I rather enjoyed the ritardando you added at the end of the repeat which led back into the 2nd grave section, as well as the fermata'ed rest at the start of the 3rd grave section. However, I find it interesting that you go back to the introductory grave section at 3:22 (the end of bar 131 in my Henle Urtext edition). Was this an artistic choice or was it marked differently on your edition of the music? In the Henle Urtext edition which I am using, it indicates for the performer to repeat from bar 11 (the first Allegro di molto e con brio) section at the repeat. If this were marked differently, would it be possible to provide me with the edition that you are using for this performance? I have held back from commenting on Mvt. 2 (Adagio Cantabile) as I have just begun the process of learning it. I think the phrasing you use at the start of Mvt. 3(Rondo Allegro) is beautiful. However, I also am interested in the fact that you used a D flat instead of D natural at bar 30 (16:36), on the 3rd quaver. As repeated earlier, this does not concur with the version of the score I possess. Is this another difference in score? I feel the use of this flat lends a tense feeling to your interpretation which is rather intriguing. I find the dynamics in the polyphonic section of this movement to be executed very well and in a very pleasing way. As a brief observation, I find it interesting that you stretch the calando (at 19:28) out to the low G prior to the final repeat of the A section as well as the sff you play for the chords in the final section rather than a cres., as these points have allegedly been often debated. The way you play the second half of the final section (bar 193 onwards at 20:00) is also different to other recordings I've listened to, as you slow down here instead of pushing forward at the same pace. Once again I wonder if this is due to variations in score, or if it is intentionally done for an artistic reason. Overall I find your interpretation of this piece to be very interesting yet sound amazing all the same.
@@bwv232 Thank you, there are 2 versions of Chopin's nocturne n 16, Rubinstein and Pogorelich... I think, there is some fight in music, if you play it contrary to another pianist - you contest him, her and the tradition.. Anyway imho, Chopin and Schuman are too much romantized, and one should allow them humor... At least. Edit, there is also Cortot's recording, wonderful
@@kap42 in 20 years. She's still a kid. Btw: Glenn Gould never grew up, like Peter Pan, and he was an anti-romantic robotic. I can see why they took her.
Beautiful, elegant, and talented.
00:04 1st movement - Grave
01:44 1st movement - Allegro molto con brio
10:44 2nd movement - Adagio Cantabile
16:03 3rd movement - Rondo, Allegro
That was excellent! Got the drama of Beethoven!
Nearly as good as Barenboim!
Thank you so much!
Your affinity for Bach shows in the clean, rhythmic way you approach the 3rd movement. Nice!
You play so beautifully. And thanks for playing the full recapitulation in the first movement.
Holy f'ing wow.... You are a perfect human.
a very beautiful new star in the classical sky....
Wonderfull!
in love!
Perfect ! ♥
I love your recordings! Thank you
Good performing and I like so much of her non overexpresive gestures.
Thanks 🙏
love
Excelente!
Wow!
i cant get that melody out my head 8:29
No olvides que te amo con todo mi ser.. osea con todo lo que existe.
I rather enjoyed the ritardando you added at the end of the repeat which led back into the 2nd grave section, as well as the fermata'ed rest at the start of the 3rd grave section. However, I find it interesting that you go back to the introductory grave section at 3:22 (the end of bar 131 in my Henle Urtext edition). Was this an artistic choice or was it marked differently on your edition of the music? In the Henle Urtext edition which I am using, it indicates for the performer to repeat from bar 11 (the first Allegro di molto e con brio) section at the repeat. If this were marked differently, would it be possible to provide me with the edition that you are using for this performance?
I have held back from commenting on Mvt. 2 (Adagio Cantabile) as I have just begun the process of learning it.
I think the phrasing you use at the start of Mvt. 3(Rondo Allegro) is beautiful. However, I also am interested in the fact that you used a D flat instead of D natural at bar 30 (16:36), on the 3rd quaver. As repeated earlier, this does not concur with the version of the score I possess. Is this another difference in score? I feel the use of this flat lends a tense feeling to your interpretation which is rather intriguing. I find the dynamics in the polyphonic section of this movement to be executed very well and in a very pleasing way. As a brief observation, I find it interesting that you stretch the calando (at 19:28) out to the low G prior to the final repeat of the A section as well as the sff you play for the chords in the final section rather than a cres., as these points have allegedly been often debated. The way you play the second half of the final section (bar 193 onwards at 20:00) is also different to other recordings I've listened to, as you slow down here instead of pushing forward at the same pace. Once again I wonder if this is due to variations in score, or if it is intentionally done for an artistic reason.
Overall I find your interpretation of this piece to be very interesting yet sound amazing all the same.
Hola buenas tardes, no entiendo la repeticion del Grave... es hermosa la version, pero si alguien me quiere explicar?. Saludos y graciaspor compartir
Same. Sorry.
Did you listen to Wilhelm Backhaus' Beethoven ... ?
He was interesting to listen to...thank you for the pointer :)
@@bwv232 Thank you, there are 2 versions of Chopin's nocturne n 16, Rubinstein and Pogorelich... I think, there is some fight in music, if you play it contrary to another pianist - you contest him, her and the tradition.. Anyway imho, Chopin and Schuman are too much romantized, and one should allow them humor... At least.
Edit, there is also Cortot's recording, wonderful
Hola mi amor
Wrong piece: she looks physically and emotionally wimpish, and plays that way.
I think my close and longtime friend Ludwig would have had another opinion.
its anything but that. she plays with confidence and poise if anything. she plays beautifully but of course you're entitled to your opinion.
She's a child@@dankr7009
She was accepted into The Glenn Gould School at The Royal Conservatory, so she must be doing something right.
@@kap42 in 20 years. She's still a kid. Btw: Glenn Gould never grew up, like Peter Pan, and he was an anti-romantic robotic. I can see why they took her.