# Daniil Trifonov - Fantasia in D Minor (Mozart)



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I searched long and hard to find a version of this composition played so romanticized as Trifonov does here. I know it's not how Mozart wrote it, but it's how I envision the song, certainly!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I searched long and hard to find a version of this composition played so romanticized as Trifonov does here. I know it's not how Mozart wrote it, but it's how I envision the song, certainly!


One, if not the best pianist from this time.
Stunning technique.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

I have two questions:
1 - Am I the only one who can't feel "Andante" nor the "triplets" at the beginning?
2 - Am I the only one who understand "being romantic" is not the same as "destroy completely the rhythm of the written notes"?

Well, I must say as a pianist I only play Mozart as a romantic composer, and I can easily explain why if asked. 
Anyway this Trifonov recording give me the impression that even Pogorelich would not risk go so far calling this an "interpretation". 
To me it is sounding like a student who memorized easily the piece but never studied the score he is playing. 
I really hope this was only a bad day to him or maybe he was forced to play it. (Technique and expression for such piece I'm sure he have, I'm speaking about the "interpretation" result)

A bad start for someone who had never heard carefully a Trifonov recording before.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I have two questions:
> 1 - Am I the only one who can't feel "Andante" nor the "triplets" at the beginning?
> 2 - Am I the only one who understand "being romantic" is not the same as "destroy completely the rhythm of the written notes"?
> 
> ...


I think it's perfectly performed. It's my favorite version of the composition by far! Delicate and romantic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> One, if not the best pianist from this time.
> Stunning technique.


I really hope he gets his version of this composition recorded in the studio on one of his albums. I'll be first to buy it! As much as I love Gould, his Rondo Alla Turca is fantastic and my favorite version of that, I can't stand his version of this song and I typically love how he re-envisioned Mozart. His collection of the Sonatas are really good aside from this piece imo!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I didn't like the Trifonov the first time I listened, but I gave it a 2nd go and disliked it even more. Mozart composed the work in 1782; Trifonov plays it as if it was written one hundred years later. Also, it could well be the slowest version I've heard. Worst in my mind is that Trifonov often ruins the flow of Mozart's music. 

I welcome individualistic interpretations, but this one doesn't work for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I didn't like the Trifonov the first time I listened, but I gave it a 2nd go and disliked it even more. Mozart composed the work in 1782; Trifonov plays it as if it was written one hundred years later. Also, it could well be the slowest version I've heard. Worst in my mind is that Trifonov often ruins the flow of Mozart's music.
> 
> I welcome individualistic interpretations, but this one doesn't work for me.


What is your favorite version of it?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is your favorite version of it?


More than one - Uchida, Brendel and Perahia.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> More than one - Uchida, Brendel and Perahia.


Don't you like his playing at all or just the Mozart bit.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Don't you like his playing at all or just the Mozart bit.


This is the first time I've ever heard Trifonov.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> This is the first time I've ever heard Trifonov.


Try his recent Liszt CD.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I love Trifonov's recording of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes. However, I'm not that fond of his approach to this Mozart fantasia. He's using a 19th-century type of rubato, where certain melody notes are slightly delayed and played just after the beat. I don't think that style of rubato works well in Mozart's music. Also, he's using too much pedal in the broken chord passages, creating a huge wash of sound that interferes with the delicacy of the melodic line.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Try his recent Liszt CD.


That wouldn't work out because I don't care much these days for Liszt's music. However, I did listen to some Scriabin and Chopin on NML. Trifonov was significantly better with those two composers than with Mozart. I have no idea what Trifonov would do with Bach. Maybe drag him well into the 19th century, maybe not. Anyways, I'd be interested in a Bach disc from him.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> That wouldn't work out because I don't care much these days for Liszt's music. However, I did listen to some Scriabin and Chopin on NML. Trifonov was significantly better with those two composers than with Mozart. I have no idea what Trifonov would do with Bach. Maybe drag him well into the 19th century, maybe not. Anyways, I'd be interested in a Bach disc from him.


