@@ZadkoPreskovic if that was the case there would be 1 person in final, not very interesting, its how it is, today we dont learn impro anymore caus there is a lot to learn anyway
Agreed. The gentleman says, "Rubato in a way we wouldn't do today..." So what? Music doesn't need to be played to tyrannically match what is the fashion of the day, nor should it. Ever. This kind of dogma makes classical music annoyingly pedantic/academic at best, and inaccessible to most at worst.
My great uncle, a concert pianist who you likely don't know, studied with Emil von Sauer (and Alfred Cortot). He often said Von Sauer thought the newer pianist (at the time) were trying to play Liszt too fast, and sacrificed a lot just to have speed via technique alone. Anyway, when my uncle died, he left me all his signed pictures (like Rach, Cortot, Heifitz etc), and among them was a signed picture of Emil von Sauer, and a "letter of introduction" for him to show others in the US when he immigrated. I have the pictures sitting by my desk now. So cool...and yet, so few people appreciate them when they see them, not clue to who they were! Good vid!
@geraldgleeson4191 My wife and I go to the Cliburn every 4 years. Saw Yunchan play the Transcendental Etudes, in fact everything but his final Rach performance as we had to drive home to Houston the night before. He was amazing and the clear winner before he played his now famous interp of Rach 3.
All five of Liszt’s students sounded like concert pianists to me. I would be happy to be that good as I never could play at all. The style of today is to be more precise and athletic with the keyboard. The older style was more open to interpretation. It was possible to make small departures in technique and cover these up with artistry in the past. Competition today is far more intense and there are not enough positions for top musicians to go around. As a result there are a lot of people forced to drop out of music in favor of a more stable and better paying career.
I much prefer the playing of those old players to the so-called "perfection", of the boring and mostly indistinguishable pianists being churned out by the conservatoires in our time. Regardless of whethertheir "mistakes" are really mistakes or deliberate expressive devices. They are communicative where much modern playing is machine-like and soullesss. Have you read Kenneth Hamilton's book "After the Golden Age" ?
The idea that most pianists today are soulless robots is also a stereotype that suits your point, in addition to being pretty disrespectful and unnecessary.
Fun Fact about the Friedheim Piano Roll Recording of Reminiscences de Lucrezia Borgia At 6:50 he plays a big arpeggio run followed by another one, now this second giant arpeggio is actually not written in the score further more illustrating these pianists were generally accepted for their freedom to do anything to their score Also, check out Friedheim's Feux Follet, its another piece that he played that shows the same things present with this recording very lovely
Fascinating. Excellent video. Artur Rubinstein, in his autobiography, describes how the increasing presence of recordings affected his playing dramatically. Paraphrasing, he describes how in his early performances he might improvise sections of a piece or take other liberties, but once recordings became popular, and people could hear "definitive" performances, he had to study scores more carefully and practice to play more accurately.
You don't have to go very far back in time to hear a lot of this chaotic rubato, not only from pianists - all musicians did it. Today everything has to be homogenous, otherwise you might upset that jury member in that competition...
How can you hear that recording of un sospiro and think that what he is doing is not intentional is beyond me. Every "defect" you mentioned is completely intentional and systematic. It is far more emotional and beautiful the way they play compared to today, their tone is unreal. Also they had BETTER technique than modern pianists.
@@horoffra i don’t agree. everything you say that was unintentional, really wasn’t. Liszt himself played similar to this and these people learned from him. more modern pianists like Argerich doesn’t compare in the slightest to the Titan Liszt or even these 5 pianists
@@Arobamod Historical pianists have different recordings of the same piece; So we hear that most things are intentional. These aren't easy for modern pianists to understand.
@@scherrer4715 Exactly! Back then improvisation and playing everything in a personal way was the norm! Back then virtuosity was measured by how well you can take someone else's music or ideas and make it personal in a spontaneous way: play around with it and entertain the audience, mash it up with something else, turn it into a comedy, etc.
Good and informative video! I want to praise you for the production quality and the effort you've put into your uploads. It's noticeably better than when I first discovered your channel. I feel honored to witness your journey as a growing content creator. Simply awesome. It's admirable that you can find the motivation and energy to produce high-quality videos, despite your (presumably) time consuming priorities as a practicing musician. Keep it up! 👏
This was a fantastic program! It left me with the impression that we're constantly trying to outdo past recordings using advanced technology. I'm sure those Liszt student recordings would sound radically different today with modern studio techniques. However, I truly appreciate the character of older recordings, like the gentle hiss of vinyl. It evokes nostalgia and transports me back in time. Thank you for sharing this - it reminds me of the human element in music.🎶✨💜
The idea that you play fast just because you can play fast is absurd. If it were, we would all play slow movements fast. It simply doesn't make sense. Liszt could probably play as fast as Martha Argerich, but that doesn't mean he played fast. Martha Argerich plays everything faster than others, but not for good reasons, not for the benefit of the music; she probably plays everything faster because she is bored with a musically good tempo or simply to impress, to show how fast she can play. Liszt was much deeper than that. Liszt didn't play fast all the time. Remember when a student came to Liszt and played the octave passage of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise very fast and Liszt said “I don't want to hear how fast you can play octaves.” Liszt also wrote in a letter that he played the Hammerklavier Sonata in about an hour, which means he did not play it fast. According to another account, “Liszt never gave the impression of playing too fast.”
Check out Sergei Rachmaninoff's recordings. Such fantastic control of dynamics and rubato allowed him to never appear as if he was in a hurry even when he did chose some extremely fast tempi. He always feels relaxed like taking a walk. That is partly the result of a perfectly calculated performance. I bet Liszt could do something similar. He simply could do whatever he wanted and be flexible with tempi and dynamics while maintaining everything under control , something that gives to the audience a greater impression of virtuosity and of course musicianship than merely playing everything as fast as you can.
There's a book about the modern fetish of perfection by Mark Katz titled "The Phonograph Effect". It might be useful to study to see how it developed. Also, this is a mix of acoustically- and electrically-recorded examples plus a piano roll; you have to learn how to listen to these processes to make informed judgments. Modern transfers of early recordings vary in quality from excellent to terrible. I have many acoustical recordings of pianists and I've never heard a transfer sound as immediate and visceral as a good copy on a period phonograph. You eventually develop an "acoustic ear"; what surface noise there is becomes insignificant as you focus more and more on content. As for the Friedheim recording, it's actually a piano roll made for the first Welte-Mignon system, the T-100 "Red Welte" system of 1904. Two problems with early Welte rolls are 1) they did very little editing of the rolls originally, so what is there is what you got, and 2) to hear them properly to-day the Welte-Mignon instrument used has to be in perfect shape and regulated EXTREMELY closely. (I've regulated a 1914 T-100 system in a magnificent Mason & Hamlin upright, and regulation takes a combination of musicianship and mechanical skills as Welte's instructions are very vague and the test roll nearly useless.) Friedheim also made piano rolls for Aeolian's Duo-Art system, but Aeolian music roll masters _were_ edited to a greater or lesser extent (often greater). Friedheim made very few records - one was in 1917 for the very minor Emerson company, using a strange recording system unique to that company - so a general survey of what he on disc did would give a better but still limited picture of his abilities. And never forget recording itself was a new technology, and from the very beginning many performers suffered from what was called "horn fright", which metamorphosed into "mike fright" in the electrical era. I'm glad you're listening, though.
I really don’t see/hear your comparison with Argerich. We know almost for definite that Liszt Arpeggiated freely, separated melody from accompaniment, wild rubato, uneven rhythms etc (this was the style at the time- almost every recording from pianists born during the early/mid 1890’s do this and Liszt’s own students’ recordings do this). We also know tempos were generally slower and many comments Liszt was not a fast pianist. And we also know that during Liszt’s touring virtuoso years he was wildly energetic at the piano, a lot of movement and facial expressions. I find the piano rolls of Reinecke the most revealing. Born in 1824, Liszt selected Reinecke to teach his daughter the piano. His rubato and constant uneven rhythm and dislocation of melody sounds so alien to us today- but Liszt clearly didn’t think so. Really recommend Da Costa’s “Off The Record” and Hamilton’s “After the Golden Age”. Life changing, well researched and considered and informative. But THANKYOU for bringing this style to the attention of so many, important work. Great video!
5:22 Having listened until now, I did have teachers who were in the “lineage” of Liszt and Vianna da Motta, and what is curious is that one of them taught me to do the inicial arpeggios of Un Sospiro fast like Lamont and after give a little time to really listen the melody. Other, in Schumann’s op. 22 sonata, 2nd movement, taught me to delay the arpeggios just like Vianna da Motta, as not to rush or accentuate them, not to overpower the melody and to give a sense of lightness, subtlety and floating quality.
Old Horowitz sounds perfect as he gave all what's important. Golden age of piano was end of 19th century till the second WW. Pianists from that era played fantastic. Nobody who is true music lover cares for "clear" and "fast" playing. Clear and fast is boooring and you can get it easily by just playing MIDI. Only piano students care about it, and that's the reason they aren't interesting musicians. Music is freedom, but it needs to be in good taste. Old masters show what it means.
@kuba13s. For me, I prefer those who make attempts to get closer to the original style. Ancient sources tells us that they played very fast also for +/- 200 years ago.
Back in the day they sometimes played with completely off tempos simply because they were told the piece had to fit within a certain duration. For instance, in some works, they would speed up in sections without a real melody just so they could slow down when the melody reappeared… and so on.
@@horoffra Well, I'm inviting you to read a bit more about the history of recording because that's really what they were doing when they couldn’t make edits. It has nothing to do with being stupid but rather with the technical constraints of the early days of the industry.
@@MorbidMayem it is one of those legends that is repeated over and over. Very often you have the same rubato when a pianist recorded a 78 disc and a piano roll. Piano rolls easily went to 10 minutes if needed. So why speed up there as well? Also often when comparing side lengths it becomes clear that they had more time if they needed it (because both sides of a disc have by definition the same length). Speeding up less important material was simply a part of any musicians vocabulary, as it is still done in a lot of bel canto opera today. It is a way of making the structure clear for the listener by using tempo modification, an essential tool in romantic performance practice (but very often overlooked today).
