0:25 Mozart, Piano Sonata in D, K576 15:55 Debussy, Images, Book 2 30:30 Hamelin, Variations on a Theme of Paganini 43:06 Schubert, Piano Sonata No. 21 inB-flat major, D.960 Correct me if I'm wrong.
Book 2 or 2nd series (L111) Cloches à travers les feuilles (mélancolie diffuse) (Bells through the leaves (diffuse melancholy)) Et la lune descend sur le temple qui fut (And the moon descends on the temple that was) Poissons d'or (Golden fishes)
His Variations are mind-boggling brilliance. I feel sure that Godowsky would take his hat off to Hamelin. He is the only composer of super-pyrotechnics I can think of that would hold a candle to Hamelin, and Hamlin composing into the 21st Century gives him THAT MUCH more repertoire to spoof on than Godowsky had when he lived. I love it that Schubert gave Hamelin more wrinkles in his forehead than anybody else during the program! I am 73, and believe I have heard the greatest I will hear in my life. God bless the man!
Никто кроме него не может проникнуть в душу великих композиторов, слушаю его и вижу автора, просто чудо, Марк Андре выше тех кого я до него обожал, он настоящий ясновидец, возносит нас к богу, после его исполнения мы должны воздать богу хвалу что послал его нам и должны молиться за него!!!
Went with my brother to see MAH in recital at Carnegie (Stern) Hall in NYC on Wednesday night, Jan. 20. His performances of Gaspard de la Nuit and the final piece - the Liszt Sonata - were transcendant. The audience went crazy after the Liszt, and he awarded us with four encores. What a great artist.
This man is a genius . Aside from his technique which is unparalleled , he shows incredible improvisational skills in some of his pieces . Lol complaining about tone through a computer speaker. Liszt was roundly criticized , Bach was forgotten before his revival and Schubert's Piano Sonatas were never performed publicly until years after his death. There are always internet know it alls that like to criticize . Doing it to Hamelin borders on ignorance.
His "Variations on a Theme of Paganini" are so incredibly funny! Also, who can really tell if he misses notes at all? And, besides his brilliance and profound musicianship, you can see he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to musical traditions, which I think is greatly liberating.
The Mozart! Dear God, the Mozart! Krauss and de Larrocha didn't play it better! No one I've ever heard plays the last few bars like that - it's genius!
The touch is a tad too heavy in the staccato motives. I think it's due to his strong large hands which causes stiffness. The technique is perfect, just the "floating off the keys" is not "child" enough to represent Mozart at some parts. Just my opinion.
@@Fanchen Because Mozart played like a child? Or because you prefer it that way? I do not doubt for a moment that MAH could play those passages more delicately if he wanted to. I often find performances of Mozart to be too delicate for my taste. I quite like some of Gulda's more "muscular" interpretations, for example.
@@JohnSmith-oe5kx it’s how Mozart would have played it, he is known for his elegance. One should not be hammering out those staccatos when it signifies laughter etc.
@@Fanchen wow Fanchen, we meet again! Tbh I kinda prefer Mozart as the other user described (like MAH and Gulda play it) but still I listen to more delicate interpretations quite often, I think it really depends on my mood that day! Anyways, I've learned this gorgeous sonata in the past few days and I'll upload it here on UA-cam as I record it, hopefully you'll appriciate my interpretation of it if you happen to listen to it ;) Best regards!
There's usually a chuckle within the audience during this section of the piece, the Cliburn Live crowd tends to be a very serious crowd for what it's worth.
@@PieInTheSky9 I didn't understand the joke, and why would there be a joke ? so I totally understand why the crowd didn't react to anything specifically
As always a truly brilliant performance yet I can't help wondering if that particular piano is well passed its best. Some of those notes sound a bit dodgy to my ear.
6×10=60 That's how I remember my mother's birthday. I wrote a poem (pom) about something, print them and give-out to people. A circular. (What is the difference between a circular and a pamphlet?)
It's so sad, Hamelin is becoming older and it seems that he had occasional unconcentrated moments, especially in the Mozart and Schubert. Obviously, it is not his technique limiting him there. Still, he is my favourite pianist because he is one of the few having not only a flawless technique but also a very good musical taste and a thorough theoretical understanding of the music he is playing, leading to an "intelligent" interpretation. Most other pianists just have one or two of these properties, but not all three simultaneously.
