and she practically performed in my backyard (Ravinia Festival) last summer...

Radar is not infallible. Just enjoy a pianist you didn't know before. We each have zillions of pianists unfamiliar to us, even when we think we are monitoring the concert scene.

How? Your taste was more refined previously. It only means you're slipping.

Valentina Lisitsa (spelling?) has her detractors (stores among them) just as Martha Argerich has her detractors. IIRC, the criticisms are similar, loud, fast and unemotional. Watching this video she's obviously feeling something in the middle section. I first heard her name a few years ago on this forum. If this is the first you've noticed her then, yes, she's slipped under your radar. Though to be honest she's been more of a Youtube phenomenon than anything else.

I used to love her but now i can't stand her...weird. i think that once i got past her virtuosity i didn't find much musical quality.

True - and that seems to have worked exceptionally well for her !!

Thanks for posting those! I particularly love the Liszt. BTW, her website says that she'll be back in Chicago on May 27...

I appreciate Valentina's broad repertoire, accuracy and candid personality. I also admire her use of the internet to publicize herself...but I find her playing lacks dynamic range and feeling. To put it simply, her playing does not touch my heart.

She is a nice, polite person and hard worker, at least from my experience meeting her.

stores you are correct, i am slipping. i find the older i get the harder time i have criticizing prodigious talent.

bessel, thanks for the tip. the CSO website has the following posted for that date:

David Hyde Pierce and Emanuel Ax host a day of free events at Symphony Center celebrating the piano, the piano etude in its many forms and pianists from near and far. Delve into the wide array of piano repertoire with performances by special guest pianists. Stay tuned for more details about this special free event!

it's on my calendar...

I think she finally got a decent recording contract not too long ago...IIRC of course.


She also has a great sense of humor...Für Elise as an encore after the Grieg A minor takes some moxie.

Ha-ha, Entheo! She came to my neighborhood after yours:

Saw Valentina Lisitsa in concert last night

Last year, I was kicking myself for missing Jeffrey Biegel, who was in Rockford for a performance just days after I had PM'd him with questions about stuff. I had no idea he was playing here. Grrrrr!

very cool CB

I think that it proves, among other things, perhaps, that you don't spend too much time on Piano World - unlike some . If you did, you would certainly have read a great deal about her, opinions ranging from raves to rants and everything in between, almost weekly.

Regards,

If anyone has either of her two Audiophon CDs that they no longer want, please let me know!

She is playing here (southwest Florida) next month.
We plan to catch one of her performances.

I try not to let other people's opinions sway me, plus I tend to appreciate any
good musicians.

Cinnamonbear, Jeffrey Biegel is well worth catching live.
We have become friends over the years, he is a humble man with amazing talents.

I find Lisitsa's technique almost mesmerizing and her Liszt interpretations remarkably effective. I'm not in agreement that she lacks musical emotion. I do find that her remarkable control often overwhelms her passion before it manifests within the music.

Her "Moonlight Sonata 1st" at stalker speed (apologies if this offends any stalkers out there) is one of my favorites. But I do wish she better leveraged the emotional charge provided by her tempo selection.

So I watch and wait in hope that her handcuffs of technical perfection are eventually cut and the music she is capable of creating breaks free.

Never heard of her.

She is fabulous - I subscribed to her you-tube channel

Like her or not, I greatly respect how she communicates with her audience. If anything, she has the greatest internet presence of any concert pianist. She constantly posts new videos of herself playing, writes about what she is playing, and even responds to comments.

I think her passion for her profession and willingness to reach out and interact with her "fans" is great for the art. Whether or not she is a top tier pianist is another debate.

I totally believe that, Frank! When I watched that documentary clip that lilylady linked to of him performing Bach, I was entranced! What a wonderful personality, and, oh how he breathed life into the music!

yes i see that now. i confess that between my business, teaching (not piano let me hasten to add), practice and family i don't get out enough.

it would be nice if there was a New Artists forum, or just an Artists forum, where professional talent could be separated from the hodgepodge that is the Pianist's Forum. it's sometimes easy to overlook the gems hidden in the heterogeneousness.

