Greatest Pianist Of The Twentieth Century?

[bach-liszt]

I really appreciated Cziffra and Horowitz.  But there is no pianist  I have heard to date that impresses me as much as  Art Tatum.  My impression is that he had the prodigious talent to do anything other great pianists could do but then he could add to that additional virtuosity.  Although he could play loudly like Horowitz and Cziffra, his touch could be very nuanced.  It is amazing how his mind could think musically -- sometimes four difficult chords in the left hand per measure with incredible configurations in the right hand.  Also, changing keys was nothing for Tatum and he could reharmonize in the most impressive way.

There is a book I bought, "The Right Hand According To Art Tatum," (by Riccardo Scivales) and it is filled with his complicated right hand work.  You could just as well write a book called, "The Left Hand According To Tatum" because it was incredible, too.  He was the Liszt of the Twentieth Century!

[franzliszt2]

Richter!!

Cziffra is not the greatest, I could agree with Horowitz, but Cziffra just insane virtuouso!! He was amazing, without doubt, but Richetr was a true artist. Richetr memorised so much music, and could play anything, he just didn;t wish to plague his audiences with virtuosic displays.

I aint heard much Art Tatum.

But in virtuoso terms of the greatest, hamelin, cziffra, Godowsky, and themm al spring to mind, but i consider Richter Horowitz, Gould, etc.. the greatest

[raskolnikov]

There are recordings of Tatum playing: Humoresque, Chopin's waltz in c# minor, and Rubenstien's Melody in F, Massenet's Elegie, but Tatum always adds his own re-harmonizations and melodic developments along with the original music.  So it is a little hard to do a direct comparison.

I think he is on par with any of the big names technically, but more importantly, Tatum has done much more for music and influenced many more musicians than Horowitz, Godowsky, Cziffra, Arrau, Richter, and Michelangeli combined.

[andyd]

For Tatum's left hand, there's a detailed chapter in:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082302573X/002-5028650-1583248?v=glance&n=283155


Andy

[Waldszenen]

Most loved: Horowitz

Greatest: Rubinstein

[steve jones]

 Richetr memorised so much music, and could play anything, he just didn;t wish to plague his audiences with virtuosic displays.

Indeed, but it was all there under the hood. Just check out his 10/4! Richter was a phenomenal artist, but he had some mad skills to.

SJ

[presto agitato]

Some "Experts" say that Keith Jarrett was the best american pianist of the second half of the 20th century?

What do you poeple have to say about this?

[alejo_90]

What do you poeple have to say about this?

Who's Keith Jarrett ? 

And I hope this won't become a " Who's your favorite pianist ?" thread.

Best
Alex

[da jake]

Either Horowitz or Tatum.

[raskolnikov]

Some "Experts" say that Keith Jarrett was the best american pianist of the second half of the 20th century?

What do you poeple have to say about this?

Best American of the second half of the 20th century?
Who's his competition? Andre Watts, Garrick Ohlsson, Murray Perahia, Earl Wild, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea.

I don't know how he compares with: Andre Watts, Garrick Ohlsson, Murray Perahia,  and Earl Wild as far as technique goes.  All that he has recorded has been baroque and classical music, and it is very hard to compare his technique with those listed above (especially since Jarrett mostly plays original music and jazz standards).

But he is easily the better musician, and might be one of the greatest improvisers ever.
His solo concerts are definately worth checking out.  He plays nothing but original music for usually around an hour, all improvised on the spot.  His album "The Koln Concert,"  is the best selling solo piano recording and is a good first start if you're curious.

It's a little hard to compare him to other Jazz musicians as well.  Jarrett takes an approach, just like Monk and many other jazz musicians, where he has his own sound (although Jarrett's sound is much more accessible).  But I imagine that most critics don't consider Hancock and Corea because both of them dabble in electronic music and neither has ever produced any sort of "classical" music album. 

Is he the best American of the second half of the 20th century?  I think the answer lies in whether or not you mean pianist as in "best facility over the insturment," or pianist as in "best musician that plays the piano."  I think that will determine your answer in most cases when comparing classical vs. jazz pianists arguments.

Off topic:  My favorite Keith Jarrett album is "Facing You."  The first track, "In Front," has some of the best blues piano playing that I have ever heard in my life.  And the rest of the tracks follow up with some introspective, almost Bill Evans-ish type music.

I would also like to warn people that on later Keith Jarrett albums, he makes a lot of noise when he plays.  He grunts, groans, and moans during his improviations (but not on his "classical" albums, so I'm told).  On his Tokyo '96 DVD he rocks back and forth and at one point stands up and pelvic thrusts the piano.  He is mostly quiet on his earlier albums (Facing You, Koln Concert), but around about 1980s on he makes a lot of sounds while he is playing (Standards Vol. 1,  Tokyo '96).  I know that bothers a lot of people, but I can usually ignore it.

EDIT: I forgot Oscar Peterson is Canadian, not American.