+Danny B. Yes, certainly! Again, I definitely don't want to run him down, I still enjoyed the performance very much and especially his Debussy was incredibly good! So one small lapse in concentration happens at 3:07, not a big thing of course, and obviously he is capable of playing that scale, it's just about concentration it seems... there are also a few other very small mistakes at 11:31 12:03 12:57. I feel really bad for pointing that out so explicitly, judging a performance shouldn't be based on "ah, I found 1 mistake at 1:something" I just have the impression that these are things that wouldn't have occured when he was in his 30's; I'm sure you know the videos of his recitals in casals hall 1997 where he plays an insanely difficult repertoire with the highest perfection. Maybe it also shows that Mozart is in fact not "easy", it might be even harder than some Chopin or Liszt. For the latter you very often have passages where not every note is essential, for example in a big arpeggio with a lot of pedal, which makes you more relaxed as a pianist. However, when playing Mozart you can't hide anything, and this constant maximum concentration is sometimes very hard to keep up.
+joernbroeker I don't think these kinds of mistakes have anything to with age. These kind of lapses even happen to the greatest of virtuosi in the primes of their career, once in a while. If you were to follow one of the younger virtuosi, say Daniil Trifonov or Evgeny Kissin, to everyone of their concerts, you'd definitely hear a few lapses in most, if not every concert. I know Hamelin is known for his superhuman technique but I don't think one should assume age is getting to him at 54, because in this concert he made a few slips, while in one single concert from 1997, he supposedly (I haven't listened to that concert and it's probably more difficult to pick up a finger slip in a barnstormer by Liszt or Alkan) hadn't made one. Just my two cents. I could be wrong. Also, I think that as the athletic element of technique does begin to decline around 55-60, other compensating factors like depth of interpretation, subtlety of phrasing, etc. kick in. For instance, in some ways I enjoy late Richter and Horowitz (especially his Mozart sonatas) more than their early performances.
+Danny B. Hm maybe you are right and I was just biased, because I had the impression that he looked older than on his videos a few years ago thus "wanting" to attribute it to his age. I definitely agree that the depth of interpretation increases with age it somehow becomes magical, like in concerts by the late Rubinstein or so. I'm absolutely delighted that Hamelin now plays more Mozart. Quite recently he already recorded the Haydn sonatas, hopefully he will also do all the Mozart sonatas in the near future, they'd definitely deserve it.
+joernbroeker These are just tiny human mistakes, ones in which you'll hear in any live performance. Seems a bit frivolous to point them out or mention them. They don't distract from the musicality at all. I think pointing out small mistakes in live concert piano music recitals is a modern practice that really needs to stop.
I agree completely that M.A.H. has a set of fingers that ANY pianist would love to have - BUT - does anyone else share my opinion that, for all that, his playing somehow manages to lack any drama and excitement?
+Lynn Raley yeah, he's hardly the go-to guy for the classic repertoire (although there are exceptions: his 2nd Saint-Saens concerto is wonderful, the best I've heard). His importance is in shining a light on all the more arcane stuff and contemporary music
@@lynnraley7731 I've listened to more than a hundred different pianists play the Schubert, and none have I enjoyed more than this. I think you may be mis-interpreting Hamelin's unruffled approach to piano playing - or maybe you were a bored listener. I detected no visual or audible sign of the performer being "bored". I think Hamelin draws more out of this work than anyone I've heard. You can't play Schubert as if he were Rachmaninoff, or Mozart for that matter, as this recital clearly demonstrated.
Every so often, Marc-andre does this terribly idiosyncratic thing with distorting the rhythmic pulse - as in the beginning of the Schubert. It all but ruined the whole thing for me. It is so not becoming of an artist of his stature to so mar this sublime work. This piece must flow like water...He knows that, but it's some kind of bug that just gets into his head.
Just listen to Richter in that sonata. Few people would argue that Hamelin's interpretations of the canon is what makes him great. His Études Symphoniques is the worst I've heard.
@@punkpoetry Hamelin's Schubert here is extremely respectable and with many moments of beauty. Actually Richter's Schubert D960, while unique with a particular artistic temperament and sound, is not good. First movement is marked Molto Moderato, not Largo like Richter did. The approach comes across as cold and heavy. While appreciating and respecting Richter's artistry, his performances of the Schubert sonatas do not show him in the best light - at all. Schnabel's Schubert Sonatas are very wonderful testaments to Schubert. For D960, John Perry is unsurpassed. For such Scriabin Sonata as no. 5, Richter is unsurpassed (at least of all the recordings and performances I've heard).
