Ivo Pogorelich

[thesuineg]

Opinions on the past and present playing of ivo pogorelich?
Idk much about him, but his alla turka 2nd movement is the closest thing to perfection on this world

[faulty_damper]

Something is wrong with him mentally.  His brain is like, half destroyed.  The last recital I attended of his was a disaster, but a very controlled, slow one.  How the hell do you take 15 minutes to play an 10 minute sonata?  But I've written about this same performance before.  This was before he really turned to crap.  I don't know if he is even performing anymore.

[musicioso]

Something is wrong with him mentally.  His brain is like, half destroyed.  The last recital I attended of his was a disaster, but a very controlled, slow one.  How the hell do you take 15 minutes to play an 10 minute sonata?  But I've written about this same performance before.  This was before he really turned to crap.  I don't know if he is even performing anymore.

You say there is something mentally wrong with him, and then you use 'crap' to describe him.

What wrong with you?

That guy was one of the best pianists when mentally oke. Show some respect

[j_menz]

His earlier work was something of a revelation; his later work tends to the eccentric. Always fascinating, though, if not often a satisfying listen.

[faulty_damper]

You say there is something mentally wrong with him, and then you use 'crap' to describe him.

What wrong with you?

That guy was one of the best pianists when mentally oke. Show some respect

He played like crap.  That's an apt description if you've attended his recent recitals.  But it's the kind of crap that slowly churns out of a frozen yogurt machine.

When mentally OK... which is definitely not now.  It doesn't matter what he was like two decades ago unless you refer to his recordings.

[thesuineg]

well when he was mentally ok i only liked his mozart. his bach was the closest thing to average ive ever heard, and his brahms is absolutely crazy. His rhapsody in G minor literally lowers my mental health. and recently he played the nocturne in c minor super slow.

But idk if he has mental problems.
Maybe he's like trying to invent a new style. And he lost his wife a few years ago. Someone as talented as him probably was really hurt by that

[danhuyle]

Ivo Pogorelich was an amazing pianist at the time of the 1980 Chopin Competition. He has full command of the piano and can interpret music any way he desires. If only such a thing could be passed on to pianists, the piano world would be a better place.

[costicina]

I think Ivbo Pogerelich was and remains one of the most interesting living pianist. His interpretations, especially lately,  are unortodox, maybe eccentric, but they always open new, fascinating, and deep musical perspective. I admire him unconditionally

[kersplona]

Excuse me, but what is all this talk about him being "mentally ill"??

As for an answer to the OP, I think his playing at the Chopin competition was exquisite.

[faulty_damper]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/reviews/volodoschaillyleipzig-gewandhaus-barbican-2150157.html

"Last week the Croatian pianist Ivo Pogorelich – once the Southbank’s top classical pin-up – chose this work to announce his return to professional life, after years of mental dysfunction. But his performance with the Philharmonia Orchestra under Tugan Sokhiev suggested that he still has some way to go, being both awe-inspiring and shot through with terrible pathos. Poetry flashed intermittently, but was mostly obliterated by the leaden tempi which Pogorelich himself dictated: he was on one planet, and the conductor and orchestra were on another, with the result that what should have been a duet became a duel."

[blazekenny]

Well, Pogorelich, from alll pianists, has probably one of the greatest technical dispositions. He also studied at the moscow conservatory. However, he is just crazy. But he is just crazy, he doesnt respect the score and plays everything inverse. In some cases, he just brutally ruins the piece. At first hearing I thought his Gaspard de la Nuit is nice, but it was just an athletic run without any musical idea.

[thesuineg]

Yah inversely follows the score is something he does much too often. like the brahms G Minor rhapsody. But yeslol I find it hard to believe that you actually had proof for him being mentally ill lolol i think thats hilarious. Um there something about him though....thats really....peaceful. I can fall asleep to the things he plays unexplainably fast. like I'm not using this as a joke, his playing can actually put me to sleep in a few seconds, and i have diagnosed insomnia.

[sevencircles]

I recently heard that Pogorelich has got Asperger´s syndrome.  He has never mentioned it in public though.  Anyone else heard it too?

[thesuineg]

https://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjk1MzcxNzgw.html
he's sane guys :/

[landru]

His early in his career Scarlatti CD on DG is one of my favorite CD's in my collection. Awesome playing and musicianship.

[robert_henry]

Landry, I totally agree. His Scarlatti album is some of the best playing I've ever heard. It's probably my favorite album.

I've heard him live, and I own most of his recordings. His most recent playing aside, I think he is wonderful. He's a pianist from whom I've learned a great deal. I do fear that he has jumped the shark with regards to interpretation and his playing will likely not return to its former glory. But there's always something new to hear. Always interesting.

Sadly, I've noticed a lot of dismissive comments on Piano Street towards certain pianists. I don't know if this is a new trend on here or what, but every pianist out here has something to offer, and it saddens me to see so great a pianist as Pogorelich (or Kissin, etc. from another recent thread) disparaged so brutally and so easily.

