Yes, thank you. I was the first to share it on KZbin, saying it was Siviro's. This video was made before the research, I wish I had made it after the research.

@@OzanFabienGuvener I really like this video. A lot of good things in the same place 😀. What I like about he Sivori version is how extreme he makes it. Really a Witch singing. No one would dare to do that today. And that is actually sad

​@@larshenrikrn4105 Definitely. Many elements that today's musicians put in the background or completely ignore were actually at the center. There is a book Liszt wrote on Hungarian Gypsy Musicians, in which he openly states that he wrote the Hungarian Rhapsodies to imitate Gypsy band orchestras. This is not like a little resemblance, it is completely based on their improvisational character and instrument sound effects. That's why Liszt's students and pianists who hear him play (like Busoni, De Greef, Rosenthal, Friedhiem) or a few clever musicians like Cortot play them like gypsy music, not like classical music. There is no pseudo approach, it's like it really is. Chopin Mazurkas were also based on folkloric rhythm. Modern musicians interpret and standardize everything as "Classical Western music". They don't care about the program, starting point, or inspiration of the work. There are records of historical composers, their playing changes depending on the character of the work: Bartok, Grieg, Saint-Saens, Stravinsky etc. What a shame.

@@OzanFabienGuvener I do also love the old way of the past. It is real freedom and art. One of the most touching part of this video is the last part of Pattis Mozart. It makes me cry every time I hear it. Wonderful that the past still exists and can be experienced 😀

@@larshenrikrn4105 I have always found it extraordinary that Patti sings according to the text, the relationship between text and music is very artificial nowadays. Patti gives a great contrast in the text of the aria: the cold, sad, confusing side of love and its warm, exciting, happy side. Patti changes everything based on the word. What did Mozart say in his letter to a singer? "I advise you to watch the expression marks - to think carefully of the meaning and the force of the words - to put yourself in all seriousness into Andromeda's situation and position! - and to imagine that you really are that very person." It's also very likely that Patti was the last true Bel Canto singer. When I listened to Patti's recordings of Bellini, I understood very well what the pianists who worked with Chopin's students were doing.

In my opinion, Pogorelich's slow tempo causes some disadvantages compared to Friedman or Cortot: The melodic line breaks frequently, it is not in continuous flow and legato in the main melody is distorted. These negatively affect the wonderful operatic-lyrical aspect of the work. Even the trills in Friedman and Cortot, far from being "pianistic", resemble Patti's trills. Every note in Friedman is very melodic, and polyphony is achieved through this lyricism. In Friedman's polyphony, all lines move in independent rhythm and character, and none of their flow is disrupted, all lines have equal importance, which is appropriate for polyphony rather than a centrality. In my opinion, Friedman presents the dialogue between melodies more colorfully and beautifully. Maybe Pogorelich may seem more fascinating at first listen, but Friedman has an organicity, detail and spontaneity that will not bore you even if you listen to it many times. I can feel the same excitement when I listen to it 10 years later.

@@OzanFabienGuvener This is a well reasoned response, but as regards your last line, I would probably _still_ prefer listening to the mentioned versions by Pogorelich. After all, it's already _been_ years that I've listened to them, so they're not just _"more fascinating at first listen"_ to me. You might say in the spirit of Alfred Brendel that Pogorelich is a case of a pianist occupying the composition like a parasite using it for his own creation, but that would reflect a different philosophy of music interpretation than the _"true to the work"_ school. Granted, Friedman might reflect the work more truthfully, as do Cortot's renderings, but to find them better requires intimate knowledge of the text. I don't mind the loss of melodic continuity if some other _affectively_ more important aspect of the work is brought out that Chopin may not even have been aware of. One might divide pianists into _"true to the work"_ and the _"co-creator"_ factions to which Gould and many others belonged. So Friedman's "performance" might then be the best in that faction. The word "interpretation" should then be reserved for the _"co-creator"_ faction.

@@OzanFabienGuvener _Post Scriptum:_ But I do appreciate your response and listened to Friedman's take again in light of what you said. In that regard it truly _is_ outstanding and better than Cortot's rendering of the same nocturne I just heard recorded in 1947. BTW, I had bookmarked Friedman's rendering before you responded. He and Pogorelich are the only performers to be found in the file reserved for this nocturne.