@@donkgated8074 I had a listen to John Perry, with whom I am not familiar. I'm astonished that you put him at the apex of performance of this work. He's not a patch on Hamelin, imo. I do agree however with your comments about Richter.
Well, what differences of opinion here! And if you're going to accuse someone of being boring, you should at least have the courtesy to attempt to analyse the reason for it. There's no doubt that Hamelin's tone (at least as reproduced here) is thin and that his phrasing sounds calculated rather than spontaneous, with arch and all-too-predictable agogic distortions and hesitations in the Mozart, which seems filtered through the self-consciouness of the 20th and 21st centuries rather than freshly distilled. Crucially, Hamelin pecks at the music instead of singing it - and Mozart without singing isn't Mozart. And, yes, there are rather a lot of technical/mental lapses ("flawless technique"?). The Debussy, too, is rhythmically distorted (viz. the very opening of the first piece), to no expressive purpose, the moon casts a glacial glow in the second piece (Debussy meets Boulez?) and the opening of 3 is nowhere near pp, as marked. Of course, Hamelin is at his most comfortable when he has so many notes to play that he can rely on autopilot, and his own confection (which sounds to me like one of those "guess the quotation" quizzes: Beethoven, Brahms, Alkan, Rachmaninoff, Liszt ...) is suitably, cynically, manic. But then there's Schubert, who has to be left to take his own course, like a river, rather than be steered in any direction. And again, Hamelin seems intent on nudging and cajoling the music into shapes of his own imagining, like a teacher who feels compelled to "correct" his pupils at every turn instead of allowing them to express themselves in their own voices. It's a case of woods and trees - or rather woods and blades of grass. Good that he plays the first movement repeat, with that extraordinary "lead-back", but shouldn't the exposition be altered by it? It sounds exactly the same the second time to me. In the development there are some shocking changes of tempo and elsewhere incessant micro pulse variations that disrupt and disturb. The slow movement is (almost) allowed to flow unimpeded, but Hamelin's tendency to double-dot the theme robs it of its dignity. Again, this is not how the melody would be sung; and again, Schubert without song is nothing. The same mannerisms mar the third and fourth movements, but I think it's unfair to accuse of Hamelin of being bored with the piece. To me, it seems that he is in fact trying too hard to make it "expressive"; if he actually played it more "boringly", i.e. with less inflection, less distortion, less intervention, I believe it would sound, paradoxically, far more expressive. A case of "less is more". There's certainly too much Hamelin and not enough Mozart or Schubert here - and I know who I'd rather hear.
Kind of you to say so. I have had crits published (in International Piano magazine), but really I'm just passionate about music and performance, and fascinated by the mystery of how one performance can 'work' and another 'fails' ...*****
One part of me agrees with you, and then the other part of me just thinks "so what?". But you've argued your case so clearly and sincerely that it's hard for me to challenge you in a way that doesn't seem childish or contrived. As important as it is for us to be critical, it's far too easy for us to sit on our chairs criticising 101 aspects of Hamelin on the comment section of a UA-cam video. He is so obviously fatigued and the days of when he was jumping around from recital to recital with the many protein bars have likely caused lasting damage to his health. I respect your opinion, though. You are clearly well-read, but I feel as though you are 'missing the point'. At the same time, however, this is the way you want to enjoy music and I certainly have no right to intrude on this!
Thanks for your interesting comment. It raises fundamental questions such as 'Why do we listen to music?' and, more specifically with regard to classical music, 'Why do we listen to different performances of the same piece?' Are we hoping to find the 'perfect' performance? Are we hoping to 'learn' or 'discover' more about a piece from different interpretations? Everyone will have different answers to these questions. For me, the thrill is in hearing a piece brought to life in a unique way, by someone who has studied it long and hard, internalized it and then lives it rather than just performing it or, worse, merely playing the notes. Two people can have totally different interpretations of a piece, but both can be equally convincing provided they're born of total conviction, plus, of course, respect for the composer's intentions, as far as these are known ...
Joseph Laredo I don't know what you were hearing but the Debussy was absolutely ravishing. Just because he uses a little rubato in the first few measures that renders the entire interpretation null and void? That's a tad pecksniffian, no? It's noteworthy that you found nothing positive in the performance of the greatest super virtuoso probably of all time. He really couldn't get a single musical idea to sound good to you? Hmmm interesting...