@@MorbidMayem without arrogance I could point you towards a lengthy article I published about all the historical César Franck recordings (published by Orgelkunst). However, it is in Dutch, probably not of much use to you. (English and French translations are in preparation, but these things always take longer than one expects...) Some more general publications that treat this subject are: Neil Peres da Cosa: Off the record (about piano) and Timothy Day: A Century of recorded music, listening to musical history. Both are very recommended.
Well that’s the reason; I’m OLD! Lol 😂 I’m kidding… sort of. Lol The irony is that on my other page, several well known Concert pianists, including Martha Augerich‼️liked my page‼️ Well, Mistakes and all, I was honored! I’ve been playing since I was 8 or 9, and I have a performance degree, but life got in the way and there were issues and many classical performance and future doctoral educational opportunities were missed. But I can’t be too hard on myself. I heard a story of how Liszt went to spend some time with Grieg when he was composing the famous A minor concerto. Grieg was becoming increasingly frustrated playing through the first movement because he could obviously write it and “PLAY IT”, but he couldn’t get the sound that he wanted. Liszt basically told him something like , old friend don’t worry, let me see the score. Well Liszt sat down, never having ever seen it, sat down and SIGHT READ UP TO TEMPO THE FIRST MOVEMENT AND GRIEG WAS EMBARRASSED‼️👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾😂 But Liszt said to him, don’t worry, this is beautiful, I love it and you will get it. I would love to play it as well!! Lol 😂 so, old or bad notes, I think there is still hope for me yet! ☝🏾🤓🎹🎹🎹🎹
All the techniques they use are informed by the feeling, and would be striving to fill the sound with authentic lizst and characteristics of the charms of the times.
A lot of the musical elements described in this video existed in the playing of Hungarian Gypsy bands of the early and mid 20th century too. Newer bands tend to play "cleaner" and with less freedom , likely because at this point they are largely conservatory trained.
It's funny that his attitude is 'that would not be how we would do it today', expressing slight surprise. We classical pianists have to interpret music of long-dead composers, using a mix of 'best guess' decisions based on contemporary scholarship, personal taste, what we've listened to, personal biorhythms etc. etc. One of the amazing things about this recorded legacy is that we get to hear, for real, pianists directly influenced by Liszt (and sometimes also by Chopin). My attitude is therefore, 'what can these old recordings tell us about what Liszt wanted (or at least found acceptable)'. The fact that they played less mechanically, and unevenly (according to a surprised M Dupuis) tells us that notation, which is mechanically exact, cannot reproduce phrasing and emotion. Their rubato, which he finds wayward, tells us about how they heard melody, which was, above all, subtly inflected. There are clearly differences between the levels of the pianists (Friedheim is a lesser pianist maybe, but then he had a different relationship to Liszt than the others). But if the modern age pianist finds fault with their idiosyncrasies, that is our problem, not theirs!
My general take is it is very hard to compare early 20th century performances with today. First, the equipment, recording and aging may not do full justice to the playing. Secondly, the aesthetics 100 years ago are just very different. Pianists had more originality and creativity. Whether this creates a better sound or not is another matter. The bottom line is that with the passage of time, as recordings proliferated, there eventually became a "definitive sound" for all the popular works. Once a performer (usually in the mid-20th century) played it in such a way people liked, everyone else has heard that recording and everyone copied it. Therefore, all recordings tend to sound similar. Few performers are daring to do anything vastly different. If they do a completely original interpretation, there is a good chance it won't be well received (e.g., see the "controversy" around Glenn Gould's performances of Beethoven and Brahms) because people expect works to be played a certain way. So most concert artists today simply don't bother and just go with the flow. It is safe. The room for artistic freedom is much less than 100 years ago, when people actually had to go to live concerts to hear music. Performers had a harder time looking over each others' shoulders, and the public hadn't already formed an opinion how the standard repertoire should sound.
Very true. And that is part of the reason I go to concerts less and less. I'd rather hear York Bowen on a 1920s Vocalion disc or Rachmaninoff on Edison or Victor than encounter both homogeneous playing and homogeneous repertoire. They're very rare, but Cecile Chaminade's 1902 G&T discs - the earliest made by a noted composer-pianist - are so individual and, to me, magical that they might convert a person into appreciating her music more. A century ago, the music was, at most 3/5 on the page and 2/5 in the performer.
Right. Those foolish pianists from the distant past, how could they hold a candle to our superior artists, so excellent musically and technically! If only they were here today, they could realize how inferior their standards were! Obviously I'm being satirical - I hope one day you'll realize how your current opinion is typical of the societal arrogance of the 21st century.
You mean the general arrogance of the 21st century which you can find in almost every field, be it science, medicine, clothing/tailoring, architecture, painting and very much in music, specifically performance style. And while there is of course improvement and innovation in all fields, it's most inappropriate in anything art-related. People think anything "old" can't be better than anything new, which is ridiculous. But this demonstration isn't of that sort.
Really enjoying the recent videos On Eglogue, in the score the separation in the left hand is very significant so you have that choice of striking the bass note together with the right hand and then the left thumb, I think consistent with the character of the piece, should not be rushed, thus it will naturally sound out a bit more. If you were to strike the bass note slightly before the beat I believe this would not sound quite right in this case
They say that the piano roll recordings are all sped up, that would explain the strange rubato of some of those pianists that sounds like they are not in good shape; in the tempo they actually played it would sound much more organic (in case the piano roll recordings are really sped up). On another subject, if one reads all the comments about Liszt as a pianist, one cannot but conclude that he was superhuman, a kind of genius never seen before or since. Camille Saint Saens said about Liszt playing: "Never again will there be seen or heard anything equal to it." The only thing Argerich may be similar to liszt in is speed, but nothing else. Argerich is like an amateur compared to Liszt in all the other regards. Regarding to the fingerings of Mazeppa, the purpose of these fingerings is not to separate the thirds but to give them more power. They sound with much more weight and power when played with Liszt's fingerings.
@@horoffra Just because a piece sounds good at a slow tempo doesn't mean it will also sound good at a fast tempo. The same goes for rubato: just because a rubato works at a slow tempo does not mean that it will work just as well at a faster tempo.
Welte-Mignon rolls were cut at a fixed constant speed, so ideally the piano being used for playback is also fixed at the same speed (nominally termed "80").
I suspect the Freidheim is a piano roll. You have to totally discount it. The Sauer is a roll as well. Also not true to his playing which was exceptionally elegant and precise. Hofmann admired it.
One aspect of the old playing style to be considered is that the grand piano in a way is a keyed horizontal harp. The old piano technique mirrors that and gives an impression of the players thinking about it as such.
@horoffra i wonder if Liszt time travelled to today and quietly listened in at one of the competitions. i wonder if his reaction would be (a) holy sh*t, they are way better than me- take my back please, before anyone recognizes me, or (b) what the hell have they done- i need to teach these folks some stuff- time to let them know i'm here.
The recordings of D'Albert are interesting because he recorded several of the same pieces on both piano roll and phonograph. They sound more or less the same but both recordings have drawbacks. The dynamics of the piano roll can be said to be suspect but the actual playing of the notes such as the rubato are completely accurate. His phonograph recordings are often rushed because of the limited time allowed (5 mins), piano roll performances could have a length of up to 15 mins. In the case of Friedheim, the 'jerky' playing is not because he was old or had a bad day but this was how he actually played, at least in the 1900's as other rolls by him show the same characteristics The rolls by the early manufacturers Hupfeld and Welte are the most trusted and accurate, they even left in some mistakes by the pianists to show the performance was a genuine recording although a few were 'ironed out'. Some ex Liszt pianists made piano rolls which show that some had their own vastly distinctive playing style. But the pianists of today do not, probably because of the existence of recording technology
It would not surprise me if the old pianists would find today's pianists too precise and somewhat regimented; mechanical instead of musical. I find myself that pianists often play too fast for my liking just because they can. It is very interesting to hear how interpretations have changed, not always for the better musically.
The playback of Sauers piano roll is probably on the fast side. But about the fingering (24-24), Sauers edition says that changing it would be inadmissible.
It's very interesting how concepts of 'correct' and 'objective' playing dominates the modern performance practice. I think back in the day, you had good taste and that was that - and probably that's why the pieces from that time sound good in different playing styles. Second is, effortless playing doesn't necessary link to speed, if he was playing lightning fast I think Schumann (or others e.g. Moscheles etc) would have singled that out as the most significant aspect of his playing. I'm on the side that Liszt probably played slower (along with Chopin and Alkan). They also learned their technique on a very, very different instrument from the modern piano (no double escapement etc). But not much harm done playing their music faster, I think the bigger problem is playing Baroque music exceedingly fast and calling it period practice, when it defies all musical, logical, and aesthetic aspects.
Modern pianos are voiced much louder than they were a century ago in order to cut through modern orchestras, which use much bigger and louder instruments (especially in woodwinds and brass) and higher concert pitch for more "brilliance".
It must be self evident that very most likely, these artists are closer to the vision of Liszt then we, with the distance of 150 years, could ever be... It may seem to some listeners today, that for instance the rubato of these 19th century pianists is chaotic, but I think we can be certain that for listeners of that era of it did seem at all out of place. Very most likely, they would find performaces of today too stict too literal and too unimaginative.
Comparing Liszt to Argerich seems strange considering that the former preferred slow tempos and was strongly against the vain of virtuosity, at least in his later years.
I don‘t know if we are able to judge the interpretation of a score without seeing it. Another thing is that the artwork can‘t be judged by its parts, only as a whole is the artwork an artwork. The interpretation is still part of the art work. In this sense, it is hard to judge the performance only its parts, unless one speaks about very objective mistakes. The old recordings are almost all in public domain in Internet Archive and imslp, if i am not mistaken.Besides piano roll you have to take the piano mechanic and the taste of the audiences of that time into account. SO this needs some consideration of what was written in public reviews and brief exchanges.
