did the past masters - Chopin, Thalberg, Liszt, Rachmaninov..have better...

[stevie]

...technique than modern pianists?

have their technqiues never been equalled, have they been surpassed?

discuss...

[piazzo23]

If we are talking of those who have without legato techniques like Hamelin and most of today´s pianists, then past masters had better thechnique.

[thalbergmad]

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??

[prometheus]

No way. Pianism is much more advanced today.

[thracozaag]

"There seems to be a tendency among our generation of pianists to over-value contemporary technical standards.  We often hear that technique stands at a higher level today that it did forty years ago.  This is perhaps true, in the sense that the general average of playing by students, as well as professionals, is higher than it used to be.  Fingers are fleeter than formerly. 
On the other hand, we can boast fewer pianistic giants.  In the period ending around 1917, at least eighteen towering pianists were performing—figures like [Ferruccio] Busoni, [Ignaz] Paderewski, [Moritz] Rosenthal, [Josef] Hofmann, [Ossip] Gabrilowitsch, [Harold] Bauer to name but a few.  Today, there are hardly ten who approach that stature.  It is significant that among those giants, technique as such was not the standard of phenomenal playing.  The great ones stood out because of what they had to say."

--William Kapell, “Technique and Musicianship,” Etude (December, 1950): 20.


koji

[rob47]

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.

Being that we have no recordings of Chopin Thalberg and Liszt it's hard to say. I mean I know myself, ted, tash, Siberian Husky, piantissimo and daevren have surpassed Liszt, but without hearing actual recordings of the masters it's obviously impossible to know.

[stevie]

Well Cziffra surpasses everybody.

technically? hard to say, but he is for sure among the top tier

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.

i agree completely!

cziffra is the greatest pianist i have ever heard, he plays liszt's works in a way i doubt liszt himself could even match.

and that analogy is very interesting, because cziffra was actually born on noverber 5th(1921) which is bonfire night in the UK 

[stevie]

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??

well, of note is a comment by a pupil of liszt, stating that in terms of pure finger technique, godowsky surpassed liszt.

however this may have been an older liszt...and there are recordings of godowsky, around age 60, VERY technically impressive, but nothing really freakish, unlike some things i hear hamelin and cziffra do.

[practicingnow]

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?
There is no question that if Liszt came back today to meet and play back to back with Cziffra, Hamelin, and whoever else, there would be a very clear distinction as to who among all those excellent pianists is truly the great genius of the instrument. 

 It is very cliche nowadays to use stupid expressions like "...he plays Liszt's music in a way that Liszt himself couldn't have".  Yeah ok, I'm so sure.  The level of deep understanding that Liszt had not only of the piano, but of music itself, would make itself immediately apparent, even in the face of today's hot-shot virtuosos.

Ask yourself - say this Saturday night there are two concerts in your city - Hamelin playing Godowsky and Alkan in one hall, and Franz Liszt playing the Hammerklavier, Chopin's op.25 and his own B-minor Sonata in the other - which ticket would you buy???

If you have to even think about it, you are F@#ked in the head!

[contrapunctus]

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 Damn 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.

[thracozaag]

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.

  Cyprien Katsaris and Francesco Libetta are two that come to mind with regards to your first statement.  The 2nd I will decline to comment on.

koji

[stevie]

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?

then what does that say about sorabji? he mustve been the greatest penis ever 

[sevencircles]

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.

Lisct couldn´t sightread Hammerklavier the first time he saw it according to some sources.

I am certain that there are players today who can sighread better then he could.

It´s very possible that Liszt, Dreyshock, Saint-Saines etc had better technique then for instance Hamelin or Libetta.

After all there weren´t much to do in those days so 10 hours of Pianoplaying a day was propably easier to do back then.

Liszt also used very stiff action that propably slowed him down a lot.

Hamelin often uses ounce and a quarter action (plus a lot of pedal) to be able to play faster if I´m not entirely wrong.

[thierry13]

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.

[bernhard]

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.

Hearsay.