@@TheSoteriologist It is possible to criticize Pogorelich for his disloyalty to the composer, but I do not criticize here, sometimes these can produce good results. Even though I think Glenn Gould doesn't match the composer, there are recordings that I like.Sometimes I find what Pogorelich does very artificial and superficial, but I did not feel this in his approach in the recordings you gave as examples. This nocturne recording of his is quite beautiful. Things we look at and look for in music are subjective at some point, in my opinion, Friedman is superior to Pogorelich and Cortot for this work. It's not just because I think it's closer to Chopin (maybe Cortot is closer because it plays more like a 19th-century Bel Canto); I think and feel that we reach the maximum when lyrical elements are played by feeding the intelligence of the music. Friedman's rubato, rhythmicity, long linearity, colorfulness, melodicism and cantabile character also serve completely polyphony and harmony. What impresses me most about this record is the integrity in which all the elements feed each other. There's also a combination of romantic freedom and classical control here. I also hear this in the recordings of composers such as Webern, Bartok, Rachmaninoff, Schöenberg and Stravinsky. I also hear it in some of Cortot's recordings. I think, rather than being purely romantic or purely classicist, Chopin was a combination of the two. Nietzsche's theory of ideal art as a combination of these two styles “Apollonian and Dionysian”. Apollo represents harmony, progress, clarity, logic and the principle of individuation, whereas Dionysus represents disorder, intoxication, emotion, ecstasy and unity Nietzsche: “The difficult relation between the Apollonian and Dionysian in tragedy may be symbolized by a fraternal union of the tow deites; Dionysus speak the language of Apollo, but Apollo finally speaks the language of Dionysus; thereby the highest goal of tragedy is reached.” I think Friedman's nocturne recording captures this ideal of combination well. But I'm not objectifying this, I'm saying it from my own perspective. I also understand your point of view.

@@OzanFabienGuvener I think the only proper reaction to your beautiful reply is silent consent. So let me just drop this particular issue and move on to two different questions to someone as well educated as yourself _(where do you live ? In Turkey ?)_ the first of which has a very lose connection to our discussion: 1) Have you listened through Pogorelich's Chopin album released in 2022 ? It can be found on his "topic" channel. If you have the time, would you force yourself through the whole bit while suspending your judgment until afterwards and tell me how you then feel ? 2) I am presently in a Schumann-phase _(ignited by "I. Im ruhigen Tempo" of his "Gesänge der Frühe" Op. 133 played by Edith Picht-Axenfeld and also Eric Le Sage)_ so please counsel me on whether you can understand this: regarding Schumann's "Fantasie" _(Op. 17)_ : I listened through so many takes on this and rejected, for instance, Argerich 1966 with her brilliant but annoying youthful pianism _(a common problem it seems with extreme talents)_ to finally leave me with three favorites. Disregard Kempff, Arrau and Richter for the moment _(I would have loved to find Jean Martin with this but couldn't find it)_ this particular work was best represented to me by two extremely different interpretations. One was Perahia New York 1986 and the other, and this is the one my question is about, Jörg Demus 1976 ! I cannot understand how I can find both of these interpretations the best while they are totally opposed to each other. Demus plays the first movement fiercly and ferociously as if he plays the Bach Chaconne, but it totally works as if no other interpretation is possible. Can you follow that sentiment ? And what do you make of that ? How are these two opposite worlds such as Perahia 1986 or even Arrau 1966 on the one side and Demus 1976 on the other written into the same work ? Do you like that Demus version ?

Thank you very much!

@@rogerknox9147 I think it has one rival or equal: Cortot's 1937 recording.

??

Thank you very much!

First of all, old pianos sometimes have different pitches; this is not a bug, just a difference.. Secondly, some recordings may have been made on amateur recorders and untuned pianos. Thirdly, in the modern Steinway, bass + tenor + soprano lines sounds are more equalized and brought closer together, but in older instruments these lines have more separate tones for polyphony. Fourthly, on old pianos, the way you play affects the sound more directly; on Steinways, the sound is always more "consistent" no matter how you play. Old pianists preferred old-style pianos because they gave more importance to contrast and effect, and they criticized modern Steinways (such as Schnabel, Rosenthal, Richter).

