# Martha Argerich: Love her or Hate her?



## Air

She's mine.


----------



## danae

Air said:


> She's mine.


I'm she


----------



## jhar26

I worship her.


----------



## Air

danae said:


> I'm she


MARTHA! Welcome to the Forum! Somehow I knew you would hear my call! Will you marry me?

Seriously, though, can anyone dare to _not_ like you... 

On another note: I absolutely cannot believe that I missed her concert in SF last year! She was playing the Ravel! I hear that second movement in my sleep now...


----------



## danae

Air said:


> MARTHA! Somehow I knew you would hear my call! Will you marry me?
> 
> But actually, can anyone dare to _not_ like you...


People are free not to like ME. But as for my piano playing, they must be daft not to like it, especially my Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Schumann and Bartok.


----------



## jhar26

Air said:


> MARTHA! Welcome to the Forum! Somehow I knew you would hear my call! Will you marry me?


Better be careful though. It's said that Martha doesn't call it sex if the man survives! On the other hand, what a way to go!!!

PS: If that scared you into withdrawing your proposal I'd be happy to take your place.


----------



## Air

jhar26 said:


> Better be careful though. It's said that Martha doesn't call it sex if the man survives! On the other hand, what a way to go!!!
> 
> PS: If that scared you into withdrawing your proposal I'd be happy to take your place.


Nice try. 



danae said:


> People are free not to like ME. But as for my piano playing, they must be daft not to like it, especially my Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Schumann and Bartok.


I'm glad you mentioned her Bartok! I haven't heard her recording of the _Piano Sonata_ but her _3rd Piano Concerto_ really shines! It is so lyrical and refined, really an antithesis to her supposed "rushing". And not to mention the _balance_ she maintains with the orchestra! After all, it is Dutoit conducting...


----------



## Tapkaara

How could you not like her? The woman plays as if Satan himself was behind a keyboad.


----------



## danae

Air said:


> I'm glad you mentioned her Bartok! I haven't heard her recording of the _Piano Sonata_ but her _3rd Piano Concerto_ really shines! It is so lyrical and refined, really an antithesis to her supposed "rushing". And not to mention the _balance_ she maintains with the orchestra! After all, it is Dutoit conducting...


Agreed. I guess you have the recording with the Prokofiev 1st, 3rd, and the Bartok 3rd with Charles Dutoit, right?


----------



## Air

danae said:


> Agreed. I guess you have the recording with the Prokofiev 1st, 3rd, and the Bartok 3rd with Charles Dutoit, right?


Yep, it's a great recording. But for Prokofiev's 3rd, I have the 1967 recording with Abbado/Berlin and still prefer it to all other versions I've ever heard. (Of course, that may change, as the Beroff/Masur set is on the way)

I'm still struggling with Martha's Bach. I dunno what it is about it... technically _and_ musically it's superb, but in my opinion too... Prokofiev-esque?


----------



## Aramis

She's best in recording romantic music, women are usually hopeless and can not play with passion, they ruin anything marked as "agitato" or "apassionato". I mean the less-known and talented women instrumentalists. Only few of them are able to put in their playing real passion and understanding, Argerich is one of them, and it makes her real treasure.


----------



## danae

Air said:


> I'm still struggling with Martha's Bach. I dunno what it is about it... technically _and_ musically it's superb, but in my opinion too... Prokofiev-esque?


I completely agree, and that's the reason I like it.


----------



## jhar26

danae said:


> I completely agree, and that's the reason I like it.


One jazz critic (or was it a jazz pianist? I don't remember exactly) once said that he loves Argerich's Bach "because it swings."


----------



## handlebar

Don't love her or hate her as I don't know her.

But...
I admire her.

Jim


----------



## mueske

She sometimes plays a little too fast, but overall I like her, and her piano playing.


----------



## Argus

handlebar said:


> Don't love her or hate her as I don't know her.


Yeah, she's no Marmite.


----------



## jhar26

*I love her!!! *

I don't go for that "you can't say such a thing on a forum like this one if you want to be taken seriously."