[Etude]

then what does that say about sorabji? he mustve been the greatest pianist ever 

You had a slight typo in your post, I corrected it in the quote.

Actually it seems as though he played the OC in his performance in 2 1/2 hours!
When he made recordings of his playing later on, he apparently extemporised a lot, not bringing out themes.

[ralessi]

I say that Liszt is most definately the greatest technician of all time...i do not care about not ever hearing recordings of him..reading the things i have, he takes the cake..to know that that man sightread concerti in full score!  that sh*t is CRAZY! not to mention the fact that he sightread Islamey.  (as far as i know) nobody now days can compare...sad but true....

Cheers!
Rick

[steve jones]

True, such ability is staggering. But would that be considered technique? I dont think so. I think its fair to assume that Liszt was a master virt, but its impossible to compare him to today's pianists without having any recorded material.

[orlandopiano]

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.

You're kidding, right?

[demented cow]

-There's only one reason I can think of to support the claim that today's best technicians MUST be better than Liszt etc. were: Today we have access to better research on technique, from both piano teachers and medical sources. By consequence, today's (decent) teachers don't teach a lot of the rubbish that teachers were ramming down student's throats in the 19th c. (e.g. no thumbs on black keys, raise the fingers high, use fingers only...). However, I don't know if great pianists ever did read books on technique or listen to their teachers. I find it hard to imagine Horowitz, Barere or Cziffra having access to good books on how to improve tecnique, and it's clear that Horowitz didn't get his flat fingers from any teacher or book.
-re judging a pianist's technique by what they write: A lot of people outside this forum do it too (for instance Brendel wrote that the early versions of the Transcendental etudes show that Liszt must have been up to the standards of today's supervirtuosos). It could be that Liszt never wrote anything he couldn't himself play IMMEDIATELY, since he would want to check how pianistic it was (i.e. did it lie well for the hand, did it sound good on the piano), and he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who had the time & inclination to write a passage that he would have to practice for a week in order to find out how effective it was.
On the other hand, it's not impossible that Liszt occasionally cheated by writing passages that he had no intention to play and would not have been able to, at least without having to practise. (Examples might be the lower notes in the most difficult bit in Feux Follets that some people leave out or the semiquaver octave bits in Wilde Jagd that everybody including even the normally conscientious Arrau cheats on. And did Liszt really use the 2-4 fingering in Mazeppa? I don't know if anybody knows for sure.)
-People were talking about Liszt learning the Hammerklavier. I remember reading a quote where Liszt says that he was playing it around the age of TEN.  (I think I read this in Schonberg's Great Pianists book; could somebody maybe check that.)  So if it took him 6 months to learn, as someone wrote above, maybe that was because he wasn't as good as a child as he was at age 20. And while Kissen played better at age 12 than he has since (sorry, couldn't resist that), he's not the norm, and I don't think we should be calling somebody inferior to today's avatars of pianistic perfection just because he couldn't sightread the Hammerklavier perfectly while wearing their primary school uniform.
-What about Dreyschock's feat of playing the revolutionary etude in octaves at something like full speed (see Schonberg's book)? He might have somehow cheated in this (by playing some of the notes as single notes), but if that the descriptions of this were anything like the truth, this feat surpasses anything that Barere, Argerich, Libetta, Hamelin etc. have done.

[sevencircles]

not to mention the fact that he sightread Islamey.  (as far as i know) nobody now days can compare...sad but true....

As a sightreader? I believe that John Ogdon in his prime could sightread even the most far out avantgarde works as soon as he saw them.

Is it really true that nobody have been able to play "Wilde Jagt" without cheating at some point?

[musicsdarkangel]

in the days of Hoffman, Lhevinne, Friedman, Rachmaninoff, they were much quicker with much more precision.

[thierry13]

Is it really true that nobody have been able to play "Wilde Jagt" without cheating at some point?

Good joke.

[demented cow]

Is it really true that nobody have been able to play "Wilde Jagt" without cheating at some point?