I come back to this performance whenever I feel a need for a dose of perfection.
I can't help but laugh every time I watch him play. He is simply amazing at what he does on the piano.
The slow movement of the Schubert is so beautiful, beyond explanation....a good excuse to have another glass of wine!
0:25 Mozart, Piano Sonata in D, K576
15:55 Debussy, Images, Book 2
30:30 Hamelin, Variations on a Theme of Paganini
43:06 Schubert, Piano Sonata No. 21 inB-flat major, D.960
Correct me if I'm wrong.
D. Schreiber Thks
What are the pieces' names within the Images?
Book 2 or 2nd series (L111)
Cloches à travers les feuilles (mélancolie diffuse) (Bells through the leaves (diffuse melancholy))
Et la lune descend sur le temple qui fut (And the moon descends on the temple that was)
Poissons d'or (Golden fishes)
Fantastic. What a true artist! Look at how quiet and reposed he is as he plays. Just pure musical expression. What an inspiration.
What Ham played will become the sample in the textbook and masterpiece of audio record that everybody follows up.
His Variations are mind-boggling brilliance. I feel sure that Godowsky would take his hat off to Hamelin. He is the only composer of super-pyrotechnics I can think of that would hold a candle to Hamelin, and Hamlin composing into the 21st Century gives him THAT MUCH more repertoire to spoof on than Godowsky had when he lived. I love it that Schubert gave Hamelin more wrinkles in his forehead than anybody else during the program! I am 73, and believe I have heard the greatest I will hear in my life. God bless the man!
Никто кроме него не может
проникнуть в душу великих
композиторов, слушаю его
и вижу автора, просто чудо,
Марк Андре выше тех кого я
до него обожал, он настоящий
ясновидец, возносит нас к богу,
после его исполнения мы должны
воздать богу хвалу что послал его нам и должны молиться за него!!!
Thank you for presenting these wonderful young pianists. The world needs to see excellence. J. Thielmann.
Went with my brother to see MAH in recital at Carnegie (Stern) Hall in NYC on Wednesday night, Jan. 20. His performances of Gaspard de la Nuit and the final piece - the Liszt Sonata - were transcendant. The audience went crazy after the Liszt, and he awarded us with four encores. What a great artist.
Just amazing...riff upon inventive riff...and his rhythmic acuity is beyond believable.
This man is a genius . Aside from his technique which is unparalleled , he shows incredible improvisational skills in some of his pieces . Lol complaining about tone through a computer speaker. Liszt was roundly criticized , Bach was forgotten before his revival and Schubert's Piano Sonatas were never performed publicly until years after his death. There are always internet know it alls that like to criticize . Doing it to Hamelin borders on ignorance.
Dieser Mozart und Schubert beweisen endgültig, dass Hamelin nicht nur ein Supervirtuose ist, sondern ein ernstzunehmender Künstler!
Image II rendition simply perfect.
Every live performance of MAH is a CD quality one.
I am deeply impressed by the performance. Schubert's Sonata is a real masterpiece.
I was at this concert... Amazing!
Perfect!!!
Fabulous playing..."Reference" level, certainly was an inspiration for all in Ft.Worth then!
J'ai eu la chance de le voir en concert, il y a un avant et un après...
His "Variations on a Theme of Paganini" are so incredibly funny! Also, who can really tell if he misses notes at all? And, besides his brilliance and profound musicianship, you can see he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to musical traditions, which I think is greatly liberating.
Start from 16:00! Man! Another world. (~~shiver~~)
Mágico!
le meilleur au monde point.
Marc Andre Hamlin! Le Pianist! le plus proche Des Compositeur!
사랑해요. 아믈렝
For what it's worth, at 37:59 - There's another musical joke, where he riffs on Rachmaninoff's famous "18th variation" on the same theme.
His Debussy is just mesmerizing
Love all of the sudden, eccentric musical quotations throughout the Paganini variations 🤣
Liszt would have loved the Campanella variation lol
A Super Virtuoso!
Hamelin great pianista. ♥️
The Mozart! Dear God, the Mozart! Krauss and de Larrocha didn't play it better! No one I've ever heard plays the last few bars like that - it's genius!
