# Radu Lupu



## TudorMihai

Here we can talk about Radu Lupu (b. 1945), considered by many to be one of the greatest Romanian pianists alive.

Here he is performing Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23 with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra






Also a studio recording of him performing Grieg's Piano Concerto with Andre Previn and the London Symphony Orchestra


----------



## moody

I'm glad that you specified Romanian pianists !


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> I'm glad that you specified Romanian pianists !


And he said 'one of', and Lipatti and Enescu are gone...


----------



## Guest

I really enjoy his recording of the Schumann and Grieg piano concertos with Previn. That, though, is my only recording from him.


----------



## ptr

I think I have most of what he has recorded for Decca and all of are very beautiful and immaculate, but I still like Lipatti more!

/ptr


----------



## kv466

Oh, man, the geezers are hating on Radu! 

Honestly, there have been recordings I have heard of his that have had me in utter suspense waiting for the piece to finish yet not wanting it to finish at all! Of course, these are the radio days when one couldn't always tell what performance was being played. Many times and with many pieces, mostly unknown to me at the time of hearing, Radu proved to be a fine performer. Overall I like him better than many of his contemporaries including his buddy, Murray, but that ain't saying much. I was actually just thinking of him earlier today in one of my favorite performances by him which is actually with MP; the Mozart f-minor fantasy, kv608 transcribed for two pianos. It is so wonderfully thoughtful and well played. 

I know my post doesn't really tell you if I like him or not but that is kinda how I feel about him. I really do like him and his playing and some of his recordings but at the same time, I probably would never mention him in a conversation of my favorite pianists.


----------



## GSchiappe

Radu Lupu is great, his Brahms late character pieces are quite an artistic achievement and one of my favorite recordings of those pieces.


----------



## Ravndal

Radu Lupu is very close to the greatest pianist alive today. His Brahms is wonderful.


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> Oh, man, the geezers are hating on Radu!
> 
> Honestly, there have been recordings I have heard of his that have had me in utter suspense waiting for the piece to finish yet not wanting it to finish at all! Of course, these are the radio days when one couldn't always tell what performance was being played. Many times and with many pieces, mostly unknown to me at the time of hearing, Radu proved to be a fine performer. Overall I like him better than many of his contemporaries including his buddy, Murray, but that ain't saying much. I was actually just thinking of him earlier today in one of my favorite performances by him which is actually with MP; the Mozart f-minor fantasy, kv608 transcribed for two pianos. It is so wonderfully thoughtful and well played.
> 
> I know my post doesn't really tell you if I like him or not but that is kinda how I feel about him. I really do like him and his playing and some of his recordings but at the same time, I probably would never mention him in a conversation of my favorite pianists.


As I know you know, It's all opinion and I find him of little interest and unreliable. But those who like him can naturally spend their wages on him whenever they wish.


----------



## moody

Ravndal said:


> Radu Lupu is very close to the greatest pianist alive today. His Brahms is wonderful.


You shock me,but then again there's not much choice really.


----------



## DavidA

No question that Lupu is one of today's greatest pianists. I have his DECCA recordings of solo works by Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert. He is a simply magical pianist. Probably the greatest Schubertian alive today.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You shock me,but then again there's not much choice really.


Did you really say that?

What about Perahia, Kovacevich, Argerich, Lewis, Pollini, Uchida, Schiff, Baremboim, Askenazy, Zimmerman, et al?

But of course, they haven't yet died!

I heard the other day Angelich playing Brahms 1 the other day. It was pianism that could have stood up in any age as distinguished.

The playing at the Leeds Piano Competition this year was outstanding.

Why create this myth that the only good musicians lived in the past?


----------



## Ukko

DavidA said:


> Did you really say that?
> 
> Why create this myth that the only good musicians lived in the past?


Why are you beating on that dead horse? Seems like we covered all that to boring length just a week or two ago.


----------



## Ravndal

DavidA said:


> Did you really say that?
> 
> What about Perahia, Kovacevich, Argerich, Lewis, Pollini, Uchida, Schiff, Baremboim, Askenazy, Zimmerman, et al?
> 
> But of course, they haven't yet died!
> 
> I heard the other day Angelich playing Brahms 1 the other day. It was pianism that could have stood up in any age as distinguished.
> 
> The playing at the Leeds Piano Competition this year was outstanding.
> 
> *Why create this myth that the only good musicians lived in the past?*


Well, it is some truth in it. Performing classical music has become incredibly conservative and stiff. There are great pianists today, but they could be greater if the conditions allowed it. But i am derailing off topic. Add Pogorelich and Sokolov to your list, and were getting somewhere


----------



## Guest

I feel sorry for those who feel there are no good performers today. For the same reason that I feel sorry for those who only enjoy dead authors - they have only a finite pool of works which they can enjoy. 