If it's any guide, Arrau, Berman, Bolet, Cziffra, Freddy Kempf and France Clidat (=forgotten French lady with a big technique who did complete Liszt works on LP) all either slow down (arguably a form of cheating) or do some obviously deliberate distortion in the 2 or 3 bits of Wilde Jagd where you have to play 4 semiquaver ocataves in a row. It's not that it harms the piece. The point is maybe that cheating is a fair bit commoner than we might think, especially if someone like Arrau does it, a guy who often made things harder for himself in inaudible matters such as playing particular notes with the hand that the composer seemed to be indicating etc.
BTW can anybody give a list of examples of cheating in recordings?

[stevie]

i just have to point out that only one person has recorded the complete liszt - leslie howard.

you do realise thats like 100 cds?

[demented cow]

spam

[bearzinthehood]

Leslie Howard is a man, mang.

[demented cow]

Leslie Howard is a man, mang.

I wasn't talking about Howard, I was talking about Mme. France Clidat. I now see that my last post started with an unidentified pronoun, so it's no wonder you thought it was some guff about Leslie Howard in drag. I am sorry for the silly mistake.

[sevencircles]

How were the pianos back in the former half of the 19:th century in general?

I know that Liszt often played a piano that was extremely hard to play fast on.

I think it´s very possible that the best  virtuosos of the 19.th century actually had better technique then the best in the world today.

There were not many other things to do back in those days so they propably practiced a lot more then for instance Hamelin who only play 3 hours a day these days.

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.

[bernhard]

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.

Here is a most poignant account by a contemporary:

(And the astute reader may derive much benefit from reading in between the lines)

One evening Liszt came to see me, with the excellent pianist Ferdinand Hiller, and the famous violin virtuoso Ernst. The good piano was at my lodgings, and plenty of music to hand. Liszt and Hiller together played the overture to “Der Freischutz” and Ernst fiddled with them with might and main. The idea had come into their heads that afternoons and Ernst had brought his violin along. They remained for the evening and “made jokes of all kinds”, as Liszt put it.

“Where does Cramer live?” I asked.

“He has founded a Lancaster piano school”, replied Liszt. “You cannot see him – he is never in the city. He lives in the suburb of Batignolles”.

Cramer, who had made a lot of money in London, had speculated through a banker, and lost everything. He had become an Englishman in England and had now come to Paris, which did not suit him at all.

“Cramer is a septuagenarian”, said Liszt. “Leave him alone. Fromhim you can learn nothing, since you have me”.

But I did not leave Cramer alone. To me he was sanctified , venerabilis Beda! I remember having heard him at a concert at the Argyle rooms in London, in 1829. He played magnificently – the Eb Piano quartet of Mozart, with his brother, Franz Cramer plying the violin and Lindley, the well known English violoncellist. I wrote Cramer a respectful letter reminding him of this occasion, and mentioning Count Wielhorski, who had met him in Rome, and told me much about him. That was the connecting link. The author of the world renowned Etudes – that hymnbook of unconfirmed pianists – wrote back, promising to come. “Now”, I said to myself, “we will order an English dinner – all the dishes to be served at once, the best port and all his works on the table!” Schlesingers sent me his complete works – a huge pile of music, which must have been covered with a layer of dust an inch thick – but they were in good condition. They contained the history of a whole human life.

I drove about the whole day in order to procure a first-class English meal, and port wine. This was far from easy in such a singular place as Paris. Unfortunately Liszt had left Paris, He would not have refused to play some Cramer form that pile! That would have been an event indeed!

Cramer arrived on the stroke of seven – he had written earlier to say that he would “not be out of school earlier!” I could hardly believe my eyes. From as long as I could remember, Cramer had stood in a holy shrine at Riga, and here he stood bodily before me! I kissed his hand. He was embarrassed, but it seemed to me the only thing to do. “I have but this to offer you”, said I and lead him towards the pile of his assembled works.