I know it's a little far, but he's playing on February 18th:

http://www.liherald.com/stories/South-Sh...n-Theatre,38668

I have her DVD of the Chopin Etudes, and I'm a fan. She's not my favorite pianist, but I like her fresh interpretations, a little different from the ordinary. And, as a Bösendorfer owner, I like her use of Bösendorfer!

She's practically the new Lang Lang here, although not in the real world.

To me, she's a living example of why the 10K (plus) hours of practice rule is not the equivalent of talent. It's just not there in any great abundance in her case, in spite of all of her expertise. But she also demonstrates that expertise coupled with a fairly limited talent can sometimes be a stand-in for the real thing, depending on who is making the evaluation, and how much exposure they have to her (sometimes it takes a while to realize that an initial impression isn't holding up over time).

I couldn't agree more, god forbid anyone should think someone who plays like this . . .



. . . . has talent! Seriously, who does she think she is? People who like this kind of playing clearly don't know anything, whatsoever, about what constitutes good music. Someone purchase her some recordings of Horowitz or Rubinstein, so she can hear how a talented pianist is supposed to sound.

I mostly agree with this. I probably would never buy a recording of hers, and her interpretations never stick out in my mind. However, I enjoy the fact that there is someone so active on the internet, constantly posting new videos and speaking to her audience..

Yes, it's a shame she isn't more talented, since she seems to know a lot about the material she plays. It's the old "she's trying!"

She's expanding her repertoire, doing tons of concerts, interacting with fans, posting videos, and recording albums. It's just that I don't think she's one of the most gifted out there. I'm not above enjoying her videos and her words about the pieces she plays. I especially enjoy that her videos are HD quality (since I have a fancy new monitor!).

I'll take the good with the bad; it's nice to have her around.

Of course she's talented...I don't think anyone is questioning that, but anyone can play the notes...it's not a difficult thing to do, but there's a TON more to playing than just realising the "tune". She simply doesn't go beyond the printed page and as a result never leaves me wanting more. Fine pianist with very, very strong technique (which I can say about a thousand different pianists), but I can't say too much more...how about...she has personality and she's ALMOST attractive (being blonde helps) and that's enough for most guys (I'd be willing to bet good money that the vast majority of her fans are male and for reasons other than anything to do with her playing).

Well, given that neither Horowitz nor Rubinstein recorded that piece, your suggestion is useless.

Below every YouTube video, there's a button that includes statistics having to do with the age and gender of the people who watch a video. You might want to check it out.

But we can compare the Rachmaninov's Prelude, which in the OP. Here is Horowitz playing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB_mNGFFrcI

I wasn't aware of that, but I did take a look just now and turns out I was spot on. I wish someone would have taken that bet =p

Interestingly, Anton Nel's you tube video of "The Wanderer Fantasy" appealed to exactly the SAME demographic as Ms. Lisitsa's video of the Rachmaninov Prelude - based on the statistics provided. So perhaps it is OK that no one took you up on that bet.....

That doesn't surprise me, in the least. My point was in regard to VL, carey.

Horowitz sets the mood right from the start. I like it.

Point of clarification: While there is a button below every You Tube video that theoretically should link to statistics regarding age, gender, etc., most classical piano videos on You Tube (based on my own random search this morning) appear to lack those statistics. When the statistics are available, it appears that the majority of folks watching the videos are middle aged males (age 45 - 64). Thus it is not surprising that both the VL and AN videos are watched primarily by middle aged males. Of course, the "accuracy" of the statistics in terms of "gender" is questionable (I'm not sure how they can verify the gender of who is actually viewing the computer screen) - but the accuracy by "country" is probably more reliable. It makes sense, for example, that AN has a large You Tube following in South Africa (his native country).