----------



## Lukecash12

She plays some pieces well, and others really seem like they don't put across much of a point at all (for example, her Scarlatti is not very elegant at all). She's great, but it is apparent that she hasn't reached her potential yet. I say give it a decade and she'll be among my favorites. As for now, though, I'll have to listen to Truoard, Eunice Norton, Richter, Rachmaninov, Horowitz, Solomon, Sofronitzky, etc.


----------



## Ravellian

Martha Argerich playing is like fast and furious sex on a piano. Sometimes it can be too much (I think her Tchaikovsky and Rach 3 concertos are much too fast, particularly) but other times it can be just amazing to listen to.


----------



## Guest

She is a bit of a thumper at times Re the Beethoven Violin sonatas with Gidon Kremer how ever if she sticks at it she could well make a name for herself


----------



## Sid James

Haven't heard much Argerich, except for her interesting recent recording with Nelson Freire in Salzburg (on radio). I have yet to get a recording by her, maybe that will be the one, or her first one in the 1960's which I saw recently. She's one of the few artists I can think of who has this mystique surrounding her, which compares to former greats like Chopin & Liszt in thier day...


----------



## bplary

I just got her CD, Debut Recital and am particularly enjoying her Liszt Sonata, takes the virtuosity within the sonata to an entirely new level.


----------



## Polednice

bplary said:


> I just got her CD, Debut Recital and am particularly enjoying her Liszt Sonata, takes the virtuosity within the sonata to an entirely new level.


Is that the disc with Brahms rhapsodies on it? If so, I think I have that somewhere... :/


----------



## bplary

Yeah that's the one, it's quite good in my opinion.


----------



## Weston

I have her Schumann Concerto next up in my Netflix que. I can hardly wait.










I have loved her Prokofiev interpretations and I love watching her - she just oozes competence and mystique. But I don't have much Prokofiev to compare her performance to. The Schumann will give me a better idea of her artistry.


----------



## bplary

I have her third Prokofiev concerto as well, although I have to admit that I prefer Ashkenazy's interpretation.


----------



## Polednice

bplary said:


> Yeah that's the one, it's quite good in my opinion.


Yes, I remember really enjoying it when I heard it for the first time. I'm desperate to find it now!


----------



## Lukecash12

danae said:


> People are free not to like ME. But as for my piano playing, they must be daft not to like it, especially my Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Schumann and Bartok.


Don't forget she's great with Janacek's Folk Dances.


----------



## hankz

Regarding Argerich:

I absolutely love her playing and her Passion!

Hank


----------



## Weston

I am sorry to report that I have not really liked her Schumann concerto. She seems to treat some essential notes as appogiaturas or slurs. This is especially evident to me in the opening melodic phrase of the third movement. To me these notes need to be distinct to reveal the intended brilliance and triumph of the melody - but with this performance they just blur together. I have looked at the IMSLP score and there is no slur indicated.

I guess I grew up hearing Claudio Arrau's version and that became definitive for me. Agerich is still joy to watch and in music I am less familiar with.


----------



## Aramis

I think I'm finnaly going to see her live at inauguration of Chopin Piano Competition... eight months must I wait... and she's not getting younger!


----------



## World Violist

I can't listen to anyone else's Gaspard de la Nuit. I heard it on Youtube and suddenly everyone else's seemed tame. The control over the color in that score was insane.

So yeah. I love Martha. I'm not a piano buff either though, so... yeah.


----------



## Jaime77

Love or Hate? Adore


----------



## livemylife

definitely LOVE.


----------



## agoukass

I love her Chopin. Her recording of the Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise is an absolute dream. I can't imagine it someone else playing it so well. And that goes for pretty much else she's done as well.


----------



## TWhite

She flat-out knocks me dead. I love her Prokofiev and Ravel (I'd love to hear her tackle the Ravel Concerto for Left Hand, sometime). And she can take Strauss' "Burleske"--which I like a lot but seems to go on a little too long--and make me wish it was LONGER! 

Just a TERRIFIC pianist, IMO. 

Tom


----------



## jurianbai

hey, somehow this auntie is my favorite now. Perhaps the best Bartok I ever heard today.


----------



## Eusebius12

Ok...don't mean to ruffle feathers but I may proffer an opposing view?

