The Most Accurate Pianist?

[stevie]

some candidates -

michelangeli

hamelin

yundi li

cziffra

pollini(....in the studio at least)

so...

[ryguillian]

What about Pierre-Laurent Aimard, Glenn Gould, or Jonathan Powell (he seems to be able to play every note in even the densest Sorabji passages)?

—Ryan

[mrchops10]

Second Glenn Gould as an option, dunno about Powell, but I can tell you I recently saw Aimard play Carnaval at Carnegie Hall. Whatever its merits, accurate is not the first word I would use.

[PaulNaud]

some candidates -

michelangeli

hamelin

yundi li

cziffra

pollini(....in the studio at least)

so...

[ryguillian]

I recently saw Aimard play Carnaval at Carnegie Hall. Whatever its merits, accurate is not the first word I would use.

I've only heard him on recordings where he seems to be acceptionally accurate even while playing technically demanding music like Ligeti, Messiaen, or Carter.

—Ryan

[contrapunctus]

Gould cannot be surpassed.

[ryguillian]

Gould cannot be surpassed.

Please keep your stupidity in your own threads.

—Ryan

[orlandopiano]

Gould cannot be surpassed.

Gould is mistake-free playing music that just about every other artist would play mistake-free as well. 

One can only wonder if Gould would play Rach 3 mistake free. I highly doubt it.

[pita bread]

Please keep your stupidity in your own threads.

—Ryan

No. He should just keep that to himself.

[ryguillian]

Gould is mistake-free playing music that just about every other artist would play mistake-free as well.

Gould's contrapuntal articulation is the clearest I've heard; however dense the polyphony is, his playing never sounds muddy.

—Ryan

[stevie]

yes, but in the music he chooses to play there isnt as much danger of a wrong note as in say....alkan

[orlandopiano]

yes, but in the music he chooses to play there isnt as much danger of a wrong note as in say....alkan

My point exactly.

[hodi]

well i think PERAHIA is just a machine
he NEVER hits wrong notes/misses ones

[chromatickler]

da TRUMIDI & da HORZEF*CKAH

[chromatickler]

yes, but in the music he chooses to play there isnt as much danger of a wrong note as in say....alkan

listen to his prokofiev sonata 7 mvmt 3

[chromatickler]

and where's volodos?

[ramseytheii]

yes, but in the music he chooses to play there isnt as much danger of a wrong note as in say....alkan

Actually in the music Gould recorded there is much, much greater danger of wrong notes - of hearing them if they are played.  In every piece he recorded, if any pianist played wrong ntoes in that piece, it would immediately be obvious even to people that didn't know the music well.  So Gould maybe didn't play the Rachmaninoff Third concerto, but I doubt that many (if any) pianists who did, could play with such perfection his over-dubbed version of the "Meistersinger" overture.   So why compare pears and pumpkins?

Neuhaus writes:
"Incidentally, if Godowsky had four to five wrong notes in a recital, they stuck in one's memory like so many nails hammered into the brain, whereas with Rubinstein the audience frequently failed to notice wrong notes."

Walter Ramsey

[arensky]

some candidates -

michelangeli

hamelin

yundi li

cziffra

pollini(....in the studio at least)

so...

Michelangeli....I have found two mistakes or smudges in his recordings; I understand his performances were the same way, he just didn't make mistakes.

Hamelin...as above, but his tonal pallette is more limited, his playing can tend to be stuck in the same texture or tone color throughout a piece. But his workmanship is extraordinary.

Yundi  Li...he has the potential to be like the cats above, but he is very young and he needs to settle in. There are anticipated climaxes and unsteady passages in his Chopin Grand Polonaise.

Cziffra.... I hear a lot of small errors and blurry passages in many of Cziffra's recs but like Horowitz' mistakes they are largely inconsequential.

Pollini...I heard him in recital about 10 years ago, he made many mistakes, he didn't break down but they affected the flow of the music. Dreadful concert, and yes we can all be perfect in the studio.

I would also put Gould at the top of this list with Michelangeli. I agree with Mr. Ramsey (see above). In Gould's repertoire there is no way of evading mistakes.

Evidently Leopold Godowsky was hyperperfect, sadly there are no recordings. But what about.....

Josef Hofmann...at the end he was an alcoholic but his early recordings are astonishing, and before the days of the overdub; all pianists should listen to his recs, they are astonishing, and a window into another time (probably a better one, piano-wise)

[mrdaveux]

OK OK now, Gould's recordings are certainly accurate but... is he an accurate pianist?