Robert Henry

[faulty_damper]

With the proliferation of major piano competitions today, the standard of performance has exceeded those of the past.  What was once considered great is now considered subpar.  Horowitz, Gould, Pogorelich, Kissin, etc. were once considered great.  But now, the expectations of performance are much higher than any of them could match.

It's unfair to compare them to today's standards, like comparing a modern F1 race car to an F1 race car of 20 years ago.  What once got 1st place wouldn't even qualify today.  The difference in performance can't be ignored.

It's easy to be reminded of how poor their performances were in comparison since we can listen to their old performances on Youtube and immediately listen to a better performance by a 15-year-old.  It's easy to make this comparison.

I think it's beneficial to reexamine the performances of the past.  It's what allows us to look at an old performance and allows us to learn something new, either in interpretation or technique.  If everything in the past was so great, we wouldn't have made any strives toward improvement.  We would have to write on pen and paper, then send it via post... but now we just write on an online forum.

[j_menz]

With the proliferation of major piano competitions today, the standard of performance has exceeded those of the past.  What was once considered great is now considered subpar.  Horowitz, Gould, Pogorelich, Kissin, etc. were once considered great.  But now, the expectations of performance are much higher than any of them could match.

It's unfair to compare them to today's standards, like comparing a modern F1 race car to an F1 race car of 20 years ago.  What once got 1st place wouldn't even qualify today.  The difference in performance can't be ignored.

It's easy to be reminded of how poor their performances were in comparison since we can listen to their old performances on Youtube and immediately listen to a better performance by a 15-year-old.  It's easy to make this comparison.

I think it's beneficial to reexamine the performances of the past.  It's what allows us to look at an old performance and allows us to learn something new, either in interpretation or technique.  If everything in the past was so great, we wouldn't have made any strives toward improvement.  We would have to write on pen and paper, then send it via post... but now we just write on an online forum.

** wonders if that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

(** is alarmed at the quantity and quality of the competition )

That is wrong on just so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

EDIT: The reverse argument - that all the great pianists died out in the flood or whenever - is equally absurd, and perhaps more often heard.

[perprocrastinate]

** wonders if that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

So it isn't "all great pianists are either gay, Jewish, or dead?"

[musicioso]

With the proliferation of major piano competitions today, the standard of performance has exceeded those of the past.  What was once considered great is now considered subpar.  Horowitz, Gould, Pogorelich, Kissin, etc. were once considered great.  But now, the expectations of performance are much higher than any of them could match.

It's unfair to compare them to today's standards, like comparing a modern F1 race car to an F1 race car of 20 years ago.  What once got 1st place wouldn't even qualify today.  The difference in performance can't be ignored.

It's easy to be reminded of how poor their performances were in comparison since we can listen to their old performances on Youtube and immediately listen to a better performance by a 15-year-old.  It's easy to make this comparison.

I think it's beneficial to reexamine the performances of the past.  It's what allows us to look at an old performance and allows us to learn something new, either in interpretation or technique.  If everything in the past was so great, we wouldn't have made any strives toward improvement.  We would have to write on pen and paper, then send it via post... but now we just write on an online forum.

Can you name one 15 years old kid who plays (according to you!) better than Kissin?

You can not compare musicians like you compare sport scars, music is not sport. Actually there shouldn't even be piano competitions. But its needed to help young musicians to get promoted. Thats all it is.. 

[j_menz]

So it isn't "all great pianists are either gay, Jewish, or dead?"

LOL, context precludes that one. I did mention there was stiff competition, though.

[faulty_damper]

In today's world the degree of performance must be high because of so much competition.  In music conservatories in Korea for example, you do not choose your audition pieces.  The school choses them and all applicants play the same repertoire.  Hundreds of applicants will audition for  only a few seats.  Any slip up, just one wrong note, is automatic rejection.

Intense competition is what raises the standard since competitors will do what it takes to improve their chances of winning.  This means technical brilliance and musical expressiveness.  This is what wins competitions, not subpar performances.

I think many of you who disagree with this assessment are too sentimental to the past.  You're first exposure to such performances have become somewhat of the standard and you overlook technical flaws or expressive idiosyncrasies/liberties that simply wouldn't be acceptable today.  You view these past giants as gods, totally without impartiality.  You see them the way prepubescent girls swoon over Justin Bieber, not because he can sing, but because he's "cute".  It's this idolization that allows you to overlook these flaws.  You reinterpret such flaws as "personal interpretation" and this is what allows these greats to remain great, in your mind.

[j_menz]

I think many of you who disagree with this assessment are too sentimental to the past. 

Neither sentimental for the past nor instinctively dismissive of it.

There were many great pianists then, there are many great pianists now. Both then and now there were or are many more less than great ones.

Pianists and performances should be judged on their merits, which may come in many flavours.  You appear to assume there is a "right" way to play everything and current pianists are now closer to it than former generations were. I reject the premise.

