Total Members Voted: 52
Well Cziffra surpasses everybody.
The greatest showman today, Marc-Andre Hamelin, arguably, although technically perfected, and as much a musician as the greats, really is missing something Cziffra possessed. I find when I listen to a particularly impressive hamelin recital by the end you're just like WOW!!!! But with a Cziffra recital you're bracing yourself in climaxes, you are unaware of the bizzare facial expressions on your own face while listening, and by the end you literalyl could need to...well...Tide with Bleach is an effective laundry detergent. I suppose the difference is Hamelin lacks a true fire. His playing is just perfect and can turn off an on like a gas fireplace, which however, can be turned to high/hottest in seconds; Cziffra is a raging 10 foot bonfire that at times seems out of control but is still always within the firepit so the fire marshall doesn't complain. Hmm, a failed analogy possibly.Cziffra is the greatest pianist I've ever heard in my life. Also Horowitz.
Very interesting question. I think it is fair to say that their technique was probably different. As far as Chopin, Thalberg or Liszt is concerned, they developed sufficient technique to play their own compositions and those of their contemperies.Thalberg, was vastly different to the modern school as he was a very still at the piano and played with little arm and body movement. He also practised whilst smoking a Tukish pipe so as to keep in the same position.As far as pure mechanical ability is concerned, could Liszt have played Godowsky/Sorabji??Would he have wanted to??
I can't believe you people are saying that some pianists have better techniques than Liszt. He was able to sight-read anything put in front of him perfectly and at the correct speed. Tell me a modern pianist who can do that?Gould has the best *** technique of all the modern pianists, in fact, if there was a compitition between the past greats and the moderns, he would be the one I would nominates.
Are we all forgetting that Liszt was the person who actually WROTE all those pieces that Cziffra and Marc-Andre Hammerin' spent their youth trying to learn and perfect?
Lisct couldn´t sightread Hammerklavier the first time he saw it according to some sources.
Liszt could sightread to any piece TECHNICALLY perfect. So he could sightread the hammerklavier technically perfect the first. It took him 6 months to master the piece and perfect it musically. THAT is the difference.
then what does that say about sorabji? he mustve been the greatest pianist ever
Gould has the best *** technique of all the modern pianists, in fact, if there was a compitition between the past greats and the moderns, he would be the one I would nominates.
not to mention the fact that he sightread Islamey. (as far as i know) nobody now days can compare...sad but true....
Is it really true that nobody have been able to play "Wilde Jagt" without cheating at some point?
Leslie Howard is a man, mang.
By the way do you have any stories about J.B. Cramer to share?I heard reports that seem to indicate that he was actually technically superior to both Liszt and Dreyschock.
“We were not so particular. They are only etudes; we did not consider them of great importance.
Is any of Dreyschock´s, Liszt´s pianos still around and playable today?I heard reports of Liszt using pianos with an extremely stiff action.
I am a rank amateur concerning classical concert playing. However, even I can notice a marked qualitative difference in playing, say, rapid double notes on a light digital and playing them on my own heavy grand. It isn't just a matter of degree, the whole approach has to change. As well as weight and resistance there is the matter of key dip and its implication for fingering.Leaving all musical and human considerations aside, do you think that changes in dip and resistance may have been sufficient to make the question invalid as related to purely physical technique ?
some critical points are:- just like with money, with piano technique there is something like inflation:1$ in 1900 is not 1 $ nowa fast octave in 1845 is not the same as a fast octave now. You might argue: it is the same eg 10/sec then is 10/sec now but it is not the same when we compare this speed to what is the "average octave speed of all the piano playing population of that time compared to now": It is clear that an average pianist of today plays octaves better (technically whatever that means) then in the time of Liszt (keeping all other parameters constant eg weight action/type of piano etc). Proof: eg Tschaikowksky piano concerto octaves were considered as extremely difficult to unplayable at the time. Now many recordings exist (i know that there are more human beings on the planet now too).- this brings up an important point: it is not only about "is someone from 1845 better then someone from today?" because there are too many changing factors such as the piano evolution itself, the number of people that have access to a piano, the total human population, the availability of knowledge (very important as everyone who has ever used a tip from the forum here will know), the structure of this knowledge, the composition methods/habits, ....an important question is:"Is Liszt relative to his contemporaries much better then today's top relative to her/his contemporaries?" This is a better question. However two things are important here:- it is so that the lower mankind is on a learning curve of some ability/technology, the easier it is to have a relative high advantage in relation to the mean of the population,- the less people play the piano, the more chance there is one person can be much better then his contemporaries.It is clear that in this respect Liszt had an advantage: much of piano technique was undiscovered when Liszt was young. Fewer people played piano.So we can conclude that:- if you have stellar technique today (à la Volodos/Sokolov), you will blow liszt away if transported back into time. - of course this is not a fair comparison considering all what i've said above (eg access to knowledge)- If Liszt were born today he will have stellar new millenium technique too. All this said my vote for comparative best technique in relation to his contemporaries goes to ....... Liszt. Remark: he arrived at the right time (on the learning curve) and that's also part of what made him great.And when you say today's pianists are better you must think twice about one thing:After Liszt the piano was not the same. He changed the rules forever.
truebut we all know the only true means is
Well Stevie,Apart from obvious irrelevance and stupidity of the topic itself, you reduce the greatest masters and creaters of modern piano technique to the the stop watch. Kind of sad...