They cannot determine this for all users, and I would guess that what you see reported are the statistics for viewers with youtube accounts. When you set up a youtube account, you are asked to report your birthdate and gender. Thus, the statistics are calculated on a sample. In this instance, the degree to which the sample is a representative one cannot be determined.

Stores, her looks and/or hair are absolutely irrelevant to anything on this thread.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, very few people are qualified to critique a pianist of this caliber, especially some of the loudmouths on this forum. As an amateur pianist, I enjoy immensely her recordings of Chopin's Etudes, especially op.25 no.12. I can understand that some thinks she plays loudly, but with no emotion?! This girl's playing in phenomenally emotional!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTjJjda31rc

IF YOU COMPARE ANY PIANIST TO HOROWITZ AND RUBINSTEIN, OF COURSE THERE WILL BE SHORTCOMINGS!

Christine - thanks for the clarification !!!!!

Actually, while you may not agree with him, PW member Stores is indeed qualified to objectively critique a pianist of this caliber.

and if that is indeed true, it is yet another reason why i would try to keep my friends whom i am trying to get interested in classical piano from finding this forum.

Are you saying that you know Stores personally and can vouch for his credentials?

People need to realise there are other pianists besides Lisitsa, Astanova and Lang. They're such slaves to the media.

There are some amazing musicians who never get mentioned on here like José Feghali, Yuri Slesarev, Victor Merzhanov, Vitaly Pisarenko, Rem Urasin and many others.

That's funny, and I see your point. But there are others that are worse still - far worse.

From past communications I know just enough about his "credentials" to feel comfortable saying what I did. As for knowing him personally, well let's just say that there's only one person I really know well on PW - and it ain't him !!!

Ah come on....the more the merrier !!!!

Why? Because I'm frankly honest about things? Because I don't allow crap to filter through and permeate things? Because I believe the music/composer should come first and not the artist and his/her selfish ideas? Because I believe things should be done the right way? Because I believe there's more to music than just blind entertainment?

Yes you do almost certainly believe all of this. However, it is a shame you almost never justify these beliefs with any real reasoning. Here is the basic template of your posts:

1) Insult the person you are replying to.
2) Make a conjectural statement that contradicts what they are saying.
-End of post-

For instance, why do you consider the artist selfish but not the composer? What reason is there to suppose the composer holds a monopoly on the best possible interpretation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a performer could come along and say "no,no,no, this would sound much better if it was done this way," and who is to say they would be wrong?

I used to find stores particularly annoying (especially when his name was arranged somewhat differently ), but I have found that I agree with him a decent portion of the time. That said I wouldn't mind seeing these credentials.

stores is a mutual friend of several of my Facebook friends, so I see his posts on their news feeds. He comes off as an okay guy, very warm actually.

He is very uncompromising on this board. I do not always agree, but I respect him.

Right on fan ... I wonder what stores stores.

Could be whiskey.

And what makes you qualified to assess what her "caliber" might be? It works both ways, you know...you liking her is just as suspect as anyone disliking her.

I'll not address the remainder of the post, because it's not important, but this I'll reply to.

It's the composer's work (I swear I want to insert a "duh" here). It's really just that simple. Would you grab a chisel and knock off part of Rodin's "Thinker" simply because you thought it would be a better sculpture? I rather doubt it (of course there's always the fear of finding yourself in the slammer haha!) Would you decide that "Hey, Monet, didn't quite add the right amount of (choose a color) to his "Impression: Sunrise"...let me fix that for him." Would you add another chapter to Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", because you felt it lacking a more fitting conclusion? Would you re-write one of the Gospels, because you FELT Jesus' story would work better this way or that? Maybe it would bring more young people to God, if Jesus threw in a little rap. Yeah that's it. The whole Bible world is too uptight and we NEED something like a little rap to break things down a bit. Let me just step to the back of the line when it's your turn on judgement day ok?
When the composer says "p" or "ff" or "Allegro" or "lento" or gives us any indication at all...there is a reason. Some composers give us very little or nothing at all and some give us incredible detail. It is our responsibility to interpret what the composer has left us on the page...THAT is what interpretation is about. Interpretation has nothing to do with what you or I think...who the helll are we and who cares what we think? Any day we feel we're in a better position to amend Beethoven (for example), then we need to step back and re-focus. The "but I think it sounds better this way" argument is crap and if that's the basis for one's argument then simply stop playing, because you defile not only Beethoven, but the sacrifice so many have made in their attempt to realise what he's said to us through his music.

