hear some specific insights into why- rather than merely a generic expression of negativity that is backed up by such a cliched piece of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric as that tired old language analogy. Incidentally, it tends to work better when made in reference to a non-Russian playing Russian music- I think you'll find she IS a native speaker. Are you Russian, or am I right in assuming that you're claiming to be in a position where you can accuse a Russian of not understanding the native traditions, when you're the non-native?

Lisitsa is not a favourite pianist, but she's certainly among those pianists who I would like to hear perform- with an excellent dynamic range and a very wide tonal palette, by today's standards.

[lostinidlewonder]

....If it's the performance that matters rather than the playing, what is the point of striving for artistry? As long as you can put on a good show it doesn't matter? I guess that explains why Lang Lang gets so much exposure though. If the pianist plays something with electrifying artistry but doesn't connect to the audience, should he/she lower his artistic standards to put on more of a "show"? In terms of a live performance, I think the playing is the most important thing. Anyone who knows how to recognize good playing will be spellbound if the playing deserves it

With the following I am talking in terms of successful concerting not so much the reason why we are musicians so this might go against what we naturally feel but it is the business of performance these days.

Some people might argue that good playing (of your instrument) will create a good performance (how well the audience are entertained). However I believe that it is not so important how well you play, of course you must play well but to play at the top % of pianist  is that important and really a prerequisite for successful concerting? The answer is clearly no in many cases, of course there are pianists who merely rely on their playing ability and do not know how to connect with their audience through speech and concert presentation.

You will find in the future, those pianists who connect to their audience and can entertain them as well as play a mean piano, these artists will be among the most famous and successful. No longer do we want to see mere curators of art, we want to get to know more about the secret life of music, the audiences ears and mind want to be educated and entertained and they need someone who can do it in a entertaining way. We after all live in the age of information and how we package our concerts should respect the age we live in. But then again I hear concert presentations spoken as if the performer is giving a lecture in a university, this is a bad attempt at audience connection imo although it is what most performers are like when they speak.

Too many people think that it is how you play that determines your concert life success, the reality is that only a small amount of musicians in this world rely on that and because they are so famous some tend to believe that the only way to fame and success is through the playing medium. It could really be father from the truth. You need to be able to play well of course, better than most, but you don't need to be the best that is not what separates successful performers from the rest. What you need is really more difficult than playing your instrument, you need to be a people person, you need to love your audience, you need to feel at ease with them and want to be with them and talk with them freely.

If your audience doesn't like you personally then it doesn't matter how you play that air will follow you. Some people for example that think Kissin is a stuck up or snobbish so you get so much negative comments about him. He speaks funny and awkwardly which might make people furthermore marginalize him. Lang Lang makes funny faces and over the top gestures which people take offense to and thus degrade him even though he plays so well. So the audiences perspective of the performer is really so essential and very much more so than how well you actually play.

Yoyo Ma mentioned the triangle of performance, The Audience, The Performer, The Composer. You need to connect to the audience with speech and with stage presentation, you can't just have a bare stage, no lighting effects etc. With your speech you reveal yourself as a performer personally also you bring live to the composer and also the performance of the piece itself as you may speak about parts of the piece or what it is about.


We need to complete that triangle when we give a performance. One will notice that how you play actually plays only a small role in the overall presentation, although it is what we invest the most time in crafting.

[lostinidlewonder]

There are artists (for me, such as Richter, Fleisher, and Laplante) who tend to play "square" and strictly in time - "neatly" if you like. Yes, their playing comes across as solid, but beyond that there is power, there is intensity, and there is sincerity in what they do. Not my cup of tea (I prefer Rubinstein), but I have absolute respect for such playing.

These pianists all communicate something when they play their piece, although they also have near perfect technique it is their musicality which shines more often through. I consider technical playing actually a valid musical interpretation of how things can go, there is nothing wrong with it, it is one way someone can perform a passage.

But you do come across pianists who play certain pieces or parts of pieces very routinely, like they are playing scales or exercises. These are valid ways of interpreting a piece although teeter on the non-musical they can still be considered musical ways of playing. There are plenty of performers who play things blandly and people think it is wonderful playing, there are still plenty of pieces where the only recordings that exist play the pieces rather blandly or at least not very effective in certain parts, and people think they are the best recordings (they are since no one has demonstrated the better way through recordings).

The main challenge for musicians is the musical expression/interpretation, although some choose to play pieces where the notes are extremely difficult so being able to pull off the notes impresses people so much they do not worry too much about the musical interpretation because that often comes through naturally without effort if the notes are all hit. What is wrong with this? I don't think there is anything wrong, but as a musician I would like to hear not technique but musical ideas, that is what is to me the most important issue. I can see through a missed note, or something not played 100% perfect, but mediocre musicality tends to cloud my mind. Listen to technical masters play non-virtuoso pieces, they often sound excessively boring because they have no technique to bedazzle us with. But when a complete master plays a simple piece, they breath life into it and make you want to listen to it all because the notes cannot bedazzle you but the magical musical expression can.

Still, I am a sucker for bedazzlement, pristine technique is something to marvel at and if you  a pianist yourself you can respect the time/discipline they put into achieving that result. But these people don't remain in my mind for long, those that have offered me insight into their golden musical interpretations, these performers change/confirm my mind and ears over the emotional language of music. Who cares one of better than the other, they both offer us something different.

[perfect_pitch]

Lang Lang makes funny faces and over the top gestures which people take offense to and thus degrade him even though he plays so well.

Normally I'd never question your opinions...

...but ARE YOU NUTS???

[lostinidlewonder]

eek, that is a very peculiar rendition I agree! But still.... a lot of ability to play like that and not many people could do what he does even though it is certainly a different interpretation of high quality and even though we might put tongue in cheek as musicians!

That video projection of his hands on the piano is an absolutely fantastic presentation idea, I wonder if it was real or edited in? If its really projected that is so cool.

[sordel]

You will find in the future, those pianists who connect to their audience and can entertain them as well as play a mean piano, these artists will be among the most famous and successful.

A utopian dream, but I think that you will also find that pianists who are pretty, or handsome, or have some engaging backstory of struggle and tribulation will be among the most famous and successful. When musical near-perfection is a commodity now and the repertoire is approaching saturation point for everything before the twentieth century, the only motivation for record companies to push a pianist is if they have potential to break out to a non-classical audience.

[scottmcc]

eek, that is a very peculiar rendition I agree! But still.... a lot of ability to play like that and not many people could do what he does even though it is certainly a different interpretation of high quality and even though we might put tongue in cheek as musicians!

That video projection of his hands on the piano is an absolutely fantastic presentation idea, I wonder if it was real or edited in? If its really projected that is so cool.

I had the opportunity to hear Lang Lang live, performing the rachmaninov 2nd concerto. They had a camera suspended from the ceiling above the piano so that anyone in the audience could see his hands. I had great seats so it didn't matter much for me, but it was a neat idea.  And quite frankly the performance that night was great! He may gesticulate wildly but the sound was glorious and the audience loved it.  Now I will admit I've never heard most of these pianists live to really compare, but I for one am not a Lang Lang hater.