Hi Andreas,

Thanks so much for your thoughts. Yes symbiosis describes the relationship well between composer and artist. And yes, you're quite right--imagination and sensation in performance has given way to cool intellect which is more inhibiting. I'm very happy that you were able to enjoy my recording despite some reading errorrs. I find now that when I'm recording a piece, and listening to it afterward, I think of the piece as being holistic, not as being a collection of tiny, discrete details or assembled sections. It's true that the parts will always equal the whole quantitatively; but qualitatively, I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes over-attending to details can inhibit the shape, flow and sweep of the music. Michelangeli could near perfection in handling details and and the larger encompassing structure, and satisfy both the quantitative and qualitative standards of performance... but we're not all Michalangelis.

I'm glad you enjoyed listening. I will try to produce an even better recording when I can get some piano time.

Thanks, again.

David

Of course, and this is obviously what he meant. It's just a spelling mistake.
I wonder why he just didn't just dot the 8th and omit the '3' from the triplet, then it would have been both clear and correct.
Imagine if he had marked it as a duplet, then the triplet would have been correct; but he must have thought that to have a triplet nested within a duplet would have looked unnecessarily complicated.

Hi David,
I agree with your current vision. In fact, it is interesting to me that in America (perhaps England and Germany too?) the Billing for a piano recitial will say "David April, Piano [or Pianist]," but in the countries of the romance languages it will say "David April, Interpreter."

Hi Eddy,

You're quite right, and I believe those "titles", pianist and interpreter, contain different connotations and expectations. The difference is interesting and more complex than it might first seem to be.

David

That's right... stupid they are. Probably written by mistake. Scriabin was such a plodder
But if it were my recording they would annoy the hell out of me.

Hi David,

That was beautiful! I've not studied this piece but I like it very much. Nicely played!

Hi Chris,

Fear not, I can bring the G#s out better and tend to a couple of other things as well once I get some piano time.

Hi Monica,

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed hearing this prelude. I don't believe it's played as often as some of the others in Op. 11.

David

Hello, David,

I have listened to your rendition of the prelude. I am a very minor critic and, as you, I prefer to listen to the performance as a whole and not the single notes that make it. If were are errors, these did not disturb me at all. I did not look at the timimg of this and I was not familiar with it at all. I have now listened to it twice and it stuck me by its slightness. It might well be Scriabin rather than you, but I find it finishes before it makes any impression on me.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for listening. I re-recorded this piece several times today, but have not been able to "audition" them, as the lawn people are here doing the spring cleanup of the yard (or garden as you say there), so all I can hear is a loud din of machinery outside. I need quiet to evaluate recordings and to choose one.

This prelude, of course is but a page long--a true miniature. Any piece so brief might seem fleeting, yet quite often I'm taken by their beauty nonetheless. For me this prelude is one of them.

David

I must be getting stone deaf as I really cannot hear them at all.

But seriously, it amazes me how this seems to bother nobody but me. These non-sounding notes leave two ugly gaps in the melody, reminding me of a wide smile with two front teeth missing. An ungainly blemish on an otherwise quite perfect recording. Personally, I could not live with it. But don't re-record it just for me ! It's your recording. And after all, this is only Scriabin, not Bach

Hi Chris,

Progress has been made. Yes, I cannot deny that the two G#s are part of the melodic line there. See if you can hear them in the replacement music file I just loaded. If so, hopefully it will pass muster?

David

A lovely little piece, with atmosphere and a touch of melancholy. Thoroughly enjoyable.



I very much agree with your current position, and it's a shame that it is not an especially fashionable stance in a world obsessed with Urtext and pedantic attention to the letter of the score and not its spirit. I think the demise of the composer-pianist has a lot to do with it; pianists seem to be encouraged to process the music, rather than involve themselves with it.

Hi Andrew,

I quite agree with you, and you raise an interesting point about the demise of the composer-pianist. Hamel still fits the bill, but is one of a seemingly tiny number in our musical age. In addition to the urtext and pedantry, I believe another related factor has been involved for 30 years now--the false god of the CD. That is, it seems that younger pianists would listen to a seemingly perfect sets of recordings, taking no account whatsoever of the miracles in the recording engineer's bag of tricks. So they actually came to believe in the make believe. The less-than-accurate renditions of poetic artists like Cortot were banished as being quaint but imperfect. Surprisingly, competition judges also came to believe and insisted on note perfect performances above all. They would then give lip service to individuality and personality; however, as soon as a contestant exhibited those traits, he or she was promptly disqualified from the next round. So where does that leave us? It means we have an inexhaustible supply of young pianists, all of whom can be awakened at 2:00 a.m., marched to the piano to play a note-perfect "Gaspard de nuit" with their techniques--which are no longer a means, but rather an end in themselves. But seldom is there anything other than the correct notes. Effects such as emotion, romantic surge and the engaging sweep of the music seem to belong now to the decadent past. It's very hard for me to understand how this sterile approach to pianism will help save classical music in recital halls.

David

Yes, because it is easier to quantify note accuracy than artistic imagination. I'm pretty sure the Chopin competition (probably the world's most prestigious) disqualifies you if you play from any edition other their specifically chosen one. It seems to me competitions are much more about not risking offending jurors rather than any prevailing artistic ideals. The great individual pianists of the past wouldn't get anywhere in such events - someone would hate their interpretation and that would be that. Individuality in aspiring musicians now appears to be only valued in the sphere of extra-musical characteristics and potential resultant marketability. A sad state of affairs.

It has oft been said that these days Horowitz at his best could not win a competition. That gives pause for thought.

David