“Are all those mine?” he sighed. “Have I written all that? And who plays it now? But I am glad, I am very glad”, and he shook me by the hand in the English fashion. We spoke in French – English seemed out of place unless Cramer began, and German is not a language suitable to Paris.

Dinner was served – everything English, even the plates. He noticed it at once. “Do you live in the English fashion?” he asked in surprise.

“It is a little attention to you”, I replied and that seemed to please him.

“There was a time when I drank such wine”, he said as he tasted the port. “But where did you find it, here in Paris?” He went on: “there is said to be only one place where you can find good port in Paris and is at the ‘Trois tetes de mores’. It is an American firm! Strange city, this Paris, is it not? I do not like it – I would have done better had I gone to Germany. But here the climate agrees with me. I have been here for some years and I am too old now to go further.”

Cramer was sparing of words and his replies were always quiet and deliberate. When I asked him about Chopin, he said: “I do not understand his music, but he plays beautifully and correctly  - oh, so correctly! He does not allow himself to become careless like so many other young people. But I do not understand him. Liszt, of course is a phenomenon, and he does not always play his own compositions like Chopin. As for this modern music, I do not understand it!”

The atmosphere over dinner was depressing. Why? It seemed to me that Cramer would cling so closely to the past, that the present had no interest for him. I, sitting opposite him, and already thirty-three years old, seemed so young and insignificant. After dinner, however, he became more talkative. I went over to the Erard, and asked him to allow me to play to him his first three studies. He sat down at my side, and thus. I might say, I took lessons with Jean Baptiste Cramer!

I should never have dreamed, in my younger days, that such things were possible. Vehrstaedt of Geneva, used to play the Etudes in concerts. With him I studied the third D major with its intricate fingering, its careful slurring, and rich “cantilena”, like a prayer, or slumber-song. Cramer said: “From me, you have nothing to learn. These are only exercises. Do you actually play such things for pleasure?” “Indeed I do!” I replied, and I opened with the Etude in F with the triplet figure in quavers. “See what  a beautiful ‘pastorale’ this is”, and I told him of Henselt in St. Petersburg who played this Etude so wonderfully. This pleased him and at my request, he played the first three Etudes. It was dry, wooden, harsh, and there was no cantilena in the D major Etude, although it was rounded and masterly. The impression I received was painful in the extreme. Could this indeed be Cramer? Had the great man lived so long, only to remain so far behind the times? I did my best not to show my feelings, but I had lost my bearings, and could think of nothing to say. I asked whether he did not think an absolute legato was indicated in the third etude. He had so cut off the notes in the upper part, and so ignored the phrasing in the bass, that I could hardly believe my eyes and ears. Cramer answered: “We were not so particular. They are only etudes; we did not consider them of great importance. I do not have your modern accents and fancies. Clementi played his ‘Gradus ad Parnassum’ just so, and it was good enough for us. Nobody has ever sung so beautifully on the piano as John Field, and he was a pupil of Clementi. My pattern was Mozart. No one has ever composed better than he. Now I am forgotten. I am only a poor teacher of rudiments in a suburb of Paris, where they study only the Bertini Etudes. I must even teach Bertini myself! You can hear it any time – eight pianos, all going at once!”

I spoke of Hummel,, who dedicated his Piano Trio in E major to Cramer. I said that I thought the first part fine, but it develops into nothing more than smooth passages.

“Next to Mozart, Hummel is the greatest composer for the piano”, said Cramer. “No one has surpassed him”. I knew that Cramer could not stand Beethoven, let alone Weber! I had removed all my music form the room so that nothing remained except the works of J. B. Cramer. I brought out his four hand-sonata in G (the one with the adagio in C). I had loved to play it with my life-long friend Dinglestaedt, in the happy days of my youth. Cramer wondered that I should know it. He had to look at it very carefully himself before he played it – and then he played the bass part so roughly and clumsily, that all that remained to me was the honour of having sat next to the composer! I had only once before in my life suffered so great a disenchantment form so famous an artist. That was in the summer of 1827, in Frankfort-on-Main, when I heard Beethoven’s pupil, Ferdinand Ries. He, too, was a woodchopper at the piano.