And there's me hoping he stay away from Bach for the next 10 years.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Pugg said:


> And there's me hoping he stay away from Bach for the next 10 years.


I agree. I think that his style is best suited to 19th-century repertoire. His approach to rubato and pedaling works beautifully in Romantic music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugg said:


> And there's me hoping he stay away from Bach for the next 10 years.


Being 69 years old, I'd rather not wait for at least 10 years.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Being 69 years old, I'd rather not wait for at least 10 years.


Ooops, no punt intended.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's perfectly performed. It's my favorite version of the composition by far! Delicate and romantic.


I just want you to know I'm not against your taste, we are always free to have our own taste,
Anyway, I wrote in defense of the composer, and maybe sometimes you prefer Trifonov more than Mozart... why not...?
I always prefer the composer, but that's me 

All the best
Artur


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

A work such as this has been played the 'traditional' way countless times. Why not an interpretation that is out side the box? I love it and I love Trifonov's playing in general. He is one of the most sought after touring pianists of the day. I really enjoy his Beethoven #32, particularly the Arietta at about 9:20:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cimirro said:


> I just want you to know I'm not against your taste, we are always free to have our own taste,
> Anyway, I wrote in defense of the composer, and maybe sometimes you prefer Trifonov more than Mozart... why not...?
> I always prefer the composer, but that's me
> 
> ...


We can never know what a long-passed composer would have liked or not about an interpretation of one of their works. Perhaps you're protecting your preferences rather than Mozart.


----------



## sluciani (Apr 26, 2016)

I like a romantic approach to this piece as well, but without too much rubato. This live performance by Gilels is pretty much ideal, IMHO.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> We can never know what a long-passed composer would have liked or not about an interpretation of one of their works. Perhaps you're protecting your preferences rather than Mozart.


If you read carefully what I wrote, you will notice I mention "triplets" and "Andante".
If you read music, you probably know who wrote the "Triplets" and "Andante" was Mozart himself in his score and not me.
So where is "my" preference on this?

First you play Andante (standard metronome 76-108 - and this is not my opinion, it is basic music theory.) and play the Triplets as it was written by Mozart. Then after that you put your interpretation.
The main problem, which I discuss in my book "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" is the lack of remembering the basic theory elements before making an interpretation. This makes a tradition full of mistakes where the lame excuse is "this is my interpretation", when the fact is "this is my lack of careful reading".

I'm very open-minded for any new interpretations, but when you change the musical writing then it is not interpretation anymore, it is arrangement/paraphrase/composition/or any other thing.

As I said. You are free to enjoy what you want.
But once you mention he is playing Mozart fantasie in d minor, I can open my Mozart score and try to follow it. If he changes what Mozart wrote, then there is no doubts he is not playing what Mozart wrote - it is not a simple opinion.

I agree, now we can not know what was Mozart's taste, but we easily know what he wrote when we read his scores - "triplets" are "triplets". "Andante" is "andante" etc etc etc
I don't believe Mozart wrote triplets thinking "well, I don't care if these are triplets or not"

If you see my point, then you will be interested in something I'll post soon about the scientific system of interpretation. If not, no problems. just remember a personal taste does not rules art,

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I just want you to know I'm not against your taste, we are always free to have our own taste,
> Anyway, I wrote in defense of the composer, and maybe sometimes you prefer Trifonov more than Mozart... why not...?
> I always prefer the composer, but that's me
> 
> ...


You must really disagree with Gelnn Gould's philosophy towards music then!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

sluciani said:


> I like a romantic approach to this piece as well, but without too much rubato. This live performance by Gilels is pretty much ideal, IMHO.


I enjoyed this very much, thanks for posting. I think Daniil is a bit more captivating though, just by a hair or so though!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> A work such as this has been played the 'traditional' way countless times. Why not an interpretation that is out side the box? I love it and I love Trifonov's playing in general. He is one of the most sought after touring pianists of the day. I really enjoy his Beethoven #32, particularly the Arietta at about 9:20:


I love his emotion!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You must really disagree with Gelnn Gould's philosophy towards music then!


