"Old" Pianists vs. "New" Pianists?

[ramseytheii]

This post is intended for those who, in general, prefer listening to older pianists, say from before the 50's or 60's, then those after that time.  Pianists like Schnabel, Cortot, Hofmann, Friedman, et cetera.  Also it is just a germ of an idea, I don't want so much to make a "point," as to throw an idea out there and hear the response.

It's often said that pianists from the older times were in general freer with the tempo, as opposed to today, where tempo fluctuations tend to be much more conservative, and even metronimical.  These are obviously overstatements, compare for instance the Barenboim recording of Bach's Fugue in b minor from WTC I with Fischer's, and you will see immediately who is the more rhythmical.  However, I wonder if this can be said: that pianists from the older times were generally more creative in their metrical inflection and nuance; rather than placing accents where they "theoretically" belong in the bar based on the meter, or even based on a "theory" of harmony (for instance, one that would define always the tonic as a resolution of a dominant, therefore defining in advance the change in sound and the nuance between these two harmonies), they were able to vary the placement, creating a much wider spectrum of characters in a piece which could be more sharply defined.

What I mean is, just because the meter tells you the first beat is the strongest, doesn't mean that note will automatically have more stress within the phrase than subsequent notes in the same bar.  For example. 

It's a germ of a thought that came to me as I heard on the radio Piers Lane play a transcription of "Sheep May Safely Graze" from the Bach cantata; a beautiful sound but every phrase was executed in the same way.  It made me think that although the sound was beautiful, it was not actually a "vocal" performance, or vocally inspired, because if you were to sing words, you consider those words also when placing inflection, and not just meter.  Leading me to another thought... that the pianists of the past, if it can be said they were more creative in placing inflective accents, are therefore much more poetic as pianists, since this variety of placement gives a more vocal impression - the impression of a text, of poetry.  And on top of that they had a beautiful sound.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness.  but I would love to hear more thoughts on the subject.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Personally, I do prefer the "old" pianists.

Yes, there were more wrong notes, but a lot more excitement.

Nowadays, I get the impression that the score is an order. It used to be just a suggestion.

[dirlopiano]

I do prefer the old pianists to. I find the play of "new" pianists a little bit insipid.  But don't forget that  there was bad pianists in the 50's and 60's. But we have forgotten them...

[PaulNaud]

Listen to Dinu Lipatti playing Chopin!!!!!!!!!
Alfred Cortot said the following: When Lipatti's hands will stop to play the piano, Chopin will die a second time!!!!!!!!!!

[rc]

I prefer the fogies as well, but I tend to think it has more to do with a pianist simply aging rather than the era they came from. In everyday life, it seems us young punks are overly preoccupied with ourselves, identifying everything we do with ourselves and always trying to prove something. Old timers have already been there, done that, can do away with the nonsense and get on with the music.

But then again, maybe it's true that the times are creating less musical musicians. Competitions, academia, a more scientifically minded society making a breed that can't see the forest through all the trees. I can't really compare to any other age, but there really is a common problem of people overanalysing everything. That could easily lead to the theory dictating the music, instead of the other way around which is how things should be.

To be fair, I'm not familiar with very many pianists. Though by what I am familiar with, the older pianists are the more artistic.

What I mean is, just because the meter tells you the first beat is the strongest, doesn't mean that note will automatically have more stress within the phrase than subsequent notes in the same bar. For example.

It's a germ of a thought that came to me as I heard on the radio Piers Lane play a transcription of "Sheep May Safely Graze" from the Bach cantata; a beautiful sound but every phrase was executed in the same way. It made me think that although the sound was beautiful, it was not actually a "vocal" performance, or vocally inspired, because if you were to sing words, you consider those words also when placing inflection, and not just meter. Leading me to another thought... that the pianists of the past, if it can be said they were more creative in placing inflective accents, are therefore much more poetic as pianists, since this variety of placement gives a more vocal impression - the impression of a text, of poetry. And on top of that they had a beautiful sound.

Just to take up a tangent on the idea of accents...

It was never something I really gave much thought to until recent months. When accenting the strong beats, it of course gave an easily percieved, regular pulse. To me, this effect lent itself well to the more energetic, driving pieces. A lot like the regularity of drumming in rock (bass on the strong beats, snare on the off-beat), despite it's predictability gives a lot of energy, makes it more danceable. A useful device where appropriate.