Cramer was thick set, with a full, ruddy countenance and dark brown eyes. He looked like an Englishman, and he had English manners, and considering his age he was very vigorous. “I am a good walker”, he said, “I walked all the way form Batignolles to Paris.” He stayed late into the evening, sorting out some of his oldest compositions and playing parts of them. “I don’t remember that! I don’t know this anymore!” were his words. I listened with the greatest reverence but could not approve of his treatment of the piano. It was repulsive. When he left, he said: “Receive the blessing o an old man – I owe you an evening such as I thought never to enjoy again. I sincerely hope that it may bring you happiness. And so you say, I am not altogether forgotten?” I told him: “In St Petersburg the great virtuoso Henselt plays your Etudes in concerts. In my native city, Riga, the Etudes lie upon every piano – they rank with Bach’s “48” as a Book of Wisdom. They have never been equalled, and like Bach’s work, they can never be laid aside!”

I spoke from my heart. That Cramer had visited me, I could, and still can hardly believe. The worthy man died a few years later, in poverty, and forgotten by all. That would never have  been the case, had he lived in Germany! Cramer is a poet and an artist in his Etudes.

(Wilhelm von Lenz – “The great virtuosos of our time” – Kahn & Averril)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[spirithorn]

“We were not so particular. They are only etudes; we did not consider them of great importance.

A very interesting story regarding Cramer.  However, had Chopin lived to be an old man and had a similar encounter, I think we can be reasonably sure he would not have made such a statement with reference to Op.10 and Op.25.

[stevie]

liszt, etc. were better technically  11 (31.4%)
modern pianists are technically superior  14 (40%)
they have been equalled, but not surpassed  10 (28.6%)


interesting results

[stringoverstrung]

some critical points are:

- just like with money, with piano technique there is something like inflation:
1$ in 1900 is not 1 $ now
a 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. 

[sevencircles]

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.

Hamelin uses light action pianos most of the time if I´m not entirely wrong.

[stringoverstrung]

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 played an Erard from Liszt's time once in the
https://www.finchcocks.co.uk/

Very light action: no way near the steinway grand of today. 

Well worth a visit because you can play the instruments and because of the rest and peace.

[thalbergmad]

That place is heaven.

[ted]

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 ?

[stringoverstrung]

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 ?

Probably not. I think the weight action and dip is of lesser importance while a great pianist can adapt to this. But among other things heavier action has led to more martelato style playing. It's a process that goes slowly but steadily resulting in a completely different tone every 50 years or so. So i guess one can say that over time the dip, resistance etc does have a considerable impact on technique. Another factor is that stronger piano's allow more martelato style playing.  This makes "comparison life" more difficult.
If you're used to a concert grand of today, you will have a lot more speed on let's say an 19th century erard. It's like training with weights in a backpack and then run the competition run without it: you can fly!
But  as you said: the whole approach is different: therefore the resulting technique will be different. If you want an idea of how much effect the approach can have then compare the life of Arthur Rubinstein (the elegant salonesque style) and Claudio Arrau with today's virtuosos and you will hear what a different approach and lifestyle can do to technique and sound.

 What i'm saying is that there are many changing factors (among others dip, resistance,...) that make absolute comparison difficult to impossible so next best guess is to compare it relative to the population of that time. 

[aya_heller]

Who CARES who had better technique?  They're all really good.  The end~!

[chromatickler]

some critical points are:

- just like with money, with piano technique there is something like inflation:
1$ in 1900 is not 1 $ now
a 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. 

this is an unusually thoughtful post. You have outlined a very reasonable approach for measuring and comparing NATURAL TALENT. and in some respects this is indeed more relevant than comparing pure technique.

[stevie]

true

but we all know the only true means is

[chromatickler]

 

[m]

true

but 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...

[chromatickler]

a bit harsh 

[stevie]

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...

progress is progress, speed always was their ultimate aim.