Which pianist had the greatest technique?

[contrapunctus]

Hey, pick who is better. 

[arensky]

 If we refer to technique as the ability to physically manipulate the piano, then Hamelin, though not by much. Gould was an astounding technician but Hamelin exceeds his abilities in 19th century virtuoso repertoire, which Gould never really explored, with a few exceptions (Wagner transcriptions, Ravel's La Valse). They are similar in that they both have a "laser clean" quality to their playing, as Michelangeli and Hofmann did. That said, I think Gould is the greater musician, Hamelin still has to grow into the music, he often sounds flippant or superficial in some pieces; his Medtner playing OTOH is extraordinary on all levels.

[henrah]

Hamelin. I have yet to hear/see any Gould recording.

[pianoperfmajor]

Hamelin. I have yet to hear/see any Gould recording.

So how can you then choose Hamelin if you have never heard Gould?  Just because you haven't heard him means he's not as good?  Wrong.  That's basic logic buddy.

[daniel patschan]

I am a PF member since a few months. It seems to me as if the same topics show up again and again periodically. Before asking a question like the present one (who has the best technique...) it's easy just to do a search for comparable topics.....i can promise: it has been intensively discussed before !

[contrapunctus]

I am a PF member since a few months. It seems to me as if the same topics show up again and again periodically. Before asking a question like the present one (who has the best technique...) it's easy just to do a search for comparable topics.....i can promise: it has been intensively discussed before !

I would like you notice my joking attititude, if you missed it.  Secondly, a topic devoted to comparing and contrasting Hamelin and Gould has never been posted. I am well aware that technique posts have been posted in droves; however, this one was quite a joke because there is no possible way on Earth or in heaven the Hamelin is better than Gould.

[stevie]

hahaha indeed, every pozt of yoz is a joke

[lisztisforkids]

I like Gould.. But hes just a little to wierd.

[g_s_223]

If we refer to technique as the ability to physically manipulate the piano, then Hamelin, though not by much. Gould was an astounding technician but Hamelin exceeds his abilities in 19th century virtuoso repertoire, which Gould never really explored, with a few exceptions (Wagner transcriptions, Ravel's La Valse). They are similar in that they both have a "laser clean" quality to their playing, as Michelangeli and Hofmann did. That said, I think Gould is the greater musician, Hamelin still has to grow into the music, he often sounds flippant or superficial in some pieces; his Medtner playing OTOH is extraordinary on all levels.

Examining the complementary question, does Hamelin play Bach? I mean original Bach, not hyper-inflated Romantic transcriptions where little of Bach's true style remains.

[contrapunctus]

Examining the complementary question, does Hamelin play Bach? I mean original Bach, not hyper-inflated Romantic transcriptions where little of Bach's true style remains.

No he doesn't play Bach, you usually plays 20th century works that require some sort of superman technique. He plays the pieces that no one else has tried to play so he can be different. However, Gould also did play a lot of 20th century things similar to what Hamelin has played such as Schonberg, Berg, Anhalt, Hetu, Hindemith, Valen, etc. But, I thing Gould displays the real depths of his technique in his mastery of conterpoint.

[tompilk]

hmmm. where's volodos? Horowitz? Cziffra? Liszt?!!!!
Tom

[mephisto]

No he doesn't play Bach, you usually plays 20th century works that require some sort of superman technique. He plays the pieces that no one else has tried to play so he can be different. However, Gould also did play a lot of 20th century things similar to what Hamelin has played such as Schonberg, Berg, Anhalt, Hetu, Hindemith, Valen, etc. But, I thing Gould displays the real depths of his technique in his mastery of conterpoint.

You really scare me

Indeed Hamelin DOES PLAY NORMAL NON-ROMANTIC BACH. If you look at his programs he will often play the 5th French suite.

And this is just a FACT nad therefor non-arguable. You should be ashamed of yourself!

-da Meph

[mike_lang]

You really scare me

Indeed Hamelin DOES PLAY NORMAL NON-ROMANTIC BACH. If you look at his programs he will often play the 5th French suite.

And this is just a FACT nad therefor non-arguable. You should be ashamed of yourself!

-da Meph

Yes, contrapunctus, you should be ashamed yourself...  Haha.  "da Meph"

[contrapunctus]

You really scare me

Indeed Hamelin DOES PLAY NORMAL NON-ROMANTIC BACH. If you look at his programs he will often play the 5th French suite.