I listen to older recordings from some of the masters of the past - some I enjoy, some I don't. But what is it that leads us to think they were so much better than those living today? Or that those of today are so much inferior? One thing, I think, is that time tends to round out the edges and soften the rough spots. I think that there are a lot more recordings these days, so any given performer has so much more exposure. How much of the works of the late masters never made its way onto a recording, or how many that did have now been lost to retired catalogs, such that all that we have left are their superlative performances, giving us the illusion that they were nothing but spectacular? And how many other performers were there that we simply have no recordings of, that would have diluted out the masters? In other words, do they look so monumental simply because the mediocre performers of their time have been lost to time, leaving us with a skewed period that seemingly was populated by nothing but greats, compared with today where there is so much mediocrity apparent?

I don't know the answer to all these questions, but I think that we always tend to look on the past with rose-tinted glasses. Every new generation seems to think our best days are behind us.


----------



## Ukko

^^ I am quite confident that my best days are behind me, and hope that my whippersnapper friends have their best days coming.


----------



## Ravndal

I just meant that the "fun" has almost disappeared from classical music. Things were more relaxed before, and it was more focus on the aesthetic part around the piano. There is no denying that the classical music environment has become very conservative.


----------



## Guest

Ravndal said:


> I just meant that the "fun" has almost disappeared from classical music. Things were more relaxed before, and it was more focus on the aesthetic part around the piano. There is no denying that the classical music environment has become very conservative.


I'm not quite sure what this means. Too often today, the criticism I hear is that the musicians are "too" perfect in their playing. I don't know whether that is what you are comparing to when you talk about them focusing more on the aesthetic part around the piano.

What is the trade-off, in you mind, with how they performed in the past, as opposed to now? As for fun in classical music, I think of the new, HIP recordings and how they have turned a lot in the classical music world on its head. I still love the old masters, but in a lot of ways, movements like HIP have breathed new life into the repertoire. Compare, say, the Beethoven symphonies of Klemperer to those of van Immerseel. It is a totally "new" look at it. Or the Four Seasons of Giuliano Carmignola/Andrea Marcon to that of Marriner/ASMITF. Yes, some think that the obsession with being "accurate" may take something from the music, but are we to believe that the musicians of the past really weren't interested in accuracy?

I think for many people, being exposed to a certain style and certain performers for so much of their life, they have come to view those as "good," and compare everything new against that. I don't know if my tastes are conservative - but I think the wonder of good music lies more in the creation of the composer than the performance. True, certain performers have elevated certain works, but it still requires an exceptional score. And so I would prefer that the performer adhere as much as possible to the music as it was written.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> Did you really say that?
> 
> What about Perahia, Kovacevich, Argerich, Lewis, Pollini, Uchida, Schiff, Baremboim, Askenazy, Zimmerman, et al?
> 
> But of course, they haven't yet died!
> 
> I heard the other day Angelich playing Brahms 1 the other day. It was pianism that could have stood up in any age as distinguished.
> 
> The playing at the Leeds Piano Competition this year was outstanding.
> 
> Why create this myth that the only good musicians lived in the past?


You really must try to change your tune and drop the rather rude accusations,who knows somebody might complain.
What do you mean by making the crack about creating myths? I said there's not much choice and you've pretty well proved it for me.
Comparisons and opinion are just that but to me Perahia,Kovacevich, Lewis,Schiff, Barenboim and Ashkenazy are middle of the road pianists and that's all.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> Why are you beating on that dead horse? Seems like we covered all that to boring length just a week or two ago.


Well, better than converting the horse to lasagne or burgers.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You really must try to change your tune and drop the rather rude accusations,who knows somebody might complain.
> What do you mean by making the crack about creating myths? I said there's not much choice and you've pretty well proved it for me.
> Comparisons and opinion are just that but to me Perahia,Kovacevich, Lewis,Schiff, Barenboim and Ashkenazy are middle of the road pianists and that's all.


I think your last sentence proves my point, sir! If the said had been dead and buried half a century ago i would like to bet you would have been singing their praises.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I think your last sentence proves my point, sir! If the said had been dead and buried half a century ago i would like to bet you would have been singing their praises.


You make no comment about the names I left in the list---they are still alive as far as I know.
Is there any danger that your taste is faulty,you see plenty of anti remarks re: Barenboim on TC.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lupu must be mentioned with the greats. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You make no comment about the names I left in the list---they are still alive as far as I know.
> Is there any danger that your taste is faulty,you see plenty of anti remarks re: Barenboim on TC.