I am not a pianist, I play viola da gamba and (of course!) Baroque music. I am interested in things related to past execution practices, which brought me to your video. What you describe as "chaotic" (rhythm, "rubato", lack of synchronicity, etc.) sound more or less reasonable to me, and can be more or less related to Baroque "inégalité", not directly and not precisely of course (and not really everything as well!), but as a kind of evolution of it under different music languages and styles and from different "tastes". Who knows? Might be a line of (re)search...
Great selection and discussion! I just do not agree that these are "strange" things because of technical limitations or so. Von Sauer is among the most technically skilled pianists you can ever hear for example; Friedman also. Yes, there is surprising rubato and asynchronicities etc. but they are _part of the music_. Everybody does it. Actually, _this is_ what is written in the score. Or, actually, not written, but the contemporary pianists understood how to read the sketch that is written down! Today the ideal is "to play what is in the score", smoothly, evenly, together, "in takt", etc.; but exactly these recordings show us that this music is not about our modern scrupulousness but a freedom (and demand) to the performer to finish the piece with rubatos, re-slurring, microrythmical composition/improvisation, at times, actual improvisations and "personal completions" of the score. Malcom Bilson has YT courses about how to read the score and how to "get the music" behind the notes, I find these ones very beneficial and very well informed!
It's clear the Friedman Lucrezia Borgia was being played from a piano roll with early technology that often failed to capture the rhythm precisely, leading to it sounding jerky and, as Sebastien says, "like a bad pianist."
I think that also should be taken into account that the players had to play loudly so that it would be recorded. This can have influenced their style of playing.
Do you think recordings have made people better players? It used to be a handful of musicians who stood head and shoulders above the rest. Nowadays, thankfully so, we have a lot of amazing talent out there. My theory is that with the advent of recordings one was able to have available to the public a very high standard which set the bar. So in a recording the artist may play it a few times till they got the perfect take or even splice and dice recordings to make a perfect piece. Then the would be musician hears this amazing playing and aims for this very high standard. Like the student who arrived to his maths class late and found a question written on the board. He solved the puzzle then handed it in to his teacher. The teacher was dumbfounded as the question was thought to be impossible to answer but because the student didn't know this he wasn't being told it was impossible and therefore wasn't limited.
I think pedagogy is very highly developed, so that more people can learn to play well. In terms of interpretation I feel that listening to recordings has a definite downside. People copy the gestures almost down to the measure. Some highly regarded pianists play with a pastiche of interpretations which I find off putting
@@marksmith3947 As you can guess I learn the classical guitar. For this very reason, when I learn a new piece, unless I am already familiar with it I don't listen to anyone playing it. Don't wish to be influenced to a point it prevents my own interpretation. Once I feel i've mastered it only then will I listen to a recording.
@@ClassicalGuitaristWannabe There was a method of learning pieces which I believe Bolet used, which was not to play a single note of a new piece on the piano until you had memorized and analyzed the score. Surely this method would facilitate the generation of a personal interpretation which is not wholly derivative.
I might sound controversial but after listening to these old recordings I think they generally have much more personality and character than modern recordings. Back then, music was alive in “spirit”, but nowadays people are way too intimidated to really express themselves because of the extreme conservatory culture present in the modern age. Musicians had almost become “solemn” and “organised”, and have established sets of rules which when broken is equivalent to blasphemy… This observation of mine is not limited to piano playing but in performance in general… I was listening to recordings by Fritz Kreisler and oh my word… it was unlike anything you could hear today…
Sebastian - whole beat? You want so sincerely that whole beat is the truth. What do you need of information to understand that the idea of double/whole/WBMP never worked the way Wim Winters are telling you?
The piano roll recordings should not be taken too seriously. To study piano recordings, you should listen to 78s. There is great freedom of expression in the old pianists. It is not `chaotic rubato` as you say it, but free and flexible ways of expression, which are much closer to the composers intentions as almost any Liszt recording of today.
this reminds me of listening to some recent Vivaldi recordings and how fast and musically boring they were. if only there was a change in modern practice to ease off the gas
the better pupils of Liszt are and will be remembered. They were still a part of the culture that produced the romantic repertoire. How many of the virtuoso's of today will be remembered a 100 years from now ? and that includes Argerich. Will the public still remember Argerich a 100 years from now because she had fingers of steel ? I am not sure. I think that is just a case of recency bias. Was Argerich a greater virtuoso then Teresa Careno or Yuja Wang ? a 100 years from now they will have their own virtuoso's to obsess about (if making a career with playing standard repertoire is still a thing).
"We have less freedom today in the way we play", no you don't, who cares how you play. You probably mean "we have to play the way other people wants us to play when we participate in contests", or, "we have to play as they wish in a concert for people who paid the tickets", or some other variation of those. But you have no less freedom at all. For instance, I've just played Brahms at half tempo, does anybody here, or anywhere else care? of course not. And I ENJOYED IT SO MUCH. Oh, you probably mean "we have less freedom when we are playing for the pleasure of others", that I can agree with. Whatever suits your heart.
This is a subject well worth delving into, and I agree with many of your observations. However, you have repeatedly pushed back against the comments criticizing using piano rolls as a yardstick. You state it’s something you read. Really? I’m sorry, but that’s really going out on a limb, and I couldn’t disagree more. I’d love to know your source, because EVERY expert on pianists on record won’t touch rolls with a 10 foot pole for accuracy of reproduction. You really need to do this comparison without using piano rolls. They will NEVER be a substitute for even the lousiest disc or cylinder recording. They can’t reproduce ANY subtleties of dynamic or articulation or pedaling. I don’t care what you’ve read, it’s not possible. And as to play back speed, it’s hit or miss, but since the pitch doesn’t change, there’s no certain way to verify this. The description you give as to Friedheim is absolutely misattributing the spastic and uneven qualities in the reproduction to HIM…..a simple listening to his disc recordings will show that he did not play in such an amateurish manner. Keep in mind, some of the more successful modern piano roll transfers have been aided by computer programs to fill in that which is not inherent in the rolls themselves. This is pleasant to listen to, but it’s all speculation by someone 100 years later! The “straight” reproductions, even of the Welte rolls, done in the 50’s thru 80’s all have the expression of a vacuum cleaner motor. I’ve seen critics talk about the tempi on these performances….what a joke. Just like a broken clock is right twice a day, you MIGHT luck out and get the speed right, but 99% of the time it’s going to be an incorrect guess. Scholarship is only possible on the most limited terms with them.
Ive read an article and reserached with got asking sources, it says its not perfect but still quite accurate, so accurate enough to notice what im noticing in the video. Recordings in the video are not always rolls or it dont say so no way to know anyway.
That is a gross simplification. The more advanced brands (like Welte and Aeolian) certainly had very accurate ways of giving the tempo of the roll, and even published callibration rolls to check whether your playback machine was still regulated correctly. If the tempo weren't fixed this would have been redundant. Just one example: Grieg himself supervised the creation of tempo indications in 1904, by means of an Aeolian 65-note push-up Metrostyle Pianola placed in front of his own piano at Troldhaugen. At the start of each roll there is a mimeographed signed statement by Grieg in his own handwriting, in slightly archaic Norwegian, as follows: "Tempoenne denne Rulle er i Overensstemmende med mine Intentioner," or in English, "The tempi of this roll are in accordance with my intentions." You can find a lot more info on the site of the pianola institute, and Rex Lawson gives very clear comments and answers.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 certainly the Peer Gynt suite, which according to a certain youtuber (not entirely unknown to you) should be played in 'double-beat' :). If you go to the 'historical tempo reconstruction' (horresco referens) of this piece will find a very elaborate reply of the pianolainstitute. It is still there, to my relief and surprise. The information they give make it clear that Griegs piano rolls are a reliable source of information. Also for some pieces we have both rolls and acoustical recordings, and comparison showed me that the distance between rolls and recordings is not as huge as some would like us to believe. Same situation for Saint-Saëns and Granados.
Since we will never have recordings by Beethoven, Franck, Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, Brahms, Mendelssohn, playing their own woks, we will never know how exactly their music was meant to sound. Performing their music is quite subjective because we know that the score is only a compass. That is the reason I focus on playing music of composers who actually recorded their own music such as Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, and Bartok. By doing that, I know exactly how to perform their works without forgetting to add some personal touches in terms of pharsing and rubato. By the way, I believe that Rachmaninoff himself was a better pianist and a much better composer than Liszt.
@@Poetrywithinme. Cécile Boutet de Monvel. Franck wrote around 1888: ' (PCF) sera absolument bien interpretée par ma cousine Mlle Cécile Monvel'. She recorded this very piece in 1937. You can find it on my modest channel, I think it is an important document, since she studied with him and they frequently played on two pianos in concert. She also recorded (to fill the sixth side) Chopins op. 17 nr. 4, which is also on YT. Enjoy!
@@horoffra this legend is spread by another YT account. The true version is a bit more complex: Dupré tells us that Widor told him 'Liszt ne donnait jamais la sensation de jouer vite.' As you said, fast is relative, one can play fast and seem relaxed and master of the situation. Also Valbelle puts this in Widors mouth. Also the story that Widor heard Liszt practice daily during one week is very problematic: Liszt didn't practice anymore in 1878, certainly not three hours per day, and Hanslick's account of this same week completely contradicts this. Liszt was at the world exhibition judging instruments until noon.
MGJS71. Liszt was born in 1811, Widor 1844. Liszt was a virtuoso when he was younger. But look at the sheet music from some of his compositions from later on, no trace of any virtuosity.