I find her playing hard, lacking true expressiveness and totally lacking in poetry. I suppose in this day and age such concepts are pretty well unknown..well not completely. At least she knows nothing about them. She has a very limited tonal palette, ranging from the bang to the mf...of course she can play in other dynamic ranges but to my ears her dynamics are very restricted and lacking much gradation. Yes I suppose she is a counterbalance to the prissiness of expression of certain players, and she is certainly uninhibited in her attack which makes her refreshing in a way. At least for a few minutes.

Perhaps she is best in composers like Bartok, deliberately 'barbaric' and 'ugly', this shows her qualities most starkly.

For those wanting real pianism with bite, with fierceness of attack and massive dynamics, Horowitz makes her look like a child; but he also combines that with genuine poetic feeling and depth, qualities which she doesn't seem to possess whatsoever.


----------



## Aramis

> Horowitz makes her look like a child


Yeah, he look like totally senile gaffer, but it doesn't make him better in any aspect you mentioned - poetry? He plays Rachmaninoff and Chopin like he had no time to learn the music so he focuses rather on not making technical mistakes than interpretating it.

If you think that Argerich lacks sense of colour, why she is so prominent in recording impressionist music? Her recordings of Ravel are titanic and always recommended for people who want to hear what impressionism is all about.


----------



## Eusebius12

Hehe

Horowitz is of course dead so I suppose that qualifies as senile...

Of course this thread should be entitled, 'please post in this thread if you agree with my opinion on Martha Argerich'...

Lets face it, in no way is the woman a great pianist even if her performances are 'recommended' and 'prominent'...to hear proper impressionist playing one needs to hear Gieseking, Michelangeli or Collard, not this wild woman of the keyboard and her tub thumping.


----------



## Aramis

> Of course this thread should be entitled, 'please post in this thread if you agree with my opinion on Martha Argerich'...


Heee, don't act like persecuted man, many people dislike Argerich too (see first pages of this thread).



> Lets face it, in no way is the woman a great pianist


Nah, she is great pianist for many reasons: winning important competitions, performing with great conductors and instrumentalists, having wide repertoire including chamber music and most difficult solo pieces, inspiring many younger people and helping them with her foundation, and simply being extremely influental.

These things are unreachable for not great pianists. I dislike Horowitz and his playing but I consider him great.


----------



## Eusebius12

Aramis said:


> Heee, don't act like persecuted man, many people dislike Argerich too (see first pages of this thread).
> 
> Nah, she is great pianist for many reasons: winning important competitions, performing with great conductors and instrumentalists, having wide repertoire including chamber music and most difficult solo pieces, inspiring many younger people and helping them with her foundation, and simply being extremely influental.
> 
> These things are unreachable for not great pianists. I dislike Horowitz and his playing but I consider him great.


I am not saying I dislike her in everything, for example she does seem to be suited to Bartok, and also Prokofiev. I quite like her Liszt. I do prefer her chamber music and concerto playing to her solo work, she does have a certain energy and dynamism that contribute better in those media.

The fact that she has won competitions and performed with eminent whatever, that could apply to a lot of people. Very few competition winners are great pianists.

I have a wide repertoire and play many difficult pieces 
There is a difference of course between playing the notes and making something grand or memorable out of them.

She has done good work in fostering younger musicians I will grant that without hesitation...


----------



## jhar26

Eusebius12 said:


> Lets face it, in no way is the woman a great pianist even if her performances are 'recommended' and 'prominent'...


I'm so glad that I'm a member here because I learn something new here everyday, especially as of late. In the past few weeks alone I learned that 4'33" is as great as the Beethoven symphonies. After that I learned that Mozart (who happens to be my favorite composer) is actually garbage. Another highlight in my musical education happened when we were told that musical history didn't really start until Beethoven came on the scene because all music before him sounds the same. And now I hear that I have been making a fool of myself for having an avatar of that sorry excuse for a pianist called Martha Argerich for all these years. I'm so happy that the more educated members of the forum make the rest of us see the errors of our ways. I wonder what they will have in store for us tomorrow or the day after that.....


