Before I say anything I want to link three versions. It won't take longer than 6 minutes to listen to them:
Rubinstein
Ashkenazy
Horowitz
Who played it better?
A simple etude, it actually takes quite a bit of sensitivity and grace to play. Anyway I linked the three from bad to best, in my opinion. I most commonly hear it performed very heavily these days, the way Rubinstein did, and this is in my opinion a grave mistake. Rather I think it should be light and spry.
Ashkenazy then, treats it quite differently, with staccato. His notes are shorter and lighter, with much less pedal. (Pianists with weak technique often rely on the pedal as a crutch, but Ashkenazy is too good, several times over, for that.) With such fine technique--it is an etude after all--this could have been my favorite interpretation. But once again with Ashkenazy, I think there is a failure of musical vision and sense.
A frequent problem in large works, such as concertos, and sometimes in shorter ones too, is linking of the different sections of the piece. For the performer, deciding how to transition intelligently, comprehensibly, musically, is a difficulty not always appreciated by lesser musicians and laymen.
In the score, at the end of page two moving into page three, we have a key transition back to the A section (of ABA form). Ashkenazy plays a ritardando (slows down), but then his a tempo (back to normal speed) is very abrupt, like a surprise attack. This is at 0:52 in the song. Moreover, in measure 7 and 8 on the 3rd page (1:00), he adds another ritardando. His tempo changes are actually all over the place.
Finally, compare Horowitz. He plays even drier and lighter with less pedal than Ashkenazy, even doing away with Chopin's legatos altogether in some parts. (Of course the recording itself is drier as well, with close mics, sadly, and youtube did something terrible to the quality..) Compare the same two parts. 0:49 is the transition back to A section, note the handling. And 0:58 for the transition into the "bell" section as I think of it. How much different is Horowitz's effect! Note how he goes right into it. I think you'll agree with me Ashkenazy's insertion of the ritardando was extremely unwise.
Anyway hope at least one person read all this and enjoyed it, yada yada, ssdd.
I think the last is definitely the best as well. The dynamics are much more present and with more feeling.
About the transitions and tempo changes.. hmm I don't know if Ashkenazy's choice of transition was unwise, but just a different way of going about it.. maybe (and I really don't know) something similar to a personal style?
On the other hand, I think that Horowitz's presentation is much smoother and appealing to the ear.
edit: Also, Rubenstein's version is (i'm assuming from the video) a recording of a live performance for a concert audience. Maybe he was helping to compensate with the harder key pressing to generate a more bold and filling sound on the grand piano for the corresponding setting? The other recordings sound like they are done in a small room, or specifically a "recording" session almost? I could be wrong : )
Then again, those things can generate some sound, especially in a reverb enticing room.
Horowitz, a true master. Sometimes I think he's too dry, like for say Moonlight 3rd, his version that I heard before was too crisp for my taste (I like my Beethoven heavy and serious) but for this etude in particular, he seems to be right on.
On April 28 2012 11:43 forelmashi wrote: I think you'll agree with me Ashkenazy's insertion of the ritardando was extremely unwise.
I liked it >_>
It's perfectly natural to jump right back to the proper tempo like an "attack". I'd be very interested to hear examples of this trick done in rock music, actually.
Horowitz is definitely one of my favorite pianists, especially in Mozart, Chopin, Schumann. I wasn't really taken with his classic 1932 Liszt Sonata though; I prefer Gilels's 1961 live performance instead.
On the subject of Chopin Etudes, my favorites are 10/3, 10/4, 25/1, 25/5 and 25/11. In general op. 25 > op. 10 imo, op. 25 is a more mature work with more musicality, whereas op. 10 seems to be focused a bit more on technique.
On April 28 2012 11:43 forelmashi wrote: I think you'll agree with me Ashkenazy's insertion of the ritardando was extremely unwise.
I liked it >_>
It's perfectly natural to jump right back to the proper tempo like an "attack". I'd be very interested to hear examples of this trick done in rock music, actually.
The important thing is to like it
The phrase (2nd point noted above) taken alone , I actually quite like it too; the way he phrased it is quite lyrical. but in the context of the entire piece, I wasn't really feeling it, especially compared with the effect Horowitz achieved.
If it interests anyone I can give some technical reasons, now that I've thought about it. (Because of course the opinion is formed merely on listening impressions, and analysis comes after). It was just after a ritard. as we moved back into A, after a single phrase group of 8 measures. (technical composition terms are period/antecedent/consequent I believe), and instead of a repeat of that 2 phrase group as we had at the opening of the piece, we have a variation. this next part (what I termed "bell" section above) is the climax of the piece, which is already differentiated and poignant, being softer and harmonically prepared for. in addition, right after this, we have another ritard. into the coda. so with these reasons, and taken as a whole with the pulse and feel of the piece, I think slowing down there doesn't fit. we lose the momentum and pulse going into climax.
don't know if any of that makes sense..
but of course all that matters is how it feels to you personally. if I were in another mood I might even feel differently about it..
I like your effort but I must disagree with many of your assessments.
Generally, I think your ears have gotten used to the modern pianism and since everyone strives play like Horowitz nowadays, his style of playing seems just "right."