The touch is a tad too heavy in the staccato motives. I think it's due to his strong large hands which causes stiffness. The technique is perfect, just the "floating off the keys" is not "child" enough to represent Mozart at some parts. Just my opinion.
@@Fanchen Because Mozart played like a child? Or because you prefer it that way? I do not doubt for a moment that MAH could play those passages more delicately if he wanted to. I often find performances of Mozart to be too delicate for my taste. I quite like some of Gulda's more "muscular" interpretations, for example.
@@JohnSmith-oe5kx it’s how Mozart would have played it, he is known for his elegance. One should not be hammering out those staccatos when it signifies laughter etc.
@@Fanchen wow Fanchen, we meet again! Tbh I kinda prefer Mozart as the other user described (like MAH and Gulda play it) but still I listen to more delicate interpretations quite often, I think it really depends on my mood that day! Anyways, I've learned this gorgeous sonata in the past few days and I'll upload it here on UA-cam as I record it, hopefully you'll appriciate my interpretation of it if you happen to listen to it ;) Best regards!
@@morganmartinez8420 great to hear from you again Morgan! Hope the year has been well. Look forward to your new uploads!
какая легкость и стройная картинка !!!
35:50 tough crowd. Barely laughing at all. I lost it at that part.
lol
He adds other pieces in to interupt his variation. He puts in Beethoven Symphony 5 and like 2 or 3 silly melodies as a joke.
There's usually a chuckle within the audience during this section of the piece, the Cliburn Live crowd tends to be a very serious crowd for what it's worth.
@@PieInTheSky9 I didn't understand the joke, and why would there be a joke ? so I totally understand why the crowd didn't react to anything specifically
@@Assassunn I guess the fact that it's sudden and unexpected? I don't know, seems obvious to me why that section might be considered humourous.
Perfect pianist and really great composer! I think that his music will be consider as sth like Bach or Mozart in the future. It's amazing.
🇮🇷 🖐️🥇
As always a truly brilliant performance yet I can't help wondering if that particular piano is well passed its best. Some of those notes sound a bit dodgy to my ear.
6×10=60
That's how I remember my mother's birthday.
I wrote a poem (pom) about something, print them and give-out to people.
A circular.
(What is the difference between a circular and a pamphlet?)
The pamphlet's cover: The colour is brown with small photo of a city in grey colour.
I try to write about my mother's genealogy. (In case some day I 'forget')
Is that a mistake? 32:37
Newyork Steinway/~
18:10, 30:38
It's so sad, Hamelin is becoming older and it seems that he had occasional unconcentrated moments, especially in the Mozart and Schubert. Obviously, it is not his technique limiting him there. Still, he is my favourite pianist because he is one of the few having not only a flawless technique but also a very good musical taste and a thorough theoretical understanding of the music he is playing, leading to an "intelligent" interpretation. Most other pianists just have one or two of these properties, but not all three simultaneously.
+joernbroeker Can you point out these lapses in concentration? I'm curious.
+Danny B. Yes, certainly! Again, I definitely don't want to run him down, I still enjoyed the performance very much and especially his Debussy was incredibly good! So one small lapse in concentration happens at 3:07, not a big thing of course, and obviously he is capable of playing that scale, it's just about concentration it seems... there are also a few other very small mistakes at 11:31 12:03 12:57. I feel really bad for pointing that out so explicitly, judging a performance shouldn't be based on "ah, I found 1 mistake at 1:something" I just have the impression that these are things that wouldn't have occured when he was in his 30's; I'm sure you know the videos of his recitals in casals hall 1997 where he plays an insanely difficult repertoire with the highest perfection. Maybe it also shows that Mozart is in fact not "easy", it might be even harder than some Chopin or Liszt. For the latter you very often have passages where not every note is essential, for example in a big arpeggio with a lot of pedal, which makes you more relaxed as a pianist. However, when playing Mozart you can't hide anything, and this constant maximum concentration is sometimes very hard to keep up.
