Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Valentina Lisitsa Concert Tomorrow

I didn't think her etudes last night were all that good on the whole.

I've got very mixed feelings about Valentina Lisitsa. She gets all the notes, her tempo is fine, her dynamics are there but somehow I find her playing doesn't move me. For me, there's just something missing.

Wasn't able to see them, only saw her youtube video's of them.

Yes i know what you mean. At times she is very good, but i prefer pianists like Neuhaus, as they seem to have something more...

I also feel she's missing that. Her playing is polished well in a way that one passage would smoothly flow to the next and be very pleasant to the ear. But when the piece ends, I have no clear idea of the story she intended to portray.

I think her virtue is also her nemesis. I've heard she can memorize and perform extremely long pieces in a rediculously short period of time.
In order to trigger the audience emotionally, one must understand the story the piece is bringing forth, and create his own version of it which he can best relate to.
No matter how good a pianists is, this process takes time (as limited by our human nature), and the longer you have with a piece, the better it sinks in. For short, I think she needs to sit down with a piece longer..

Not all great pianists have a story, image, etc. in mind when the play. Even if they did, I doubt many would expect the listener to have the same image or story from hearing their performance.

Not that missed notes are really bothersome for me, but there were enough last night that I was a bit surprised (especially in the Beethoven).

I said a story, not an image. They aren't the same thing. The story is merely for the pianist to organize the piece in a way that develops in a certain way as it goes along, and doesn't just stay in one place. The story helps to play not only one bar against the other, or one phrase against another, in a way that doesn't sound repetitive, but also the beginning of the piece against the end.
It doesn't necessarily need to be visual or logical, as long as it progress.
Listeners don't need to see any image actually, in order to feel that the piece signified something the moment it ended.

However, the above doesn't hold for pieces written in the Baroque period.

?? Why not?

I suspect the complexity and strict form in Baroque music causes some listeners to miss the deep emotions woven into it. I find Baroque to be extremely emotive and it affects me deeply yet there is a sense of order that makes me feel very peaceful.

The comments above about Valentina needing more time to absorb the music are interesting and true. My understanding and ability to express my music does indeed grow with time. Occasionally I encounter a piece or a passage that leaves me scratching my head, "What was the composer trying to say here?." Believe it or not, I am most often flommoxed by Beethoven. I can play the notes, dynamics, etc. pretty well, but I have difficulty understanding what I am playing. I have to live with the music for a while, sing it, conduct it in my head, hum it in the shower and fall asleep hearing it until I finally "get it."

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9668945


There is the concert for anyone who missed it

I said both "story" and "image". Neither is necessary. It's simply not true that all or even the great majority of great pianists employ images or stories. I don't think most pianists who use images or stories use them all the time either.

Not the great majority of pianists.
The good pianists. We can hear in their playing something more than was written in the score. They progress either by visualizing a "story", or by feeling it. It doesn't have to be written, nor have any recognizeable form. But it does need to have some sort of "memory"; each new passage is played in recognition of the previous one, as if it has learned/altered/shifted due to the existence of these precedents. You can stay in one place, but it's boring to the listener, and much less existing for you.
This is my honest view.
Apparently, having a clear idea of the sequence of those shifts (especially for long/intricate pieces), is that "something more" that everyone keeps talking about, and is eventually what differentiates the outstanding pianists from the rest.

I can find almost nothing to agree with or that has IMO any basis in fact here. The idea that the greatest pianist are the ones who use stories or images and this is how they progress is based on?

As far as "each new passage is played in recognition of the previous one" it goes without saying that even the most ordinary intermediate student needs to think about this when playing. This does not necessarily mean there is any story or image involved.

My last post about this.

Sounded like she hit about 99.99% of the notes correctly. Not too bad for such a challenging program.

I observed some of the same "impressive technique yet something lacking" in this concert, especially in the Appassionata. However, the strange thing is, I heard her play the Appassionata and the Rachmaninoff selections at a concert in New York two years ago! At the time, I was rather surprised that she performed the Appassionata, because it really didn't seem quite performance ready - she was still struggling with some passagework. She's clearly past that point now, but MY point is that it's not a piece she has just recently memorized in a marathon session.

From my perspective, it seems like her playing style is just well-suited to Romantic repertoire, and not nearly as well-suited to the Classical era. IMO the biggest thing that causes this is her frequent pianistically self-indulgent tempo changes and pauses, which can work well in Romantic repertoire and big Russian pieces (which seem to be the pieces she does best), but rob Classical works of their structure.

I am nonetheless a fan:) I appreciate her meaty repertoire choices, her non-elitist and approachable demeanor (I've talked to her several times and she's always been very nice), and her innovative marketing approaches. Plus, I think her Op. 39 No. 6 is the best version I've ever heard of the piece; it's so good I can't imagine a better version.

Wouldn't that mean one wrong note? If so, you weren't listening too closely. =p

Yea, I heard more than a few clunkers and missed notes just in Op.48 No.1 and that's only one of many pieces on her program.

Math was never my strongest subject !! Of course I heard a few clunkers in the portions of the recital I listened to (i.e. - the first half of the program and the etudes in the second half). The number of wrong notes seemed minute compared to the sheer number of notes played - that's all.

I also agree with those who have stated that Lisitsa's style it better suited for playing Romantic rather than Classic era repertoire - and also that the etudes sounded a bit muddy.

Well said, thats exactly how I feel about it! Thats also why I really like the classic Sonata form. Andras Schiff said it very nicely in one of his lectures, that you can get a feeling of 'coming home'.