By the way, I owe you, nor anyone else here any more a detailed reply/rebuttal than I normally give. If you don't like it...don't read it. Simple concept really eh?

I would just like to thank you Stores for confirming all my prejudices about you.

Anyway, here is a crap version of Beethoven's Cello Sonata op.69 for everyone to listen to.

Sotres - Thank you! that is the best thing I have read all day. Great post!

On watching the sonata clips I wondered "how has this cellist slipped under my radar?" so I googled Leonard Rose. Here is an excerpt from an online bio by Tim Janof, re: this performance.

While I agree with much of this, I find this explanation far too simple and dogmatic. Surely the situation is more complicated than "follow everything the composer says; otherwise it's like adding another chapter to Dickens."

For example, in this recording of Mozart K.283, Barenboim ignores Mozart's forte-piano marking at m.12. Is this because Barenboim thinks he knows better than Mozart? Is this akin to taking a chisel to Rodin?

Principles are good, but subtleties abound in anything as complex as Interpretation. A generous artistic spirit welcomes conversation and diverse views. Even among the musically intelligent and informed views, there is evidence of wondrous variety.

-Jason

We will be entering the same old debate I think...

How can we be 100% certain that what we see in the scores is what the composer meant? Unless we have an mp3 of Beethoven playing his sonatas we cannot begin to imagine EXACTLY how he meant some passages to be played. 'FF' does not describe in absolute numbers (db measurement) what a composer meant.

Other than that I do agree with stores to an extent... I mean the directions/instructions in the score are meant to be followed not ignored... But as long as there is respect for the work, for the composer and the spirit of the work I think it's kinda... fine...

If the "forte" is truly from Mozart then Barenboim is wrong. It's as simple as that. If the composer says "forte" and you play it "piano", it's wrong. If you substitute "hers" for "his", when reading a story you've introduced a character the author never created.

What do you mean how can we be certain? It's right there in the score in black and white and if you've any question consult the manuscript. We don't need an mp3...Beethoven has written it all out for us...no db measurement needed.

You're quite welcome. Assured in knowing that you're "right"?

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention! I did not know this existed!

Plus Beethoven was well known for being a skilled improviser. For all we know, he might have played his own music differently than what he wrote.

All we have are the various editions + any and all surviving manuscripts, which along with a bit of thought, is really all that's needed to come up with an 'interpretation'.

i would like to ask the following questions, prefaced by a description of urtext edition, from wikipedia:

------------------------

"The sources for an urtext edition include the autograph (that is, the manuscript produced in the composer's hand), hand copies made by the composer's students and assistants, the first published edition, and other early editions. Since first editions often include misprints, a particularly valuable source for urtext editions is a copy of the first edition that was hand-corrected by the composer.

Typically, an urtext edition will include a preface indicating what sources were consulted by the editor. In the case of manuscripts, or first editions that have become rare, the editor will indicate the scholarly library or other repository in which they are kept.

Where the sources are few, or misprint-ridden, or conflicting, the task of the urtext editor becomes difficult. Cases where the composer had bad penmanship (for example, Beethoven[1]), or revised the work after publication, likewise create difficulties.

A fundamental problem in urtext editing is how to present variant readings. If the editor includes too few variants, this restricts the freedom of the performer to choose. Yet including unlikely variants from patently unreliable sources likewise serves the performer badly. Where the editor must go farthest out on a limb is in identifying misprints or scribal errors. The great danger—not at all hypothetical—is that an interestingly eccentric or even inspired choice on the composer's part will be obliterated by an overzealous editor.