My taste or your unremitting nostalgia for the past?


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> My taste or your unremitting nostalgia for the past?


This is not an answer to my post.


----------



## moody

I have no nostalgia for the past as such,I judge by what I hear and long,long experience.
I actually saw Lupu win his famous victory at the Leeds Piano Competition in 1969.
What on earth does it matter whether a pianist is dead,we have their recordings to tell the story.
I am faintly amused to note that Clara Haskil who was such a great Romanian pianist is not mentioned here,have you heard of her DavidA?
In the thread "Favorite Schubert Piano Works",Richter (dead I believe) comes out on top for mentions.
In the poll "Favorite Schubertian Pianists" Richter is awarded 365,Kempf 27%, Brendel 27%,Ushida 18% and Lupu 12%.
where does all this leave the dead men ?
Lipatti is dead as well I believe ,was when I last looked.
There are many more first class Schubert pianists that will be mentioned if necessary.
If we remove all the dead artists from the lists the recordings catalogues will be rather sparse.
Finally,I do think it is true that ,on the whole, the artists from the past tend to be superior to what we have now and it can be proved by LISTENING ,do try it DavidA.


----------



## Ukko

Clara Haskil was Romanian?

Our friend _moody_ has what I must assume is an 'Old World" concept of nationality. Being a citizen of what used to be known as 'The Great Melting Pot' (it isn't much that way nowadays), I consider Ms. Haskil to have been British. One of the 'peoples' heroes' during WW2.

Back 'on point', I wonder if having access to a listening apparatus like _bigshot_'s would support _moody_'s stance regarding historical trends. We still couldn't hear Liszt play, but how about Rosenthal?


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> Clara Haskil was Romanian?
> 
> Our friend _moody_ has what I must assume is an 'Old World" concept of nationality. Being a citizen of what used to be known as 'The Great Melting Pot' (it isn't much that way nowadays), I consider Ms. Haskil to have been British. One of the 'peoples' heroes' during WW2.
> 
> Back 'on point', I wonder if having access to a listening apparatus like _bigshot_'s would support _moody_'s stance regarding historical trends. We still couldn't hear Liszt play, but how about Rosenthal?


You are getting confused dear,it's the age .
Mme Haskil was born in Bucharest to a Jewish family--that's fairly Romanian so far.
She studied at the Paris Conservatoire,after escaping from the Nazis she ended up in Switzerland where she lived for the rest of her life.
All this stuff is on record you know.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> Clara Haskil was Romanian?
> 
> Our friend _moody_ has what I must assume is an 'Old World" concept of nationality. Being a citizen of what used to be known as 'The Great Melting Pot' (it isn't much that way nowadays), I consider Ms. Haskil to have been British. One of the 'peoples' heroes' during WW2.
> 
> Back 'on point', I wonder if having access to a listening apparatus like _bigshot_'s would support _moody_'s stance regarding historical trends. We still couldn't hear Liszt play, but how about Rosenthal?


Following Rosenthal it was not until the young Horowitz that pianism once again encountered speed,power and endurance.
Elegance,plasticity,charm and control,not to mention a staggering technique---much of it in pianissimo work,more difficult than any amount of fortissimo banging---mark his playing.
He was born in 1867 and died in New York at the age of 83 in 1946.
There are interesting shellac recordings but they hardly represent him as he was and some late recordings should not have been made. APL have released all his shellac recordings on five CD.s.
But there are piano roll recordings and if the machine is properly adjusted they paint a real picture of the artists involved.
Argo and the BBC issued some Ampico piano roll recordings in the mid 60's,
Rosenthal's contribution inc. Chopin,Bortkiewicz,Albeniz,Chopi/Liszt and his own "Carnival de Vienne On J.Strauss Themes". Stunning !!


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> I have no nostalgia for the past as such,I judge by what I hear and long,long experience.
> I actually saw Lupu win his famous victory at the Leeds Piano Competition in 1969.
> What on earth does it matter whether a pianist is dead,we have their recordings to tell the story.
> I am faintly amused to note that Clara Haskil who was such a great Romanian pianist is not mentioned here,have you heard of her DavidA?
> In the thread "Favorite Schubert Piano Works",Richter (dead I believe) comes out on top for mentions.
> In the poll "Favorite Schubertian Pianists" Richter is awarded 365,Kempf 27%, Brendel 27%,Ushida 18% and Lupu 12%.
> where does all this leave the dead men ?
> Lipatti is dead as well I believe ,was when I last looked.
> There are many more first class Schubert pianists that will be mentioned if necessary.
> If we remove all the dead artists from the lists the recordings catalogues will be rather sparse.
> Finally,I do think it is true that ,on the whole, the artists from the past tend to be superior to what we have now and it can be proved by LISTENING ,do try it DavidA.


