just how many 'great' pianists are there?

[stevie]

names like horowitz, cziffra, gould, richter, gilels, we all know theyre great, but i find myself listening more and more to other random pianists.

it really is possible for an unknown pianist to somehow produce an interpretation that surpasses one of the greats, at least to some peoples taste, so should we really just be listening to these select few certified 'legends' when there are so many really good pianists out there that can play a piece in a way you may like even more.

and i also question what makes these pianists so great, they have their personality, touches, and idionsyncracies...insight, etc, but really how rare is their quality?

why are so few pianists considered the very greatest, what seperates them from the people who didnt make the cut? is it consistency? is it some kind of x-factor?

randomly, and provocatively, discuss./

[avetma]

I consider Stephen Hough to be one of the best Rachmaninov-concerti interpreter. Especcially no2 and 3.

[zheer]

?

why are so few pianists considered the very greatest, what seperates them from the people who didnt make the cut? is it consistency? is it some kind of x-factor?

randomly, and provocatively, discuss./

   


    Well after listining to the Chopin IPC in warsaw, you can see that standards are F**** high, but for a start they sounded a lot like each other ( naturally ) and some even sounded like Rubenstine, Van cliburn etc etc , probably because those are the pianists they are imitating.
 I guess we wont find another Glen Gould, Cortot, Horowitz, they set the standards and are very origuinal.

[thalbergmad]

I believe the greatest pianists have some kind of "aura".

You know that something special is going to happen, even before they touch the keys.

[henrah]

But how are they original? What is it about them, their playing, their skills, their interpretations that make them original and unique, unlike many other unfamous pianists? Was it simply a lucky break for one amazing performance, which set their standard for the rest of their lives?

[zheer]

But how are they original? What is it about them, their playing, their skills, their interpretations that make them original and unique, unlike many other unfamous pianists? Was it simply a lucky break for one amazing performance, which set their standard for the rest of their lives?

  Glen Gould was a mavric, he made us look at the piano in a different way, the same with Rubenstine, he made us think diferently about Chopin, Horowitz showed us what is possible on the piano ie color, singing, octaves, stage presence, tec ,and haw to play Rach 3. Van Cliburn  pffftt i guess because he is american. Anyway i can go on and on.

[henrah]

So it's because they each bring something new and wonderful to the piano, or present something in a new and wonderful way?

[zheer]

So it's because they each bring something new and wonderful to the piano, or present something in a new and wonderful way?

  Exactly. They also did it naturally, not just to be different. Personally i think Horowitz, Richter etc etc were just as important as the composers , a 50-50 thing.

[pianistimo]

agreed about hearing an interpretation of something that is completely and randomly better than recordings you've heard by someone else.  i had the opportunity to hear pogorelich live (and maybe this is an unfair comparison because maybe he IS more famous) but sometimes the youthful ones are looked down upon (too innovative, whatever).  but, i REALLY liked his scarlatti.  he draws some very contemplative and thoughtful older audiences, too, which proves to me that he is one of those 'natural' musicians and able to express himself to both sides (older and younger) without too much criticism.

to me, a great knows exactly what he/she is projecting to an audience.  you don't go through bouts of the piece where you can't hear a thing.  or, overly loud and obnoxious parts that grate on your nerves.  there is something mysterious to their playing.  there is some quality of grace.  so many techniques, but in the end it isn't really technique but musicality. 

i appreciate my teachers playing as much as anyone else (including 'greats').  there is a simplicity and grace to it.  frankly, aside from the french school of my previous  prof., i haven't heard anyone play like he does in a long time.  there is practically no effort (and yet lots of practice and relaxation to his playing) still with all the same elements there are as when someone looks like they are killing themselves on stage.  he can play the most difficult music and make it look like afternoon tea.  occasionally, he sweats - but, it looks less from the energy physically expended as mentally expended.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

I believe the greatest pianists have some kind of "aura".

You know that something special is going to happen, even before they touch the keys.

this is very true, not only with piano, but as well as in other things. charisma can do wonders.
i honestly dont like horowitz's recordings when i listen to them. but when i see him on video, something in him draws me to his playing- those "piano effects" that he did so well give me goose bumps. extra-musically spaeking- i notice his bow tie, his nose, his fingers, the way he bows, etc. and that's only a video, such excitement! if it was live, i'd probably go Crazy. but really, i never liked his playing in general.

comparing his audio of the skryabin etude in d#m to the video, i like the latter, i hate the former.