One other source of difficulty arises from the fact that works of music usually involve passages that are repeated (either identically or similarly) in more than one location; this occurs, for instance, in the recapitulation section of a work in sonata form or in the main theme of a rondo. Often the dynamic markings or other marks of expression found in one location in the source material are missing in analogous locations. The strictest possible practice is to render all markings literally, but an urtext editor may also want to point out the markings found in parallel passages.

One common response of editors for all of these difficulties is to provide written documentation of the decisions that were made, either in footnotes or in a separate section of commentary."

------------------------

one might compare the urtext and subsequent editions to an organized religion. at first you have the epiphanies from upon high, then you have the gospels according to X, Y and Z, and then you have the myriad priests and scholars who, thru the ages, revise and "refine" what the master meant.

my questions are: in light of the multitude of variables incurred from the handing of the autograph to the original transcribers and on down the line, how can we be exactly sure what the composer meant?

each composer would have been more or less assiduous in defining what he or she wanted. for example, debussy indicated soft pedal very infrequently, explicitly suggesting the pianist should discover for themselves what sounds best. unless we forensically study each composers' predilections and psychology, at which point subjective interpretations are being made anyway, how can we be sure we know exactly what the composers wanted?

the instruments have radically changed from the time the compositions were created. e.g., should we really follow chopin's long damper pedal markings because he was composing on an upright with poor sustain when we are playing on a modern grand piano? likewise, you know other examples for bach (harpsichord), mozart, beethoven, et al.

do we believe these creative geniuses did not want the performers of their works to infuse their own inspirations into the work? did they want automatons to stamp out their works in assembly line fashion each time they were performed, ad infinitum?

do we believe that classical music (piano) is no longer a creative art form but merely an interpretive one, faced with dogmatic intellectual arguments defending our decisions of interpretation against a history of evidence as to what a smudge on the autograph meant?

inquiring minds want to know...

IMO most of great pianists do follow the composer's markings the huge majority of the time, at least for around the last 70 years or so (and for many pianists long before that time also). It's a fallacy to think that doing this does not allow for creativity. There are thousands of interpretive decisions to be made beyond what's marked in the score and many markings are not absolute(crescendo, for example).

I have posted a Youtube example of many pianists playing the opening line of Beethoven's PC #4 several times before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZGiGMCiB3k
If so much variety is possible in a single line, then think of the endless possibilities in the whole concerto.

No one seems to complain that staging Shakespeare's plays without changing the words implies the actors can't interpret their parts.

the words (notes) yes, but where did shakespeare indicate how looooong or LOUD to express his words and phrases? wasn't that left to his producers, directors & actors?

There also does not seem to be much complaint when some of the words are changed to make them more intelligible to modern audiences. Musical notation has been very stable when compared to the English language but the whole historically informed performance thing indicates that there is still significant wiggle room.

Yes, but "Allegro. crescendo, or a dot above a note" can be interpreted in more than one way. And just like in plays, there are almost an infinite number of choices to be made about what's not marked in the score. That's why pianists can follow the composer's marking but still sound different.

but surely only one of them is correct, n'est-ce pas?

The reality is that she is "there" and we are "here".

regards,

Best post in this thread.

I cannot believe there are people who actually think it's okay to ignore what's on the page (not just here, in the music world in general). Especially with Ravel, Debussy, Bartok and Beethoven. You do NOT mess with what they wrote. There are letters proving that they were very specific and insistant on their markings - Beethoven would write to the publishers, upset that they misprinted some staccato markings and he wanted them done in very specific places. I thought it was common knowledge that he was VERY particular about what he wrote, and cared about it being followed - much more than accidental wrong notes, in fact. Now, there are composers like Brahms who under-edited a lot, so that's very different. Or Mozart, who wouldn't write a dynamic marking for pages. Or Medtner who is known to allow more freedom in the performer's interpretation. Etc etc.

