[f_minor] Scriabin

[Jörgen Lundmark]

I still don't understand the need to berate things one doesn't 
appreciate. If Gould, Horowitz, Richter, Sofronitsky, Feinberg, Berman, 
Hamelin etc., et.c. felt that Scriabin was worth the effort, I don't 
feel there's any point calling his music "lot of impressive motion and 
noise, but not much else". Gould did on several occations rate Scriabin 
highly, especially compared with many contemporary composers. Also, I 
don't see the point of comparing Scriabin or most other composers with 
Bach. The latter had such immense influence over music history and wrote 
so many seminal works that only Beethoven and Mozart cut the mustard in 
my humble opinion.

Let's instead talk of things we like, and what Gould did or could have 
brought to that music.

/Jorgen
> bravo, fred !!!   you have said it perfectly. and your instincts are 
> correct. don't feel you have to re-listen to scriabin to find what you 
> have been told you missed. for you have missed nothing.  you won't 
> find much more the second time around.         don't get me wrong.  mr 
> scriabin offered a breakthrough ( or continuation ) in the destruction 
> of key, and the chance to play the world's hardest piece, according to 
> s. richter.  ( the only problem  with the latter is that now EVERY 
> pianist plays it to deserve that prestige ).    and there are very 
> impressive clusters of musical color. but the problem is that it's a 
> little like mickey mouse , the sorcerer.  a lot of impressive motion 
> and noise, but not much else.------ in the same league with your bach 
> ? nope,  not a chance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ff0.org/pipermail/f_minor/attachments/20120131/3d178f97/attachment.html>