There is a difference, because in the studio, anybody can be mistake free : no audience to stress you out, you can have many takes, and the editing process (which Gould was very fond of, by the way) can erase many imperfections.

Considering that Gould left the concert circuit very early (for reasons that are more or less obvious) and dedicated himself to the studio recording and editing process, can anyone truly say that he is a very accurate pianist? Unless you saw him in concert 50 years ago, I doubt you can make that claim. Accuracy should be judged on live performance, not on recordings that allow room for cheating.

And I think Bernhard had a related post about this matter (same arguing about Gould, I think) a couple of weeks ago... don't remember where, though.

[gruffalo]

im not very experienced with this topic, but wasnt Richter quite known for his accuracy?

[pianistimo]

my thoughts exactly...but am sure there must be some contemporary artists that are very accurate.  how accurate is ivo pogorelich?   

[jehangircama]

Lang Lang (from what I've heard of his playing)

[ramseytheii]

I would also put Gould at the top of this list with Michelangeli. I agree with Mr. Ramsey (see above). In Gould's repertoire there is no way of evading mistakes.

Evidently Leopold Godowsky was hyperperfect, sadly there are no recordings. But what about.....

Thanks for agreeing. But I just have to correct one thing - there are many recordings of Godowsky! Start for instance with his entry in the "Great Pianists of the Century" series.  Also you can buy a CD, Godowsky playing Chopin, from the Piano Library series.  It has some things that aren't on the Great Pianists.  There are probably more, and surely you can find some.

OK OK now, Gould's recordings are certainly accurate but... is he an accurate pianist?

There is a difference, because in the studio, anybody can be mistake free : no audience to stress you out, you can have many takes, and the editing process (which Gould was very fond of, by the way) can erase many imperfections.

Considering that Gould left the concert circuit very early (for reasons that are more or less obvious) and dedicated himself to the studio recording and editing process, can anyone truly say that he is a very accurate pianist? Unless you saw him in concert 50 years ago, I doubt you can make that claim. Accuracy should be judged on live performance, not on recordings that allow room for cheating.

That's true in a way, though in all the live performances of Gould I've heard (Mozart concerti, Brahms concerto, Goldberg variations, was the CBC broadcast of the Schoenberg concerto live?) I haven't detected any wrong notes.  Admittedly the amount of live performances in his case is small.  But in the studio one can correct one notes, but one cannot fake accuracy of rhythm, rhythm in the local sense and the huge overarching rhythm which Gould created throughout all ofhis performances.  And "circus tricks" like his overdubbed Meistersinger overture cannot just be made rhythmically perfect and accurate through splices alone.  It's his incredible coordination between ears, hands and feet that make such things possible, more than anything else. 

wasn't Richter quite the accurate pianist?

Not at all!  Listen for instance to his Carnegie hall debut recital, there are many messes-up and wrong notes.  Also even in the famed Sofia recital there are lots of inaccuracies.  But these are really not important; after all, he was never inaccurate about the character of the music, or the essence of whatever he was playing.

Walter Ramsey

[phil13]

OK OK now, Gould's recordings are certainly accurate but... is he an accurate pianist?

There is a difference, because in the studio, anybody can be mistake free : no audience to stress you out, you can have many takes, and the editing process (which Gould was very fond of, by the way) can erase many imperfections.

If he can play the Goldberg Variations all the way through- 45 minutes of VERY difficult Bach- then I'm all for him.

Gould is mistake-free playing music that just about every other artist would play mistake-free as well.

One can only wonder if Gould would play Rach 3 mistake free. I highly doubt it.

Yes, but would he want to? He hated Romantic music.

Phil

[zheer]

Machelangile is famous for his accuracy.

[Teddybear]

I'd definitely say Glenn Gould. It's not really a matter of playing the right notes but a combination of astounding rhythmical precision and profound musicality.

I guess Pollini is pretty accurate (I haven't heard him much), but he sounds really boring, so what's the point. 

T

[orlandopiano]

I'd definitely say Glenn Gould. It's not really a matter of playing the right notes but a combination of astounding rhythmical precision and profound musicality.

Call me deaf, but Gould's rhythmic precision isn't any better than dozens of other technical masters. And why is his music profound? Because he hunched over and had autistic-like mannerisms?

[mikey6]

What about Geoffrey Douglas Madge?
ok, seriously, has he recorded anything else that's worth basing an opinion on?
as for the q - i've got murray perahia's live chopin concerto's and I can't spot a mistake!