And this is just a FACT nad therefor non-arguable. You should be ashamed of yourself!

-da Meph

Well, alright, but I am willing to bet he plays it in a romantic fashion.

[krenske]

well, it might be cziffra,
"message to pianists!"

[musicsdarkangel]

the more I see vids of Yundi Li, the more I believe that he had one of the best techniques ever.... I'm seriously starting to believe that he's damned hard to beat.

His fingers fly.


Anyway, I would say the king of technique is Lhevinne

2nd - Volodos

3rd - Hamelin

4th - Cziffra

5th - Ashkenazy

6th - Rachmaninoff

7th - Horowitz (young)

8th - Yundi

Keep in mind that I don't go by pure speed - I also go by control, accuracy, and clarity.

This is why Ashkenazy to me is near the top.

[contrapunctus]

the more I see vids of Yundi Li, the more I believe that he had one of the best techniques ever.... I'm seriously starting to believe that he's damned hard to beat.

His fingers fly.


Anyway, I would say the king of technique is Lhevinne

2nd - Volodos

3rd - Hamelin

4th - Cziffra

5th - Ashkenazy

6th - Rachmaninoff

7th - Horowitz (young)

8th - Yundi

Keep in mind that I don't go by pure speed - I also go by control, accuracy, and clarity.

This is why Ashkenazy to me is near the top.

ooo, I forgot about Lhevinne, you knwo how many pianists ruined their hands trying to play as loud and as fast as he could?   

You are missing Gould on you list, he should go near the top there, I am sure it was just an accident. I am glad I noticed it for you.

[mikey6]

Well, alright, but I am willing to bet he plays it in a romantic fashion.

And gould plays Bach in a baroque fashion? Gould plays Bach like Gould!

[sevencircles]

Is it true that Lhevinne only recorded 13 pieces or so?

[jas]

Is it true that Lhevinne only recorded 13 pieces or so?

I'm currently listening to a Naxos Great Pianists recording of him. It says it's the complete recordings and there are only 16 of them, so I suppose you must be right.

Jas

[thalbergmad]

I'm currently listening to a Naxos Great Pianists recording of him. It says it's the complete recordings and there are only 16 of them, so I suppose you must be right.

Jas

That is so sad. I have his Strauss-SchulzEvler and is the best i have ever heard.

[henrah]

So how can you then choose Hamelin if you have never heard Gould? Just because you haven't heard him means he's not as good? Wrong. That's basic logic buddy.

I can choose Hamelin because I am human and have free will and the freedom of speech. Atleast I do under the British government, and I hope that doesn't change anytime soon

Show me some Gould and I shall see if I decide otherwise.

[m]

I'm currently listening to a Naxos Great Pianists recording of him. It says it's the complete recordings and there are only 16 of them, so I suppose you must be right.

Besides, he left quite a few Ampicos. Although usually I don't believe those, from acoustical and Ampico recordings comparison of the same pieces it is apparent that at least the tempi are right. One should listen to his La Campanella or Czerny Octave etude to appreciate what unbelievable, tremendous, extraordinary, colossal, titanic motorical gifts this man had. 

[stevie]

rocky 23/5

https://s56.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3FPBMM0PV3JNV07UFRYVZYAZHG

[stevie]

czerny octave etude piano roll

https://s56.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1P6WFVR3XJ4R530MHEB7BIIIKN

[stevie]

both above recs by lhevinne, now tell me whats so amazing about them?

[stevie]

also this - robert le diable, fantasy by liszt -

https://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1I61RCK2GVGRZ1OYFPJ15Z0Y23

[m]

both above recs by lhevinne, now tell me whats so amazing about them?

If you don't hear unbelievable lightness in Czerny, when it sounds not like Czerny ETUDE, but beautiful piece, if you don't understand his octave legatissimo, and just don't appreciate his tempo at the end, especially both hands together (yes it is octaves), then I am afraid nobody in the world can convince you that it is amazing.

[PaulNaud]

GOULD GOULD GOULD GOULD

HAMELIN HAMELIN HAMELIN HAMELIN

Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't compare Gould or Hamelin to such giants as  Joseph Lhevinne or Vladimir Horowitz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mike_lang]

How about Liszt - the guy practiced 12 hrs a day, six of which were scales/arpeggi/etc.  Besides, the guy who improvised the Transcendental etudes deserves some credit...