[practicingnow]

Of course, as everyone knows, there are 23 great pianists (too obvious to list), and the rest range from very good to much worse.
Out of those 23, 17 are gay, 8 are vegetarian, and 2 worship the devil.  Again, this is well known...
What isn't well known, however, is that they were all conceived while both of their parents were totally drunk.  This has been documented by the great piano historian and Puerto Rican, Juan Juelos, whose book, "I'm Drunk, You're Drunk - Let's Make The Next Horowitz!" is essential reading for any piano fan.
I hope this helps.

[steve jones]

Lol, I think some people have to much time on their hands...

How in gods name can you write a book about some musicians parents being leathered? Iv never heard anything so daft in my whole life.

But I can tell you one thing, I am going to buy and read that book immediately! It sounds like a right hoot 

[steinwayargentina]

Of course, as everyone knows, there are 23 great pianists (too obvious to list), and the rest range from very good to much worse.
Out of those 23, 17 are gay, 8 are vegetarian, and 2 worship the devil.  Again, this is well known...
What isn't well known, however, is that they were all conceived while both of their parents were totally drunk.  This has been documented by the great piano historian and Puerto Rican, Juan Juelos, whose book, "I'm Drunk, You're Drunk - Let's Make The Next Horowitz!" is essential reading for any piano fan.
I hope this helps.

Really Funny!!!! hahaha...  How About Argerich?? Have anybody hear the lucky of being close (phisically) or even talk with a great??

 

[sevencircles]

I would propably say that, Ivo Pogorelich, may be the most interesting and original among the players not yet 50 years old (Volodos may be greater when he is having a good day though).

Pogorelich ear for musical details and tonal colors is very rare among the younger players.

Most of them seems to be technique freaks.

Anyone agree?

[henrah]

I agree with you Seven. I have Pogorelichs recording of Brahms Cappricio in F#minor, Op.76 No.1, and it is simply beautiful. He really has an ear for the fine details. But, being the curious person I am, does he - in the words of 'da sdc' - have l33t peniz skillz?

[demented cow]

it really is possible for an unknown pianist to somehow produce an interpretation that surpasses one of the greats, at least to some peoples taste, so should we really just be listening to these select few certified 'legends' when there are so many really good pianists out there that can play a piece in a way you may like even more.

Here's a way test this. Somebody uploads 4 recordings of the same piece without naming the pianists. Two of these performances are by acknowledged greats, and the other two are regarded as inspired recordings by the uploader, but are by lesser-known ('random') pianists. The uploader invites people to comment on and/or rank the recordings, then after 2 weeks identifies who the performers were. We could then have a discussion of the relative merits of the recordings without being biased by the aura of a name like Horowitz, Arrau etc. And if people do this on a regular basis, we could eventually work out whether there's any tendency for the greatness of the greats to be evident even when listeners aren't biased by the name.
(I've always wanted to start threads of this type, but yousendit.com doesn't accept my files, apparently because my server blocks large file transfers.)

[henrah]

That sounds like a plan and a half Demented

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I completely agree with demented cow's point. I think there are many times when a listener's view of a recording is subconsciously affected by their preconceptions of the performer.

I think the same applies for composers also. There was a celebrated example of this in  Paris in the 1830s when Liszt appeared in a chamber music recital of works by Beethoven and Pixis. "... an innocent hoax was perpetrated on the unsuspecting Paris public. In order to make a better effect the programme was turned around, the Beethoven trio changing places with a trio by Pixis. No announcement was made. The audience applauded vigorously after the Pixis trio, thinking it to be by Beethoven; the Beethoven trio drew a lukewarm response, everybody assuming it to be by Pixis." (Alan Walker, Franz Liszt the virtuoso years)

[daniel patschan]

I agree with you Seven. I have Pogorelichs recording of Brahms Cappricio in F#minor, Op.76 No.1, and it is simply beautiful. He really has an ear for the fine details. But, being the curious person I am, does he - in the words of 'da sdc' - have l33t peniz skillz?

I would propably say that, Ivo Pogorelich, may be the most interesting and original among the players not yet 50 years old (Volodos may be greater when he is having a good day though).

Pogorelich ear for musical details and tonal colors is very rare among the younger players.

Most of them seems to be technique freaks.

Anyone agree?