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> I'm so happy that the more educated members of the forum make the rest of us see the errors of our ways. I wonder what they will have in store for us tomorrow or the day after that.....


We will be told once again that Avant-garde music is just the Bee's knees and we are not educated enough if we don't appreciate it


----------



## peter knight

love her she knows how to play from the heart


----------



## Eusebius12

Andante said:


> We will be told once again that Avant-garde music is just the Bee's knees and we are not educated enough if we don't appreciate it


well...I might diss Argerich but I wouldn't go that far


----------



## Air

Eusebius12 said:


> Of course this thread should be entitled, '*please post in this thread if you agree with my opinion* on Martha Argerich'...


Eh all I said was "she's mine." Opinion much?


----------



## beansdoc

it took me years to begin to appreciate her artistry. i still think that sometimes she pedals too much that the notes sound blurry. over the years, that's improved, especially now that she's older. her sound also improved with age. she will always have a brighter sound than the rest because of her powerful right hand and pinky (similar to sviatoslav richter's). the breath-taking dexterity is just as great as decades ago as i witnessed when i saw her in NY last year when she performed the shostakovich and prokofiev 1 piano concertos. no pianist can generate as much unexaggerated excitement in his or her playing as martha argerich can. i suspect it has lots to do with her latino blood (nelson freire comes a bit close). her eccentricities are minimal and can easily be accepted (unlike horowitz's or gould's). her sound is not as big as horowitz's but one hardly notices that because her sound isn't small either. she knows how to bring about a big sound using contrasts, rather than by sheer strength. she is a legend!


----------



## tchaikovskyisgreat

MARTHA ARGERICH is the reason I love Classical music.
Her Tchaikovsky piano concerto no1 is inspiring!!!
I love Martha!!!


----------



## beansdoc

she recorded this 4 times i think. which version do you like the best?


----------



## Eusebius12

I'm glad that she has her admirers but really I remain pretty unconvinced. Her playing always seems rather driven, hard, which is different from exciting. Her style does suit some Prokofiev and Liszt works I think, but even in virtuosity she is hardly amongst the true greats. As far as nuance and subtlety are concerned they seem almost entirely absent. Yes she is a corrective to the sometimes over prissy Eastern European style, but this to my ears hardly compensates for her deficiencies.

Freire on the other hand, is a marvellous pianist, full of Latin fire but this fire is counterpoised with real poetry, something Ms Argerich's Chopin and Schumann lacks entirely. Also, charm.


----------



## Air

Eusebius12 said:


> I'm glad that she has her admirers but really I remain pretty unconvinced. Her playing always seems rather driven, hard, which is different from exciting. Her style does suit some Prokofiev and Liszt works I think, but even in virtuosity she is hardly amongst the true greats. As far as nuance and subtlety are concerned they seem almost entirely absent. Yes she is a corrective to the sometimes over prissy Eastern European style, but this to my ears hardly compensates for her deficiencies.
> 
> Freire on the other hand, is a marvellous pianist, full of Latin fire but this fire is counterpoised with real poetry, something Ms Argerich's Chopin and Schumann lacks entirely. Also, charm.


Freire's Schumann is fantastic. His playing is extremely powerful and passionate, yet he also has the rare gift of possessing, in addition to power, an incredible sensitive tone that allows for an extremely wide variety of color. His recording of the _Carnaval_ is one of my favorites, though his lesser-known recording of the _Fantasy_ is also among the best- barring only Moiseiwitsch, Fiorentino, and Richter. His compatriot and idol Guiomar Novaes also played some fantastic Schumann, some of the most poetic of the entire century. It is unfortunate that neither of them are as well known as they should be.

The Argerich "drive" is essential to her style and there are some who dislike it immensely, and wonders why she must always "rush". I completely understand your sentiment. But I also believe that this "drive" is what makes her playing so exciting to the audience, especially in works by Rachmaninov, Ravel, Prokofiev, Liszt, and the list goes on. This is also why I think many Argerich fans swoon over her Bach, which really is quite unique.

