Piano Society
Free Classical Keyboard Recordings
It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:18 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Cedarville University
I heard him in Cincinnati playing Rach 3...I was so impressed I went twice. He seems to have one of the most well rounded techniques and controlled sound of pianists alive today. What say the rest of you?

_________________
Joseph Kingma


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:27 pm
Posts: 194
I agree! I have all of his Rachmaninov in my collection. Also, his performance of the
Corelli Variations on youtube is fantastic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYCGcM83s2w

_________________
"I am glad that you wish to study the art of tones from its roots up, and it depends only on you to learn for yourself so much of it as has become known to me." -- J.S. Bach


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:02 pm
Posts: 1167
Location: Piemonte, Italy
bclever wrote:
I agree! I have all of his Rachmaninov in my collection. Also, his performance of the
Corelli Variations on youtube is fantastic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYCGcM83s2w


Personally I find him less interesting now than he used to be at the beginning of his career. His Etudes-Tableaux are the best complete set I know of, and in single items on a par with Richter, Kissin and the alikes. Quite astounding if you consider that he recorded them all in 1992, when he was about 20 y/o.

_________________
"A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking" - Anonymous

Alfonso Bertazzi, amateur pianist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:15 pm
Posts: 12
I find him dry and detached the way most of forefront pianists of today are. He has been described by some as a "perfect son-in-law", a man you cannot say anything really probing about, neither good nor bad, which, again, seems to be a common contemporary concert hall standard. I found this the other day on the web, although I disagree with some "cliché" claims, it is still worth a glimpse:

Why are today's concert pianists so boring?

by Martin Kettle, The Guardian, Thursday 5 September 2002

"It was the reviews of Evgeny Kissin's recent concerts that brought things to a head. The brilliant pianist is regularly hailed as the greatest of the modern age. But his reviews were terrible. The fans had cheered him, yet the critics hated his technically flawless playing. Left cold by Kissin as always, I sided with the critics. But it made me reflect that the problem may run deeper than a single pianist. If there were a softer and gentler way of saying this, then I would say it. But in my view, modern concert pianists have become boring. Very few of them have anything very interesting to say, at least to me.

To make such statements is to invite some heartfelt attacks. Some will say that it isn't the pianists who are boring, but I who am bored with the piano. Perhaps that is the case. But then I only have to put on a CD by Schnabel to know that I'll never be bored by him, at any rate. Others will ask what someone who does not himself play the piano can say on this subject with any authority. I have no answer to that. I merely believe that piano recitals - and piano recordings - used to be far more rewarding than they have become today. Is this objectively the case; and if so, why?

Many will say (as friends with whom I have discussed this subject have said): "But what about so-and-so? How can you dismiss an artist like X or Y?" And of course, in a way, that's unanswerable too. How could anyone in their right mind ignore an artist such as Mitsuko Uchida, for instance? But perhaps the world in which we listen to Uchida has changed more than we realise.

There was a time when the piano was the most accessible and most powerful medium of music for many people. The piano was to musical culture what the internal combustion engine was to mobility. The piano revolution started around the time of Beethoven and began to come to an end with the arrival of the LP. But its time is clearly over.

The piano's heyday stretched from around 1830 to 1960. That was true in four ways, all of them connected. Firstly, there was the technical revolution in the instrument itself, culminating in the unprecedented expressive richness of the concert grand. Secondly, there was the explosion of great writing for this wonderful new instrument, stretching from before the time of Chopin to after the time of Prokofiev. Thirdly, there was the emergence of a succession of outstanding players (of whom Liszt is generally acknowledged as the starting point), who gave concerts and later made recordings that deepened the public's enthusiasm for the piano's possibilities.

Finally, there was the increased availability of the upright piano and of relatively inexpensive sheet music, which combined to provide the principal means of domestic music-making of industrial society.

The days in which every middle-class home, and many working-class ones too, contained an upright piano - and at least one person people who could play it a little - have not been completely erased from memory. But they are fading fast. The gramophone, the radio and above all the television long ago replaced the piano as the focus and main source of home entertainment. It will never reclaim that place.