[arensky]

I guess Pollini is pretty accurate (I haven't heard him much), but he sounds really boring, so what's the point. 

T

Exactly.

[etudes]

no one mentioned Zimermann?

[Teddybear]

Call me deaf, but Gould's rhythmic precision isn't any better than dozens of other technical masters. And why is his music profound? Because he hunched over and had autistic-like mannerisms?

No, I don't think I will. It's just my opinion. I admire his technique. As to his expression, I think the problem with him is that, for example, he didn't like romantic music and didn't even seem to care. I was also going to write that I haven't made up my mind yet about other than his Bach, but I think I'm hearing a lack of motivation rather than a lack of musical profundity. Maybe I'll change my mind someday.

T

[donjuan]

some candidates -

michelangeli

hamelin

yundi li

cziffra

pollini(....in the studio at least)

so...

accurate what?  Accuracy of touch? Cziffra, Artur Rubinstein
Accuracy of ability to hit the right notes? Michelangeli.
Computer-like accuracy? Hamelin.

[stevie]

accurate what?  Accuracy of touch? Cziffra, Artur Rubinstein
Accuracy of ability to hit the right notes? Michelangeli.
Computer-like accuracy? Hamelin.

i mean accuracy in hitting the right notes, and particularly those who display stunning accuracy in works that are notoriously dangerous for making mistakes

[arensky]

No, I don't think I will.   I think the problem with him is that, for example, he didn't like romantic music and didn't even seem to care.
T

Not attacking you Teddybear but why is this a problem? Why should grown artists play music they don't care for? Yes, students have to study a wide range of literature to be really educated and knowledgeable about the art but once we are "grown ups", why should we continue the grade levels and requirements? If Glenn Gould or anyone else doesn't want to play Chopin, Liszt and Rachmaninov, that's fine; those composers have plenty of advocates.

BTW Gould's Brahms recordings are among the best; no one I've ever heard except Julius Katchen can make Brahms'  thick dense contrapuntal (and yet melodic) writing so clear. And there is no lack of emotional expression in these recordings. However that is my opinion, others may not share it, but that is a subjective matter... 

[Etude]

i mean accuracy in hitting the right notes, and particularly those who display stunning accuracy in works that are notoriously dangerous for making mistakes

I nominate Geoffrey Madge.
He is simply amazing, who else could take the time to memorise like 2000 pages of music, that lasts four hours, and written on up to seven staves, then perform it so perfectly?  I recommend his recording of Opus Clavicembalisticum to everyone, so they can experience the dazzling virtuosity and technical accuracy, that make this recording worht every penny!!!  He has to be the best, by far.  A true legend.



Everyone knows I'm joking, RIGHT?

[mikey6]

I nominate Geoffrey Madge.
He is simply amazing, who else could take the time to memorise like 2000 pages of music, that lasts four hours, and written on up to seven staves, then perform it so perfectly?  I recommend his recording of Opus Clavicembalisticum to everyone, so they can experience the dazzling virtuosity and technical accuracy, that make this recording worht every penny!!!  He has to be the best, by far.  A true legend.
Everyone knows I'm joking, RIGHT?

Probably coz I already mentioned him

[Etude]

Indeed. 

What about Geoffrey Douglas Madge?
ok, seriously, has he recorded anything else that's worth basing an opinion on?
as for the q - i've got murray perahia's live chopin concerto's and I can't spot a mistake!

listen to some of these: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005Q44Y/qid=1131586884/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-9959113-6773744?v=glance&s=classical

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005AR3V/qid=1131586926/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-9959113-6773744?v=glance&s=classical

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001RSK/qid=1131586945/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9959113-6773744?v=glance&s=classical

[Etude]

Most accurate pianist... Hamelin I suppose.

[apion]

no one mentioned Zimermann?

Zimerman is, indeed, almost always 100% perfect.

[Teddybear]

Not attacking you Teddybear but why is this a problem? Why should grown artists play music they don't care for?

I didn't say I think they should. I find it problematic when someone actually does play music they don't like. I know Gould didn't make lots of romantic or, say, Mozart recordings (I thought he didn't like Mozart, but I might be mistaken), but he did make some. So, it's confusing for -me- to listen to an unmotivated player. It's not Gould's problem, not yours. Sorry, I should have explained myself better.

T

[gouldfischer]

Call me deaf, but Gould's rhythmic precision isn't any better than dozens of other technical masters. And why is his music profound? Because he hunched over and had autistic-like mannerisms?