Of course I've heard of Clara Haskill. I didn't mention her as, if you actually look and read what I put, I was making a list of living pianists. I do listen - wi, I hope, ears unprejudiced by my age. 
And if you hadn't heard, a pianist's virtue or otherwise is not decided by opinion polls. Else Lang Lang is the greatest pianist ever!


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> I have no nostalgia for the past as such,I judge by what I hear and long,long experience.


you do amuse me with your 'long, long experience' as if siome others of us haven't had 'long, long experience'. I have been playing and listening to classical music for over 50 years but that doesn't make me some sort of 'expert' to set myself up to criticise other people's tastes. 
And please read what I say instead of shooting from the hip. I did not say there weren't great pianists of yesterday. What I said was there are some pianists today who can stand comparison with the greats of the past. Else are we going backwards? 
I have a lot of Schubert recordings and to me Lupu is one of the really great Schubert pianists. He can stand comparison with anyone from the past. As someone has said he is a 'colourist in a thousand'. Sorry if you disagree but it doesn't mean I haven't any taste. It just happens to be different from your own.


----------



## Ukko

^^ Neither of you are doing a real good job of reading the other's posts. You should have the post you are responding to right in front of you, and refer to it often. Get even a smidgin of temper going, and the smoke blurs the message. The last time you two got to wrangling, I got 'disciplined' for sticking my nose in... so I'm doing it again anyway? Gimme a break please.


----------



## Guest

Well I don't care what you lot think of the pianists mentioned, I like em all and each one is much better than I am.


----------



## Ukko

Andante said:


> Well I don't care what you lot think of the pianists mentioned, I like em all and each one is much better than I am.


You messed that up. Should read "each one is much better than the other." This thread needs leavening.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> ^^ Neither of you are doing a real good job of reading the other's posts. You should have the post you are responding to right in front of you, and refer to it often. Get even a smidgin of temper going, and the smoke blurs the message. The last time you two got to wrangling, I got 'disciplined' for sticking my nose in... so I'm doing it again anyway? Gimme a break please.


It can be dangerous to get between opinionated old buffers!


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> you do amuse me with your 'long, long experience' as if siome others of us haven't had 'long, long experience'. I have been playing and listening to classical music for over 50 years but that doesn't make me some sort of 'expert' to set myself up to criticise other people's tastes.
> And please read what I say instead of shooting from the hip. I did not say there weren't great pianists of yesterday. What I said was there are some pianists today who can stand comparison with the greats of the past. Else are we going backwards?
> I have a lot of Schubert recordings and to me Lupu is one of the really great Schubert pianists. He can stand comparison with anyone from the past. As someone has said he is a 'colourist in a thousand'. Sorry if you disagree but it doesn't mean I haven't any taste. It just happens to be different from your own.


I think maybe I'm wasting my time.
Post 19. You made the comment "..of course they haven't yet died".What was that referring to in any of my posts ?
You mention Argerich, i said nothing whatever against her,my opinion is that she is very good indeed.
What myth about musicians from the past did I create ?
Do you mean the myth that keeps thousands of their recordings in the lists ? Wasn't me !
You answered none of my queries about these points.
Post No.21.
Once again you make a remark about artists being dead and buried---apropos of what ?
My opinions about the pianists that I mention from your list is quite clear.
You made no comment about the names that I left intact in your list,why was that? 
Post no.26.
I now answer your accusation about nostalgia and say that I base my opinions on what I hear and long experience --in my case 67 years . What's wrong with that ?
I mention the "Favorite Schubert Piano Works" thread and the fact that Richter comes out on top---dead Richter.
I mention the poll "Favorite Schubert Pianists ",dead Richter first,dead Kempf second ,Lupu last (nothing to do with me ).
You say nothing again.
At last I make a comment on artists from the past,first time!
Post No.30.
I'm interested that opinion polls don't decide a pianists virtue,but they do decide the voters opinions on those pianists.
I wonder why you voted on this poll and you have on others. I wonder why there are so many appearing on TC,it's because members want to know other members opinions.
Post No.31. i am even more amused than you because I have criticised nobody's taste but you have most certainly.
I also made no comment about you denying great pianists from the past.
Why would we be going backwards,either performers are good enough or they are not ,backwards or no.
Your last comment on different opinions is somewhat rich.It was my difference of opinion regarding some of your list that set you off about my nostalgia for the past
I should tell you that I am coming to the conclusion that there may be a reason for your refusal to answer any points put to you and your barrage of personal comments (not allowed) I believe that you may know that there is a word for such behaviour and I will make a complaint if you continue in this way.
Fair difference of opinion is one thing but you are going going beyond that. Perhaps Laing Laing is the best of all !!!