The main gripe I have against Horowitz is that, relatively speaking, his right hands notes are played too featurelessly (ie, lack of phrasing and shaping) so that much of the rhythmic thrust is lost, which I feel is integral in this piece. In general, the vast majority of young pianists, in their impassioned drive to imitate Horowitz, seem to really love to exaggerate the scintillating effect of combining rapid fingerwork with very little pedal (Yuja Wang is the prime example of this.) Sure, this technique has its uses and it sounds appealing to the modern ears, but pianism should not be reduced to a dazzling circus act. The main problem is that, underneath this shiny veneer, often there is not much substance -- the utter lack of polished/concrete musical ideas.
Certainly, this approach seems to be more fitting on this piece than most others, but even on this piece, I feel that Horowitz is too one-dimensional in his approach, relying on velocity and clarity of sound alone to carry the music. Now let's turn back to the Rubinstein recording that you are not too fond of. FIrst, we have to note that unlike the others, it is a live recording so he should be allowed slightly more leeway in terms of technical perfection. You should also be aware that he is performing in a hall (more reverberation than a studio) with much older recording equipment; I think you would find that in real life, his sound would have been much clearer, comparable to Horowitz's. Much more important, however, notice the subtle phrasing of musical ideas through out the piece (and how it varies subtly each time the theme is reiterated). Notice also how each musical sentence is carefully shaped and related to the next. Perhaps most importantly, however, compared to Horowitz's recording, Rubinstein maintains the rhythmic thrust much more consistently, even through rubatos and through the entire piece. This imparts coherence and structure to the overall piece that simply does not exist in the Horowitz rendition; you will only appreciate this if you take a step back and listen to the piece more "macroscopically." He also does a superior job of singing and sustaining the melody line with his left hand (often overshadowed by the flamboyant right hand passage work). Overall, Horowitz might be more impressive to listen to with his dazzling fingerwork but Rubinstein has created better music with his mastery of rhythm, melodic line, and overall structure. Put differently, Horowitz is a better showman but Rubinstein is the superior musician. For me, at least, latter is more important...
And you seem to almost suggest that Rubinstein relies on pedal since his technique is not as good as the others.. All i can say is that is a ridiculous statement, for all sorts of reasons. First, Rubinstein does not really use more pedal than the others (he is performing in a hall with older equipment). Second, pedal or not, I can hear the fingerwork very clearly and without any audible weakness so he is not smudging anything. In any case, this etude is not nearly technically demanding enough for a master like Rubinstein to rely on "crutches."
Finally the Ashkenazy. He is one of my favorite pianists, but here, he is bettered by the other recordings. I agree that his rubatos seem sometimes stilted. I still think that his recording (and many others of his) is remarkable for its utmost transparency -- and by that, I do not refer to the quality of sound. Instead, Ash plays with startling objectivity in his later years, almost impersonally. Especially in recordings like Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata, this characteristic (or rather lack thereof) is extremely intriguing and irresistible. It is music and music only, and no trifling personal or subjective perspective has diluted this endeavor...
On April 28 2012 15:29 writer22816 wrote: Horowitz is definitely one of my favorite pianists, especially in Mozart, Chopin, Schumann. I wasn't really taken with his classic 1932 Liszt Sonata though; I prefer Gilels's 1961 live performance instead.
On the subject of Chopin Etudes, my favorites are 10/3, 10/4, 25/1, 25/5 and 25/11. In general op. 25 > op. 10 imo, op. 25 is a more mature work with more musicality, whereas op. 10 seems to be focused a bit more on technique.
Well these are etudes after all. If he wanted to focus just on music, he would have chosen a different medium. OP.10 is truly a tour de force and I think their difficulty is underrated. I think 10-1 and 10-2 are more difficult than almost anything that Liszt composed...
But of course 25-6 is also a beast...
In terms of pure dexterity, I think this guy has almost no match.
I disagree with nearly everything in your post, but I don't care to start an argument. I'll just clarify that the pedal comment wasn't referring to Rubinstein.. but a general observation.
I generally agree with your assessment of Ashkenazy, however I disagree that it is a virtue. I don't believe technique should ever be the star, and I don't believe there is music without personal or subjective perspective. Having said that, with this particular recording I don't think it applies anyway. My guess is that he purposely imparted some individuality and different perspective into this particular piece. He's almost certainly aware of the Horowitz version I would imagine, since he seems to be quite the scholar from what I've seen him say. I think it's almost as if he played it oppositely on purpose. To surprise with the sudden re-entrance; to slow down into and sing the climax where Horowitz instead sped up! (or if not Horowitz then generally)
Again though I dislike arguing, I wish to state that I emphatically object to your saying Horowitz lacks phrasing..
Of course Horowitz has some phrasing but if his phrasing can be compared to a popsicle, rubinstein's is an expensive cheesecake. It is that much more coherent, elegant, and purposeful.
Regarding your comment about virtues of Ash's playing, I retort with this utterly impersonal (yet beautiful, I must add) recording by the ghost himself:
I generally agree with your assessment of Ashkenazy, however I disagree that it is a virtue. I don't believe technique should ever be the star, and I don't believe there is music without personal or subjective perspective.
Just to clarify my perspective, I never said the technique should ever be the star. But many times, I yearn that music and music only be the star.
Coloring performances with an irresistible persona (Richter, for example) is fine and all, but sometimes I wish to just listen to music alone (and not the pianist) because, fortunately for all of us, the composers have provided humanity with timeless music that can stand by itself.
This is what I mean by transparency and I strongly believe that it is a virtue -- one that is much harder to achieve than people might think, precisely because it is not "natural" for humans to be completely objective.
EPT