Again, while I basically agree with this (and try to follow it), I think that the real situation is more complicated. Name the pianist-- I'll find a marking in the score that they don't follow. These "people" who you cannot believe include Horowitz, Barenboim, Richter. Everyone. Everyone bends the rules.

-J

Yes but even Richter said it was impossible to memorize every single marking on the score and so he started playing with music to make sure he did.

Listen to Kuerti's Beethoven........

Perhaps Richter didn't have a very good visual memory.

That's not why he started using music.... despite what the majority of people think.

I'm also pretty sure Barenboim follows the score very carefully in Beethoven. I've never heard Horowitz's Beethoven although I don't think I'd like it, nor have I heard him do Debussy or Bartok...... I was specifically pointing out those composers.

Absoltely. Musical performance is an act of recreation, not merely interpretation. It is not unusual for performers to occasionally deviate from the composers' markings, if they think that such a deviation will be musically effective. It is not an issue of having no regard for the composer's intentions, as even "Romantic" pianists such as Horowitz and Rachmaninov never seemed to consciously undermine the composer's vision. It is an issue of following the spirit, rather than the letter, of the composer's vision. A composer may make certain suggestions about how to execute his music, but there may be other approaches that are just as effective or even more effective. If the performer has ideas that are even truer to the spirit of the music and thereby more musically effective, then I don't think that he or she should refrain from such ideas merely on account of a slavish adherence to the composer's markings. Perhaps the performer may have insights that are superior to the composer's own, as a composer is not necessarily the best interpreter of his own music. Many people, including Rachmaninov himself, felt that Horowitz played Rachmaninov's music better than the composer himself.

In Mozart's Sonata in C, K 330, there is a descending double note passage that is marked staccato in the Urtext. However, Horowitz plays the upper voice legato, probably in an attempt to clarify the melodic line of the tenor voice. Although that is different than what Mozart notated, I'm sure that it sounded effective to Horowitz. I don't think that it is a crime to make alterations like that, especially if they can clarify a melodic line and facilitate musical expression.

A couple of stores-inspired devil's advocate questions:

What are we to make of a composer's own indecision? Depending on the edition, the ending of Scriabin Op. 8#12 is marked either fff or p. Which do we play? Did Scriabin change his mind or believe that two interpretations were valid? If he did believe two interpretations were valid, how can we know what of his other pieces might be open to alternative interpretations?

Should we be playing Chopin's 20th Nocturne at all? If we are obligated to perform a work as the composer notated it, aren't we obligated to *not* perform a work if the composer didn't deem it worthy of publication? Presumably Chopin could've offered it for publication (it was written in 1830), but he never chose to do so? And how are we to interpret the piece, knowing that Chopin was unable to offer suggestions or correct the publisher's proof?

She should be your dream pianist then.

Kreisler, I was really more talking about Beethoven... (since I almost never play Ravel or Bartok, although I am playing Debussy violin sonata right now and a LOT of Beethoven), I don't know what it is, the pure genius which is so intimidating but so so wonderful and almost divine, that plus him being so insistent with people following his markings, and the struggle in his writing that is apparent through his constant scribbles, crossed out stuff and rewritten passages and more crossed out sections etc, I would not play around with his markings. That is, of those that we are certain of. Which leads me to the point about Scriabin - if no one is sure which dynamic he marked, then one must use their logic and instincs. There's nothing wrong with that, after all, we're not psychic. Just like in Brahms I've come across pages with nothing on them. We have to really just think about it and follow our instincts (if we have good instincs, haha). But for the things we ARE certain of, we should follow. There is no question. Don't people have respect of these composers? You start with the score! And of course everybody's way of doing so will be different because humans aren't identical... we all have our own DNA (which really shows through our playing). I'm sure you know all of this stuff, I'm just not sure what your point is...........

In my opinion, he is pretty much hot or cold with Beethoven. Sometimes it is quite brilliant, other times he comes across as disinterested. There are better, more consistent interpreters of Beethoven than Horowitz.