the bar -- too high?

[pianohopper]

I had an interesting discussion with my piano teacher today.  It got started with discussing the disqualification of Ingolf Wunder, which I read about on this site.  We were talking about how two notes is so nitty-gritty. 

My piano teacher pointed out that Horowitz and others like him really raised the bar for people like Rubenstein, who made "bushels" of mistakes because he was too "busy" to practice.  (I think this means women?)  But now, can the bar go any higher? 

It used to be that you didn't have to play all the Chopin etudes.  If you could play several extremely well, that was fine.  Now, not only do you have to play them all, you have to play them all fabulously. 

On top of that, "specialists" are dying out.  They're being replaced by people like Lang Lang, who try to play everything but can't do it all spectacularly.  So, must the bar naturally be lowered in order for us to get better again? 

[mrchops10]

I don't know that I quite agree with your view of history. Horowitz had a fabulous technique, but he made plenty of mistakes. I think there have always been supervirtuosos from Clementi onward, and there undoubtably always will be.

What's more, we do still see major pianists who do not have major techniques: Mitsuko Uchida, Murray Perahia, to name a couple. But even they set themselves up to fail. I have said time and again in this forum that the problem is recordings. Check out Perahia's perfect recording of the Chopin etudes, I seriously doubt he can perform like this. It's tough when a musician can't compete with his own perfection.

There is a huge difference between technique (e.g. Horowitz) and perfection (e.g. Pollini). Competitions and recordings have forced pianists to go for the latter. I do still think there is room for "imperfect" but highly interesting pianists, but agree the space is rapidly diminishing. What is pointless are the people who judge a technique by number of wrong notes. Barere's Islamey would probably be laughed out of a major competition today, technically awe-inspiring as it is.

[cherub_rocker1979]

I don't know that I quite agree with your view of history. Horowitz had a fabulous technique, but he made plenty of mistakes. I think there have always been supervirtuosos from Clementi onward, and there undoubtably always will be.

What's more, we do still see major pianists who do not have major techniques: Mitsuko Uchida, Murray Perahia, to name a couple. But even they set themselves up to fail. I have said time and again in this forum that the problem is recordings. Check out Perahia's perfect recording of the Chopin etudes, I seriously doubt he can perform like this. It's tough when a musician can't compete with his own perfection.

There is a huge difference between technique (e.g. Horowitz) and perfection (e.g. Pollini). Competitions and recordings have forced pianists to go for the latter. I do still think there is room for "imperfect" but highly interesting pianists, but agree the space is rapidly diminishing. What is pointless are the people who judge a technique by number of wrong notes. Barere's Islamey would probably be laughed out of a major competition today, technically awe-inspiring as it is.

Murray Perahia and Mitsuko Uchida have FABULOUS technique.  Their playing is at the highest level.

[practicingnow]

Murray Perahia and Mitsuko Uchida have FABULOUS technique.  Their playing is at the highest level.

Ditto that.

Actually the bar is not so much being "raised" as it is being shifted.  There is certainly an emphasis on right notes these days, as there is an emphasis on adherence to the score, which explains the stellar careers of Kissin, Andnes, Schiff, Perahia, Uchida, Pollini, Yundi Li...
Of course, there is NOTHING WRONG with hitting the right notes, I hope that we can all agree on that!
The problem is that there is really not much being "said" at the piano these days by the leading virtuosi, not much interesting or original, save for the exception of a few, among them Volodos, Lang Lang (for better or worse), and a couple others.  Playing these days generally lacks the charm, color, "magic", the darkness and depth of the old masters.  Where is the sense of risk anymore?  Yes, everything is played pretty safely and cleanly these days - performances are "manicured" - yes, that's the word...
They had Horowitz - we have Volodos.  They had Cziffra - we have Hamelin.  They had Hofmann, we have Kissin.
They win.  We lose.  That is true.
Still, there is something awe-inspiring about the craft of a pianist like Kissin, or the balance and proportion of Perahia, the evenness and control of Hamelin.  Mechanical craft seems to have taken the upper-hand lately.  Things are still evolving though, and my guess is that before too long there will be a harkening back to the style of old.

[zheer]

We are so O critical. I want to listen to David Helfgot so he can stop me thinking so criticaly its a bad habit. I want to see a personality a true life story, think more about music than perfection, be inspired again.

[arensky]

Murray Perahia and Mitsuko Uchida have FABULOUS technique.  Their playing is at the highest level.

true

[ted]

It's probably all part of the evolution of music. If classical concert playing becomes too hidebound then it will die out. Human beings will always desire to be stimulated and moved by music. If classical concert playing ceases to do that then other forms of piano playing will emerge to take its place. One such direction could grow from the solo improvisation concerts of Jarrett and others like Jarrett. Piano music will continue to stir and move people and players will continue to take musical adventures and risks; it just may not be through interpretive concert playing any more, that's all.

[lucasdopandeiro]

It's probably all part of the evolution of music. If classical concert playing becomes too hidebound then it will die out. Human beings will always desire to be stimulated and moved by music. If classical concert playing ceases to do that then other forms of piano playing will emerge to take its place. One such direction could grow from the solo improvisation concerts of Jarrett and others like Jarrett. Piano music will continue to stir and move people and players will continue to take musical adventures and risks; it just may not be through interpretive concert playing any more, that's all.

Maybe interpretative concerts with another repertoire. Everybody plays the same pieces pianists used to play and record in the begining of the century. Everybody that goes to concerts today know already each note the pianist will play - maybe that's why two notes wrong and you are out! Go play something people don't know!

Lucas Reis

[hodi]

What's more, we do still see major pianists who do not have major techniques: Mitsuko Uchida, Murray Perahia

huh?
perahia technique is more than EXCELLENT
did u hear his kreisleriana? i think that without perahia performance i could never like this piece
and he recorded all of chopin etudes and they sound superb, both technically and musically.

[mrchops10]

Wow, I didn't know I would raise such a fury at that comment. I didn't say they had bad techniques, I said they did not have major ones. It's not really an insult. Both have plenty of chops to tackle the rep they specialize in, but recordings cannot be a judge. As far as I understand, Perahia's Chopin etudes, wonderful as they are, are miracles of recording, not of performance. In my imperfect judgement based on his (always wonderful) performances, I doubt he can really play at that level. Compare the Mozart of Perahia and Uchida to Bronfman, or Horowitz. All 4 have wonderful Mozart, but it is easy to hear that the latter 2 can easily tackle supervirtuoso reportoire. Perahia and Uchida are certainly excellent pianists, though.