I have a cd by Pogorelich of 16 or 18 of the Scarlatti Sonatas that is truely excellent. I also have three of them by Glenn Gould that are very good.

 

I was introduced to the music of Scarlatti in a kind of unusual way - guitar transcriptions. So some of my favorite sonatas are admittedly influenced by the guitar versions I initially heard, but I equally enjoy listening to his many sonatas on harpsichord and piano.

k 213

k 27

k 24

 

Michelangeli is my favorite Scarlatti interpreter... the one who I feel brings out the best in his works. Simply gorgeous control, touch, and sense of the music. His playing is very evocative, but always in the Baroque style... never flirting with Romanticism like Horowitz too often does.

k 9 and k 11

k 322

k 159

k 27

 

I have 6 by Horowitz, but I have access to hundreds on the Naxos website (many of these are by Richard Lester on Nimbus). Unfortunately I think most of these are on harpsichord which is not my favorite instrument. Could you suggest some of your favorites for listening? Do you designate them by the K number (whatever that stands for)?

Do you prefer them on piano or harpsichord?

 

Call me a philistine, but I actually prefer the piano for Scarlatti. I think a lot of Scarlatti has to do with tonal coloring and dance rhythms, and somehow the harpsichord just seems a bit stale and sluggish compared to the piano in fulfilling this task. As I've stated before, I feel that Scarlatti himself belonged more to the early Classical Rococo style than to the late Baroque style that Bach epitomizes. His influence in piano music was profound over the Classical era (even more so than Bach in this department) and contains the same sort of crystal-like perfection and beauty that one would find in Mozart. It's only my opinion, but I don't think the harpsichord does this aspect of his music as much justice as the piano does. Of course, it takes a very special sort of pianist like Michelangeli to play Scarlatti well, and I do like HIP Scarlatti enough to prefer any of Ross's work to an insensitive, gratuitously Romantic pianist who bangs out (or sugarcoats) these Sonatas and neglects every ounce of what I love so much about Scarlatti's music.

The Kirkpatrick (K. or Kk.) system of classification is almost always used today though once in awhile you'll see the Longo (L.) system or even more uncommonly the Pestelli (P.) system.

 

I have several piano versions, but only about a tenth or less of the total number. Two stand out as my favorites:

The Sonata in E minor, K. 402 is very contemplative, not always perky like many of the rest of them, though it does have moments of lightness. It's also one of the longer ones, but still adheres to the ubiquitous form of two repeated and related sections.

The Sonata in G, K. 455 raises goose flesh when it starts what to my ears sound like very rapid modulations thrown at the listener with abandon, at about 1:30 in this video below. Musical acrobatics seldom get better than this.

Oh - and I wouldn't limit them to either piano or harpsichord. They sound great on both. I've even heard them on accordion, mandolin ensemble, vibraphones, etc. I prefer them on synthesizers and the repeats must be honored.

 

I also love the K455, although I prefer a heavier harpsichord interpretation:

 

The year 1685 was indeed a historically signifcant year for Baroque music. Three giants were born all in the one year, namely J. S. Bach, Handel and Domenico Scarlatti. We are very, very lucky today to have so much of their music performed and recorded.

For a mere sample of his sonatas on harpsichord, I can warmly recommend two CDs, followed by the whole lot pictured below. I am slowly going through the complete set. I'm sure there are many other fine sets.

Trevor Pinnock, harpsichord. This was my first CD of Scarlatti sonatas.

Christophe Rousset, harpsichord.

The complete set on harpsichord (majority), fortepiano and organ. Peter Jan Belder.
I heard the set by Scott Ross is quite good, too. Member mamascarlatti has it, I think.

 

No, I'm afraid I don't. I prefer Scarlatti on the piano (or fortepiano) too and in fact prefer the harpsichord as a continuo rather than solo instrument. I went through a period of complete obsession with Scarlatti and collected a lot of CDs, but the majority were piano. I learned to play the piano so I could play K402, and managed to get far enough to play all the notes (if not the music).

 

Here is a scintillating performance of the sonata in D minor, K.517. It is a little imperfect, perhaps but gives the listener a dazzling experience! I picked this clip so the viewer can see the skills involved.