As far as virtuosity is concerned, Argerich falls at the opposite end of the spectrum as Michelangeli, Pollini, or Moravec. The pianist of the last century most akin to her technical style would be Vladimir Horowitz, except Argerich is less sonorous and produces a far brighter tone. Argerich seems to be one of the only old-time Romantics left- which IMHO only elevates her position as a great pianist. I believe that to understand her style it may be helpful to listen to more of the "old-timers", especially the one Welte-Mignon left by (yet another South American), the Brazilian tigress Teresa Carreno (whom I secretly believe Argerich idolized). The roll seems to have been slowed down a lot, but it will give you some sense of where Argerich's sense of individualism comes from.


----------



## Lawaffair

I have always admired Martha. I think that she is an extraordinary female talent. Is she still married to Steven Bishop Kovacevich? They should make a fantastic pair.


----------



## beansdoc

i agree her schumann concerto was not a good album. my point exactly regarding her over-pedaling. and too impulsive, and as you said, slurry. i say blurry or murky.

i do have an earlier DVD of her playing the schumann concerto (she was very young then) in a studio (not live). that was a wonderful one. lemme look at my collection and give you the details.


----------



## Lawaffair

I first encountered Martha's playing about thirty years ago. Today, she still impresses me with her vibrant virtuosity. I feel that I have found a true companion in her.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Argerich is a great talent, no doubt; but between the two, I prefer *Maria João Pires*.


----------



## gurthbruins

Dhen din akusa pote ma tin alithia ine mia nostiki kopela.


----------



## Air

Happy 69th Birthday!


----------



## nefigah

For a long time I wasn't sure if it was Argerich I didn't care for, or Prokofiev, as in my small collection the only Prokofiev was played by her and the only Argerich recording was Prokofiev.

I just got this disc, however, and I'm for the most part rather enjoying it. Her mazurka renditions are quite a bit different than Michelangeli's, and her op. 53 Polonaise is a bit over the top. But enjoyable nonetheless.


----------



## gurthbruins

*Anticrapovsky*

^
If you have only a small collection, you don't want to dilute it with crap. Why do you want Prokofiev? It's rubbish.
He isn't Tchaikovsky's backside, let alone talk of any half-way decent baroque or classical composer.
Throw it away!


----------



## Guest

gurthbruins said:


> ^
> If you have only a small collection, you don't want to dilute it with crap. Why do you want Prokofiev? It's rubbish.
> He isn't Tchaikovsky's backside, let alone talk of any half-way decent baroque or classical composer.
> Throw it away!


Ha Ha Ha Lovely, I think you are being a bit provocative get ready to take cover


----------



## peeyaj

Pity she doesn't play any Schubert's solo piano works..


----------



## gurthbruins

peeyaj said:


> Pity she doesn't play any Schubert's solo piano works..


Those works are very poetic... how about Schnabel?


----------



## peeyaj

gurthbruins said:


> Those works are very poetic... how about Schnabel?


I have the recordings of Schanabel, Richter, Kempff, Lupu, Perahia and Brendel. 

That's my problem with her. Her temperament doesn't suit Schubert. Much I admire the virtuosity of Martha's playing, she is not * poetic and intimate* enough to play any Schubert's works. I think she will be having a nervous breakdown, when forced to play the opening movement (Molto Moderato, 20 + mins) of Schubert's D.960.  I'm still waiting for her to record the Wanderer Fantasy, one of few Schubert's virtuosic works.


----------



## Sid James

I was all "miss" with Martha until I got the disc below. The Bartok _Sonata for two pianos and percussion _on it is superb. They get the vibe of the work, the mix of folkishness and a fair bit of aggro, Bartok's universe, spot-on.

The Mozart and Debussy pieces for two pianos on it are good as well. The bonus tracks with Mr. Kovacevich doing Bartok works for solo piano are great too.

Shows if you don't succeed, try try again. I was not happy with various things I'd heard from Martha, but I cannot complain anything against this recital.


----------



## Guest

These days Argerich's works are bundled together and sold quite cheaply. As a neophyte and beginning collector, I have accumulated a fair amount of her work for that reason and because of her awesome reputation.

In general I like her. But I am also beginning to suspect that she is not the end-all-be-all pianist for all works. 