[henrah]

Good point Michael, Liszt should be a part of this! He certainly is much greater than Hamelin, Gould, Lhevinne or Horowitz, in many respects.

I change my vote: I now vote for Liszt!

[thalbergmad]

I vote for Godowsky as nobody else has.

[sevencircles]

What Chopin etude studies did Godowsky record?

He never recorded his Toccata. right?

[musicsdarkangel]

ooo, I forgot about Lhevinne, you knwo how many pianists ruined their hands trying to play as loud and as fast as he could?   

You are missing Gould on you list, he should go near the top there, I am sure it was just an accident. I am glad I noticed it for you.

lol, yeah Lhevinne is ridiculous.

And sorry, but Gould isn't at the top of my list.  He is excellent (don't get me wrong).... but I'm talking all-around technique....which I don't think Gould really has when I listen to his Beethoven, Brahms, etc.

[musicsdarkangel]

ok.......... all accounts of Lhevinne (which I've heard of) say nothing other than he is "incomparible to others" cause his technique was so monstrous.


It is evident in his op 25 no 6 and La Campanella alone that he had (IMO) the most insane finger dexterity and octaves known to humanity.


He never cared to concertize, so he just taught at Julliard and unfortunately didn't record much.

But my God, La Campanella, Op 25 no 6....... hell the Winterwind is ridiculously precise and fast as well.  Impossible to beat IMO    He owns these three pieces and it's evident that his musicality was amazing as well.


come on, he could do a f*ckin octave glissando staccato!!  nuff' said.

[musicsdarkangel]

czerny octave etude piano roll

https://s56.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1P6WFVR3XJ4R530MHEB7BIIIKN

That sounds way too clear to be a piano roll.  How can that be possible?  And who dared put that disgusting reverb on it?


not Lhevinne.  Either way, it's quite impressive.......sounds effortless for whomever that is.

[henrah]

But my God, La Campanella, Op 25 no 6....... hell the Winterwind is ridiculously precise and fast as well. Impossible to beat IMO He owns these three pieces and it's evident that his musicality was amazing as well.


come on, he could do a f*ckin octave glissando staccato!! nuff' said.

Please please please please please post such recordings and I shall kiss your feet.....

.....but what do you mean by 'octave glissando staccato'? Do you mean playing fast octaves, like a parallel set, each note being staccato and being released before the next? You would have to listen in ultra slow motion to be able to tell that they're staccato...

[m]

.....but what do you mean by 'octave glissando staccato'? Do you mean playing fast octaves, like a parallel set, each note being staccato and being released before the next? You would have to listen in ultra slow motion to be able to tell that they're staccato...

I think Musicsdarkangel refers to Brahms-Paganini Book1 Var.13, where Mr. Lhevinne instead of octave glissando used to play octaves staccato in glissando tempo. I'd give a lot to hear that.

[stevie]

ok.......... all accounts of Lhevinne (which I've heard of) say nothing other than he is "incomparible to others" cause his technique was so monstrous.


It is evident in his op 25 no 6 and La Campanella alone that he had (IMO) the most insane finger dexterity and octaves known to humanity.


He never cared to concertize, so he just taught at Julliard and unfortunately didn't record much.

But my God, La Campanella, Op 25 no 6....... hell the Winterwind is ridiculously precise and fast as well.  Impossible to beat IMO    He owns these three pieces and it's evident that his musicality was amazing as well.


come on, he could do a f*ckin octave glissando staccato!!  nuff' said.

BS, sure he was very good, a technique like his was more rare when he was around, but there are people around now that surpass him.

listen to friedman, his 25/6 is at least as good, and his campanella is stunning.

listen to ingolf wunder's winterwind too, the most technically impressive performance i know of.

I think Musicsdarkangel refers to Brahms-Paganini Book1 Var.13, where Mr. Lhevinne instead of octave glissando used to play octaves staccato in glissando tempo. I'd give a lot to hear that.

the octaves in his other recordings are good, for sure, but if by 'glissando tempo' you mean the speed equals the average octave gliassando in the section of that piece, its just impossible, just as impossible as it is to run 100m in 5 seconds.

how many octaves per second are we talking? anything beyond 10 per second is pushing the human body to its limits, and beyond.

[m]

how many octaves per second are we talking?

I don't know. I don't think about music by quantity of notes per second. It seems YOU are good with that.