My other lesson was in the more poetic element, the singing line. A waltz in Bm by Schubert, where he had basically given an accent to the highest note in every melodic line, more often than not falling on the second beat. So that was a pretty big hint, the player is pretty much always told where the melody's dynamics were supposed to rise to. But a lot of the art wasn't so much in hitting the accents like an obvious 'ding', but to subtly make it stand out, create the illusion of singing - a line rising/falling in pitch and dynamics.

[allthumbs]

Greetings

rc, you've hit the nail on the head. I like the older pianists as well, although some of the new comers are better trained and technically superior.

I do feel though that they will become better with age and wisdom.


Cheers

allthumbs

[crazy for ivan moravec]

Competitions, academia, a more scientifically minded society making a breed that can't see the forest through all the trees. I can't really compare to any other age, but there really is a common problem of people overanalysing everything. That could easily lead to the theory dictating the music, instead of the other way around which is how things should be.

i agree with this too. 

-------------------------------------
i shall use "old" for old school pianists and "new" for the ones still living.


the thing about old pianists is that we're not in the same era as they were. their playing is something they understood very well themselves, and which was normal for them to do (those rubatos, etc.). we can only appreciate it (thru recordings) or not like it at all, too.

our fascination comes from that. when we hear a "new" pianist play like old school, we would go, "whoa! he sounds like Hofmann!". we go crazy because it really is impossible to imitate the  old style. but if a new pianist was able to do some of it somehow, i'd say it is not entirely like it bcoz he really is a product of our time (different political situations, habits, food, recreation, etc).

me too, i noticed that the old pianists were more "metrical" than the new ones. and IMO, that's what made their tempo fluctuations really interesting. when everything else is metrical, and suddenly you have a wonderful rubato here with the bass not going together with the melody, it feels so great! and those tempo fluctuations appear in the most unexpected moments! what a surprise.

the new pianist's rubato, IMO, is more spread out, more functional than for feeling (result of overanalysing), and more balanced, if i may say. anyway, that's just how i think about it. i think we use rubatoes to make a statement. we wish to tell our audience (we always presume that they are all pianists) that "i made a rubato there because that passage is important, according to my analysis." as a result, almost all pianists make a rubato in the same spot, sometimes in the same style too... and we expect a pianist to do a rubato here, one there.. basically, we know where they'll do it. it can be a nice feeling coz you find the concert artist to have the same ideas as you. but yes, it can be boring, too.

i prefer the old pianists simply because i hear new pianists everyday. but if Hofmann heard Volodos or Hamelin, he would probably go crazy, too.

i'm crazy for ivan moravec because he sounds like old school, but only in the sense that he played with more feeling. he has a lot of rubatos which you would never find from old pianists. and his playing is very very personal.

i'm listening to cortot's schumann concerto right now and it's great. basses here and there, tempo changes (where it's not marked) will be heard. the funny thing is, i don't consider him from the old school, though he belongs there. his rubatos are found EVERYWHERE. but he was interesting simply because he is the only one who can do those things, and bow down to his authority/courage. he was quite advanced for his time, more experimental, thus i think he is a modern pianist. he made great music, nobody can deny that. too bad not everybody really followed him.


wonderful topic! keep up the posts!

[gruffalo]

while ou are discussing this, i would like to know:

out of the leading pianists in today (that are actually active and performing) which ones are actually outstanding and will be remembered for a long time?

the only one i can think of is Lang Lang. this may be because i havent much time to research man pianists, but my CD collection is generally of those from 60s, 70s or 80s (Ashkenazy, Argerich). it seems to me when i reflect upon those periods, there are so many amazing pianists from that time, but although we have a lot of famous ones at the moment, onl one or two are truly amazing.

i am not claiming this, this is just the impression that i get and it would be good for some recommendations of those real amazing pianists that are around today.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

oh no, dont start with lang lang. this thread will be forever, hehehe.

but i honestly liked his carnegie debut. others recordings are really bad, IMO.

[ramseytheii]

while ou are discussing this, i would like to know:

out of the leading pianists in today (that are actually active and performing) which ones are actually outstanding and will be remembered for a long time?

the only one i can think of is Lang Lang. this may be because i havent much time to research man pianists, but my CD collection is generally of those from 60s, 70s or 80s (Ashkenazy, Argerich). it seems to me when i reflect upon those periods, there are so many amazing pianists from that time, but although we have a lot of famous ones at the moment, onl one or two are truly amazing.

i am not claiming this, this is just the impression that i get and it would be good for some recommendations of those real amazing pianists that are around today.