+joernbroeker I don't think these kinds of mistakes have anything to with age. These kind of lapses even happen to the greatest of virtuosi in the primes of their career, once in a while. If you were to follow one of the younger virtuosi, say Daniil Trifonov or Evgeny Kissin, to everyone of their concerts, you'd definitely hear a few lapses in most, if not every concert. I know Hamelin is known for his superhuman technique but I don't think one should assume age is getting to him at 54, because in this concert he made a few slips, while in one single concert from 1997, he supposedly (I haven't listened to that concert and it's probably more difficult to pick up a finger slip in a barnstormer by Liszt or Alkan) hadn't made one. Just my two cents. I could be wrong. Also, I think that as the athletic element of technique does begin to decline around 55-60, other compensating factors like depth of interpretation, subtlety of phrasing, etc. kick in. For instance, in some ways I enjoy late Richter and Horowitz (especially his Mozart sonatas) more than their early performances.
+Danny B. Hm maybe you are right and I was just biased, because I had the impression that he looked older than on his videos a few years ago thus "wanting" to attribute it to his age. I definitely agree that the depth of interpretation increases with age it somehow becomes magical, like in concerts by the late Rubinstein or so. I'm absolutely delighted that Hamelin now plays more Mozart. Quite recently he already recorded the Haydn sonatas, hopefully he will also do all the Mozart sonatas in the near future, they'd definitely deserve it.
+joernbroeker These are just tiny human mistakes, ones in which you'll hear in any live performance. Seems a bit frivolous to point them out or mention them. They don't distract from the musicality at all. I think pointing out small mistakes in live concert piano music recitals is a modern practice that really needs to stop.
1:06:14
Audience?
Aha! 54, 867 viewers! Tahniah.
Oh my god, the time went so fast, Hamelin looks so old now D;
+Nikitotter SAS
and playing like a GOD!
Nikitotter SAS 5 minite introduction to the bemer
I agree completely that M.A.H. has a set of fingers that ANY pianist would love to have - BUT - does anyone else share my opinion that, for all that, his playing somehow manages to lack any drama and excitement?
It seems not. I don't, for one. The work with which I am most familiar is the great Schubert sonata, and this has become my go to performance.
My go-to performance for the great Schubert piano sonata is by Horowitz. A more beautiful piano sound has never been produced.
Aca en la Cliburn. lo confirmaron. que me importa !!!!!!! si es sin Busoni cómo está Campanella.
Lol I'm a cliburn
What surprises me about him is how pedestrian his tone is considering his genius for technique
+punkpoetry
He seems to actually be bored with the Schubert. Very disappointed; expecting more.
+Lynn Raley yeah, he's hardly the go-to guy for the classic repertoire (although there are exceptions: his 2nd Saint-Saens concerto is wonderful, the best I've heard). His importance is in shining a light on all the more arcane stuff and contemporary music
Rubbish trolling. His tonal palette is incredibly lush and varied.
@@lynnraley7731 I've listened to more than a hundred different pianists play the Schubert, and none have I enjoyed more than this. I think you may be mis-interpreting Hamelin's unruffled approach to piano playing - or maybe you were a bored listener. I detected no visual or audible sign of the performer being "bored". I think Hamelin draws more out of this work than anyone I've heard. You can't play Schubert as if he were Rachmaninoff, or Mozart for that matter, as this recital clearly demonstrated.
45:04 wrong note?
Nope, it's right
It's not wrong.
Por qué crees que me interesa si tocas Bussoni. O no..? Ni te conocía como pianista ..😝
Every so often, Marc-andre does this terribly idiosyncratic thing with distorting the rhythmic pulse - as in the beginning of the Schubert. It all but ruined the whole thing for me. It is so not becoming of an artist of his stature to so mar this sublime work. This piece must flow like water...He knows that, but it's some kind of bug that just gets into his head.
Maybe you don't get it....
+monfi sama Indeed. Like those twits who think they know more about Beethoven and Bach than Gould. Ha!
Just listen to Richter in that sonata. Few people would argue that Hamelin's interpretations of the canon is what makes him great. His Études Symphoniques is the worst I've heard.
@@punkpoetry Hamelin's Schubert here is extremely respectable and with many moments of beauty. Actually Richter's Schubert D960, while unique with a particular artistic temperament and sound, is not good. First movement is marked Molto Moderato, not Largo like Richter did. The approach comes across as cold and heavy. While appreciating and respecting Richter's artistry, his performances of the Schubert sonatas do not show him in the best light - at all.
Schnabel's Schubert Sonatas are very wonderful testaments to Schubert. For D960, John Perry is unsurpassed. For such Scriabin Sonata as no. 5, Richter is unsurpassed (at least of all the recordings and performances I've heard).