The piano's fall from eminence has been accompanied by a falling-off in the replenishment of the piano repertoire. As in all other music, composers have gone in other directions. Who, since, let's say, Shostakovich (and even this is stretching a point), has written piano music that genuinely holds its place in the recital repertoire? Certainly, few composers any longer write music that amateurs are able to play (not that many amateurs could ever play much Chopin); or (more importantly) that amateurs want to play, even in simplified editions.

In this context, it is hardly surprising that the piano recital itself should have begun to wither too. The recital has undoubtedly become a less mainstream part of musical life. There are fewer of them. They are not such big events in either box-office or artistic terms. Of course, there are exceptions. There always are. But we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that nothing has changed.

This brings us back to the pianists of the modern era, and the question of whether they have - or could have - remained unchanged amid so many other alterations in their world. The answer has to be that they have not. As the place of the piano has changed, so the place of the pianist has changed too. Pianists, and the audiences who listen to them, can no longer be sure that they represent a living and constantly regenerating art form. And it shows in the playing.

There can be no real dispute that the age of the pianistic "lion" - the age of Liszt and Rachmaninov - is dead. It died with Vladimir Horowitz in the same month that the Berlin wall fell. It was the end of the era of the pianist as star, an era in which pianists could be seen as demons possessed by brilliant and magical technical skills.

What is more striking, I think, is that the age of the intellectual pianist, the priestly interpreter of the classic works, is disappearing too. This tradition, stretching from Bulow and Busoni to Schnabel and Arrau (with a brief detour into the Glenn Gould cul-de-sac) now lives on largely in Alfred Brendel. But as the years pass, even this tradition is becoming frayed in the postmodern world.

Arthur Rubinstein once, with a characteristic smile, told an interviewer that he always thought of Brahms as a modern composer. This wasn't an assertion of conservative taste on the great pianist's part. It was simply true. Rubinstein's own youth had overlapped with Brahms's old age. When Rubinstein played Brahms, which I heard him do in his 80s, he was playing the music of a man who was part of his own lifetime. Listen to the wonderful Brahms recordings he left. It shows.

Twenty or 30 years ago, it was still relatively easy to hear elderly pianists who knew in their very being, as Rubinstein did, that they were artists in a living interpretative tradition. That quality shone through everything that such people as Arrau, Wilhelm Kempff or Rudolf Serkin ever played. All three were, I think, taught by pupils of Liszt (as was Schnabel before them), and Liszt had famously been kissed on the forehead by Beethoven himself. Arrau's Beethoven always had a sacramental feel. Serkin's Beethoven and Schubert recitals, of which I heard several, were overwhelmingly creative experiences in ways that one now never hears. Again, the Serkin records provide the proof.

And then there was Sviatoslav Richter. The first Richter recital I heard has stayed in my head as no other concert has. I remember everything he played and quite a lot of how he played it: an Olympian rendering of an early Schubert sonata; Franck's Prelude, Chorale and Fugue, in a performance so magisterial that I have never had the slightest inclination to hear anyone else play it; then, after the interval, an overwhelming account of the Liszt sonata.

This may all seem like nothing more than an exercise in 20-20 rose-tinted nostalgia. But golden ages really do exist. The 1960s and 70s came at the end of one such age. But those years were not some caprice of the pianistic gods. They were rooted in the European cultural history that immediately preceded them.

It seems to me significant that some of the most outstanding young pianists of that same era gradually turned away from the solo piano at this time. Whether this was a conscious rejection, let alone a coordinated one, is hard to know. But of the four most celebrated 60- something pianists of that period, only one continues to play regularly.

Daniel Barenboim still occasionally gives piano recitals, but for 30 years and more his remarkable talents have been focused on conducting. Martha Argerich, whom many people tend to nominate as the greatest living pianist, has not, so far as I know, given a solo recital in years, preferring (when she turns up) to play concertos and chamber music.

Vladimir Ashkenazy's withdrawal is especially remarkable in the light of his wonderful gifts. Like Kissin, Ashkenazy emerged from Russia with a technique that appeared to sweep away all technical obstacles. Unlike Kissin, Ashkenazy's technical skill was harnessed to a rare sensibility and a rich self-awareness. Yet for some years now, he too has turned his back on a virtuoso career.