@@jorislejeune in Widor's account Liszt speaks of "playing to his heart's content" rather than "practising". It's also suggested he played Islamey which he must have learnt after his "retirement" from the concert platform.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 that's an exaggeration. Even some of his compositions from 1880s are demanding: Czardas, Bagatelle sans tonalite, Mephisto Waltzes 3 & 4 etc
So, what is wrong with mistakes?! It's Human! In those days they only had one chance to get it right. There were no retakes . You had to start back from the beginning. It's so tiresome and boring to listen to the modern technical monster pianists with no soul. In the days of the Grand Tradition the performer was as a co-creator with the composer and certain liberties were accepted and expected. In the old tradition the performer seems to be playing from within the music and partaking of the emotional content, while many musicians of today seem to be detached and outside of it, superimposing their ego on the music, and the listeners are more taken up with the technical prowess than with the musical experience.
@@sulo1039 They had better technique back then though. Consider that: 1. Most of what is implied to be mistakes in this video is entirely deliberate and systematic in a way that serves the music. For example, not only the greater use of rubato but the fact that in these times it was common to add rubato independently to each line which would be mostly unacceptable today because it causes lines to desynchronize in a way that "doesn't follow the score". Playing with this greater amount of nuances in a musical way is actually considerably technically harder since it demands very flexible technique. 2. Most of the things they do weren't planned beforehand, records of this pianists practicing say that they practiced every combination of expressive devices and instead of deciding for a particular way of playing they just let those things come out freely at the time of performance, making the performance a kind of improvisation, which again, makes it quite harder to play without mistakes. 3. Some of these pianists actually had straight up monstrous technique the kind of which isn't really seen anymore. Listen to Hoffman's tarantella or Friedman's Liszt-Busoni la Campanella or Lhevine's Blue danube, and those are just the acoustic recordings that in opposition to piano rolls we know with 100% certainty aren't tampered, if you go by piano rolls (which aren't unbelievable given the acoustic recordings we have) it is even worse.
Thx for sharing and talking about this topic, it deserves much more attention than it gets nowadays, my gratitude! I was thinking about your comparison with Argerich and Liszt. Although passed away in the ‘80’s, I think Ervin Nyiregyhazi may have sounded the most like Liszt. Frederic Lamond claimed that Nyiregyhazi was Liszt’s reincarnation!
But beware of assuming that the playing of the 1970s and later Nyiregyhazi was the same as when he was hailed by Lamond as a child prodigy. I'm not saying the later Nyiregyhazi is not a representation of the grand romantic era, it's just that we shouldn't assume that this is what Liszt sounded like.
I wonder what we should be aware off, because besides that there are piano roll recordings of the young Nyiregyhazi, and you can hear that his distinctive tone hasn’t changed over the years, comparisons between who sounded like who, without proof are always by principle an assumption. There are good reasons to “assume” that Nyiregyhazi could sound like Liszt, but probably at the end of the day, they’re individuals. There will be no other Godowski, Bolet, Liszt, Hoffman, Rachmaninoff, Nyiregyhazi, because at the end of the day they are all distinctive characters with distinctive sounds. Most of them even composed music themselves, besides being performers. But did you ever hear Argerich or another post-war pianist produce such a massive tone in the 12th hungarian rhapsody??!? m.ua-cam.com/video/zww36anUjVY/v-deo.html&pp=ygUObnlpcmVneWhhemkgMTI%3D
Celui qui n'entend pas l'intérêt crucial de ces versions est un auditeur sans culture musicale ni pianistique. Celui qui pense que l'intérêt de ses pianistes réside dans une certaine liberté d'interprétation mais que la technique est faible est un sinistre plaisantin. Les jeunes générations d'ailleurs montrent le plus souvent un très grand respect à leurs illustres prédécesseurs. Le bashing des jeunes concertistes à la mode n'a aucun intérêt mais il faut arrêter de croire que les élèves de Liszt n'étaient pas de grand pianistes, il savaient beaucoup de choses qui ont depuis été perdues ou oubliées, soit avec l'évolution de la facture de piano soit avec l'évolution du goût musical, c'est un peu la même chose que dans le chant lyrique. Je repense sans affection aucune à un abruti de prof de piano qui se caressait l'ego en se moquant de ceux qui "cortotent". On pense ce que l'on veut de Cortot notamment son positionnement d'artiste français pendant l'Occupation mais enfin tout de même comment penser que quelqu'un qui a connu Debussy personnellement, qui a suivi l'enseignement d'un des meilleurs pianistes de l'époque pour ce qui concerne Chopin, puisse être tourné en dérision par un vague artiste sans passé ni futur. Comment penser que les pianistes d'aujourd'hui savent mieux jouer Liszt que ceux qui ont été acceptés par lui, reçu ses conseils, vécu au plus proche pour certains. Au fait, avec tous ces grands pianistes inspirants aujourd'hui, où sont les nouvelles œuvres majeures qui révolutionnent l'instrument ? Au fait, pour ce qui concerne Mazepa la technique n'est pas celle décrite, et dans son édition Von Sauer précise bien que tout autre doigté que celui indiqué 42 42 etc n'est pas acceptable.
@ yeah but arrau technique is very different very different as Martha’s tech. They said Liszt invented that technique. Elba Lanata s book or other information of arrau may be gave more ligth about those topics
It's not fair to the pianists to use piano rolls as an examples. They can be sped up, the playback of the roll leads to rhythmic distortions the pianists did not play. Yes they are better than nothing but offer a very 2-dimensional view of the pianists capibilities. With Sauer and Friedheim we have plenty examples of phonograpgh recordings. Friedheim's Feux Follets or Sauer's Ricordanza etudes are excellent illuminating examples.
With perfect mechanics, revealing clothing and a circus-performer, proud, I-am-amazing bow to celebrate one's accomplishment. The music? The sonic image? Superficial, but everything's in place. Eerie. At times like that, I'm always waiting for the music to start. I'd rather see actual gymnastics done with flair than someone using a music score as their gymnastics apparatus.
@ Old enough to have attended several Chicago recitals of inimitable Horowitz. Including getting a stage seat, about 8 ft from his immediate left hand with view of keyboard. (Back then, stage seat at Orchestra Hall was folding chair. I got to entry door for first come, first served stage seat 3 hours early. Was first in line) Watched in amazement as Horowitz ripped through his version of the Rachmaninov PS2. I’m amateur pianist. Attended many recitals. Even student and faculty recitals. I get the veiled reference to Yuja. Have attended many of her recitals & concerto appearances in Chicago & Ravinia. I can attest that the electricity in the concert hall when Yuja is in town is at least equal to, if not sometimes, surpassing, the palpable excitement felt when Horowitz came to town.
Competitions and modern concervatories have inflicted upon us a dreary homogeny. This is a dry and unimaginative period of musicianship.
Agree 😊
The fact that there is not even a improvisation test/round at Chopin competition says it all.
@@ZadkoPreskovic if that was the case there would be 1 person in final, not very interesting, its how it is, today we dont learn impro anymore caus there is a lot to learn anyway
@@horoffra Not necessary. It would be a round stage counting like others. Bonne année à toi.
Agreed. The gentleman says, "Rubato in a way we wouldn't do today..." So what? Music doesn't need to be played to tyrannically match what is the fashion of the day, nor should it. Ever. This kind of dogma makes classical music annoyingly pedantic/academic at best, and inaccessible to most at worst.
My great uncle, a concert pianist who you likely don't know, studied with Emil von Sauer (and Alfred Cortot). He often said Von Sauer thought the newer pianist (at the time) were trying to play Liszt too fast, and sacrificed a lot just to have speed via technique alone. Anyway, when my uncle died, he left me all his signed pictures (like Rach, Cortot, Heifitz etc), and among them was a signed picture of Emil von Sauer, and a "letter of introduction" for him to show others in the US when he immigrated. I have the pictures sitting by my desk now. So cool...and yet, so few people appreciate them when they see them, not clue to who they were! Good vid!
Nice 😊
I'd like to see those pictures! 🙂
Yunchan Lim may be bringing back the golden age. Check him out.
He is too much of a speed demon. There is little natural breathing in his playing. He may learn that some day.@@geraldgleeson4191
@geraldgleeson4191 My wife and I go to the Cliburn every 4 years. Saw Yunchan play the Transcendental Etudes, in fact everything but his final Rach performance as we had to drive home to Houston the night before. He was amazing and the clear winner before he played his now famous interp of Rach 3.
All five of Liszt’s students sounded like concert pianists to me. I would be happy to be that good as I never could play at all. The style of today is to be more precise and athletic with the keyboard. The older style was more open to interpretation. It was possible to make small departures in technique and cover these up with artistry in the past. Competition today is far more intense and there are not enough positions for top musicians to go around. As a result there are a lot of people forced to drop out of music in favor of a more stable and better paying career.
Agree
Sebastian thank you so much for all the Liszt content! Amazing videos🔥
Thank you 😊
I much prefer the playing of those old players to the so-called "perfection", of the boring and mostly indistinguishable pianists being churned out by the conservatoires in our time. Regardless of whethertheir "mistakes" are really mistakes or deliberate expressive devices. They are communicative where much modern playing is machine-like and soullesss. Have you read Kenneth Hamilton's book "After the Golden Age" ?
Agree 😊
Ditto
Add me to the list.
The idea that most pianists today are soulless robots is also a stereotype that suits your point, in addition to being pretty disrespectful and unnecessary.
Absolutely!
Fun Fact about the Friedheim Piano Roll Recording of Reminiscences de Lucrezia Borgia At 6:50 he plays a big arpeggio run followed by another one, now this second giant arpeggio is actually not written in the score further more illustrating these pianists were generally accepted for their freedom to do anything to their score Also, check out Friedheim's Feux Follet, its another piece that he played that shows the same things present with this recording very lovely
Yes i noticed, thats stuff cziffra and other pianists later does too, love it
Fascinating. Excellent video. Artur Rubinstein, in his autobiography, describes how the increasing presence of recordings affected his playing dramatically. Paraphrasing, he describes how in his early performances he might improvise sections of a piece or take other liberties, but once recordings became popular, and people could hear "definitive" performances, he had to study scores more carefully and practice to play more accurately.
