Alexander Scriabin - Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (Laul)

[@calebhu6383]

Most underrated Scriabin recording

[@languido1]

Thank you for introducing it to me in your scrib video

[@gameclips5734]

it's a bit weird in places, like the extra notes at 4:20

[@knownasdark]

@@gameclips5734 but super epic coda broo

[@somebody9033]

​@@gameclips5734there are no extra notes he just plays around with the tempo

[@feneb6497]

This performance has the most clarity of any I've heard. Far too many performers tend to loose sight of the melody or rhythm, especially in the development section. But Laul doesn't and the effect is stunning. And of course, the coda is pure crack head energy, as Caleb Hu put it.

[@funguy183]

Amazing performance. I never knew about Peter Laul before, but this is a very good first impression. Indeed “the music speaks for itself.”

[@stacia6678]

His name is Peter, not Paul.

[@funguy183]

@@stacia6678 Yeah you're right. I mixed them up somehow lol

[@graydusk1039]

i love this recording so much

[@schil_d]

Finally I can hear the 5/8 as it is written!

[@aleksm.1863]

What an astonishing performance of the most astonishing piece.

[@Scottparkmusic]

Nice performance

[@marcogammanossi7659]

Una perla meravigliosa!

[@CatkhosruShapurrjiFurabji]

The coda of this version is the best!

[@rondorondo557]

There's two extremes for me (both superb in their own ways): Peter Laul's: - Crystal clear; - Steadfast, never loses impetus; - Makes it sound like this piece doesn't include some very non-idiomatic writing for the instrument. Chitose Okashiro's: - Takes time to build up properly; - Nuanced; - Otherworldly voicings at times. I prefer Okashiro's in general, but Laul's take is so refreshing to hear. Probably my second or third favorite Scriabin 5.

[@languido1]

I listened to that recording, and it is much better than I initially thought when I saw it was 15 minutes. Doesn’t sacrifice the tempo in the presto sections, just takes more time in the slow parts. I still prefer Laul’s, but Okashima’s was refreshing.

[@stacia6678]

9:46

[@CatkhosruShapurrjiFurabji]

Peter Lol

[@d.o.7784]

Just because it is difficult, it does not mean it is good. The simplest Mazurka by Chopin is far better than this progressive rubbish.

[@Arctales21]

But it is good, just like Chopin. You just don't like the harmonies. The piece itself is very well written.

[@d.o.7784]

@@Arctales21 you are right, there is no harmony, but there isn’t any melody too, so, i wonder, what is left of classical music in this piece? It is like Picasso’s paintings, nothing but distorted images, probably reflecting the distorted mind of their creators and admirers alike.

[@Arctales21]

@@d.o.7784 there are clear melodies/motifs in this piece. There are harmonies and their use is quite intriguing. The form is also great.

[@mantictac]

As a Chopin fan of many years (though not so much today) this type of music took many listens to become comprehensible, but is extremely rewarding. Scriabin sticks to obsessive classical form here, as he tended to in his later works; and his sheer economy of material (never more than a small handful of motives) combined with their constant development makes Chopin's compositions in comparison feel much longer than they are due to his excess of athematic material. I was originally introduced to Scriabin's work through his earlier pieces, in particular his Mazurkas, which I was told were somewhat of an extension of Chopin's late style. Start there and it might draw you in. Or try Opus 30.

[@TheRealFraston]

@@d.o.7784 Look at this man using "progressive" as a negative adjective to apply to music! It's almost like he wants all his pieces to have just one melody!

[@homolix]

what an insignificant music.

[@JimmySamson-hd6ox]

What an insignificant person you are

[@Isegawa2001]

What a significant music!

[@Сасичлен666тотсамый]

To know that this is more likely to be a pleasant one description then bad one.

[@saxon8981]

i bet you are jewish

[@yekware]

6:57