Deaf! :-)

Jokes aside, I think not only the rythmic precision but also a certain "sense of pushing forward", in Gould (which means to me the opposite of boredom), is quite difficult to match. Not to mention the separation of voices, like someone said.

About records versus live performance... don't forget Gould's earlier recordings had no studio masks whatsoever. Otto Friedrich, in his biography of Gould, says that young Gould would sit and perform the piece all over because of a single mistake, even with everyone else saying it was just perfect. Or he would just shake everybody's hands, take his bench and go home. (Btw, I could not find a single error in his '55 Goldbergs.)

Just my opinion!

Cheers,
     Vinicius.

[arensky]

Deaf! :-)

(Btw, I could not find a single error in his '55 Goldbergs.)


Cheers,
     Vinicius.

Because there are none. He did do editing, but it was not corrective. In Friedrich's book the author mentions something about a WTC Fugue that Gould recorded voices seperately and at different speeds , and he experimented with mixing them up in different ways, some of them somewhat bizarre as I recall. But he did not need to take mistakes out in the editing process, because they simply did not occur. Doubters can examine his live recordings, from concerts and also his CBC performances; you may not like his playing, but you cannot dismiss him.

[brewtality]

Josef Hofmann...at the end he was an alcoholic but his early recordings are astonishing, and before the days of the overdub; all pianists should listen to his recs, they are astonishing, and a window into another time (probably a better one, piano-wise)

Indeed! his recordings from his late 30s and 40s is some of the most technically perfect piano playing I've ever heard, imagine what he would have sounded like in his 20s! Hopefully the new 1896 cylinders that will be released soon will provide further demonstrations of his technical prowess. But actually I kinda prefer the latter alcoholic stage performances coz they are so musically great. His details give me much joy, there's always something new to hear in a Hofmann recording!

[practicingnow]

It's weird that I don't see Kissin in this list.
He is freakishly accurate - I mean freakishly - he simply does not miss...
He is more accurate than anyone I've ever heard - and I've heard many live bootleg recordings...
And he does play very treacherous repertoire...
Yes, he is the cleanest and most controlled pianist I have ever heard in concert

[tocca]

Frankly... I don't care, accuracy in playing the correct notes is WAY down on my list of virtues of a Pianist.
If someone can play with feeling, even with some wrong notes once in a while, i'd rate that 100 times better than any of the "typing machines" that seem to be so highly rated for their technique.

Sure, it's possible to play accurate AND with feeling. It's just not a must it seems.

It scares me when i see Pianists that are getting famous solely because they can play really fast.
I'm fascinated by someone playing fast, in the same way i'm fascinated by a sprinter running 100m in 10flat. I wouldn't buy a CD with the sound of a sprinter running 100m though.

[musicsdarkangel]

Ashkenazy.

Michelangeli.

Zimmerman.

and Weissenberg.

[arensky]

It's weird that I don't see Kissin in this list.
He is freakishly accurate - I mean freakishly - he simply does not miss...
He is more accurate than anyone I've ever heard - and I've heard many live bootleg recordings...
And he does play very treacherous repertoire...
Yes, he is the cleanest and most controlled pianist I have ever heard in concert

You are right, an oversight. I have only seen films, never heard him live. I always forget about him...why is that? Probably because he doesn't make an impression on me. Astonishing though his accuracy is I don't think he has a lot to say musically or emotionally. If this changes and he develops, he will be a truly great artist. He is already a great pianist...

[arensky]

But actually I kinda prefer the latter alcoholic stage performances coz they are so musically great. His details give me much joy, there's always something new to hear in a Hofmann recording!

Yes I always hear something new in them too. I enjoy the drunk recordings too, what temperment and anger; truly frightening! 

How about that Casimir Hall Recital? The first repetition of the Chopin eb minor Polonaise, the big crescendo on the upward scale...

And the fury to end all fury; Stojowski's Caprice Orientale, or whatever it's called...

What was bugging him?

Yeh, uh hah.....

[orlandopiano]

It's weird that I don't see Kissin in this list.
He is freakishly accurate - I mean freakishly - he simply does not miss...
He is more accurate than anyone I've ever heard - and I've heard many live bootleg recordings...
And he does play very treacherous repertoire...
Yes, he is the cleanest and most controlled pianist I have ever heard in concert

Kissin is very very accurate, but he did make some mistakes in his '97 Proms concert in London, particularly in his Chopin Sonata #3 finale.

Cleanest and most controlled I do agree with.

[superstition2]

How about Rachmaninov? He was an incredible pianist.