You don't have to go very far back in time to hear a lot of this chaotic rubato, not only from pianists - all musicians did it. Today everything has to be homogenous, otherwise you might upset that jury member in that competition...
How can you hear that recording of un sospiro and think that what he is doing is not intentional is beyond me. Every "defect" you mentioned is completely intentional and systematic. It is far more emotional and beautiful the way they play compared to today, their tone is unreal.
Also they had BETTER technique than modern pianists.
I dont say its bad of worse, in contrary, but im able to hear whats intentional and what not, everyone will agree on that.
@@horoffra i don’t agree. everything you say that was unintentional, really wasn’t. Liszt himself played similar to this and these people learned from him. more modern pianists like Argerich doesn’t compare in the slightest to the Titan Liszt or even these 5 pianists
@@Arobamod Historical pianists have different recordings of the same piece; So we hear that most things are intentional. These aren't easy for modern pianists to understand.
@@scherrer4715 Exactly! Back then improvisation and playing everything in a personal way was the norm! Back then virtuosity was measured by how well you can take someone else's music or ideas and make it personal in a spontaneous way: play around with it and entertain the audience, mash it up with something else, turn it into a comedy, etc.
Thank you for this comment, someone knowledgeable had to put it in such a perfect way.
Good and informative video! I want to praise you for the production quality and the effort you've put into your uploads. It's noticeably better than when I first discovered your channel. I feel honored to witness your journey as a growing content creator. Simply awesome. It's admirable that you can find the motivation and energy to produce high-quality videos, despite your (presumably) time consuming priorities as a practicing musician. Keep it up! 👏
Thank you
This was a fantastic program! It left me with the impression that we're constantly trying to outdo past recordings using advanced technology. I'm sure those Liszt student recordings would sound radically different today with modern studio techniques. However, I truly appreciate the character of older recordings, like the gentle hiss of vinyl. It evokes nostalgia and transports me back in time. Thank you for sharing this - it reminds me of the human element in music.🎶✨💜
The idea that you play fast just because you can play fast is absurd. If it were, we would all play slow movements fast. It simply doesn't make sense. Liszt could probably play as fast as Martha Argerich, but that doesn't mean he played fast. Martha Argerich plays everything faster than others, but not for good reasons, not for the benefit of the music; she probably plays everything faster because she is bored with a musically good tempo or simply to impress, to show how fast she can play. Liszt was much deeper than that. Liszt didn't play fast all the time. Remember when a student came to Liszt and played the octave passage of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise very fast and Liszt said “I don't want to hear how fast you can play octaves.” Liszt also wrote in a letter that he played the Hammerklavier Sonata in about an hour, which means he did not play it fast. According to another account, “Liszt never gave the impression of playing too fast.”
GustavoSpiritual. When Liszt sigh readed Grieg’s piano conserto for the first time, Grieg told Liszt that he started too fast.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 True enough, but he was sightreading, he didn't have any notion about the piece, so it was not a conscious decision.
Check out Sergei Rachmaninoff's recordings. Such fantastic control of dynamics and rubato allowed him to never appear as if he was in a hurry even when he did chose some extremely fast tempi. He always feels relaxed like taking a walk. That is partly the result of a perfectly calculated performance. I bet Liszt could do something similar. He simply could do whatever he wanted and be flexible with tempi and dynamics while maintaining everything under control , something that gives to the audience a greater impression of virtuosity and of course musicianship than merely playing everything as fast as you can.
My ninty- seven year old mother ( as a child ) studied piano with José vienna da Motta.
Thats so cool 😊
So , Von Sauer made this recording when he was 63 y.o. Wow it’s amazing, he played like a young man in the prime of his strength.
There's a book about the modern fetish of perfection by Mark Katz titled "The Phonograph Effect". It might be useful to study to see how it developed. Also, this is a mix of acoustically- and electrically-recorded examples plus a piano roll; you have to learn how to listen to these processes to make informed judgments. Modern transfers of early recordings vary in quality from excellent to terrible. I have many acoustical recordings of pianists and I've never heard a transfer sound as immediate and visceral as a good copy on a period phonograph. You eventually develop an "acoustic ear"; what surface noise there is becomes insignificant as you focus more and more on content.
As for the Friedheim recording, it's actually a piano roll made for the first Welte-Mignon system, the T-100 "Red Welte" system of 1904. Two problems with early Welte rolls are 1) they did very little editing of the rolls originally, so what is there is what you got, and 2) to hear them properly to-day the Welte-Mignon instrument used has to be in perfect shape and regulated EXTREMELY closely. (I've regulated a 1914 T-100 system in a magnificent Mason & Hamlin upright, and regulation takes a combination of musicianship and mechanical skills as Welte's instructions are very vague and the test roll nearly useless.) Friedheim also made piano rolls for Aeolian's Duo-Art system, but Aeolian music roll masters _were_ edited to a greater or lesser extent (often greater). Friedheim made very few records - one was in 1917 for the very minor Emerson company, using a strange recording system unique to that company - so a general survey of what he on disc did would give a better but still limited picture of his abilities. And never forget recording itself was a new technology, and from the very beginning many performers suffered from what was called "horn fright", which metamorphosed into "mike fright" in the electrical era.
I'm glad you're listening, though.
very interesting!
I really don’t see/hear your comparison with Argerich. We know almost for definite that Liszt Arpeggiated freely, separated melody from accompaniment, wild rubato, uneven rhythms etc (this was the style at the time- almost every recording from pianists born during the early/mid 1890’s do this and Liszt’s own students’ recordings do this). We also know tempos were generally slower and many comments Liszt was not a fast pianist. And we also know that during Liszt’s touring virtuoso years he was wildly energetic at the piano, a lot of movement and facial expressions. I find the piano rolls of Reinecke the most revealing. Born in 1824, Liszt selected Reinecke to teach his daughter the piano. His rubato and constant uneven rhythm and dislocation of melody sounds so alien to us today- but Liszt clearly didn’t think so. Really recommend Da Costa’s “Off The Record” and Hamilton’s “After the Golden Age”. Life changing, well researched and considered and informative. But THANKYOU for bringing this style to the attention of so many, important work. Great video!
5:22 Having listened until now, I did have teachers who were in the “lineage” of Liszt and Vianna da Motta, and what is curious is that one of them taught me to do the inicial arpeggios of Un Sospiro fast like Lamont and after give a little time to really listen the melody. Other, in Schumann’s op. 22 sonata, 2nd movement, taught me to delay the arpeggios just like Vianna da Motta, as not to rush or accentuate them, not to overpower the melody and to give a sense of lightness, subtlety and floating quality.
Very interesting, thanks 😊🙏
Thank you for this… wonderfully informative and full of insights! Merci encore une fois !
Merci 😊
Old Horowitz sounds perfect as he gave all what's important. Golden age of piano was end of 19th century till the second WW. Pianists from that era played fantastic. Nobody who is true music lover cares for "clear" and "fast" playing. Clear and fast is boooring and you can get it easily by just playing MIDI. Only piano students care about it, and that's the reason they aren't interesting musicians.
Music is freedom, but it needs to be in good taste. Old masters show what it means.
Did i say otherwise?
@horoffra no, no, but for anybody who may see the start screen only (red word "terrible"), it's worth saying it loud and again 😉
@ ah ok 😊🙏
@kuba13s. For me, I prefer those who make attempts to get closer to the original style. Ancient sources tells us that they played very fast also for +/- 200 years ago.
Yeah music is freedoom
No rules. What you feel you play
Informative and inspiring. Many thanks again!
Yunchan Lim is an amazing musician.
The fact that he's playing more Liszt music than others is so refreshing.
I hope he'll be playing more from him.
@@myklkay does he play Rautavaara? Sorabji? Honestly who cares about another Liszt specialist. I'd rather here more Buxtehude
@marksmith3947 maybe he should play all the composers so everyone is satisfied.
He doesn't play Vasks and Silvestri and I'm fine with it.
@myklkay Classical music is deeply sick. Another unoriginal virtuoso playing Liszt perfectly will not revive it
Back in the day they sometimes played with completely off tempos simply because they were told the piece had to fit within a certain duration. For instance, in some works, they would speed up in sections without a real melody just so they could slow down when the melody reappeared… and so on.
I dont think so that would make no sense, they were not stupid
@@horoffra Well, I'm inviting you to read a bit more about the history of recording because that's really what they were doing when they couldn’t make edits. It has nothing to do with being stupid but rather with the technical constraints of the early days of the industry.
@@MorbidMayem it is one of those legends that is repeated over and over. Very often you have the same rubato when a pianist recorded a 78 disc and a piano roll. Piano rolls easily went to 10 minutes if needed. So why speed up there as well?
Also often when comparing side lengths it becomes clear that they had more time if they needed it (because both sides of a disc have by definition the same length).
Speeding up less important material was simply a part of any musicians vocabulary, as it is still done in a lot of bel canto opera today. It is a way of making the structure clear for the listener by using tempo modification, an essential tool in romantic performance practice (but very often overlooked today).
@@jorislejeune If you can point me to scholarly publications that shows this to be a legend, thank you.
@@MorbidMayem without arrogance I could point you towards a lengthy article I published about all the historical César Franck recordings (published by Orgelkunst). However, it is in Dutch, probably not of much use to you. (English and French translations are in preparation, but these things always take longer than one expects...)
Some more general publications that treat this subject are: Neil Peres da Cosa: Off the record (about piano) and Timothy Day: A Century of recorded music, listening to musical history. Both are very recommended.