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> I think maybe I'm wasting my time.
> Post 19. You made the comment "..of course they haven't yet died".What was that referring to in any of my posts ?
> You mention Argerich, i said nothing whatever against her,my opinion is that she is very good indeed.
> What myth about musicians from the past did I create ?
> Do you mean the myth that keeps thousands of their recordings in the lists ? Wasn't me !
> You answered none of my queries about these points.
> Post No.21.
> Once again you make a remark about artists being dead and buried---apropos of what ?
> My opinions about the pianists that I mention from your list is quite clear.
> You made no comment about the names that I left intact in your list,why was that?
> Post no.26.
> I now answer your accusation about nostalgia and say that I base my opinions on what I hear and long experience --in my case 67 years . What's wrong with that ?
> I mention the "Favorite Schubert Piano Works" thread and the fact that Richter comes out on top---dead Richter.
> I mention the poll "Favorite Schubert Pianists ",dead Richter first,dead Kempf second ,Lupu last (nothing to do with me ).
> You say nothing again.
> At last I make a comment on artists from the past,first time!
> Post No.30.
> I'm interested that opinion polls don't decide a pianists virtue,but they do decide the voters opinions on those pianists.
> I wonder why you voted on this poll and you have on others. I wonder why there are so many appearing on TC,it's because members want to know other members opinions.
> Post No.31. i am even more amused than you because I have criticised nobody's taste but you have most certainly.
> I also made no comment about you denying great pianists from the past.
> Why would we be going backwards,either performers are good enough or they are not ,backwards or no.
> Your last comment on different opinions is somewhat rich.It was my difference of opinion regarding some of your list that set you off about my nostalgia for the past
> I should tell you that I am coming to the conclusion that there may be a reason for your refusal to answer any points put to you and your barrage of personal comments (not allowed) I believe that you may know that there is a word for such behaviour and I will make a complaint if you continue in this way.
> Fair difference of opinion is one thing but you are going going beyond that. Perhaps Laing Laing is the best of all !!!


By the way it is Lang Lang not Laing Laing!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> By the way it is Lang Lang not Laing Laing!


It was a freudian slip rhyming Laing with Pain


----------



## DavidA

Andante said:


> It was a freudian slip rhyming Laing with Pain


I think Freud would have a field day with everyone here.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> By the way it is Lang Lang not Laing Laing!


You mean like Angerich in Post 12??


----------



## Ravndal

DrMike said:


> I'm not quite sure what this means. Too often today, the criticism I hear is that the musicians are "too" perfect in their playing. I don't know whether that is what you are comparing to when you talk about them focusing more on the aesthetic part around the piano.
> 
> What is the trade-off, in you mind, with how they performed in the past, as opposed to now? As for fun in classical music, I think of the new, HIP recordings and how they have turned a lot in the classical music world on its head. I still love the old masters, but in a lot of ways, movements like HIP have breathed new life into the repertoire. Compare, say, the Beethoven symphonies of Klemperer to those of van Immerseel. It is a totally "new" look at it. Or the Four Seasons of Giuliano Carmignola/Andrea Marcon to that of Marriner/ASMITF. Yes, some think that the obsession with being "accurate" may take something from the music, but are we to believe that the musicians of the past really weren't interested in accuracy?
> 
> I think for many people, being exposed to a certain style and certain performers for so much of their life, they have come to view those as "good," and compare everything new against that. I don't know if my tastes are conservative - but I think the wonder of good music lies more in the creation of the composer than the performance. True, certain performers have elevated certain works, but it still requires an exceptional score. And so I would prefer that the performer adhere as much as possible to the music as it was written.


I'm talking about live improvisation, taking a chance and giving 100% without caring if hitting a wrong note. And just the fact that piano performers used to warm up on stage in front of the audience a couple of minutes before start. And i believe that the performer should be more closer to the audience, as humans watching another human showing his specialty. And i want to see stage personality..


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> I'm talking about live improvisation, taking a chance and giving 100% without caring if hitting a wrong note. And just the fact that piano performers used to warm up on stage in front of the audience a couple of minutes before start. And i believe that the performer should be more closer to the audience, as humans watching another human showing his specialty. And i want to see stage personality..


You were doing fine by me 'til you got to 'stage personality'. Lang Lang has that; so did Horowitz. Quite a difference there though.


