Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Once you get past the first movement -which takes about a fortnight- I might agree.
Haha! The 1st movement's my favourite part of the sonata!! But i know what you mean about it taking its time; if i remember rightly half the movement is the same thing repeated.
All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green.
But since I adore Richter, I was curious to find out just what you dislike in him. The crucial paragraph from your post seems to be:
Originally Posted by Hank's blog
But while some may consider the "pianist of the (half) century" remark a compliment, for me, Richter represents precisely what went wrong with piano performance after about 1950: The rejection of a tonal aesthetic, the equation of glacial tempos with profundity, the pretense of humility (including fetishizing of the score), contradicted by barely disguised contempt for the audience.
Since you claim that these traits represent not just Richter but a general modern trend in piano performance, let's examine each one separately:
"The rejection of a tonal aesthetic": What does this mean? I don't know what this means. (We're discussing Richter, not Schoenberg, right? )
"glacial tempos": I don't care for Richter's super-slow tempi in the first movements of Schubert's Bb and G major sonatas. But... but... listen to the Schubert C minor sonata. Listen to his Beethoven sonatas. Listen to Pictures at an Exhibition. Listen to all of his WTC. Richter does not often play glacially... and, in fact, he's often downright fast and exciting! I wouldn't say "glacial tempos" characterizes either Richter or modern piano playing. Would you, really?
"contempt for audience": I don't know if this is true with Richter, but it's certainly not my impression. If I'm wrong, show me: accusations such as "fetishizing" and having a "pretense of humility" should be backed up. Anyway, even if partly true, I'm not sure that these traits influence my feelings of the pianist. (e.g. Mahler was certainly far from humble, and had many failings, but I love him to death.)
So in trying to get to the bottom of what you don't like about Richter (and "piano performance [since] 1950"), I've got one trait that I dispute and don't find relevant (the contempt), one trait I strongly dispute (glacial tempi as a characterizing descriptor)... which leaves the only trait about the man's actual playing, this "rejection of a tonal aesthetic", but I question what that can possibly mean. To me, Richter's tone is engaging, varied, often perfect, always beautiful. What have I missed in your argument?
Maybe his playing just leaves you cold, and that's really as far as we can analyze it.
Listen to his Schubert b flat 960 and see if you still think that. The thought that anyone would consider him no more than a wood chopper is ridiculous and asinine to me.
Also worth noting is his 1963 recording of Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy. Amazing playing for a lumber jack !!
Judging by the size of his hands and forearms, I expect he would have made an excellent lumberjack and if teamed up with Chaliapin I am convinced he would have won many a trophy.
Saying that, I am glad he was a pianist and do not recall hearing anything played by him that was not to my taste.
I think it is the first time I have seen his playing criticised on piano forums.
If you're talking about Richter: The Enigma you shouldn't base your opinion of Richter's playing solely on that documentary, because: 1. They show a lot of material from concertos and they are quite bombastic fragments if I remember correctly. 2. The audio quality of many of those recordings is not good. Dynamic contrast and other subtleties suffer from this. 3. There are plenty of recordings where Richter plays gracefully and with a lot of feeling and subtlety. Listen to more of his music first.
Also, what about the opening and closing theme of that documentary (the Schubert sonata)? Doesn't sound like a lumberjack to me.
Thanks Babama. This person has reconsidered considerably. The little I have heard of Richter before was probably not his best. Nobody plays everything perfectly all the time. Richter does everything to perfection in the videos here, and the Chopin nocturne is fantastic. For me Richter has now taken his rightful place besides Gilels. Add some Horowitz, Sokolov and Gould, and I think I have what I need. cubop
Richter was a good technical pianist, but he lacked feeling and emotion when he played, lots of his performances are overdone, pushing to far off.
Rubbish. The man was a PHENOMENAL pianist and musician. Clearly, you've no clue.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
Listen to his Schubert b flat 960 and see if you still think that. The thought that anyone would consider him no more than a wood chopper is ridiculous and asinine to me.
+1
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
Bear in mind Richter's recordings are all from live performances. He did not record in a studio, had only one take and sometimes with less than optimal acoustical conditions.
I love the way Ashkenazy describes Richter's playing in Shonberg's book "The Great Pianists". Essentially his message was that "Richter's personality and determination bring the audience with him along as he plays the music, and it's able to convince them that his way is the only way the piece should be played. Only after the music has stopped is the audience able to question the interpretation they just heard".
That pretty much describes a lot of my experiences with Richter's performances, that I'm convinced of his vision of the work while listening to it, due to his determination and force of will.
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
Just got back from a long day and surprised to see so many comments.
Many interesting comments and opinions. All good points and I appreciate the recommendations to check out more of his work, and i will. Like i said i think his life was full of drama and a very interesting witness to history.
If anything i think its an interesting social experiment posting your opinion and seeing people rally around their particular heroes, whether they be Richter, Hewitt Gould etc...
Btw... nice joke about the wood casters cups... not my idea to use 'em but still funny.
Charles Walter Model W (190)
“The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul.†J.S. Bach
"I just want to know, if we came from monkeys and apes, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE MONKEYS AND APES?" George Carlin
Just clicked to see which movement it was, and the next thing I knew it was ten minutes later and I hadn't moved from my transfixed position. Words fail me, especially when someone says something like this:
Originally Posted by Saul
Richter was a good technical pianist, but he lacked feeling and emotion when he played...
well it's personal taste really. what's more interesting is why the 10% or so think that way? another example: i noticed that most of my string player friends have different favorite melodies or tunes from mine.
i have to say i'm not a huge fan of richter either--his performances are almost perfect, often times exhilarating and dramatic, but for some reason, i just don't listen to him that much. sometimes i wonder if it has to do with the recordings, which for whatever reason always feels kind of monotonous.
or perhaps, it's too "middle-of-the-road" without the negative connotation. i wrote a lot here before deleting it all because it's just a notion that i have and defending it is kind of a futile effort anyway. i like horowitz for all the surprises and often times strange accents and stuff, and certainly that's not something richter would ever do, out of principle.
i don't think he plays without emotions or feelings, but i guess i do find his playing is a little over-the-top once in a while, like in the embedded nocturne.