I don't mean to say, that all pianists of the former times were unequivocally better.  Of course for every Ignaz Friedman there were probably 500 Joe Blows, as we say in Amerika.  I just want to pinpoint certain elements of the differences in aesthetic.  And I think those elements are not as mystical as many people often believe them to be.  From extracting them, I also don't want to try and establish through ruels or theory the "way" that pianists from olden times interpreted.  That would be a mistake for several reasons, for instance one would listen to so many great pianists, and then find so much conflicting information, and just trust the Lowest Common Denominator when trying to establish a system.  What's the point?  I rather want to see what we can learn from those old pianists without making a dogma about what they were doing, but still giving a clear and useful definition.

Walter Ramsey

[mephisto]

i am not claiming this, this is just the impression that i get and it would be good for some recommendations of those real amazing pianists that are around today.

Austbø
Andsnes
Argerich
Hamelin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Angela Hewitt
Sokolov
Pollini
Stephen Hough
Demidenko
Berezovsky
Ashkenazy
Lugansky
Yundi Li
Kissin
Piers Lane
Steven Osbourne
Freire
Gavrilov
Comme Le Vent(a.k.a Stevie he has got the fastets 25.12. He`s an amazing technician as well as an awesome musician)
Aimard
Perahia
Zoltan Kocsis
 
And probably some more i forgot about.

-da Meph

[quasimodo]

It is possible that contemporary pianists are given a little bit too much stress on technique in their training so that some of them maybe neglect sheer musicality.

Anyway, personnally I tend to prefer the "new" over the "old". It's a question of personal taste, of course, but I often feel closer to what the young guns (like Hewitt, Lugansky, Lisitsa, Kissin, Li and so on) have to express than the older ones.

Nevertheless, I am in total adoration of Richter, Horowitz, Francois and quite a lot of other dead pianists.

And after all, I think the debate is "artificial". In 70 years, Lise de la Salle will be considered as a pianist from the past  !!!

[gruffalo]

from that list there are some that i dont know, but that list missed my question, because some of those pianists are not in concert performing today (as in big concerts touring the world) like Argerich, Ashkenazy and a few more on that list. i have heard Kissin but he doesnt strike me as completely legendary. hey, thats the word im looking for "legendary pianists". it just seems that in this generation of pianists we dont have as many "legendary pianists" as other generations. eg 60s 70s and 80s. it seems that we should because of the growing amount of pianists. maybe im wrong. but the evidence is in the forum, generally people are always talking about those dead or retired pianists, and if not its Lang Lang they are talking about. (offcourse they talk about others around today, but not as much as those others).

this is not a claim that i am right, i actually want someone to correct me, because i am the typical go to the shop and by a rachmaninov CD or whatever. i dont look for particular pianists because i dont know many and i dont have the time to study them i guess.

[odsum25]

First I'll respond to which pianists who are very active today will become legendary. I am eliminating those who have already seen their star shine (ie. Pollini, Argerich, and that generation.) I think that Aimard, Andsnes, and Goode are the only pianists today who may become truly legendary. However, there are certainly a number of wonderful musicians out there on today's concert scene.

[stevie]

Comme Le Vent(a.k.a Stevie he has got the fastets 25.12. He`s an amazing technician as well as an awesome musician)

this true 

[quasimodo]

lol

[andhow04]

sometimes i wonder if ppl like the older ones more and give them all the lauds etc because of psychological reasons more than anytrhing else. i mean i just dont know about the "metrical accents" because i never did a study u know to count or to compare in this piece or that piece these accents or those accents. BUT i wonder if ppl in general like the old ones because well they are older, so when ppl listen to their cds they might listen to them like they were some old person prophesying. u know what i mean? i just mean ppl listen to them in a different way. at least i think, or at least it can be thought. i mean i guess  i lot of the older ones werent so straightforward (rubinstein said in the old days ppl just gave an "imrpession" of thep iec they wer eplaying) but my main point, maybe we r listening to them in a different mindset.

[pita bread]

I listen to the older pianists because I can't stand modern middle-road interpretations.

[arensky]

I listen to the older pianists because I can't stand modern middle-road interpretations.

true