Zimerman Pi

the true test for Schubert's impromptus in my opinion is op. 142, no. 1 (in F) and honestly it's not something for Zimerman.

A good performance of the "perpetual motion" means little or nothing compared to this other impromptu, instead, so sublime (one of the most beautiful things I know for piano) and musically so complex.

And indeed ...

Open content (youtube)

You are right, it is suddenly more difficult; however, I don't understand what about this performance strikes you as wrong. Surely Horowitz creates many more nuances, but to me, this one seems spot on. I think you are a bit insensitive to the charm that can also be found in absolute rigor, which is as difficult to achieve as inventing many shades... these are things I began to appreciate abroad, where, to name one thing, Bach is played on the violin without vibrato and with a centimeter of bow, but I can understand that not everyone goes crazy for this cold-bloodedness.

Zimerman is perfect, IMHO, and captures the most eminently galant aspect of the Improvvisati. Another great Schubertian is Brendel, who instead captures a more restless aspect. They are two immense musicians, and to say that one of the improvvisati is "not Zimerman's style" is a bit risky. Perhaps one could say that, in their opinion, he does not fully capture the expressive character of one of the pieces (and this could perhaps be discussed, but it would lead into arguments on the verge of a brawl, in my opinion), but I would stop there...

In my opinion, Zimerman's musicality is not cold. It is simply mechanical and perhaps a bit shortsighted.

As for Schubert's Impromptu, there is no need to invent anything. The piece is already poly-expressive in itself (at times martial, at times pathetic, at times dreamy, etc.).

Zimerman's interpretation is a battlefield; just look at the first phrase, it is completely devastated: the initial pianoforte is ignored, the rests on the second and fourth eighth notes of measure 4 are treated as if they didn't exist (Schubert certainly didn't put them there by chance), the sforzando on the diminished seventh always in measure 4, placed there intentionally by the composer to create tension, is executed "naively" like the preceding forte... Schubert even exacerbates it a few measures later with octaves and staccatissimo (almost as if shouting: hey, you reading this, I want even more tension here!): Zimerman blissfully ignores this too.

Is this a cold way of playing? I would say it is simply a limited way. I agree, the Impromptu in F is really not Zimerman's forte.

This one is much better in my opinion, more touching and almost brings tears to your eyes:

Music for my ears

Open content (youtube)

jack wrote:

What do you think of the pairing, specifically in these improvvisati?

... I think Radu Lupu is unreachable

Ettore wrote:

... I think Radu Lupu is unreachable

Radu Lupu is certainly very good. Historical interpreters of these pieces are Edwin Fischer (in the complete set) and for the second and third of Op. 90, Dinu Lipatti. Then there are Kempff (who seems truly very good to me in these things) and Brendel, not to be forgotten.

Chopin wrote:

In my opinion, Zimerman's musicality is not cold. It is simply mechanical and perhaps a bit shortsighted. [...]

Is this a cold way of playing? I would say it is simply a limited way. I agree, suddenly F-flat is not Zimerman's thing.

Forget Zimerman, it's not him who is being shortsighted here; there is someone who listens little and poorly... normally I don't waste time with certain discussions, but I think in this case it is worth it.

I will go in order. In Schubert's era, it was not possible to achieve the fp (fortepiano) with the pedal work and silent key release as on modern pianos: fp meant nothing more and nothing less than a soft sforzando, which is exactly what Zimerman does. This absolutely does not delegitimize anyone who decides to exploit the possibility of performing an fp as we understand it (as is found, for example, at the beginning of Beethoven's Sonata op. 13 and as I also like to listen to it, at least in that case), but Zimerman has ignored nothing at all.

The pauses at measure 4 were certainly not forgotten: they are there indeed, but, even in this case, one must remember that Schubert's piano did not dampen like the modern piano, so undoubtedly Schubert did not write that pause (I am referring especially to the first one) thinking of a "hole," but rather a breath; so much so that at measure 10, where he evidently wants a drier sound, he adds the "nail" to the chord, and indeed Zimerman plays the chord differently. As for the sforzandi, they are (both at measure 4 and at the same point, at measure 10) at the climax of a crescendo, and it is evident that Zimerman's choice is to consider those sforzandi more as the peak of the crescendo than as an emphasis on the sound. I find the choice consistent, especially with Schubertian writing. One can agree or disagree, as always, but there is a long way to go from here to saying that Zimerman plays in a mechanical and shortsighted way. Of course, his way of playing is rich in nuances, sometimes truly subtle, and one must know how to listen to them. But that is another matter entirely...

Clap Clap Carlos

Carlos wrote:

... normally I don't waste time with certain discussions, but I think in this case it is worth it.

...on the contrary, you should

If there is someone short-sighted here, it certainly isn't Zimerman