10:21 that was pretty good actually. Great energy! I'd rather hear good energy with a few wrong notes here and there, than to hear a robot playing
Yes me too
Piano roll is not a recording, and depends on the muestreo is something like a low resolution on dynamics
Well that’s the reason; I’m OLD! Lol 😂 I’m kidding… sort of. Lol The irony is that on my other page, several well known Concert pianists, including Martha Augerich‼️liked my page‼️ Well, Mistakes and all, I was honored! I’ve been playing since I was 8 or 9, and I have a performance degree, but life got in the way and there were issues and many classical performance and future doctoral educational opportunities were missed. But I can’t be too hard on myself. I heard a story of how Liszt went to spend some time with Grieg when he was composing the famous A minor concerto. Grieg was becoming increasingly frustrated playing through the first movement because he could obviously write it and “PLAY IT”, but he couldn’t get the sound that he wanted. Liszt basically told him something like , old friend don’t worry, let me see the score. Well Liszt sat down, never having ever seen it, sat down and SIGHT READ UP TO TEMPO THE FIRST MOVEMENT AND GRIEG WAS EMBARRASSED‼️👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾😂 But Liszt said to him, don’t worry, this is beautiful, I love it and you will get it. I would love to play it as well!! Lol 😂 so, old or bad notes, I think there is still hope for me yet! ☝🏾🤓🎹🎹🎹🎹
I have been inspired to order a very large hand, like Liszt for Christmas.
Liszt had a quite normal hand with a big stretch but like most pianists or maybe a bit more, nothing extragant like rachmaninov
Modern conservatoires train young pianists to do well in international competitions, not to become well rounded artists with unique musical voices
I would prefer the old guys over modern pianists any day ;)
Me too
This is great!! You should do a Chopin one too.
Good idea 😊
All the techniques they use are informed by the feeling, and would be striving to fill the sound with authentic lizst and characteristics of the charms of the times.
😊🙏
A lot of the musical elements described in this video existed in the playing of Hungarian Gypsy bands of the early and mid 20th century too. Newer bands tend to play "cleaner" and with less freedom , likely because at this point they are largely conservatory trained.
It's funny that his attitude is 'that would not be how we would do it today', expressing slight surprise. We classical pianists have to interpret music of long-dead composers, using a mix of 'best guess' decisions based on contemporary scholarship, personal taste, what we've listened to, personal biorhythms etc. etc.
One of the amazing things about this recorded legacy is that we get to hear, for real, pianists directly influenced by Liszt (and sometimes also by Chopin). My attitude is therefore, 'what can these old recordings tell us about what Liszt wanted (or at least found acceptable)'. The fact that they played less mechanically, and unevenly (according to a surprised M Dupuis) tells us that notation, which is mechanically exact, cannot reproduce phrasing and emotion. Their rubato, which he finds wayward, tells us about how they heard melody, which was, above all, subtly inflected.
There are clearly differences between the levels of the pianists (Friedheim is a lesser pianist maybe, but then he had a different relationship to Liszt than the others). But if the modern age pianist finds fault with their idiosyncrasies, that is our problem, not theirs!
My general take is it is very hard to compare early 20th century performances with today. First, the equipment, recording and aging may not do full justice to the playing. Secondly, the aesthetics 100 years ago are just very different. Pianists had more originality and creativity. Whether this creates a better sound or not is another matter. The bottom line is that with the passage of time, as recordings proliferated, there eventually became a "definitive sound" for all the popular works. Once a performer (usually in the mid-20th century) played it in such a way people liked, everyone else has heard that recording and everyone copied it. Therefore, all recordings tend to sound similar. Few performers are daring to do anything vastly different. If they do a completely original interpretation, there is a good chance it won't be well received (e.g., see the "controversy" around Glenn Gould's performances of Beethoven and Brahms) because people expect works to be played a certain way. So most concert artists today simply don't bother and just go with the flow. It is safe. The room for artistic freedom is much less than 100 years ago, when people actually had to go to live concerts to hear music. Performers had a harder time looking over each others' shoulders, and the public hadn't already formed an opinion how the standard repertoire should sound.
Very true. And that is part of the reason I go to concerts less and less. I'd rather hear York Bowen on a 1920s Vocalion disc or Rachmaninoff on Edison or Victor than encounter both homogeneous playing and homogeneous repertoire. They're very rare, but Cecile Chaminade's 1902 G&T discs - the earliest made by a noted composer-pianist - are so individual and, to me, magical that they might convert a person into appreciating her music more. A century ago, the music was, at most 3/5 on the page and 2/5 in the performer.
Right. Those foolish pianists from the distant past, how could they hold a candle to our superior artists, so excellent musically and technically! If only they were here today, they could realize how inferior their standards were! Obviously I'm being satirical - I hope one day you'll realize how your current opinion is typical of the societal arrogance of the 21st century.
You clealy didnt get my point and didnt listen to the whole video.
You mean the general arrogance of the 21st century which you can find in almost every field, be it science, medicine, clothing/tailoring, architecture, painting and very much in music, specifically performance style. And while there is of course improvement and innovation in all fields, it's most inappropriate in anything art-related. People think anything "old" can't be better than anything new, which is ridiculous.
But this demonstration isn't of that sort.
@@Seleuce 🙂
I remember when i studed Rachmaninov preludes and etudes in conservatory they said "don't listen to Rachmaninov".
What a crazy world.
I love his recordings
Really enjoying the recent videos
On Eglogue, in the score the separation in the left hand is very significant so you have that choice of striking the bass note together with the right hand and then the left thumb, I think consistent with the character of the piece, should not be rushed, thus it will naturally sound out a bit more. If you were to strike the bass note slightly before the beat I believe this would not sound quite right in this case
Thats how most pianists play it though, so there was a difference
They say that the piano roll recordings are all sped up, that would explain the strange rubato of some of those pianists that sounds like they are not in good shape; in the tempo they actually played it would sound much more organic (in case the piano roll recordings are really sped up). On another subject, if one reads all the comments about Liszt as a pianist, one cannot but conclude that he was superhuman, a kind of genius never seen before or since. Camille Saint Saens said about Liszt playing: "Never again will there be seen or heard anything equal to it." The only thing Argerich may be similar to liszt in is speed, but nothing else. Argerich is like an amateur compared to Liszt in all the other regards. Regarding to the fingerings of Mazeppa, the purpose of these fingerings is not to separate the thirds but to give them more power. They sound with much more weight and power when played with Liszt's fingerings.
If its faster rubato stays the same but faster…
@@horoffra Just because a piece sounds good at a slow tempo doesn't mean it will also sound good at a fast tempo. The same goes for rubato: just because a rubato works at a slow tempo does not mean that it will work just as well at a faster tempo.
Welte-Mignon rolls were cut at a fixed constant speed, so ideally the piano being used for playback is also fixed at the same speed (nominally termed "80").
I suspect the Freidheim is a piano roll. You have to totally discount it. The Sauer is a roll as well. Also not true to his playing which was exceptionally elegant and precise. Hofmann admired it.
Pianists approved the rolls they recorded i was reading, wich seems logical, i would do that too, so must have been precise enough.
One aspect of the old playing style to be considered is that the grand piano in a way is a keyed horizontal harp.
The old piano technique mirrors that and gives an impression of the players thinking about it as such.
@horoffra i wonder if Liszt time travelled to today and quietly listened in at one of the competitions. i wonder if his reaction would be (a) holy sh*t, they are way better than me- take my back please, before anyone recognizes me, or (b) what the hell have they done- i need to teach these folks some stuff- time to let them know i'm here.
Liszt was a fantastic improviser, that already sets him apart from pianists of today.
The recordings of D'Albert are interesting because he recorded several of the same pieces on both piano roll and phonograph. They sound more or less the same but both recordings have drawbacks. The dynamics of the piano roll can be said to be suspect but the actual playing of the notes such as the rubato are completely accurate. His phonograph recordings are often rushed because of the limited time allowed (5 mins), piano roll performances could have a length of up to 15 mins. In the case of Friedheim, the 'jerky' playing is not because he was old or had a bad day but this was how he actually played, at least in the 1900's as other rolls by him show the same characteristics The rolls by the early manufacturers Hupfeld and Welte are the most trusted and accurate, they even left in some mistakes by the pianists to show the performance was a genuine recording although a few were 'ironed out'. Some ex Liszt pianists made piano rolls which show that some had their own vastly distinctive playing style. But the pianists of today do not, probably because of the existence of recording technology
Thanks, an interesting comment for once 😊🙏
It would not surprise me if the old pianists would find today's pianists too precise and somewhat regimented; mechanical instead of musical. I find myself that pianists often play too fast for my liking just because they can. It is very interesting to hear how interpretations have changed, not always for the better musically.
Who knows 😊
The playback of Sauers piano roll is probably on the fast side. But about the fingering (24-24), Sauers edition says that changing it would be inadmissible.
Strange…
It's very interesting how concepts of 'correct' and 'objective' playing dominates the modern performance practice. I think back in the day, you had good taste and that was that - and probably that's why the pieces from that time sound good in different playing styles. Second is, effortless playing doesn't necessary link to speed, if he was playing lightning fast I think Schumann (or others e.g. Moscheles etc) would have singled that out as the most significant aspect of his playing. I'm on the side that Liszt probably played slower (along with Chopin and Alkan). They also learned their technique on a very, very different instrument from the modern piano (no double escapement etc). But not much harm done playing their music faster, I think the bigger problem is playing Baroque music exceedingly fast and calling it period practice, when it defies all musical, logical, and aesthetic aspects.
How was changed the sound of pianos the modern building of the pianos in comparison with the ones used around late XIX- beginning of XX century?
Modern pianos are voiced much louder than they were a century ago in order to cut through modern orchestras, which use much bigger and louder instruments (especially in woodwinds and brass) and higher concert pitch for more "brilliance".
It must be self evident that very most likely, these artists are closer to the vision of Liszt then we, with the distance of 150 years, could ever be... It may seem to some listeners today, that for instance the rubato of these 19th century pianists is chaotic, but I think we can be certain that for listeners of that era of it did seem at all out of place. Very most likely, they would find performaces of today too stict too literal and too unimaginative.
Comparing Liszt to Argerich seems strange considering that the former preferred slow tempos and was strongly against the vain of virtuosity, at least in his later years.