@@donkgated8074 I had a listen to John Perry, with whom I am not familiar. I'm astonished that you put him at the apex of performance of this work. He's not a patch on Hamelin, imo. I do agree however with your comments about Richter.
Well, what differences of opinion here! And if you're going to accuse someone of being boring, you should at least have the courtesy to attempt to analyse the reason for it. There's no doubt that Hamelin's tone (at least as reproduced here) is thin and that his phrasing sounds calculated rather than spontaneous, with arch and all-too-predictable agogic distortions and hesitations in the Mozart, which seems filtered through the self-consciouness of the 20th and 21st centuries rather than freshly distilled. Crucially, Hamelin pecks at the music instead of singing it - and Mozart without singing isn't Mozart. And, yes, there are rather a lot of technical/mental lapses ("flawless technique"?).
The Debussy, too, is rhythmically distorted (viz. the very opening of the first piece), to no expressive purpose, the moon casts a glacial glow in the second piece (Debussy meets Boulez?) and the opening of 3 is nowhere near pp, as marked.
Of course, Hamelin is at his most comfortable when he has so many notes to play that he can rely on autopilot, and his own confection (which sounds to me like one of those "guess the quotation" quizzes: Beethoven, Brahms, Alkan, Rachmaninoff, Liszt ...) is suitably, cynically, manic.
But then there's Schubert, who has to be left to take his own course, like a river, rather than be steered in any direction. And again, Hamelin seems intent on nudging and cajoling the music into shapes of his own imagining, like a teacher who feels compelled to "correct" his pupils at every turn instead of allowing them to express themselves in their own voices. It's a case of woods and trees - or rather woods and blades of grass. Good that he plays the first movement repeat, with that extraordinary "lead-back", but shouldn't the exposition be altered by it? It sounds exactly the same the second time to me. In the development there are some shocking changes of tempo and elsewhere incessant micro pulse variations that disrupt and disturb.
The slow movement is (almost) allowed to flow unimpeded, but Hamelin's tendency to double-dot the theme robs it of its dignity. Again, this is not how the melody would be sung; and again, Schubert without song is nothing.
The same mannerisms mar the third and fourth movements, but I think it's unfair to accuse of Hamelin of being bored with the piece. To me, it seems that he is in fact trying too hard to make it "expressive"; if he actually played it more "boringly", i.e. with less inflection, less distortion, less intervention, I believe it would sound, paradoxically, far more expressive. A case of "less is more". There's certainly too much Hamelin and not enough Mozart or Schubert here - and I know who I'd rather hear.
Kind of you to say so. I have had crits published (in International Piano magazine), but really I'm just passionate about music and performance, and fascinated by the mystery of how one performance can 'work' and another 'fails' ...*****
It's sad but true, his interpretations sound contrived more often than not.
One part of me agrees with you, and then the other part of me just thinks "so what?". But you've argued your case so clearly and sincerely that it's hard for me to challenge you in a way that doesn't seem childish or contrived.
As important as it is for us to be critical, it's far too easy for us to sit on our chairs criticising 101 aspects of Hamelin on the comment section of a UA-cam video. He is so obviously fatigued and the days of when he was jumping around from recital to recital with the many protein bars have likely caused lasting damage to his health.
I respect your opinion, though. You are clearly well-read, but I feel as though you are 'missing the point'. At the same time, however, this is the way you want to enjoy music and I certainly have no right to intrude on this!
Thanks for your interesting comment. It raises fundamental questions such as 'Why do we listen to music?' and, more specifically with regard to classical music, 'Why do we listen to different performances of the same piece?' Are we hoping to find the 'perfect' performance? Are we hoping to 'learn' or 'discover' more about a piece from different interpretations? Everyone will have different answers to these questions. For me, the thrill is in hearing a piece brought to life in a unique way, by someone who has studied it long and hard, internalized it and then lives it rather than just performing it or, worse, merely playing the notes. Two people can have totally different interpretations of a piece, but both can be equally convincing provided they're born of total conviction, plus, of course, respect for the composer's intentions, as far as these are known ...
Joseph Laredo I don't know what you were hearing but the Debussy was absolutely ravishing. Just because he uses a little rubato in the first few measures that renders the entire interpretation null and void? That's a tad pecksniffian, no?
It's noteworthy that you found nothing positive in the performance of the greatest super virtuoso probably of all time. He really couldn't get a single musical idea to sound good to you? Hmmm interesting...
Francesco Libetta Is better