The one enduring recitalist of that generation, Maurizio Pollini, seems troubled in a different way by the pianistic inheritance. The years have not dimmed Pollini's technique or his intellectual integrity, but there has recently been a cold intensity to his playing that is disturbing. This is a condition that seems particularly to affect Italians (Michelangeli in the previous generation went through a similar process). It is as though, in the pursuit of objectivity, Pollini now seeks to negate what was previously understood by interpretation.

This does not mean that there are no important recitalists any more, or that no pianist makes recordings worth listening to (though I can't help feeling that digital recording has not helped). Brendel, Uchida, Maria Joao Pires, Andras Schiff, Jean-Yves Thibaudet and, judging by a recent recital, Richard Goode, are all active pianists who in various ways continue to extend our understanding of the art form. The career of Joanna MacGregor, who is engaged in a one-woman crusade to reinvent the repertoire and the recital tradition, is proof both that there are exciting modern pianists and that the cultural terms on which they must play, if they are not to become mere antiquarians, have changed fundamentally.

This is not "the death of the piano". The piano will never die. But the great days have gone. With the passing of time, the piano is becoming ever more a historical musical instrument and ever less a creative one. Perhaps that explains why, though the pianists can play all the notes as well as ever, the notes carry so much less meaning to some of us than they once did."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:58 pm 
An acquaintance . Words cannot describe how amazing this pianist is. Anyone who disagrees simply has no musical taste. Just look, he has the ultimate technique, and plays more than 30 hard piano concertos. He won many awards for his Chopin recordings which also shows a little something. once again this is a short passage, but I have written a long article on his website about him. the article is presented below


It really means a lot to me. I am a huge admirer of Maestro Lugansky and I truly hope to be like him one day. I tried everything I could to get to meet him. I wrote a letter saying I knew some of his acquaintances and that I am also a Russian pianist and a great supporter of him and I would be honored to have a word with him before or after the concert. This was May 23rd of this year, which also happens to be my mothers birthday. I ordered tickets to the Metropolitan museum were he gave his concert, and I ordered tickets a year in advance for his concert of Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto in PA. Of course, his playing was beyond great. I had first heard his recording of a Chopin Nocturne Op 48 no 1 2 years ago, and that was when I fell in love with this pianist. I now have all of his Cd;s and I would like to thank you for putting up his schedule of concert tours. If it was not for you, I would never have met him. Thank you for making this possible. When I met him, it was like a big energy wave that had hit me. After the concert I was taken backstage to the green room, and when I walked in there he was. Standing tall with that brown hair and blue eyes, just like on his videos. My knees became wobbly. This was the moment I had been waiting 3 years for. I had promised myself to see this pianist, and I had fulfilled it. I told him that I was the one that wrote the letter and that I was the biggest admirer of his and that I hope to be like him. He smiled and he signed my sheet music which was a Rachmaninoff concerto in C minor. (this was in New york) I had then told him I would be meeting him a week later in PA. ( I had also made a small request for him to play the original cadenza that Rachmaninoff wrote, the lighter one) he smiled and said that he preferred that one too. He then said something that made me fly. He asked me to wait outside for a few minutes while he gets changed and we could go out for tea and talk. This of course was one of the most generous things anyone has ever done to me. This was when I realized. Nikolai is not your typical celebrity. Many celebrants from Hollywood and such think that because they are rich millionaires they are above all and they can treat everyone else like crap. Maestro Lugansky however, is not like this. He did not have to ask me out for tea, or even talk to me. But he did anyway, because he understood that I am a person just like him, no matter how talented he is compared to me. This might sound a little dramatic. But this really meant a lot to me. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to have tea with Lugansky. As he lead me outside many of his friends that are also talented musicians from Turkey and Russia had also flown in to meet him, and I did not feel comfortable staying because I am merely a 14 year old who be barely knows and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to stay with these virtuosos. Instead he asked for my number, and he gave me his and I saw him a week later in PA. The Rachmaninoff was fantastic. It was as if the Rachmaninoff's soul entered Lugansky. At the finale of the third movement, I started crying. It was one of the most beautifulest climaxes Rachmaninoff (or any composer) ever wrote. You simply as Lugansky says "cannot be cold while performing this. Even the not so happy performances can be excused with this climax". and he is right. In conclusion after reading this long message you can really see that Lugansky means a lot to me. No, I am not a fanatic fan over him, or a person that is obsessed over him. But I simply look up to him and one day achieve the heights that he has achieved