Anyway, I did not make up this story. It is a well known fact which amazed everyone who ever happen to see it, regardless of what you say.

[stevie]

i have no doubt he may have been very fast, but glissando pace would imply maybe 20 notes per second, which is impossible in octaves

i dont think of music in terms of 'notes per second', i think of piano playing partially in that way, because the piano, to me, isnt only an instrument to produce music, it is a sort of olympic arena, where amazing physical feats can be performed on, and is it not only natural to be concerned and interested in those that can do those feats the quickest and with most power and control?

[PaulNaud]

Lhevinne had a perfect technique, a tone that would melt diamonds and an incomparable aristocracy to his conceptions.
On one of his recordings he plays Schumann's ''Papillons,'' he also plays short pieces by Chopin and the bigger A flat Polonaise; some Liszt, including the Schubert-Liszt A minor ''Soiree de Vienne,'' and one unusual work, Carl Tausig's ''Fantasia on Hungarian Gypsy Songs.''
These performances give a very good idea of what Lhevinne stood for. The playing is technically faultless and carries with it the authentic Lhevinne charm and grace.

[sevencircles]

I hope Lhevinne had a much bigger repetoire then his recordings indicate.

Barere by the way had a significantly larger repertoire then most people think.

He played a couple of Godowsky´s hardest works like some Chopin studies but also Medtner´s hardest works.

Someone told him to record the same pieces again and again instead of these for some reason.

[m]

i dont think of music in terms of 'notes per second', i think of piano playing partially in that way, because the piano, to me, isnt only an instrument to produce music, it is a sort of olympic arena, where amazing physical feats can be performed on, and is it not only natural to be concerned and interested in those that can do those feats the quickest and with most power and control?

It is so obvious we have very different perception of the piano and piano playing.

Needless to say, I have no doubt that if some of your favorite pianists, including Cziffra, after reading your post, would laugh at you.

Unlike me, they would not even reduce themselves answering to such a stupidity.

There is something sick with your approach. The reason I am taking my precious time to write is that some less experienced folks could think it is the right way.

All the best.

[stevie]

hahahahaha CHILL 

the only difference between mine and cziffra's perspectives may be that he values virtuosity and musicality as a combined entity, as do i, but i can also seperate them and find it interesting to compare the techniques of the famous pianists.

there is nothing sick about my approach, there is only something questionable about your denial, that you are impressed by the same things as i am, but talk about them differently..

[mike_lang]

It is so obvious we have very different perception of the piano and piano playing.

Needless to say, I have no doubt that if some of your favorite pianists, including Cziffra, after reading your post, would laugh at you.

Unlike me, they would not even reduce themselves answering to such a stupidity.

There is something sick with your approach. The reason I am taking my precious time to write is that some less experienced folks could think it is the right way.

All the best, Mark Fuksman

PS. Yeah, now you can make a search. BTW, "Marik" here is the same person who posts on some other, including electronics and microphone related boards under the same name.
Also, you very well might find my name under sound engineering for some famous folks, including Vladimir Feltsman, Paul Harvey, Robert Hamilton, and some more famous names to come.

Is it just me or did Mark not make a point...

[superstition2]

rocky 23/5

https://s56.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3FPBMM0PV3JNV07UFRYVZYAZHG

Accurate, but boring.

[mikey6]

How about Liszt - the guy practiced 12 hrs a day, six of which were scales/arpeggi/etc.  Besides, the guy who improvised the Transcendental etudes deserves some credit...

I was thinking the other day - would he have slept? coz if he practised 12 hours a day, wrote 'millions of notes' (as he says about composing) and courted god knows how many misteresses, there wouldn't be much time for doing anything else

[sevencircles]

I was thinking the other day - would he have slept? coz if he practised 12 hours a day, wrote 'millions of notes' (as he says about composing) and courted god knows how many misteresses, there wouldn't be much time for doing anything else

Didn´t Adolph Van henselt practice 14 hours a day or so?

It´s very possible that Liszt could have had the time to write down his compositions after 12 hours of work.

Then he propably went to bad with a groupie or 2.

He was a busy man, no doubt!

[jas]

Didn´t Adolph Van henselt practice 14 hours a day or so?

He used to practice on a silent piano even when he had visitors. I suppose they didn't have TV or internet forums to distract them then! And he had pupils, but was apparently a fearsome teacher.

Jas