[thesuineg]

Let me first say that there is currently no pianist that can give a more intelligent and powerful performance than Sviatoslav Richter. It is exactly because of slip up and wrong notes causing automatic rejection that makes pianists lower in quality. How can you not be nervous and play your best in such a situation. Its not that I don't think there are great pianists right now, but I actually think there are fewer just because overall piano teaching has become not as good as it used to be.

[faulty_damper]

Pianists and performances should be judged on their merits, which may come in may flavours.  You appear to assume there is a "right" way to play everything and current pianists are now closer to it than former generations were. I reject the premise.

There are better ways and not so good ways, and near infinite wrong ways.  I don't think the pianists of the past ever (publicly) did it in the wrong ways (e.g. Pogo's extended cut interpretations [sea slug slow tempi].) But they did do many works in good ways which is why they are famous.  Some made interpretive idiosyncrasies the standard for a while (e.g. Liszt with excessively indulgent rubatos which influenced a generation of teachers) and others were strict to the score (e.g. Michelangeli's pursuit of perfection at the expense of expressive music-making).

But it's the good ways that set the standard for a while.  Rubinstein's interpretation of Chopin's works, for example, was the standard for quite some time because of the beautiful music-making.  It became the benchmark that allowed a pianist to build off it and improve it.  Some were more successful than others, of course, and in minute ways, increased that standard.  We then look to that piece, not the performer, as the standard.  Thus, there is no idolization.

And sometimes, there comes a point where there is hardly any room for improvement.  At this point, how does one make himself different from the rest?  Quirky interpretation.  Stephen Hough's Chopin Waltzes album on Hyperion, for example, fits the bill.  It's noticeably different from all other recordings, but still has an authenticity to it that doesn't detract from the music.  But, in the end, you would think that it's Hough's interpretation.  You wouldn't think that it's the 'correct' way it should sound even though it's very interesting to listen to.

And maybe this is the point of Pogorelich... he's gone way off the beaten path that he can no longer sell concerts.  But he's always had a quirky way of playing... which is why he was knocked out of the Chopin Competition in 1980... only to have Argerich proclaim his interpretations as "genius", which of course launched his career.

[j_menz]

And sometimes, there comes a point where there is hardly any room for improvement.  At this point, how does one make himself different from the rest? 

There is always room for difference. I wonder how many second rate recordings (and concerts) have had more to do with pianists playing things that were commercial or expected of them without any hing really to say about a piece - must do from the outside rather than must do from the inside.

[faulty_damper]

What you say sounds like a criticism of classical singers who sing for themselves instead of for the expression of the music.  They use the music as a vehicle toward fame instead of using the music to convey meaning.

I accompanied a singer at school for a semester.  While we were in the practice room, I mentioned that I can't sing and play the piano at the same time.  She, in her bright, upbeat, and somewhat naive way, popped the reply, "I can sing and play at the same time!"  She quickly turned toward the keys, looked down at the keyboard, and started to play something she composed when she was little.  When she started singing, I became so overwhelmed with emotion that I almost started to cry.  The only reason why I didn't was because she stopped singing her song, maybe insecure that it wasn't good or something.  It was the first time a singer brought me to near tears.  It was so genuine that I immediately thought of the consequences of her being admitted as a vocal performance major, instead of just a BA, because of what the program would do to her sincerity.  I didn't want her to lose it.  But after a couple of semesters in the program, she eventually lost it.  Her sincerity was taught out of her.

[sevencircles]

But he's always had a quirky way of playing... which is why he was knocked out of the Chopin Competition in 1980... only to have Argerich proclaim his interpretations as "genius", which of course launched his career.

I actually thought that he made significant misstakes that´s why he was knocked out, or?

[thesuineg]

^Naw...there were quite a few others who supported him, but not the majority. So he got kicked. I certaintly like him more than the most recent competition winner.

[pianoman53]

To say that any period had a higher standard as any other, is nonsense.

Today, we have obviously a different ideal than before. Thesis/antithesis - It's really not complicated.

If you listen to the really early recordings from the 20s, you'll hear wrong notes all the time. Was it because they were unable to play the right ones? Obviously not! They just didn't see right notes as the first thing to think about. If you listen to them, you'll hear that the imagination and "feeling" (to put it like that) was much more important.

Going a bit later, say 50s, I guess they got a bit bored with tempo changes all over the pieces, and that every new phrase should have a new feeling. So, they did it a bit stricter. Maybe the first and second theme needed different tempi, but not much more than that.

Now, or ideal is, in a way, more poetic. Tone color is very important (on I side note: You can find videos on youtube, where students of Liszt is playing. And if you listen carefully, barely no one do a proper voicing in the chords. Obviously they were able to, but they just didn't see it as that important. At the same time, you will never hear such a wild, say, Mazeppa from pianists today), voicing chords in the correct way is important, changing color in different phrases is important.

Also, the pianists of the early recordings could easily have met (or met someone who met) the great composers. If they didn't play up to standard, I don't think, say, Liszt would be very shy in telling them how much they sucked.

If Faulty_damper doesn't agree, I would love to hear your side of it!