After listening again and again, I am absolutely convinced that this is the best 3rd movt ever played or recorded, reevaluating it even higher than Richter or Gulda (which has somehow disappeared). Gilel's is the most songlike, and it tells a story simply by his uncanny change of dynamics with an unmatched impassioned tone. If you were stuck on a desert island, keep this piece in your head- you will never get bored, and it will save your sanity!
Why has it taken me so long - sixty years - to "discover" this superstar? O tempora, o mores! I'm tempted to regret the time I spent in my youth listening to the Stones, but I won't. Those musical experiences may have directed me to this.
Gilels has it all here. He has power, restraint (unlike Richter, who goes too fast), and beautiful piano tone. I have preferred this recording above all others. It inspired me to play this years ago. (Now I can't play it all... )
Richter does not go too fast. His performance is the gold standard. I love Mighty Gilels as well, but Slava’s reading is emblematic of the overwhelming resolve inherent in the finale. This is a mood that we rarely hear from Beethoven. Particularly in a concluding movement.
I hate it when people argue over who has the best version of a classical piece. They all have something to offer; Gilels is definitely my favorite interpretations, but arguing over him being better than the others is like starting an argument without anything to back it up.
For me, the best pianists are Richter and Gilels. They happen to be also the ones I like the most playing the ´Appassionata´. I like very much also the ones by Solomon and Myra Hess, fantastic and they are also here in UA-cam.
I don't understand why he plays the natural E's in the intro as staccato, that's all I can hear, I know it's ment to be agitated but it just sounds harsh
I absolutely agree, it's the most eggregious mistake in interpretation. And to me it's a darn shame as it mars what I believe is generally the best overall performance of this piece(at least the 3rd movement) that I have heard. It's truly confounding as it is written as a whole note in the manuscript, in contrast to the 16th notes that lead into it, and of course there's no stacatto or wedge mark indicated either. Can't he just hear that it doesn't sound good played that way? Damn !!!
Haha, this is true in more ways than one- if you look at Gilels and Beethoven, their physical facial resemblance is uncanny. IMO, Gilels more resembles Beethoven than Anton Rubinstein, who is said to remarkably resemble Ludvig.
i liked Ashkenazy's version best before, but on the whole i think i prefer this one...electrifying. the only thing is whereas Gilels ends as if he were storming away and slammed the door, Ashkenazy ends on a thrilling explosion, which i think i prefer more haha.
his playing of the Appassionata is unmatched, what a gift he left us
His touch is impeccable- the nuance of sound, clarity in the counterpoint, perfect balance of reserve and passion. 10/10!
After listening again and again, I am absolutely convinced that this is the best 3rd movt ever played or recorded, reevaluating it even higher than Richter or Gulda (which has somehow disappeared). Gilel's is the most songlike, and it tells a story simply by his uncanny change of dynamics with an unmatched impassioned tone.
If you were stuck on a desert island, keep this piece in your head- you will never get bored, and it will save your sanity!
Try to listen Alexei Sultanov
Emil Gilels was the emperor of the piano. This Appassionata is amazing. His Beethoven is fantastic.
This is the most powerful interpretation of Beethoven's Appassionata I've heard.
Yes , it is
Certainly one of the best interpretations of this piece ever. Gilels nailed it. His sound is simply incomparable.
My favourite piano sonata by Beethoven. Simply amazing!
The best!! Absolutely breathtaking version!!
Why has it taken me so long - sixty years - to "discover" this superstar? O tempora, o mores! I'm tempted to regret the time I spent in my youth listening to the Stones, but I won't. Those musical experiences may have directed me to this.
The coda is the best ever.
Thanks Beethoven and Emil!!!!
Gilels has it all here. He has power, restraint (unlike Richter, who goes too fast), and beautiful piano tone. I have preferred this recording above all others. It inspired me to play this years ago. (Now I can't play it all... )
Richter does not go too fast. His performance is the gold standard. I love Mighty Gilels as well, but Slava’s reading is emblematic of the overwhelming resolve inherent in the finale. This is a mood that we rarely hear from Beethoven. Particularly in a concluding movement.
I'm crying if this disappears from youtube. And last time I cried, a family member died.
I hate it when people argue over who has the best version of a classical piece. They all have something to offer; Gilels is definitely my favorite interpretations, but arguing over him being better than the others is like starting an argument without anything to back it up.
For me, the best pianists are Richter and Gilels. They happen to be also the ones I like the most playing the ´Appassionata´. I like very much also the ones by Solomon and Myra Hess, fantastic and they are also here in UA-cam.
Gilels is amazing!!!!!!
This is Gilels!
the best interpretation imo :D
Гениальные Бетховен и Гилельс счастье и радость слышать и переживать.
Listening to this with sound canceling headphones makes heaven even better! :D
If you like this also check Ashkenazy and Perlman in the Kreutzersonate.
I actually like Richter's speed, but yeah, Gilels has that magic here which makes it unequalled imo.
2ndAveLine Gilels is quite slow just in this studio record, in all his older live performances he is faster. But faster is not better.
Richter doesn’t follow “Allegro ma non troppo” to “presto”
Per me, perfetta.
damn!! i've always loved gillels apassionata!!3rd.
Although in the 1st movement i preffer arrau's , in 3rd gilels is supreme
his ending(from 7:07...) is great!
and all the rest of course...
I don't understand why he plays the natural E's in the intro as staccato, that's all I can hear, I know it's ment to be agitated but it just sounds harsh
I absolutely agree, it's the most eggregious mistake in interpretation. And to me it's a darn shame as it mars what I believe is generally the best overall performance of this piece(at least the 3rd movement) that I have heard.
It's truly confounding as it is written as a whole note in the manuscript, in contrast to the 16th notes that lead into it, and of course there's no stacatto or wedge mark indicated either. Can't he just hear that it doesn't sound good played that way?
Damn !!!
@@mydogskips2 We hall have are own little "idiosyncrasies"... Those E natural just happen to be his... STILL... What a performance!
I agree
Great.
And Arrau and Schnabel.
Haha, this is true in more ways than one- if you look at Gilels and Beethoven, their physical facial resemblance is uncanny. IMO, Gilels more resembles Beethoven than Anton Rubinstein, who is said to remarkably resemble Ludvig.
Beckmesser2 only posted one movement of Gilels.
@maxscriptguru Gilels and Richter are two diffrent style,but I still prefer Richter .
i liked Ashkenazy's version best before, but on the whole i think i prefer this one...electrifying. the only thing is whereas Gilels ends as if he were storming away and slammed the door, Ashkenazy ends on a thrilling explosion, which i think i prefer more haha.
🎹 😍
a few weeks ago i saw a few gilels video... hmm.
(just fainted from extreme ecstasy)
@tianobrothers What about Richter?
What happened to the other gilels appassionata videos?
I'd actually start @ 5:47. Its hard to feel the gravity of the ending with at least the final recapulation.
Kovacevich and Richter are best here!!!
RICHTER!!!
of course, playing it like gilels it's... impossible.
I prefer Lang lang
Lol, ok. Not bad.
why you think apassionata it's so hard? . im playing it, im not finding "that" hard.