----------



## Ravndal

I had Horowitz and maybe Cziffra in mind when i wrote that. I watched a documentary about Lang Lang, the guy is not human, and there is nothing human about him. And his personality is not interesting, because he doesnt do anything else than play the piano and travel around with his mother.


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> I had Horowitz and maybe Cziffra in mind when i wrote that. I watched a documentary about Lang Lang, the guy is not human, and there is nothing human about him. And his personality is not interesting, because he doesnt do anything else than play the piano and travel around with his mother.


Mind you, did Horowitz do a lot else that was interesting? it has been said that Toscanini was a music monomaniac. And Heifetz never aspired to be anything but the greatest violinist.


----------



## Ravndal

The famous pianists from the 20th century often had very interesting lives, they experience a lot throughout their lives, which made a great impact on their performance and playing.

Like Kissin & lang lang were bred to play piano. _(Before someone starts a kissin discussion on who great he is, il admit that he isnt entirely all bad, but i am still a little bored when i listen to him. But that is a personal opinion.. )_


----------



## Ravndal

DavidA said:


> Mind you, did Horowitz do a lot else that was interesting? it has been said that Toscanini was a music monomaniac. And Heifetz never aspired to be anything but the greatest violinist.


He went trough a lot in his life. Sure he had experienced stuff. He even went trough electroshock therapy for his depression, and probably lived his whole life sexually frustrated (rumours of him being gay). Point is, it was real when he played. I have seen some of his concertos and "the last romantic", there is something very real when he plays chopin mazurka in a minor. Real sadness, which i believe reflected on his life. It's a reason why he was so good at romantic repertoire.


----------



## Ravndal




----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> He went trough a lot in his life. Sure he had experienced stuff. He even went trough electroshock therapy for his depression, and probably lived his whole life sexually frustrated (rumours of him being gay). Point is, it was real when he played. I have seen some of his concertos and "the last romantic", there is something very real when he plays chopin mazurka in a minor. Real sadness, which i believe reflected on his life. It's a reason why he was so good at romantic repertoire.


I really think you're trying to make a point when something isn't there on Horowitz. Cziffra had his upbringing in bitter poverty, playing in a circus and a spell in a labour camp after trying to escape the regime. Now that's what I call a background! But his background also completely revolved around the piano
Lang Lang certainly has got a background, coming from relative poverty in China. the fact that it also revolves around the piano should not surprise us. After all, that is likely as he has grown to be one of the most successful pianists. Mozarts and Beethoven's backgrounds also revolved completely around music. All Mozart did was go around playing the piano with his father as a kid. So I don't think this theory about Lang Lang's background adds up.


----------



## Ravndal

Even if Horowitz didn't do or experience extraordinary stuff, doesn't mean that he was emotionless. I believe he repressed a lot of stuff trough his life, and the only time he could let that out was when he played piano. That is why I'm talking about true emotions. Even if he didn't work at a circus, or improvised at jazz bars in the weekend, i find him interesting.

Now, when it comes to Lang Lang (i don't get why i even have to compare those two. Or even write both their names in the same sentence.) He has like many other performers grown up with music. But the difference between him and many good pianists is that Lang Lang is still a child, and it's not his fault. His parents decided that they wanted a professional musicians before he was born, and they have watched over him his whole life. He havent done anything else than play the piano. Now he travels around with his mother (he is incapable to live for him self, because he hasnt learned anything of the outside world). I am sorry for messy explanation, this is not my first language. But i think you get the point. now, where did i get all this information?

From this DVD i bought one year ago


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> Even if Horowitz didn't do or experience extraordinary stuff, doesn't mean that he was emotionless. I believe he repressed a lot of stuff trough his life, and the only time he could let that out was when he played piano. That is why I'm talking about true emotions. Even if he didn't work at a circus, or improvised at jazz bars in the weekend, i find him interesting.
> 
> Now, when it comes to Lang Lang (i don't get why i even have to compare those two. Or even write both their names in the same sentence.) He has like many other performers grown up with music. But the difference between him and many good pianists is that Lang Lang is still a child, and it's not his fault. His parents decided that they wanted a professional musicians before he was born, and they have watched over him his whole life. He havent done anything else than play the piano. Now he travels around with his mother (he is incapable to live for him self, because he hasnt learned anything of the outside world). I am sorry for messy explanation, this is not my first language. But i think you get the point. now, where did i get all this information?
> 
> From this DVD i bought one year ago


Yet you could argue that Horowitz remained a 'child' - even when an old man he had Wanda fussing round him more like a mother than a wife. I also have seen a film about Lang Lang (although I have none of his recordings) and he seems to articulate himself pretty well. He also manages to run a music school and I note Fanny Waterman (no less) picked him as an ambassador for the Leeds piano competition. So I think he must have more about him than you suppose. I know on the film he admitted his holistic education had been limited so he was trying to improve in this area. 
Now don't get me wrong. I think Horowitz was one of the greats. But his greatness did not exist outside of music. I don't think he actually did much outside of performing. But then, when you play like that, you don't need to.