Well, I never call him a "Bach interpreter", If I listen Gould, then I'm listening to Gould, not to Bach.
While I think some of his ideas are interesting, I would never try to follow any of them in Bach's music, but since I'm a composer, I can use his playing ideas as inspiration to new pieces.
Of course, enjoy or not is a matter of taste, while my discussion is about the written composition, no matter what is my taste.

On the other hand. If I do not agree with a piece, i'll never play it - a nice example is: hardly I'll play much more than 6 pieces by Schumann.
I know of its quality, I know he was a genial composer. But using his written notes often I have no "story to tell" with my playing. I'll listen to them only
If I need changing the music to much to enjoy, then I prefer to make my own composition or a paraphrase/arrangement if it sounds good, 
I think it is more honest to do this than insist in a piece destroying the few information we can get directly from the composer idea. (and now that is "my" opinion.)

All the best
Artur


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cimirro said:


> If you read carefully what I wrote, you will notice I mention "triplets" and "Andante".
> If you read music, you probably know who wrote the "Triplets" and "Andante" was Mozart himself in his score and not me.
> So where is "my" preference on this?..


Apparently, your preference is that every piece be played exactly as written. Do you think that Trifonov doesn't know what Triplets and an Andante are? If you were in the same room as him, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you instruct him why he has no business playing the Fantasia this way. He's on the world's stages these days and most classical pianists aren't. Apparently he's doing something people enjoy.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Completely random, but I wonder what Daniil is like as a lover.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Apparently, your preference is that every piece be played exactly as written.


Well, I wrote a book about it - "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" - and probably you never read it, so you can not be sure of what is my preference, right?
So, NO, I don't want robot players, nor MIDI files. I just don't want people changing the written information being called great interpreters because it is very easy to play the way you can instead of playing what the composers ask.
By the way, several known pieces are still "unknown" in its original reading because ALL the famous interpreters are playing based in a tradition based in their listening and in ideas they create, often from nothing, and not in details from the score given by the composer - if you read my book you will be amazed... I'm sure.



DaveM said:


> Do you think that Trifonov doesn't know what Triplets and an Andante are?


I don't know about him, anyway, the problem is not "Trifonov knows or not", the problem is he is not doing the requested by Mozart BEFORE making his own "interpretation". He claims he is playing Mozart, so I opened the score and listen, and then I discover problems which are not related to his interpretation, it is related to the musical READING/STUDYING! Can you understand the difference?

Believe or not, making an interpretation is not just playing notes in any sense of tempo you decide. If so, we do not need theory books anymore then we can burn them and we must close all the music schools. All the necessary will be marketing and money. If it sounds good for you we really do not share the same opinions.



DaveM said:


> If you were in the same room as him, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you instructed him why he has no business playing the Fantasia this way.


Well, If I find him in any room and he asks me what I think about his Mozart playing, I promisse I'll call you (if you give me your contact) inviting you to join us.



DaveM said:


> He's on the world's stages these days and most classical pianists aren't. Apparently he's doing something people enjoy.


Apparently you never heard about marketing... maybe one day if you read about it...

Please, remember I said you are free to enjoy Trifonov, taste is taste.
Composer is composer, interpreter is interpreter. 
and this is not related to my opinion...

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2017)

I love his interpretation, and that's all that matters.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Kontrapunctus said:


> I love his interpretation, and that's all that matters.


Shoulder on shoulder, united we stand.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

I love his personality more than his interpretation/playing. I admire him on a human level more than a musical level.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cimirro said:


> Well, I wrote a book about it - "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" - and probably you never read it, so you can not be sure of what is my preference, right?
> So, NO, I don't want robot players, nor MIDI files. I just don't want people changing the written information being called great interpreters because it is very easy to play the way you can instead of playing what the composers ask.
> By the way, several known pieces are still "unknown" in its original reading because *ALL the famous interpreters* are playing based in a tradition based in their listening and in ideas they create, often from nothing, and not in details from the score given by the composer - if you read my book you will be amazed... I'm sure.
> 
> ...