 

Wow!

Thanks for sharing, HC. That is prestissimo indeed, and it's a good reflection of Scarlatti's own skill on the harpsichord, which was apparently very good (and he had to have been good to perform that!).

Talking about awe-inspiring technical feats, here's another one...

Of course, incredible and lovely Martha takes it faster than everyone else. She has a very unique but effective way with those repeated notes that I just envy.

 

Wow, the beginning of that didn't even sound like a piano

 

The K. 455, K. 517, and K. 141 are all wonderful. The repeated notes have a distinctive sound that remind me somewhat of parts of Bach's unaccompanied violin sonatas and Partitas. Argerich is fantastic! it almost looks as though her fingers are not quite playing the repeated notes.

For the Classical Music Project Scarlatti's Essercizi Sonatas were nominated. Could some of you tell me why this particular group was nominated? Was it simply that they stand as a unit, or is there something considered especially wonderful about them? I did read Richard Lester's Thoughts on Scarlatti's Essercizi per Gravicembalo
(http://www.harpsichord.org.uk/EH/Vol2/No1/scarlattiessercizi.pdf) which was interesting.

 

For the Classical Music Project Scarlatti's Essercizi Sonatas were nominated. Could some of you tell me why this particular group was nominated? Was it simply that they stand as a unit, or is there something considered especially wonderful about them? I did read Richard Lester's Thoughts on Scarlatti's Essercizi per Gravicembalo
(http://www.harpsichord.org.uk/EH/Vol2/No1/scarlattiessercizi.pdf) which was interesting.

I think it was mainly because they stand as a unit. Its easier than picking a bunch of different sonatas and trying to somehow group them together etc. Also because a lot of great sonatas are definetely in that set.

On another note this was a great thread idea, and I too have been floored by many of the awesome videos posted here.

 

They're lots of fun to play, I can say that! Most of them are easy enough to mostly sight-read through for an experienced pianist. Each sonata emphasizes a particular technical difficulty of the piano: crossing over, rapid leaps, repeated notes, etc. While I can't say they're miniature masterpieces on the level of Chopin (the development sections aren't very intriguing for the most part), they're still a groundbreaking body of work for the piano.

 

They're lots of fun to play, I can say that! Most of them are easy enough to mostly sight-read through for an experienced pianist. Each sonata emphasizes a particular technical difficulty of the piano: crossing over, rapid leaps, repeated notes, etc. While I can't say they're miniature masterpieces on the level of Chopin (the development sections aren't very intriguing for the most part), they're still a groundbreaking body of work for the piano.

I don't think thats really a fair comparison. We are talking a fair stretch of time between the baroque and romantic periods. That'd be similar to me saying 'Chopin's development sections are very intriguing, but his pieces are not masterpieces on the level of Debussy and Schoenberg because Chopin's pieces are so predictably tonal.' You just can't fairly compare and contrast musical pieces across such wide spans of time.

I would suggest that for his time Scarlatti's musical contributions were more or less equivalent to those of Chopin in his time. They actually were kind of similar in ways, ie - sticking mostly to mastery of a solo instrument over orchestrated pieces.

 

I compared them to Chopin because they both wrote primarily A-B-A form pieces (If you want to get technical, Scarlatti's sonatas are closer to rounded binary, but the overall structures are still very similar).

Regardless of the time span between Scarlatti and Chopin, you can tell when something was written by an inspired hand, regardless of how 'new' the compositional procedure was. And for the most part, the Scarlatti development sections are either bland and uninteresting or completely unrelated to the preceding material. I still love the sonatas, just for everything except the developments.

 

But how would you say his developments compare to other composers of his own time?

Note: not being critical, actually curious to hear your thoughts.

 

I actually rather like Scarlatti development sections and am not exactly sure what you are getting at, Ravellian. Scarlatti is very skilled at taking even the shortest motives from the exposition section and changing the tonal colors of that motive (for example - from major to minor, or vice versa) for extended exploration. Entire sonatas (both the A and B sections) are built around these simple, usually rhythmic, and often dance-like motives and when he develops in this way, I find it very charming and actually quite impressive.