The first crack in the facade for me was Ravel's Piano Concerto in G. Many of you may love her in that piece, but for me it just wasn't working - I didn't really like that piece until I got another version - Bavouzet's on Chandos. After hearing Bavouzet's version I came to the conclusion (perhaps prematurely) that Argerich really wasn't very good in handling the jazz idiom in the first and third movements. For me, Bavouzet is better on this piece. I think.

The second Argerich work with which I am not completely satisfied is Schumann's Piano Sonata #2. I read somewhere that this may be Martha's best recording. Admittedly I've only listened to it a couple of times, but this piece is just not clicking for me. I'm starting to wonder if I need to look around for a non-Argerich version. Any suggestions?

It may be years before I am qualified enough to make an informed judgement of Martha Argerich. So for now I'll stay close to the adoring crowds. But at the same time I may look to other pianists for better performances of specific pieces.

Am I crazy or is this a sign that my powers of discrimination are maturing?


----------



## jhar26

BPS said:


> These days Argerich's works are bundled together and sold quite cheaply. As a neophyte and beginning collector, I have accumulated a fair amount of her work for that reason and because of her awesome reputation.
> 
> In general I like her. But I am also beginning to suspect that she is not the end-all-be-all pianist for all works.
> 
> The first crack in the facade for me was Ravel's Piano Concerto in G. Many of you may love her in that piece, but for me it just wasn't working - I didn't really like that piece until I got another version - Bavouzet's on Chandos. After hearing Bavouzet's version I came to the conclusion (perhaps prematurely) that Argerich really wasn't very good in handling the jazz idiom in the first and third movements. For me, Bavouzet is better on this piece. I think.
> 
> The second Argerich work with which I am not completely satisfied is Schumann's Piano Sonata #2. I read somewhere that this may be Martha's best recording. Admittedly I've only listened to it a couple of times, but this piece is just not clicking for me. I'm starting to wonder if I need to look around for a non-Argerich version. Any suggestions?
> 
> It may be years before I am qualified enough to make an informed judgement of Martha Argerich. So for now I'll stay close to the adoring crowds. But at the same time I may look to other pianists for better performances of specific pieces.
> 
> Am I crazy or is this a sign that my powers of discrimination are maturing?


It's mostly a sign that different things work for different people. That different interpretations don't necessarily mean that one is right and the other is wrong (if so there would only be a need for one recording of each work - the 'right one'). And that no musician - no matter how great - gets it right each time they play in the opinion of even their biggest fans.


----------



## Sid James

^^Yep, could be said that the bigger the fan, the more critical and harder judge he/she will be...


----------



## kv466

Don't hate her but have never cared for her playing too much (sorry, Jhar!)...thanks to TC, however, I have been exposed to her Prokofiev and have a much deeper appreciation now...one thing I do like is that I have recently remembered that she is Argentinian and I have a weak spot for them lovely ladies and I like to think of an early Martha back in the day and some of those black and white vids of her; she looks pretty darned yummy. Other than that, she does not define any composer's pieces for me.


----------



## Vaneyes

Martha rules.


----------



## skalpel

For the most part, I absolutely love her recordings. A few years ago it seemed as though almost every piece I had, I could replace for an even better performance by her. Over time I've obviously come to find cracks; I remember desperately hunting down a recording that had her playing my favourite Chopin nocturne (C minor op.48) only to find myself for the very first time agreeing with people who said she sometimes plays too fast. 

With that all said, she has performed, head and shoulders above the rest, my favourite: Rach 3, Prokofiev 3, Chopin Preludes, Chopin Sonatas, Schumann Quintet and Ravel Gaspard. Plenty of others too but those are some particular favourites of mine that she, in my opinion, blows everybody else out of the water with.


----------



## Sid James

skalpel said:


> ...Ravel Gaspard...


Yep that is good by her. I heard the one she did in Amsterdam, the Concertgebouw, done in about the 1970's (live recording). A pretty unorthodox performance as far as I can tell, but one hell of a performance for sure. Bought out the kind of creepy vibes in that work 110 per cent.

From my experience, she's strongest in the modern repertoire, post 1900 I mean...


----------