So, the takeaway here is that 'All the famous interpreters' don't know, but you do. And the fact that you wrote a book (now mentioned at least twice) establishes your credibility. Plus, the success of a Danil Trifonov is a result of marketing and money and I'm apparently unaware of the fact because of my ignorance.

Anybody can write a book. Very few can move audiences to the point that they repeatedly fill concert halls and sell recordings. Attributing this to marketing is tantamount to insinuating that classical music listeners are a bunch of gullible lemmings who don't know a worthy and innovative interpretation when they hear it.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> So, the takeaway here is that 'All the famous interpreters' don't know, but you do.


Let's do the example for you:
As you can see here: (please read)
http://www.talkclassical.com/showthread.php?t=47989&p=1206129&viewfull=1#post1206129
I posted this some days ago but I post here again:



> I agree there are endless interpretation possibilities - specially when you play and read it right - the problem is basic reading.
> 
> But I would like to point one big problem which no interpreter in the world have ever mentioned anywhere, and it is only one single example of the problem I mention in the Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics:
> 
> ...


again:


DaveM said:


> So, the takeaway here is that 'All the famous interpreters' don't know, but you do.


What do you tell me now? be honest and try it as I suggested, please.
Prove me I'm wrong and I'll be happy to discover all the pianists know very well what they did with musical scores and they were not influenced by a "listening tradition".



DaveM said:


> And the fact that you wrote a book (now mentioned at least twice) establishes your credibility.


Not the fact that I wrote a book but the information it contains. That makes a difference and this is why I insist in mentioning the book



DaveM said:


> Plus, the success of a Danil Trifonov is a result of marketing and money


Yes, sorry... the success of Trifonov, Argerich, Barenboin, Horowitz, all is related to marketing - go back to the past, remove all the marketing and you will never know who were these people no matter what they play.
People who have no marketing anymore (from the past 50 years) are completely forgotten now. where is the deserved success to them who recorded wonderfully? Need names? or do you know them?



DaveM said:


> and I'm apparently unaware of the fact because of my ignorance.


No, I would not call you ignorant, but probably you have not noticed how the market works yet... "unaware" is the right word probably.



DaveM said:


> Anybody can write a book.


That is true! And before you decide if who write a book is good or not you need reading it - Am I right?



DaveM said:


> Very few can move audiences to the point that they repeatedly fill concert halls and sell recordings.


No one "move audiences", only marketing do this, even in 1800's the marketing was necessary.



DaveM said:


> Attributing this to marketing is tantamount to insinuating that classical music listeners are a bunch of gullible lemmings who don't know a worthy and innovative interpretation when they hear it.


Taste is the point for classical listeners, not technical challenges nor innovative interpretations.
If pianists are not completely aware of what Beethoven wrote in the piano sonata they are playing you want me to believe the public know it technically very well or they can understand what is innovative in interpretation? 
(If so, I think Cage's musical ideas really had a bad influence on internet forums discussions...)

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

quietfire said:


> Completely random, but I wonder what Daniil is like as a lover.


His rhythm is probably above average.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

bharbeke said:


> His rhythm is probably above average.


Just based on his Mozart performance, his rhythm is likely fractured.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Cimirro:

Marketing spreads the word and can "fool" some people to like something just based on that marketing, but that is not true of everyone. It is too one sided to say marketing is the only reason we like anything at all, there is also the part of enjoying what you are hearing. How much of what side is effecting you is different in each person, but it's not so black and white as you suggest.

Claiming that people don't know Beethoven because they drastically alter from the score is a complicated argument. Some may have looked at the score and altered it to their own taste very carefully, some may have learned the notes and just felt the rest out on their own, and while we could engage in debate where a specific performance lays, the only thing that really matters is if it's enjoyed.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Marketing spreads the word and can "fool" some people to like something just based on that marketing, but that is not true of everyone. It is too one sided to say marketing is the only reason we like anything at all, there is also the part of enjoying what you are hearing. How much of what side is effecting you is different in each person, but it's not so black and white as you suggest.