 

Maybe I should clarify just a bit: From my ventures with Scarlatti, I have noticed that a large number of the development sections contain little more than simple sequential formulas repeated over and over (which, in my opinion, is boring and uncreative if the sequential pattern is repeated more than 2-3 times). You can find the scores on IMSLP if you want to follow along. Here are examples I can point out, from one volume:

K. 409 in B minor: the ENTIRE development is one long boring repeating sequence.
K. 412 in G major: M. 52-57 all a sequence, M. 63-72 all a long sequence.
K. 414 in D major: Sequences!! Everywhere!!
K. 415 in D major: Actually, the entire sonata is one big long sequence.
K. 416 in D major: M. 61-74 all a sequence, M. 86 - M. 119 (!!) all a long sequence.
K. 423 in C major: M. 59-75 all a sequence, M. 84-101 all a sequence.
K. 428 in A major: M. 27-30 all a sequence, M. 31-34 all a sequence..
K. 429 in A major: M. 34-39 all a sequence.
K. 431 in G major: M. 41-52 all a sequence.
K. 438 in F major: the ENTIRE development is one long boring repeating sequence.
K. 440 in Bb major: M. 17-32: same pattern repeats four times.
K. 441 in Bb major: M. 51-58 all a sequence, M. 59-69 all a sequence.
K. 448 in F# minor: M. 56-76 (!!) all a long sequence.
K. 454 in G major: M. 42-47 all a sequence, M. 58-62 all the same sequence.

Anyway, that's my point. I mean, there's nothing to really compare these pieces to, since they're the really the first keyboard pieces of its kind... I'm just saying, in my opinion, excessive use of sequences implies a bit of lacking in creativity, and it's something I've noticed in about half of his sonatas. Not in all of them, of course. Some of the sonatas are well-crafted all the way through, development sections included.

 

Maybe I should clarify just a bit: From my ventures with Scarlatti, I have noticed that a large number of the development sections contain little more than simple sequential formulas repeated over and over (which, in my opinion, is boring and uncreative if the sequential pattern is repeated more than 2-3 times). You can find the scores on IMSLP if you want to follow along. Here are examples I can point out, from one volume:

Anyway, that's my point. I mean, there's nothing to really compare these pieces to, since they're the really the first keyboard pieces of its kind... I'm just saying, in my opinion, excessive use of sequences implies a bit of lacking in creativity, and it's something I've noticed in about half of his sonatas. Not in all of them, of course. Some of the sonatas are well-crafted all the way through, development sections included.

Well admittedly I haven't gone through all those scores, but a few things come to mind, for one I believe Scarlatti was in service to royalty in Spain during the time the many sonatas were written, so I think it is possible some of them were written in more simplistic ways to accomodate other people playing them? Secondly, by your own words you are acknowledging there are many with well crafted development sections in them as well as acknowledging the originality of the works - in saying there is nothing else from the time to compare them to - that in itself is in my opinion quite a compliment to Scarlatti.

Lastly, in some cases, ie - minimalism and a lot of other 20th century music, the use of repeated sequences can actually be quite effective. Some may see his use of repeated sequences as ahead of his time and/or unique. Since I haven't really heard that criticism before about his works I'm inclined to think this is just your opinion (which you are entitled to) but I think that by listening to the pieces that have been posted here in this thread the quality of the music is apparent, and it has stood the test of time and has been played by some of the most incredible musicians in the world.

 

guys, I have a question and hope somebody could help me here: Which one of Scarlatti's works is played at the beginning of the film The Devil's Eye Directed by Ingmar Bergman ? It's surely in E major but I've searched everywhere and found nothing !

 

Sonata in E major, K 380
Sonata in D major, K 535
Sonata in F major, K 446

 

I remember, back in 1985, the Swedish classical radio channel played all 555 Scarlatti sonatas throughout the year. Three a day or something. Played by Scott Ross.

 

The omission of one Ralph Kirkpatrick is glaring here. There might not be 555 Scarlatti Sonatas for us to talk about if it were not for Kirkpatrick, with whom Horowitz worked hand in hand when he was selecting a number of Scarlatti Sonatas to record.

