she has no idea what music is!! to her everything seems to be a test, or challenge, i envy her ability, but i am certainly greatful i don't see everything as a techincal acheivement, rather than a piece of music


...yeh i needed to get that off my chest :\

Have you met her, or heard an interview with her?

I don't envy her ability...
watch her Chopin op 10/4 etude...
way too fast-no control, no clarity.

I must admit though, I think she has great technical control. I was really mesmerized watching her hands, and I even picked up a few tips on fingering in her rendition of La Campanella:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0TV1Np1VXKI

I'm not crazy about the way she plays this musically (I prefer Yundi Li's best) but I still find it helpful watching her- technique is clear.

check out Kemal Gekic's Campanella
lol he even looks like Liszt too!

I saw her perform Rachmaninov's 2nd with my local orchestra. I found her interpretation to be borderline insulting.

lol she breaks the opening chords of rach 2.
don't DO that.... yes. rachmaninoff did it ONCE. that doesn't mean anyone else can;)if your hands are too small, play another piece! lol the rest of the concerto wasn't great either
why do so many famous pianists not deserve their fame?

shes famous becuase from a strictly techincal point of view, shes flawless, she is amazingly gifted, shes like an extreme Kissin - not enough emotion, too much flair

There are many reasons why classical music appeals to a small (and increasingly smaller, alas) group of people. I can't quite escape the feeling that one of those reasons is the hypercritical cannibalism ( ) often on display on forums like this. It makes classical music seem like elitist entertainment, and its adherents like snobs for whom nothing is quite good enough.

If I'm reading Sam correctly, that is what seems implied in his gentle slap on the collective wrist.

The problem I have with seximoleximo's criticism is that it's vague and poorly written. He ascribes to her an attitude that certainly can't be ascertained without being familiar with her on a personal level. I suspect he's basing his ideas on her recordings. If so, then he should criticize the recordings, not the person.

Read any good reviewer and you'll notice they don't make that mistake. They describe and compare, and they may even judge a recording to be inferior to other offerings, but they don't make the amateur mistake of judging the person. History and the public do that well enough.

Seximoleximo, I strongly disagree!!!! I have only heard from her: Chopin's etudes, op.10 no.1, 4, op.25 no.5,6,12, a Rach etude, and La Campanella. Now, I'm unfamiliar with the Rach etude, so I can't really judge that, but I thought the Chopin etudes were amazing. I found her 10.4 superb, and I thought it had great clarity!!! The 10.1, I enjoyed because she brought out the melody more than others do, yet I prefer the RH to remain the instructed forte. I also enjoyed her 25.12.
And as for op.25, no.5 and 6. . . . I loved them!!! Especially no.7, well and 6 to tell the truth!! She played both beautifully, with extreme delicacy.
I loved her La Campanella as well, I found the RH notes so gracefully played under her touch.
Her pianissimo also, I admired, and overall, from what I've heard, I think her playing is fabulous.
To be honest, I'm surprised so many people dislike her playing!!

There ought to be more blonds playing piano.

Now, where did I put the Clairol .... ?

:)

Here is my review of Valentina Lisitsa.

1. She has recorded on DVD all 24 Chopin Etudes, which means that she has learned and played all 24 Chopin Etudes, and also that she has kept them all so well in her repertoire that she could (and did) record them all on one DVD.

2. She has learned and played, and maintains in her repertoire, all of the Beethoven Concertos; all of the Rachmaninov Concertos; all of the Chopin Concertos; both of the Shostakovich Concertos and 2 of the Liszt Concertos; 3 of the Prokofiev Concertos; 5 Mozart Concertos; and more.

3. She has on her website solo videos, which she recorded, of music that she learned and played by Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, and Rachmaninov.

4. She has achieved, and maintains, world-wide fame as a concert pianist, travelling all around the world to play the piano for people who pay to hear her play.

5. She has a professional duo partner, with whom she performs concerts for people who pay to hear her play.

6. She has her biography on wikipedia.

How many of us have any one of those points to our own credit?

Yes -- there are others who have done the same. Yes -- there are others whose interpretations some of us might prefer. Yes -- there are others whose achievements surpass even those of Valentina Lisitsa. No -- these facts do not diminish her tremendous achievements.

