It's the best we can get. Richter is my favorite pianist of all time

Белиссимо !!!!

you forgot about Richter's Schubert...

You've forgotten Bach

Esta pieza ya está de moda la tocan todos los pianistas.

And his Beethoven!

Do not forget the beauty of his Miroirs! Is there any better performance, even today? Of course not, specially these days, I'm sure!

Yes....Richter is a whole new dimension.....BRAVO from Mexico City!

Absolutely ..agree with your opinion.. :-)

Haha!

Do you say that because of the scherzo?

Brilliant!

Would be quite well and accurate to do. NO ONE is deeper, for me.

I myself saw him play in 1975 in Brussels:The Beethoven OP106.....unforgettable And then in 1992 with Scriabine and beethoven sonata OP110

I always thought Richter not a great Chopin player. The polonaise fantasie and scherzo in e minor were long in his repertoire and dozen etudes taken from both books. I did see him live a couple of times once in the famous London recital in 1988 when he tore through those dozen etudes like he had a train to catch. It was edge of the seat stuff and mesmerising, but perhaps not as Chopin intended.

Amen .

I was there too, Barbican recital, after a beautifull recital at the Royal Festival Hall, beautifull Schubert Sonata in G and fabulous Prokofieff and Bartok. BUt the Études were not that special as the rest of his program...

luiz g its doesn't have an apostrophe in this case(possessive)"it" being a pronoun...🎹😎

Суетливо, и, как следствие, довольно много "грязи". Не лучшее выступление Рихтера.

+Ralph Berney Thank you for these very interesting and insightful comments, so wonderfully expressed. They add to and deepen my appreciation for the great Sviatoslav Richter.

+yusufu9 I quite agree with you.

Well said Ralph.

No, the reason there were many coughers, is that it was very difficult to get tickets for his concerts, and expensive. So anyone getting sick would never relinquished his ticket! I had to sit through similar concerts, quietly swearing at coughers! My issue with the audience in Moscow is that most of good tickets to concerts of Richter, Gilels, Oistrakh were sold to powers that be, who could care less about the performer or the music played, who went to those concerts for the prestige only. That’s why the applodes were always luke warm. St.Petersburg audience reactions were, as a rule, much warmer

Scratch the 19 others!

Richter is one of the all time top 20 ? Without attacking or judging, I'm curious as to who you would put above Richter in the top 20. Actually, I wouldn't even put Richter in the top 20.

Possible? I do not think it is really naturelle -- it is superficious.

+Lollipop, "superficious"? ?? What really is superficial and superfluous is your mindless comment.

+myrsinaleaf1 So do I.

myrsinaleaf1 d

To catch a recital of a giant like him would be like knowing, when and where you will see meteorite! Or you could live in Moscow and be privileged to get tickets.

I have yet to find a Michelangeli's to my liking. Sorry to disturb you from your dreamland.

@@Farahmand1010 You just prove that you care a lot about my opinion - that's why you are here. Therefore, your first sentence is a PLAIN & PURE lie. That puts a lot of doubt on your 2nd sentence. Please give the source if you could. As far as I know, Richter considers Софроницкий the greatest (he called Софроницкий "God"). There cannot be 2 greatest pianists at the same time - that is not logical.

@@Farahmand1010 To sum it up, you either tell a lie again in your 2nd sentence, or Richter contradicts himself. Either way, your statement is invalid.

@@Farahmand1010 You are trying to cover up your stupidity with a long reply, just to confuse people. I never said about who care about whoses comment - there is no contradiction. It is you who said you don't care but actually you care a lot. That is the lie I caught. You are trying to put your own words in my mouth - a typical troll techinque. Someone who depends on lies to make his living allways tell lies. All the rest you mumble amount to nothing. Now, about Richter, you never quote anything you said in reply, which means you are giving your silly "interpretation" of what the book said. Not valid enough. Plus, you are a one-book man. There are so many info out there about Richter, and yet you only talked about one book - it does not means anything. What I said in my reply to your has nothing to do with "Richter and Sofronitsky had their discussion"; instead, Richter has said repeatedly that "Sofronitsky is God", he did not say it in front of Sofronitsky. Richter was not trying to flatter Sofronitsky because he has no need to do so. Richter himself is now considered the greatest pianist of the 20th century in the music circle. Anyone can see this point simply by looking at the rest of this comment section. If you think you can mislead people by avoiding this point, you are merely fooling yourself. Because Richter is the greatest, that's why his opinion matters. Anyone could say "Mr. A is one of the great pianist" or even "one of the greatest", but it means nothing. It only matters when Richter called Sofronitsky "God". No great pianist could be greater than God. Period. Now, between Richter and Sofronitsky, who is greater? It depends on how you look at it. Sofronitsky's interpretation of Beethoven, Chopin, and other great masters paved the way for Richter and the other pianists of the 20th century. But Sofronitsky died early and did not leave much behind. It is Richter who generated a comprehensive library of music recording of all periods for the posterity. Overall speaking, Richter's contribution far exceeded Sofronitsky. But he is humble enough to call Sofronitsky "God". In reality, Richter is God, Sofronitsky is only a demi-God. In contrast, Michelangeli is only an esoteric performer, and it explains why he recorded so much for the Esoteric lable. Then, you added that "Cortot said of him that he was a new Liszt", I hope Cortot wuld say he is a new Chopin or new Mozart. Liszt is only a technician.

@@Farahmand1010 Finally, all your verbal abuse show beyond any doubts that you are a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

Is that important? I don’t think the order is important: the artist chooses his own.

@@stonefireice6058 Well, in a complete performance of the Préludes, I think the original order is important -- there are key relationships between the pieces, and Chopin's ordering seems to be intentional. Since Richter is not performing the complete set here, that changes things, though. I'm sure his order is not accidental, given the care he takes with every other aspect of performance. But, for example, the jump from F major to F-sharp minor... that's an "interesting" choice, at least :-).

Russian way of playing and I really like that. For some people it becomes hard to follow , but he takes you a crazy dance in the second ballade, awesome. I think Chopin himself would approve. That ending, from 1000 to 1.

Yeah, because extremely rushed and muddled is good...

@@isaiahkurasz5300 so all expression of emotion has to be crystal clear else it is not allowed or no good? extremely rushed is a perception unless you know how the composer played it. And from all the composers that we've got recordings from, they all play 'rushed'. Or are we just used to listening to slower tempos that simply kill beat and musical storytelling?

I believe that Russian pianists had a more personal style of playing than we are used to. I noticed the same thing listening to Gilels playing late Brahms. I can't fault a great pianist for playing according to hia own instincts, but if I sometimes wonder if they knew the history of interpretive practice. Richter said he just played the notes as written. That's not really a correct idea. Of course any possible failings pale in comparison to the beauty of his playing in his prime.

foapwh jkre do you mean that famous video sped up with video redactor?

Zimmerman is his best in Beethoven and Brahms, but cold fish in Chopin and even Schubert

業(ごう)