Last edited by N Lugansky on Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 am
Posts: 1418
Location: Gulfport, MS, USA
N Lugansky wrote:
Nikolai Lugansky happens to be a close friend of mine. Words cannot describe how amazing this pianist is. Anyone who disagrees simply has no musical taste.

If Lugansky is indeed a close friend of yours, keep in mind you are not doing him any favors by making statements like this. We all know that Lugansky's technique is brilliant, but that has little to do with musical taste.

Incidentally, I have only recently heard a recording of Lugansky's for the first time, when I was searching youtube for recordings of Chopin 25/11. I found Lugansky's recording to be very pleasant and perfectly played, but there wasn't anything particularly interesting about it either. Mind, it's a difficult piece with which to do something interesting, but I gather from people here that this is normal for Lugansky. With so many pianists out there who can play as well as Lugansky in terms of technique (or at least very close), we have a tendency to look for interpretations that are original, and there are many opinions on which interpretations are best. I'm quite sure that Lugansky probably respects this fact; you would serve him better as a friend to do the same.

_________________
"Z Czernym poznałem się na panie brat—na dwa fortepiana często z nim u niego grywałem. Dobry człowiek, ale nic więcej..." - Fryderyk Chopin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 am
Posts: 1418
Location: Gulfport, MS, USA
On your recommendation, I listened to Lugansky's 48/1. It was a very nice performance indeed, and showed more of his character than 25/11. I still prefer this one, though. :wink:

I take it you are Martel on youtube? You're not doing him any favors there either.

_________________
"Z Czernym poznałem się na panie brat—na dwa fortepiana często z nim u niego grywałem. Dobry człowiek, ale nic więcej..." - Fryderyk Chopin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9638
Location: Netherlands
My former teacher is a good friend of Lugansky, I believe they studied together in Moscow, and she thinks he's one of the best. So there must be something there indeed. But what I've heard from him makes me side with Terez - he is an extremely good pianist but somehow his interpretations are not remarkable in any way. It follows that we 'simply have no musical taste' ..... ah well :roll:

It's rather laughable that you join a forum wearing Lugansky's name, claiming to be a close friend, only to wax about him like a crazed groupie.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:19 pm 
techneut wrote:
My former teacher is a good friend of Lugansky, I believe they studied together in Moscow, and she thinks he's one of the best. So there must be something there indeed. But what I've heard from him makes me side with Terez - he is an extremely good pianist but somehow his interpretations are not remarkable in any way. It follows that we 'simply have no musical taste' ..... ah well :roll:

It's rather laughable that you join a forum wearing Lugansky's name, claiming to be a close friend, only to wax about him like a crazed groupie.


No, not a crazed groupie, but a close supporter of him. This was an article written a while ago, that was asked by Valor Dominion an owner of one of his advertisements , knowing that I know him personally to describe what it was like to meet him. Yes it was a little dramatic, but it is necessary to dramatize parts to get the attention.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9638
Location: Netherlands
N Lugansky wrote:
No, not a crazed groupie, but a close supporter of him. This was an article written a while ago, that was asked by Valor Dominion an owner of one of his advertisements , knowing that I know him personally to describe what it was like to meet him. Yes it was a little dramatic, but it is necessary to dramatize parts to get the attention.

We don't really need attention-grabbing advertisements here....
And I don't believe Lugansky needs this kind of "support".
I'd say welcome to PS, but please remain objective.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nikolai Lugansky
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:39 pm
Posts: 16
I absolutely love his Rach Moment Musical 4 performance on Youtube.
But I also think quite a lot of his playing lacks individual character, even though it's all played really well. Valentina Lisitsa has the same "problem". They can still shine in specific pieces though.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group