----------



## Ravndal

Have you heard anything so dreadful as this??






That is slaughter. Nothing in that piece makes sense. He starts out with an idea, and he doesnt follow trough. And suddenly BANG BANG virtuoso show off in the middle. It's like he is bored, and can't wait till the middle part. It is an etude, but it is an chopin etude. That means a lot of emotions, and not just a technical feat.


----------



## Ukko

[Watches the clip] ... Why, that's *fab*. Such grace, such emotion. That etude means so much more to me now. I am flabbergasted. I must go lie down.

:clap::tiphat::trp:



. . . . . . . . . . .

 Whew; I am finally myself again. I was just _transported_ there for awhile.


----------



## Ravndal

Grace, and emotion! Big words. Must truly have taken you places i only could dream of. Afraid im not as imaginative as you. Pollini does it nice and easy for me.


----------



## Ravndal

DavidA said:


> Yet you could argue that Horowitz remained a 'child' - even when an old man he had Wanda fussing round him more like a mother than a wife. I also have seen a film about Lang Lang (although I have none of his recordings) and he seems to articulate himself pretty well. He also manages to run a music school and I note Fanny Waterman (no less) picked him as an ambassador for the Leeds piano competition. So I think he must have more about him than you suppose. I know on the film he admitted his holistic education had been limited so he was trying to improve in this area.
> Now don't get me wrong. I think Horowitz was one of the greats. But his greatness did not exist outside of music. I don't think he actually did much outside of performing. But then, when you play like that, you don't need to.


Oh? felt like he was talking from a manuscript. Horowitz was probably a bit lost in the later years of his life, but he was still much closer to the last great composers. He also had a teacher who was a composer. Which means a lot with the education. That is also a good reason why 20th century pianists were good; their teachers were usually composers or students of composers. They were taught some secrets.


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> Oh? felt like he was talking from a manuscript. Horowitz was probably a bit lost in the later years of his life, but he was still much closer to the last great composers. He also had a teacher who was a composer. Which means a lot with the education. That is also a good reason why 20th century pianists were good; their teachers were usually composers or students of composers. They were taught some secrets.


He did not seem to be talking from a manuscript. That is your imagination. Lang Lang also had one of the great teachers in Graffman, who himself was a pupil of Horowitz. I am not arguing about Lang Lang's pianism but the grounds on which y are making the argument. Every argument you make about One could be made about the other, apart from the fact that Lang Lang does not appear to suffer from mental illnesses.


----------



## Ukko

Looks like Lang Lang has taken over the Lupu thread. Because LL may be a TC member, I will content myself with the observation that he appears to have excellent _commercial_ judgement.


----------



## ptr

Radu Lupu might not be technically superior to Lang Lang, but his musicality is beyond anything Mr Lang has ever touched!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

Ravndal said:


> Have you heard anything so dreadful as this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is slaughter. Nothing in that piece makes sense. He starts out with an idea, and he doesnt follow trough. And suddenly BANG BANG virtuoso show off in the middle. It's like he is bored, and can't wait till the middle part. It is an etude, but it is an chopin etude. That means a lot of emotions, and not just a technical feat.


I wouldn't say dreadful, but I don't care for that performance of this wonderful Chopin etude.

And I have to ask - and this is directed towards all classical performances (especially soloists) - what is up with the overly dramatic facial expressions and weaving around? Is there a technical reason for it? Is it theatricality? Is it supposed to convince us that the performer really "cares" about the work? It seems kind of ridiculous to me, but what do I know. I heard a comedian one time, talking about rock guitarists and the pained expressions they get on their faces when they hit a particular note. I am reminded of that with all these performers. What gives?


----------



## Ravndal

I have a tendency to make weird faces when i play, it's not conscious, it just happens under extreme focusing/concentration. Just like when carpenters stick their tongue out when they are hammering. 

And the weaving around comes from involving in the music, for some (like me) it's harder to resist it than doing it.


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> I wouldn't say dreadful, but I don't care for that performance of this wonderful Chopin etude.
> 
> And I have to ask - and this is directed towards all classical performances (especially soloists) - what is up with the overly dramatic facial expressions and weaving around? Is there a technical reason for it? Is it theatricality? Is it supposed to convince us that the performer really "cares" about the work? It seems kind of ridiculous to me, but what do I know. I heard a comedian one time, talking about rock guitarists and the pained expressions they get on their faces when they hit a particular note. I am reminded of that with all these performers. What gives?