 

Ah, Kirkpatrick! I've read again and again that his study of Scarlatti's sonatas is a tremendous work of great perceptiveness, erudition, and quality. It's my ambition to obtain his work along with a recording of all of the sonatas. Soon, I hope!

 

How come I haven't seen this thread before ?

I love Scarlatti sonatas. No, that's more than that : I'm a Scarlatti fanatic. In my opinion, Scarlatti is one of the greatest baroque keyboard composer. He's right up there with J.S. Bach. These sonatas are works of unsurpassed beauty.

Being a pianist, I must say I prefer them on the piano, though I like Scott Ross recordings.

My favourite performers are Horowitz, Pogorelich, Inger Södergren, Anne Queffelec, Mikhail Pletnev, Maria Tipo.

I strongly recommend the Naxos series. Naxos is currently recording the full set. Each volume is played by a different pianist. 14 volumes have been released already. All of them are excellent.

My favourite sonatas :

K1 :

K24 :

K27 :

(my all-time favourite)

K69 :

K87 :

K141 :

K213 :

K427 :

K443 :

K492 :

 

Sorry sir, but the main Scarlatti enthusiast, and the one who put him back on the scene was Wanda Landowska : she played him in concert in 1902 !!!! Horowitz is far away... And Chopin was not the only fan : the main piece of Brahms' music collection was an original edition of the Essercizi... Not mentioning Clara Schumann...

 

Dear Worov,
according to the statistics, 7 on 10 of your favorite sonatas (27, 69, 87, 141, 213, 427, and 492) are on the list of the 20 most recorded sonatas : no surprise... The most recorded of all (first by Marcelle Meyer) is 87 : most of the others were Wanda Landowska's choice.

 

No offense, but I fail to recognize whether or not this is a snide comment or just an observation. Btw, Meyer has a very light and even touch, what heavenly trills and what exquisite sensitivity to contrast.

 

I've started to explore Gilbert Rowland's Scarlatti recordings. I first came across him through his Rameau suites, which I liked a lot, so I thought I'd take the plunge and buy one of his Scarlatti CDs. I chose volume 3 to start off, partly because I'm quite interested in K 215. There are some very distinctive recordings of that sonata -- Hantai really takes it very expansively, and Leonhardt (who's my favourite player of Scarlatti sonatas) finds great humanity in it.

 

You also have Andrea Staier on the 215. In my opinion, Leonhardt's Scarlatti is much less wild than Hantai's or Pletnev's. But, as we say in french : "des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas"... (there's no point discussing tastes and colours)

 

Yes the stress on "wildness" I see as a bad thing, a superficial thing. Or at least, it tends to put the emphasis on shallow keyboard effects. But in some sonatas there's more to the music than that, and Leonhardt's good at finding those sonatas, and bringing out their humanity.

If you really want wild, there's always Sempé.

 

Hantai is definitely the wildest. What I mean by "wild" is that Scarlatti escapes from usual music, and specially from melody : he does not care cause his music is a "collage" of different short musical pieces which he rearranges (in the second part of the sonata) in a complete freedom. This means that the interpret must forget all he has learned and change his mind at every change of piece : you have to be a bit crazy to do that, a bit wild you know. Hantai does it well, but lots of famous pianists are unable to render that wildness, boldness of thought. The much celebrated Horowitz has not always succeeded to meet Scarlatti, nor, in my opinion, Marcelle Meyer. I dont mention Gould, who was wild enough, but for a reason I ignore, hated Scarlatti (he only recorded three of them, cut in half...).

 

This is an interesting reply and thank you for taking the trouble to make it. I'm going to relisten to Hantaï's Scarlatti in the light of what you say. I call his style (which is similar most everywhere) "static electricity style" - it's as if the way he treats the articulation and ornamentation makes the music bristle and spark, the ornaments can be like little burrs of sharp metal. In the back of my mind I'd felt that style was too busy for Scarlatti, and I was more attracted to the more "tête reposée" style of Leonhardt or Enrico Baiano or even Vartolo.

But I we relisten to Hantaï in the light of what you've said.

Craziness in performance is something which interests me, so I think I understand what you say - Cortot was pretty crazy sometimes, in Schumann and Chopin.