Now to the original point -- how do you know that she does not care about the musicality and interpretation of her music? How do you know that all she cares about is technique?

And why, given her very tremendous achievements, does she not deserve her fame?

Yes!

I'm very impressed - I've also heard her recording of the Ginzbourg "Largo al Factotum" and it is incredible. Can't say I've heard much else though but on the evidence of this, I may well have to listen out for more!
Interestingly, I note that she plays with very high wrists.

And what about this sizzling performance of the Rachmaninov A minor Etude-tableau?

She's good.

She's amazing. And I rather liked her op. 25 no. 6.

Honestly, what are we but the peanut gallery? At the end of the days she's the one taking home the money and earning the fame.

Yes obviously, but if it was seen like that then there would be no forum at all.

And no one was required to join in the first place. Frankly, I don't think any of the prominent pianists we discuss could give a damn what we say.

Yet, this is not always the case. One of the BBC Message Boards -I'd rather not say which, but it is one I contribute to- is[/b] read by musicians who have been severely criticized, and I know as a private fact that some of them have been extremely offended.

A sporting a forum I was on before, resulted in a player reading criticism, was then determined to prove himself, and ended up having great success that year!

Oh no of course they don't give a damn, but I don't think we expect them to anyway, it's just a discussion amongst us isn't it?

I agree with argerichfan about how good she is - this performance of the Rachmaninoff A minor Etude-tableau is astonishing and mesmerizing.

In my humble opinion, I think she is one of the great pianists of our time.

Of course, hopinmad, you're quite correct. But tell that to the choirs within the Anglican rite who have been trashed on the BBC boards. It's usually about the psalm singing, and proves once more that opinions are like (fill in the blank), and everybody has one.

For some reason she reminds me of Jacqueline Du Pre.

The A minor Etude-tableaux is excellent: thanks for the link, Argerichfan. Rachmaninoff said that his inspiration for this piece was the story of Little Red Riding Hood and I think the pianist captures this brilliantly. And you can't fault her technique here.

mr_kitty: what's wrong with breaking the opening chords of Rach 2? There's a lot more to playing the piano and interpreting a piece than have hands big enough to play a tenth. It's hardly a reason to dismiss a performance. Ashkenazy breaks the chords and no-one has told him not to play Rachmaninoff!

My hands are just big enough to take the opening of Rachmaninov 2 without breaking, but I would not do that in performance. Rachmaninov did not do so in his recording. He felt for musical reasons that they sounded better broken. And I tend to agree. Take the first chord without breaking, but break the subsequent chords with an increasing intensity. IMHO, ofcourse.

As long as they are not rolled imo

Again, I see no problem with rolling the chords: I'm really not sure it matters that much so long as the interpretation as a whole is effective. So there is no problem at all with Argerichfan's approach of breaking the chords with successive intensity, even though it's not in the score and I wouldn't perform it like that myself.

There are many points in the second concerto that require a 10th span but I'm quite confident that unless you knew the score, you wouldn't even notice if someone rolled or broke the chord (two instances in the second movement immediately spring to mind, one in each hand).

But you see, the score is so over-rated -- we have recordings of Rachmaninov himself playing this concerto, and he breaks some of the chords.

It's not a question of ability -- some of the chords he plays solid, and others he plays broken. He had huge hands.

So *what* is the composer's intentions? And what is the validity of resting on the score as an excuse for not liking a particular way of playing, when [1] the composer himself did not play the way it is written in the score, and [2] the composer himself played it the way you don't like?

By all means, play how you'd like -- there are so many wonderful ways to play music. I don't advocate standing rigidly by the composer's recording, nor do I advocate standing rigidly by the composer's score.

But your evidence of the score, in this example, doesn't quite work.

(IMO -- the required signature, right? Of course it's my opinion... if it wasn't, I wouldn't write it! )

We all know how good Valentina is.
She never stops to amaze me technically, but just take a listen at her tone, she has no knowledge at all of different colors the piano can produce.
Musically? I can't think of worse playing.
Even Lang Lang sounds better, and believe me I do NOT like him.