Good stuff, I would put the score on screen though
Thank you...I'm sure if liszt was alive he would proud of you
@@radmehrsharifi519 thanks
I don‘t know if we are able to judge the interpretation of a score without seeing it. Another thing is that the artwork can‘t be judged by its parts, only as a whole is the artwork an artwork. The interpretation is still part of the art work. In this sense, it is hard to judge the performance only its parts, unless one speaks about very objective mistakes. The old recordings are almost all in public domain in Internet Archive and imslp, if i am not mistaken.Besides piano roll you have to take the piano mechanic and the taste of the audiences of that time into account. SO this needs some consideration of what was written in public reviews and brief exchanges.
Its absolutely no problem to make observations on ways of playing as a pro pianist.
@@horoffraThat isnt really a response to anything he said.
Best video ever 🩷
😊❤️
I am not a pianist, I play viola da gamba and (of course!) Baroque music. I am interested in things related to past execution practices, which brought me to your video.
What you describe as "chaotic" (rhythm, "rubato", lack of synchronicity, etc.) sound more or less reasonable to me, and can be more or less related to Baroque "inégalité", not directly and not precisely of course (and not really everything as well!), but as a kind of evolution of it under different music languages and styles and from different "tastes".
Who knows? Might be a line of (re)search...
Thanks, interesting
Great selection and discussion!
I just do not agree that these are "strange" things because of technical limitations or so. Von Sauer is among the most technically skilled pianists you can ever hear for example; Friedman also. Yes, there is surprising rubato and asynchronicities etc. but they are _part of the music_. Everybody does it. Actually, _this is_ what is written in the score. Or, actually, not written, but the contemporary pianists understood how to read the sketch that is written down!
Today the ideal is "to play what is in the score", smoothly, evenly, together, "in takt", etc.; but exactly these recordings show us that this music is not about our modern scrupulousness but a freedom (and demand) to the performer to finish the piece with rubatos, re-slurring, microrythmical composition/improvisation, at times, actual improvisations and "personal completions" of the score. Malcom Bilson has YT courses about how to read the score and how to "get the music" behind the notes, I find these ones very beneficial and very well informed!
It's clear the Friedman Lucrezia Borgia was being played from a piano roll with early technology that often failed to capture the rhythm precisely, leading to it sounding jerky and, as Sebastien says, "like a bad pianist."
I think that also should be taken into account that the players had to play loudly so that it would be recorded. This can have influenced their style of playing.
No they didnt
Do you think recordings have made people better players? It used to be a handful of musicians who stood head and shoulders above the rest. Nowadays, thankfully so, we have a lot of amazing talent out there. My theory is that with the advent of recordings one was able to have available to the public a very high standard which set the bar. So in a recording the artist may play it a few times till they got the perfect take or even splice and dice recordings to make a perfect piece. Then the would be musician hears this amazing playing and aims for this very high standard. Like the student who arrived to his maths class late and found a question written on the board. He solved the puzzle then handed it in to his teacher. The teacher was dumbfounded as the question was thought to be impossible to answer but because the student didn't know this he wasn't being told it was impossible and therefore wasn't limited.
In a way yes
I think pedagogy is very highly developed, so that more people can learn to play well. In terms of interpretation I feel that listening to recordings has a definite downside. People copy the gestures almost down to the measure. Some highly regarded pianists play with a pastiche of interpretations which I find off putting
@@marksmith3947 As you can guess I learn the classical guitar. For this very reason, when I learn a new piece, unless I am already familiar with it I don't listen to anyone playing it. Don't wish to be influenced to a point it prevents my own interpretation. Once I feel i've mastered it only then will I listen to a recording.
@@ClassicalGuitaristWannabe There was a method of learning pieces which I believe Bolet used, which was not to play a single note of a new piece on the piano until you had memorized and analyzed the score. Surely this method would facilitate the generation of a personal interpretation which is not wholly derivative.
If you Compair jimmy Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan, jimmy strays from precision and metre. Yet the creation and passion is more intense.
I always hear Kissin delaying the left hand.
Never heard that, maybe « always » is egsagerated?
I might sound controversial but after listening to these old recordings I think they generally have much more personality and character than modern recordings.
Back then, music was alive in “spirit”, but nowadays people are way too intimidated to really express themselves because of the extreme conservatory culture present in the modern age. Musicians had almost become “solemn” and “organised”, and have established sets of rules which when broken is equivalent to blasphemy… This observation of mine is not limited to piano playing but in performance in general… I was listening to recordings by Fritz Kreisler and oh my word… it was unlike anything you could hear today…
Thats what im saying
100% agree - modern playing has got so boring.
14:15 whole beat reference?
Yes i think thats total rubbish 😅
Sebastian - whole beat? You want so sincerely that whole beat is the truth. What do you need of information to understand that the idea of double/whole/WBMP never worked the way Wim Winters are telling you?
@geiryvindeskeland7208 all I asked was if he was referencing wholebeat...
Hi sebastian. Ok, there is no need to bother you anymore. I can see that you already got a reply from others.
I like this rough and tumble late 19th century way of playing piano. We musicians need to be less measured and more spontaneous.
The piano roll recordings should not be taken too seriously. To study piano recordings, you should listen to 78s. There is great freedom of expression in the old pianists. It is not `chaotic rubato` as you say it, but free and flexible ways of expression, which are much closer to the composers intentions as almost any Liszt recording of today.
Piano roll technology according to what i was reading was very accurate.
Very interesting
Thanks
@@horoffra I am down for more
It is assumed that these golden age pianists needed to play faster during recordings, because the amount recording time was limited.
Interesting.
Dont think so, and they dont play specially fast
Friedheim is a piano roll, not a piano recording. Inadmissible in this case.
I think modern musicians are also spoiled by modern recording sound. Always trying to find the clear sound of recording
It's very interesting to hear this honest opinion, without the usual curtain of the "political correctness".
this reminds me of listening to some recent Vivaldi recordings and how fast and musically boring they were. if only there was a change in modern practice to ease off the gas
the better pupils of Liszt are and will be remembered. They were still a part of the culture that produced the romantic repertoire. How many of the virtuoso's of today will be remembered a 100 years from now ? and that includes Argerich. Will the public still remember Argerich a 100 years from now because she had fingers of steel ? I am not sure. I think that is just a case of recency bias. Was Argerich a greater virtuoso then Teresa Careno or Yuja Wang ? a 100 years from now they will have their own virtuoso's to obsess about (if making a career with playing standard repertoire is still a thing).
"We have less freedom today in the way we play", no you don't, who cares how you play. You probably mean "we have to play the way other people wants us to play when we participate in contests", or, "we have to play as they wish in a concert for people who paid the tickets", or some other variation of those. But you have no less freedom at all. For instance, I've just played Brahms at half tempo, does anybody here, or anywhere else care? of course not. And I ENJOYED IT SO MUCH. Oh, you probably mean "we have less freedom when we are playing for the pleasure of others", that I can agree with. Whatever suits your heart.
This is a subject well worth delving into, and I agree with many of your observations. However, you have repeatedly pushed back against the comments criticizing using piano rolls as a yardstick. You state it’s something you read. Really? I’m sorry, but that’s really going out on a limb, and I couldn’t disagree more. I’d love to know your source, because EVERY expert on pianists on record won’t touch rolls with a 10 foot pole for accuracy of reproduction. You really need to do this comparison without using piano rolls. They will NEVER be a substitute for even the lousiest disc or cylinder recording. They can’t reproduce ANY subtleties of dynamic or articulation or pedaling. I don’t care what you’ve read, it’s not possible. And as to play back speed, it’s hit or miss, but since the pitch doesn’t change, there’s no certain way to verify this. The description you give as to Friedheim is absolutely misattributing the spastic and uneven qualities in the reproduction to HIM…..a simple listening to his disc recordings will show that he did not play in such an amateurish manner. Keep in mind, some of the more successful modern piano roll transfers have been aided by computer programs to fill in that which is not inherent in the rolls themselves. This is pleasant to listen to, but it’s all speculation by someone 100 years later! The “straight” reproductions, even of the Welte rolls, done in the 50’s thru 80’s all have the expression of a vacuum cleaner motor. I’ve seen critics talk about the tempi on these performances….what a joke. Just like a broken clock is right twice a day, you MIGHT luck out and get the speed right, but 99% of the time it’s going to be an incorrect guess. Scholarship is only possible on the most limited terms with them.
Ive read an article and reserached with got asking sources, it says its not perfect but still quite accurate, so accurate enough to notice what im noticing in the video. Recordings in the video are not always rolls or it dont say so no way to know anyway.
That is a gross simplification. The more advanced brands (like Welte and Aeolian) certainly had very accurate ways of giving the tempo of the roll, and even published callibration rolls to check whether your playback machine was still regulated correctly. If the tempo weren't fixed this would have been redundant.
Just one example: Grieg himself supervised the creation of tempo indications in 1904, by means of an Aeolian 65-note push-up Metrostyle Pianola placed in front of his own piano at Troldhaugen. At the start of each roll there is a mimeographed signed statement by Grieg in his own handwriting, in slightly archaic Norwegian, as follows: "Tempoenne denne Rulle er i Overensstemmende med mine Intentioner," or in English, "The tempi of this roll are in accordance with my intentions."
You can find a lot more info on the site of the pianola institute, and Rex Lawson gives very clear comments and answers.
@jorislejeune. Do you know which pieces he taked about? 🇳🇴
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 certainly the Peer Gynt suite, which according to a certain youtuber (not entirely unknown to you) should be played in 'double-beat' :). If you go to the 'historical tempo reconstruction' (horresco referens) of this piece will find a very elaborate reply of the pianolainstitute. It is still there, to my relief and surprise.
The information they give make it clear that Griegs piano rolls are a reliable source of information. Also for some pieces we have both rolls and acoustical recordings, and comparison showed me that the distance between rolls and recordings is not as huge as some would like us to believe. Same situation for Saint-Saëns and Granados.