The problems with his technique are obvious in this recordings, I agree; but if you read the research, he recorded it very old (79) and very sick shortly before his death (a few days, weeks before his death). He was famous not only as a student of Paganini, he also played with names such as Liszt; but he was far from his prime, that's true. Moreover, old techniques are not as "safe" as they are today, many things are done the harder way. The focus was on many things, not just "technique", which could cause you to make mistakes. I can't speak clearly about this because I'm not a violinist, but I know from the piano that historical pianists played much more risky than today, I hear this happens similarly with the violin. People do not realize how difficult it is to play full "real" legato, without any help from the pedal; with full attention to the expression, colour and character; and with real rubato (certain segments are controlled, some melodic lines are free) with fast tempos. If you don't practice this way of playing every day and you have a day when you don't feel well, you are much more likely to lose control. This is one reason why historical pianists and violinists had problems as they got older. We should also not forget how stressful it was for many historical pianists who sought perfection: like Lhevinne, Horowitz and Rachmaninoff. Most modern techniques existed in the 19th century, but composers were against them because they thought the techniques should only serve the music. That's why they strongly opposed facilitation. If you object to this, I would be happy to include some of the views of modern and historical pianists on this subject. For example, they explained that old techniques achieved better results musically, but they adopted the "modern" technique because the old school was "much more risky, time-consuming and difficult." And there seems to be tension in the beginning and especially in some places of his concerto, but he is completely unfamiliar with recording technology and it was recorded live (there is no chance of re-recording it), but after a certain point he played better. This psychological situation should not be ignored. Most 19th-century musicians did not want to record, because the idea was shocking to musicians who viewed music entirely in the moment. For example, pianists like Rosenthal did not approach recording technology for many years, even though they had the opportunity. Anton did not accept either. He's from another era, not forget that. So, it is very natural to experience some uncontrollability in this psychology. Considering these factors, it is not easy to dismiss it as "bad" based on some flaws. Let's not forget that Paganini didn't normally accept a student and gave this privilege to Sivori. He was a very famous violinist while he was alive, and when he was ill, it was even reported in many newspapers (England, France, Italy, Germany). So, these recordings were taken during his weakest moments. When Monet had cataracts, his drawing ability and color perception was impaired, but he was still Monet. The character, effects, variety, rhythmic understanding, dance and sing-based playing are quite special. A very important legacy of Paganini and the 19th century tradition.

The cylinders do have a lot of flutter which, I hope, will be addressed soon by experts in early sound restoration through electronics. These people are wizards.

@@OzanFabienGuvener The other factor is the absolute terror of immortalizing yourself in the first days of recording. Also, there some absolutely marvellous nimble bowing in the second cylinder after the double stops right before the tutti.

@@AndrewO.Krastins Yes. Especially in "The Gypsies", we hear a feeble man who probably hasn't practiced in a couple of weeks, but still has the residual command from 20 years ago of some truly incomprehensibly difficult technique. I believe the three-part octave trill passages in the Gypsies were played with a normal fingered octave trill and a melody fingered with the thumb on the fingerboard (you can curl your thumb over the left side of the fingerboard and play bass notes with it, it was allegedly done in Bach's time to play some of the stranger chords in Sei Soli). I have yet to test this out on the violin (I believe the piece is entirely reconstructible and you could write out a precise score, in the correct key, which can be surmised from the open D string in the chords at the beginning), but if it works on the violin it would be the rediscovery of a polyphonic trill-and-melody technique that was probably invented by Paganini and hasn't been used for 150 years perhaps. (I wonder, is such an "unplayable passage" present in any of Paganini's works? Some paganini works contain "unplayable passages" which violinists always modify so audiences never realize what it's actually supposed to sound like. I have never heard this trilling technique in any Paganini music, but maybe it is present in the scores which I have never seen.)