About Richter: many others quotes

Of all the pianists with whom Prokofiev worked during the Soviet period of his life, he clearly preferred Richter. One of the testaments to this, de scribed here for the first time, is a note in Prokofiev’s handwriting preserved in Richter’s archive. It seems to be a draft of a congratulatory cable—the text lacks punctuation marks—that says, “Warm salute to pianist best in Soviet Union and round whole globe the Prokofievs.       

      Sviatoslav Richter amazed me by his spontaneity. I emphasize - the spontaneity of Richter's art of the 40's-50's is a unique phenomenon in pianism. For instance, today nothing is heard of spontaneity. And Emil Gilels has always been a mentor for me. I have always felt and still feel taken over by the wonder of Gilels' unique tone. Undoubtedly Richter and Gilels inspired me as magnificent virtuosos by their technique. The more so, as at that time I already had my own considerable technical achievements. In this respect everything was even too good, I would say.      

   Lazar Berman, in Mark Zilberquit, Russia's great modern pianists (1983)     

Why this wave of emotion and excitement? Some attributed it to a great publicity build-up, and one writer objected to the use of the phrase, 'The Pianist of the Century'. 'Which century?' he asked. This was the same critic who labelled Horowitz on his debut as 'the greatest pianist, living or dead'. It is obvious that Richter's gramophone records were his best publicity agent, for these fine recordings have been available for some time and they have so impressed the discerning listener that the message has been passed round-'Here is a great pianist'. Publicity has not suppressed judgment here.        

 Harold Craxton, "Sviatoslav Richter", The Musical Times, Vol. 102, No. 1423 (Sep., 1961)    

  Criticism is a very personal affair-no two people can hear alike, neither can their reactions be standardized. I have read much in the press about Richter's performances, and the opinion of distinguished critics has been varied, and quite rightly so. But there seems to have been a crescendo from doubt to approval and admiration, from the early use of words such as 'provincial', 'reprieve for Richter', to 'the supreme artist, whom we had been led to expect'.     To me there seems no doubt that Richter is a great pianist. I have heard enough to thrill me. A pianist who can use the piano in every legitimate and musical way-who has song in his heart and rare agility in his fingers and hands, who never attempts to improve music by discovering new effects or counter-melodies-an artist who has a belief in his choice of music, and whose great art is placed in affectionate service to the composer as a first and last aim.         

[Harold Craxton, ibidem]   

I believe you can divide musical performance into two categories: those who seek to exploit the instrument they use and those who do not.     In the first category, if we believe history, is a place for such legendary characters as Liszt and Paganini as well as many allegedly demanding virtuosi of more recent vintages. That category belongs essentially to musicians determined to make us aware of their relationship with their instrument. They allow that relationship to become the focus of attention.     The second category includes musicians who try to bypass the whole question of the performing mechanism, to create the illusion of a direct link between themselves and a particular musical score. And, therefore, help the listener to achieve a sense of involvement, not with the performance per se but rather with the music itself. And in our time, there's no better example of that second musician than Sviatoslav Richter.     What Richter does is insert between the listener and the composer his own enormously powerful personality as a kind of conduit. And we gain the impression that we're discovering the work anew and, often, from a quite different perspective than we're accustomed to.    

   

   Of the Russian pianists I like only one, Richter. Gilels did some things well, but I did not like his mannerisms, the way he moved around while he was playing.         

How many pianists can claim today to be at [Richter's] level? How many are his peers, in the whole history of piano playing? Although I may appear unduly selective, only two names come to mind: Franz Liszt and Feruccio Busoni. The first was born in 1811; the second in 1866, fifty-one years later. And Richter was born in 1915, forty-nine years after Busoni.         

Piero Rattalino, Pianisti e Fortisti, Il terzo Uomo    

  Unlike Beethoven’s sonatas, but like his own song cycles, Schubert’s piano sonatas were not of a nature to inspire the need for public performance for a long time. Sviatoslav Richter’s comprehension of this special intimate nature can explain his interpretation of some of the late sonatas. his very slow tempo in the first movement of the last sonata in B-flat Major (marked only Molto moderato) excited the derision of Alfred Brendel. As I remember, Richter takes almost half an hour for this movement alone, with three more still to go. Brendel was right in thinking the tempo incorrect or inauthentic, but he also appeared not to feel that the intimacy of the work was also essential to its authenticity, and contented himself with a large-scale rendition. The movement is indeed of grand dimensions, but the paradox of schubert’s style here is the astonishing quantity of dynamic indications of pianissimo and even ppp, broken most memorably just before the repeat of the exposition by a single fierce and unexpectedly brutal playing as loudly as possible of the trill of the principal motif, heard so far only very softly (a repeat that Brendel refused to perform, perhaps because the unprepared violence is awkward in a large hall, although paradoxically more convincing in an intimate setting). Richter was an extraordinarily intelligent musician: whenever there was a significant detail in the score, it was always signaled by a reaction in his interpretation, not always, perhaps, the reaction that one would have liked, but no matter.     

    Charles Rosen, Ch. 28. "Old Wisdom and Newfangled Theory: Two One-Way Streets to Disaster" in Freedom and the arts : essays on music and literature (2012)     

 It was fabulous! I came especially from Europe. Richter had already played three concerts. I was curious to hear the "great Richter" and went to his concert. He played three pieces by Ravel, simply incredibly! A sound of prodigious beauty! I had never heard before a piano sound like that. It was an other instrument. It brought tears to my eyes. Richter is a gigantic musician with great intelligence. He plays the piano, and the piano responds. He sings with the piano.         

Arthur Rubinstein, In Bruno Monsaingeon, The Enigma (film biography of Richter).     

   If Gilels was in the mainstream tradition of piano playing, Sviatoslav Richter belongs with the great individualists. Alkan? Busoni? Michelangeli? All represented a kind of maverick approach to music and the keyboard, marching to a different drummer. … At the conservatory, his magnetism, his dedication, the aura that always has surrounded him made themselves felt. … Everything he did was different from what other pianists did.         

 Harold C. Schonberg, The Great Pianists