@@jorislejeune Thank you so much for this information.
The title sounds like a bait...
Maybe, watch to find out 😉
Since we will never have recordings by Beethoven, Franck, Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, Brahms, Mendelssohn, playing their own woks, we will never know how exactly their music was meant to sound. Performing their music is quite subjective because we know that the score is only a compass.
That is the reason I focus on playing music of composers who actually recorded their own music such as Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, and Bartok.
By doing that, I know exactly how to perform their works without forgetting to add some personal touches in terms of pharsing and rubato.
By the way, I believe that Rachmaninoff himself was a better pianist and a much better composer than Liszt.
we do have quite some Grieg :) and a tiny bit of Brahms (in abysmal sound). And Francks cousin, who studied with him.
@jorislejeune
What Is the name of Franck's cousin?
@@Poetrywithinme. Cécile Boutet de Monvel. Franck wrote around 1888: ' (PCF) sera absolument bien interpretée par ma cousine Mlle Cécile Monvel'. She recorded this very piece in 1937. You can find it on my modest channel, I think it is an important document, since she studied with him and they frequently played on two pianos in concert.
She also recorded (to fill the sixth side) Chopins op. 17 nr. 4, which is also on YT.
Enjoy!
@Poetrywithinme.No Grieg recordings? Yes, search for: Edvard Grieg plays Edvard Grieg.
Widor said Liszt "did not play fast".
Fast is relative
@@horoffra this legend is spread by another YT account. The true version is a bit more complex: Dupré tells us that Widor told him 'Liszt ne donnait jamais la sensation de jouer vite.' As you said, fast is relative, one can play fast and seem relaxed and master of the situation. Also Valbelle puts this in Widors mouth.
Also the story that Widor heard Liszt practice daily during one week is very problematic: Liszt didn't practice anymore in 1878, certainly not three hours per day, and Hanslick's account of this same week completely contradicts this. Liszt was at the world exhibition judging instruments until noon.
MGJS71. Liszt was born in 1811, Widor 1844. Liszt was a virtuoso when he was younger. But look at the sheet music from some of his compositions from later on, no trace of any virtuosity.
@@jorislejeune in Widor's account Liszt speaks of "playing to his heart's content" rather than "practising". It's also suggested he played Islamey which he must have learnt after his "retirement" from the concert platform.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 that's an exaggeration. Even some of his compositions from 1880s are demanding: Czardas, Bagatelle sans tonalite, Mephisto Waltzes 3 & 4 etc
So, what is wrong with mistakes?! It's Human! In those days they only had one chance to get it right. There were no retakes . You had to start back from the beginning. It's so tiresome and boring to listen to the modern technical monster pianists with no soul. In the days of the Grand Tradition the performer was as a co-creator with the composer and certain liberties were accepted and expected. In the old tradition the performer seems to be playing from within the music and partaking of the emotional content, while many musicians of today seem to be detached and outside of it, superimposing their ego on the music, and the listeners are more taken up with the technical prowess than with the musical experience.
Yeah thats what im saying too
@@sulo1039 They had better technique back then though. Consider that:
1. Most of what is implied to be mistakes in this video is entirely deliberate and systematic in a way that serves the music. For example, not only the greater use of rubato but the fact that in these times it was common to add rubato independently to each line which would be mostly unacceptable today because it causes lines to desynchronize in a way that "doesn't follow the score". Playing with this greater amount of nuances in a musical way is actually considerably technically harder since it demands very flexible technique.
2. Most of the things they do weren't planned beforehand, records of this pianists practicing say that they practiced every combination of expressive devices and instead of deciding for a particular way of playing they just let those things come out freely at the time of performance, making the performance a kind of improvisation, which again, makes it quite harder to play without mistakes.
3. Some of these pianists actually had straight up monstrous technique the kind of which isn't really seen anymore. Listen to Hoffman's tarantella or Friedman's Liszt-Busoni la Campanella or Lhevine's Blue danube, and those are just the acoustic recordings that in opposition to piano rolls we know with 100% certainty aren't tampered, if you go by piano rolls (which aren't unbelievable given the acoustic recordings we have) it is even worse.
Thx for sharing and talking about this topic, it deserves much more attention than it gets nowadays, my gratitude! I was thinking about your comparison with Argerich and Liszt. Although passed away in the ‘80’s, I think Ervin Nyiregyhazi may have sounded the most like Liszt. Frederic Lamond claimed that Nyiregyhazi was Liszt’s reincarnation!
Ok will listen, never heard.
@@horoffra en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_Nyiregyházi - everyone who’s interested in the golden age of piano should 😉
But beware of assuming that the playing of the 1970s and later Nyiregyhazi was the same as when he was hailed by Lamond as a child prodigy. I'm not saying the later Nyiregyhazi is not a representation of the grand romantic era, it's just that we shouldn't assume that this is what Liszt sounded like.
I wonder what we should be aware off, because besides that there are piano roll recordings of the young Nyiregyhazi, and you can hear that his distinctive tone hasn’t changed over the years, comparisons between who sounded like who, without proof are always by principle an assumption. There are good reasons to “assume” that Nyiregyhazi could sound like Liszt, but probably at the end of the day, they’re individuals. There will be no other Godowski, Bolet, Liszt, Hoffman, Rachmaninoff, Nyiregyhazi, because at the end of the day they are all distinctive characters with distinctive sounds. Most of them even composed music themselves, besides being performers. But did you ever hear Argerich or another post-war pianist produce such a massive tone in the 12th hungarian rhapsody??!?
m.ua-cam.com/video/zww36anUjVY/v-deo.html&pp=ygUObnlpcmVneWhhemkgMTI%3D
Celui qui n'entend pas l'intérêt crucial de ces versions est un auditeur sans culture musicale ni pianistique. Celui qui pense que l'intérêt de ses pianistes réside dans une certaine liberté d'interprétation mais que la technique est faible est un sinistre plaisantin. Les jeunes générations d'ailleurs montrent le plus souvent un très grand respect à leurs illustres prédécesseurs. Le bashing des jeunes concertistes à la mode n'a aucun intérêt mais il faut arrêter de croire que les élèves de Liszt n'étaient pas de grand pianistes, il savaient beaucoup de choses qui ont depuis été perdues ou oubliées, soit avec l'évolution de la facture de piano soit avec l'évolution du goût musical, c'est un peu la même chose que dans le chant lyrique. Je repense sans affection aucune à un abruti de prof de piano qui se caressait l'ego en se moquant de ceux qui "cortotent". On pense ce que l'on veut de Cortot notamment son positionnement d'artiste français pendant l'Occupation mais enfin tout de même comment penser que quelqu'un qui a connu Debussy personnellement, qui a suivi l'enseignement d'un des meilleurs pianistes de l'époque pour ce qui concerne Chopin, puisse être tourné en dérision par un vague artiste sans passé ni futur. Comment penser que les pianistes d'aujourd'hui savent mieux jouer Liszt que ceux qui ont été acceptés par lui, reçu ses conseils, vécu au plus proche pour certains. Au fait, avec tous ces grands pianistes inspirants aujourd'hui, où sont les nouvelles œuvres majeures qui révolutionnent l'instrument ? Au fait, pour ce qui concerne Mazepa la technique n'est pas celle décrite, et dans son édition Von Sauer précise bien que tout autre doigté que celui indiqué 42 42 etc n'est pas acceptable.
Are you french bro?
No
Arrau is a pupil of a pupil of liszt and they have same technique
I have students too, that doesnt mean they play like me…
@ yeah but arrau technique is very different very different as Martha’s tech. They said Liszt invented that technique. Elba Lanata s book or other information of arrau may be gave more ligth about those topics
What are those giant books about Liszt?
Alan Walker biography
@@horoffra I thought that but I have a different edition and I didn't know there was a different edition.
Evgeny Kissin and Keith Jarrett never participated in a piano competition. In my view, they are the greatest pianist who were born in the XX century.
By the way, you cannot evaluate pianists based on their piano rolls.
Its the only we have so we can try to understand
@@horoffra It doesn't seem like that. Sauer and Friedheim have recordings.
@@scherrer4715 how do you know when is wich?
@@horoffra I think it becomes clear after listening to it for a while, and after the flaws in the piano rolls are clearly visible.
It is competitions that ruin musicians and the music itself…
It's not fair to the pianists to use piano rolls as an examples. They can be sped up, the playback of the roll leads to rhythmic distortions the pianists did not play. Yes they are better than nothing but offer a very 2-dimensional view of the pianists capibilities. With Sauer and Friedheim we have plenty examples of phonograpgh recordings. Friedheim's Feux Follets or Sauer's Ricordanza etudes are excellent illuminating examples.
Speeding up dont create distortions. And its the same playing on those other examples.
subscribed
Piano rolls are terribly inaccurate
Not the one sauer used for ex, they where very accurate i was reading
Different Era for big Artistry….plus, how does a performer follow the stage presence of fore-runner Liszt or Paganini? And sell out auditoriums?
True, …
With perfect mechanics, revealing clothing and a circus-performer, proud, I-am-amazing bow to celebrate one's accomplishment. The music? The sonic image? Superficial, but everything's in place. Eerie. At times like that, I'm always waiting for the music to start. I'd rather see actual gymnastics done with flair than someone using a music score as their gymnastics apparatus.
@ Old enough to have attended several Chicago recitals of inimitable Horowitz. Including getting a stage seat, about 8 ft from his immediate left hand with view of keyboard. (Back then, stage seat at Orchestra Hall was folding chair. I got to entry door for first come, first served stage seat 3 hours early. Was first in line) Watched in amazement as Horowitz ripped through his version of the Rachmaninov PS2. I’m amateur pianist. Attended many recitals. Even student and faculty recitals. I get the veiled reference to Yuja. Have attended many of her recitals & concerto appearances in Chicago & Ravinia. I can attest that the electricity in the concert hall when Yuja is in town is at least equal to, if not sometimes, surpassing, the palpable excitement felt when Horowitz came to town.