I totally agree ! I go even further: for me he is one of the greatest who ever lived, comparable to only a very few (Horowitz and Richter for example). He has such an incredible control over everything. To play the Chopin Scherzi or the Liszt sonata with such a wide range of dynamics and colors is superhuman. Your can hear the most fragile sounds followed by the most violent noises in his playing. This is piano art of the highest order. To play like this also requires a superhuman technique. With all the respect to guys like for example Ingolf Wunder: Compare Ingolf´s and Pogorelich´s performance of the last movement of Chopin Op. 58 sonata (videos available somewhere in the net) - you will easily recognize that while Ingolf is doing great, Pogorelich simply stands miles above the technical demands of the score. Such effortlessness must have been present in Godowsky´s playing.

The question whether he fits to some weird criteria or not is just irrelevant. Ivo Pogorelich is a true genius.

[whitemint]

I personally enjoy the Korean pianist Yiruma.  His music is so beautiful.. and amazingly simple..  I'm not Korean, but the only people I know that like him are Korean.. I guess he's pretty big over there... anyway I think he's great in his own right.

[Derek]

I think I'm disgruntled with the whole notion of great to begin with. We're so obsessed with that word in Western culture that normal people frequently believe of themselves that they are absolutely incapable of producing things of any value.

For most of the history of western classical music, only very special individuals in very special circumstances even had the opportunity to develop their talents as performers and composers.

Now that we have all kinds of labor saving technology, recording technology, and other things, nearly anyone can "be their own Beethoven" if they so wish.  Just....stop idolizing the great composers of the past at the expense of your own ego, and perhaps your creativity will blossom!
(speaking to anyone)

[sevencircles]

I have a friend and masterpianist that said that Pogorelich, Horowitz, Rachmaninov and Gould are the greatest pianists ever recorded.

I am starting to agree with that more and more as time goes by actually.

I have heard others who also claims Pogo is the only one alive today that can be compared to Gould when it comes to originality and taste.

[daniel patschan]

I have a friend and masterpianist that said that Pogorelich, Horowitz, Rachmaninov and Gould are the greatest pianists ever recorded.

I am starting to agree with that more and more as time goes by actually.

I have heard others who also claims Pogo is the only one alive today that can be compared to Gould when it comes to originality and taste.

I totally agree !

[ahinton]

Of course, as everyone knows, there are 23 great pianists (too obvious to list), and the rest range from very good to much worse.

Really? Well, that would have upset Alban Berg, who had a similar superstition about that number as Skryabin did about the number 50.

Out of those 23, 17 are gay, 8 are vegetarian, and 2 worship the devil.  Again, this is well known...

Ah, perhaps, but HOW gay, HOW vegetarian and WHICH devil does those two worship? You're holding back on the full facts, you know!

What isn't well known, however, is that they were all conceived while both of their parents were totally drunk.  This has been documented by the great piano historian and Puerto Rican, Juan Juelos, whose book, "I'm Drunk, You're Drunk - Let's Make The Next Horowitz!" is essential reading for any piano fan.

Well, if that's truly the case, where does that leave all those others that you describe above as "very good to much worse"? - are they more or less or not at all gay, more or less or not at all vegetarian and do they worship a god or are they atheists? Again, you're just not telling us enough! You don't even cite the full bibliographical reference for Señor Juelos's book, which is surely as remiss of you as it is unhelpful to your readers if it is indeed the "essential reading" that you claim for it!

I hope this helps.

Well, it's helped to provoke a few laughs, I suppose...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think I'm disgruntled with the whole notion of great to begin with. We're so obsessed with that word in Western culture that normal people frequently believe of themselves that they are absolutely incapable of producing things of any value.

For most of the history of western classical music, only very special individuals in very special circumstances even had the opportunity to develop their talents as performers and composers.

Now that we have all kinds of labor saving technology, recording technology, and other things, nearly anyone can "be their own Beethoven" if they so wish. 

I do not at all believe myself to be "absolutely incapable of producing things of any value", but then neither do I believe myself capable of an Op. 131 quartet, funnily enough.

Yes, the notion of "greatness", whether actual, perceived or received, is indeed substantially over-played these days, but that fact does not mean that there is no such thing. What is perhaps worth noting is that the vast majority of truly great musicians have been/are just too busy practising their art to have the time or energy to be bothered to give a moment's thought to how great they may be, or be thought to be.

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

If any of you get the chance, Karen Shaw has a very good recording of the Rachmaninov etudes complete.

[gruffalo]

interesting points here. i also want to know how important the teaching factor comes into this. i.e. if you studied at conservatoire like all the rest, are all the teachers the best? do you graduate with the same standard of information learned like the others did? im saying in terms of how good or how much you can take on, how much has your teacher not taught you like another teacher might have?

just something i would like to know.