I agree in part, but the problem is that the greatest part of the public do not research about what is not in the magazines/big CD labels/etc.
So, as your probably know, most part of public only buy and listen what is in the propaganda.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Claiming that people don't know Beethoven because they drastically alter from the score is a complicated argument.


The problem is when ALL pianists recorded without doing what is written... all drastically changed the same thing...? smells like a big historical mistake... (and that is a quite funny thing to me).

190 years since Beethoven died and the so called experts can't read carefully a musical score? 
"complicated" is not the word - "embarrassing" (to them) it is.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Some may have looked at the score and altered it to their own taste very carefully, some may have learned the notes and just felt the rest out on their own


The curious fact is - ALL felt exactly the same and NO ONE did what Beethoven wrote, and this is not an "interpretation" question... it is a reading fact - by the way, their interpretation could be the same!

So we have: - "maybe they know" - in one side
and: - "all of them made the same mistake" - in the other side
The first can't be proven, while the the second can.

Remember, listening recordings is also one of the best examples of tradition - how many pianists are trying to play exactly like their favorite ones (or sometimes "inspired" by)? 
A lot of pianists are not building an interpretation, they are only copying - check universities and conservatoires.



Captainnumber36 said:


> and while we could engage in debate where a specific performance lays,


I'm not speaking about a specific performance, I'm speaking about the problem of some traditions in the performance of every famous pianist who recorded this piece - and I can give several examples in a great part of the standard repertoire - isn't it scary? - can you imagine what happens in the so called "unknown repertoire" today?
This is why I spoke about my book (sorry for repeating) and this is the importance of such discussion, people discuss the best "Beethoven" player or the best "Mozart" player, and they don't know these "best" are playing wrongly according to what is written by the composers they claim to love! 
The question is not who are the "best". The question is why they made a marketing calling themselves "experts" when they clearly have not made what Beethoven (who was genius and no comparison with actual pianists can be made) wrote and no one is able to explain why.

I mean, maybe sometimes I can sound too arrogant speaking about it, do not understand me wrongly, but please, tell me, who is the real arrogant in this market of classical music? The one who points a mistake to think about and discuss? or the one who calls himself a "expert" in something which a starting music student can find the mistake (as I did in 2001/2002 with this Beethoven's Sonata for example)?



Captainnumber36 said:


> the only thing that really matters is if it's enjoyed.


When the discussion is about "taste" - then there is no discussion, you are right.
But my question is "enjoyed by who?"
You can enjoy classical music, but no taste rules what is a good interpretation.
And a good interpretation means you made something using what the composer wrote. When you change it, there are three options
1 - you are a composer/arranger
2 - you did a mistake
3 - you are copying someone's mistake - and that is the worst thing

If so, as I already mentioned in other thread, Florence Foster can be a better "Queen of the Night" than Luciana Serra.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I searched long and hard to find a version of this composition played so romanticized as Trifonov does here. I know it's not how Mozart wrote it, but it's how I envision the song, certainly!


Hopefully, he's not becoming effected by his continuing good press and hype. Case in point, this 2012 K. 397 (link provided), which atleast hits the dartboard of tempi.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

cimirro said:


> ....The main problem, which I discuss in *my book "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" *is the lack of remembering the basic theory elements before making an interpretation....


Couldn't find your book at BookFinder.com or Amazon.com. Self published? Found under another title, perhaps?:tiphat:


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Vaneyes said:


> Couldn't find your book at BookFinder.com or Amazon.com. Self published? Found under another title, perhaps?:tiphat:


Yes, I do not deal with these places, you can ask only at the Opus Dissonus website, it is the only place where I publish my scores and the book. 
http://www.opusdissonus.com.br/contato.htm
(ask for Alex)

and it is mentioned in my website:
http://www.arturcimirro.com.br/en_cds.htm

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cimirro said:


> Yes, I do not deal with these places, you can ask only at the Opus Dissonus website, it is the only place where I publish my scores and the book.
> http://www.opusdissonus.com.br/contato.htm


The world isn't going to find it there. Books do happen to be something that has to be marketed.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> The world isn't going to find it there. Books do happen to be something that has to be marketed.