Interesting that when Heifetz played he had a poker face with no expression. So the critics called him 'cold'. Seems you can't win!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Interesting that when Heifetz played he had a poker face with no expression. So the critics called him 'cold'. Seems you can't win!


I love Heifetz. And the expressions and movements don't bother me such that I can't enjoy the performance. I just find it amusing. It looks comical to me - but I am not a performer.


----------



## DavidA

I think it is actually a matter of personality and upbringing. Glenn Gould's mother taught him to hum when playing and it stuck. Cherkassky used to nearly jump into the piano. Lang Lang has facial expressions. Mind you, so do many other performers. What matters is the music.


----------



## Ukko

DavidA said:


> I think it is actually a matter of personality and upbringing. Glenn Gould's mother taught him to hum when playing and it stuck. Cherkassky used to nearly jump into the piano. Lang Lang has facial expressions. Mind you, so do many other performers. What matters is the music.


That's the thing about audio-only recordings: the music is what we get. Those recordings being 99.47% of my classical music experience, seeing what's going on is usually distracting. Of the 'movers', Cziffra is OK to watch; intensity like that can't be faked. I used to like to watch Liberace; good natured showmanship with a smile - and he dressed up good.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's the thing about audio-only recordings: the music is what we get. Those recordings being 99.47% of my classical music experience, seeing what's going on is usually distracting. Of the 'movers', Cziffra is OK to watch; intensity like that can't be faked. I used to like to watch Liberace; good natured showmanship with a smile - and he dressed up good.


Same here - 99% of my music is audio only. Occasionally I will watch something on YouTube, but am not as happy with the audio quality, and frequently the audio and video are out of sync, which annoys me greatly. This explains, too, why I don't get as much joy from Gould - his damn humming annoys me. The movement and overly-exaggerated expressions don't matter to me, because they don't impact the music. The humming, though, is a different story. If it weren't so constant, that would be a different matter, as I don't mind live recordings with the occasional noise from the audience.


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> Same here - 99% of my music is audio only. Occasionally I will watch something on YouTube, but am not as happy with the audio quality, and frequently the audio and video are out of sync, which annoys me greatly. This explains, too, why I don't get as much joy from Gould - his damn humming annoys me. The movement and overly-exaggerated expressions don't matter to me, because they don't impact the music. The humming, though, is a different story. If it weren't so constant, that would be a different matter, as I don't mind live recordings with the occasional noise from the audience.


Funny. I'm the sort of person who gets most annoyed and distracted if someone unwraps a sweet paper in the cinema. I get annoyed with coughing on a recording. But Gould's humming has never bothered me. It should but it doesn't.


----------



## Novelette

Ravndal said:


> I have a tendency to make weird faces when i play, it's not conscious, it just happens under extreme focusing/concentration. Just like when carpenters stick their tongue out when they are hammering.
> 
> And the weaving around comes from involving in the music, for some (like me) it's harder to resist it than doing it.


I do the same when I'm playing. It's nearly impossible for me to keep an expressionless face while I'm playing, especially difficult works. That's why I never let anyone take pictures of me while I'm playing, I don't need anyone to have someone hold such terrible pictures over my head.


----------



## DavidA

Novelette said:


> I do the same when I'm playing. It's nearly impossible for me to keep an expressionless face while I'm playing, especially difficult works. That's why I never let anyone take pictures of me while I'm playing, I don't need anyone to have someone hold such terrible pictures over my head.


It's not the faces I pull that worry me. It's the faces other people pull when they hear me play!


----------



## Op.123

I like Lupu's playing a lot he is definitely one of my favourite pianists even though I don't have many recordings by him.


----------



## Ravndal

I don't know if i have said it before, but his Brahms recordings is amazing. Especially op 117 & 118.


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> I don't know if i have said it before, but his Brahms recordings is amazing. Especially op 117 & 118.


Even if you haven't said it, _I_ have, which ought to be sufficiently significant. (!)


----------



## Vaneyes

A recent article commemorating *Radu Lupu's *70th. :tiphat:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2015/11/30/radu-lupu-birthday/


----------



## Pugg

Decca released a whole box with his recordings :tiphat:


----------



## Itullian

Pugg said:


> Decca released a whole box with his recordings :tiphat:


I want it. ........................


----------



## Steatopygous

Itullian said:


> I want it. ........................


I've got it. Very good. Complete recordings, only 28 CDs. Very poetic pianist.


----------