Well, this is a nice tip, thank you.
Anyway, I'm afraid this kind of book will never sell like a Harry Potter, so I'm not really waiting "the world to find it". 
This is not for all kind of public, It is only for classical musicians, students and classical music lovers. (and we both know It is not a huge number of them who are open-minded to new ideas.)

I prefer to think this: The ones who wants informations always find a way to get it asking. And these are the people who I admire and focus in my daily life. My work is dedicated to them, to my wife and to my two cats. 

On the other hand, I'm working hard doing my marketing making CDs with a quite decent quality playing which are related to the book ideas.
6 Cds were done since last year - with works by Tausig, Michalowski, Zichy (2 CDs) and Szántó (2 CDs) and I had very nice reviews.
There will be some more Cds of unknown composers in the next weeks but also some standard repertoire is being produced right now. Including a kind of "Studio Master-Class" on Beethoven Op.13, because it was the first example I noticed and it is where the idea of the system comes from.
(Actually the recording was already made and it will be published shortly for free.)
And hopefully much more than 6 CDs will be published this year too.

So, patience, in my opinion, is the most important thing when you need to deal with paradigms.
For now, since I have few people helping/working with me, I keep taking care of my things in places where I can see what is happening.
Movement makes movement - and I'm not stopped! 

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Cimirro:

I can understand from a purists standpoint your arguments. You claim, and I believe you, that the same mistake is being created over and over again from pianist to pianist showing an inability to follow the score and thus an error that is being passed down based on being inspired by listening to favorite versions.

However, I still say these pianists are more than capable of reading the score and are at least somewhat aware of what they are doing (probably to varying degrees to varying pianists). 

I still argue that as long as it's being enjoyed, there isn't a real big problem. With Glenn Gould, we knew we were getting altered versions, perhaps an artist could be more vocal about their tweaking of the original composition.

:tiphat:


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Book publishing tip:

It is extremely easy to get on Amazon with CreateSpace. If you want an easy way for people to find and buy an ebook, you should look into that.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

bharbeke said:


> Book publishing tip:
> 
> It is extremely easy to get on Amazon with CreateSpace. If you want an easy way for people to find and buy an ebook, you should look into that.


Thank you Bharbeke, it is kind of you
I checked in the past, No doubts it is good for the "buyers", but not so good for the "sellers". They can change their rules at any time and I must accept it once I make an account. They can make some changes in my book, and, concerning money, I wrote the book and they receive more than 50% of the price. And if I want the book to appear in the site I need paying them for the "marketing". Sounds not fair for a non best-seller book.
So in this case I have no interest in Amazon's offer for the next years. I already pay the most expenses taxes in the world, I live in Brazil... 
anyway, thank you so much. 



Captainnumber36 said:


> Cimirro:
> 
> I can understand from a purists standpoint your arguments. You claim, and I believe you, that the same mistake is being created over and over again from pianist to pianist showing an inability to follow the score and thus an error that is being passed down based on being inspired by listening to favorite versions.
> 
> ...


I agree in good part now, 
not with the "purist", since the "purist" is the one who wants to keep a tradition, and we do not have a tradition of playing the score as it is written as I mentioned.
So, I'm presenting a "new old-thing" which no one mentioned in the last 190 years.
Pianists are "capable", no doubts, I just mention they are "not doing".

By the way, I like Gould, and I like Cziffra, and I like Horowitz, and I like Pogorelich, anyway I can't imagine any of them as reference for one composer's works, but they make very interesting interpretations and are great pianists.
Enjoy or not enjoy, that is the taste's question.
:tiphat:

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------