[tompilk]

mmm... hamelin or Liszt probably...
Tom

[ted]

How does one judge "greatest" ? That's the problem with questions like this. Taking into account all idioms and styles, and general influence on piano music for the greatest number of people, serious musicians and otherwise, I suggest Waller. His influence on subsequent pianists in jazz is almost universal. Even the ones whose styles are nothing like Waller's (e.g. Brubeck) pay tribute to him and say their formative years owed much to him. As well as this, his piano sound has a certain broad, hard to define, appeal to the general public, rather like that of Chopin.

presto agitato:

I think in fifty to a hundred years, Jarrett will certainly be held in much higher general regard than he is at present. However, I do not think this will be primarily because of the sound of his playing, but because of his almost single-handed achievement of reinstating pure improvisation at the heart of legitimate piano music. Before Jarrett, people only did that sort of thing behind closed doors; most didn't do it at all; it wasn't somehow quite "proper". After Jarrett, people are realising that not only is it "all right" to improvise freely, but that such activity lies close to the core of the creative process.

[Waldszenen]

mmm... hamelin or Liszt probably...
Tom

As far as I know, Liszt isn't a 20th Century pianist. 

[bflatminor24]

Many consider Marc-André Hamelin to be the most technically endowed pianist of the 20th and 21st century (so far). I harbor the same opinion. Hamelin has made it his business to record all of the most difficult and obscure music that hardly anybody could play, and he does it perfectly. He is so fluid, smooth, controlled and I could think of a thousand adjectives to qualify his virtuosity, yet he has an enormous musical understanding as well. His pianism lacks nothing, I consider his playing to be perfect.

And what a noble man...who else can record Sorabji sonatas, Godowsky Etudes, Alkan Concerto and Sonata, Medtner and Scriabin sonatas, and even dare to record Ornstein? Hamelin does it all. Even his standard repertoire is incredibly played. I have all of his albums and no complaints.

As for earlier pianists, I am not going to dispute the musicianship nor the virtuosity of any pianist, but my favorite pianists were those whose style I am most in tune with (no pun intended). My favorites are Michelangeli, Richter, Rubinstein, Hofman, and Hamelin. Cziffra and Horowitz are amazing but I have a slightly different philosophy of the piano than both of they do. I enjoy a very controlled, refine and crystal clear technique, more than a flamboyant display of showmanship and technique. I love smooth and precise playing, like Michelangeli and Hamelin.

[henrah]

I wonder what Hamelin would be like with some Bach or other baroque - or even classical - music. But I agree, he lacks nothing to the best of my knowledge. Anyone care to expand on this, possibly finding something he does lack? Then maybe we could spend the rest of this thread discussing whether or not he's perfect :lol:
Henrah

[prometheus]

He recorded the Bach-Busoni chaconne...

[jre58591]

I wonder what Hamelin would be like with some Bach or other baroque - or even classical - music. But I agree, he lacks nothing to the best of my knowledge. Anyone care to expand on this, possibly finding something he does lack? Then maybe we could spend the rest of this thread discussing whether or not he's perfect :lol:
Henrah

i have a few bootlegged recitals in which he plays a few mozart and schubert sonatas. he actually does a good job with them. i also have another reciatl where he plays a french suite. that is very good also. this is another reason why hamelin is one of the greatest pianists of our time.

[tompilk]

lol... liszt isnt 20th of course! sorry... thats what i do when ive read a few posts and forget the point of the thread!!!
anyway, Hamelin is playting Albeniz's complete Iberia at La Roque De Antheron festival this year... what a concert...
the rest of the month is packed with equally good concerts... it's a shame that im going on holiday elsewhere because my GCSEs will have ended then - ill have to wait until after sixth form and spend nearly an entire summer holiday of concerts - i dont care how much it costs!!!
Tom

[steve jones]

Hamelin is phenomenal. He has the most (apparently) effortless technique Iv ever seen. Watching his hands move is almost surreal... maybe he is a robot?

Anyone see his Hungarian Rhapsody 2? The Candenza at the end is just plain intimidating, and all his own from what I hear - seems he is as good with the pen as he is the ivory!

SJ

[krittyot]

Most loved: Horowitz

Greatest: Rubinstein

I would say the other way around.

Rubinstein is the most loved pianist imo.

[alejo_90]

Rubinstein is the most loved pianist imo.

That's because of his marvelous personality. I love to watch any interview given to him, the way he speaks, etc. everything ! He just seems so full of life.

Best
Alex

[Waldszenen]

That's because of his marvelous personality. I love to watch any interview given to him, the way he speaks, etc. everything ! He just seems so full of life.

Best
Alex

Same can be said regarding Horowitz. He seems like one of the nicest guys you could meet.

[avetma]

Horowitz and Richter by far.

For me, Hamelin seems to be technical machine. Even his 'romantic' interpretations seems to be 'learnt' and not 'interpretated'.

[stevie]

Same can be said regarding Horowitz. He seems like one of the nicest guys you could meet.

*seems*...you might change your mind if you heard his comments about asians...

[debussy symbolism]

Greetins.

Every pianist is different. That is what is important.

[andyd]

Quote: How does one judge "greatest" ?

Exactly.  For example, Bill Evans would be near the top of my list.

Andy

[jre58591]

i just saw hamelin in concert on april 29, and that again proved to me that he is the greatest pianist of the 20th century. his rendition of the schubert sonata in a maj was flawless and emotional, for starters. he also played a rather obscure piece, vladigerov's sonatina concertante, and that piece was surely a nice find on his part. after intermission, he played 3 liszt paraphrases - 1. isoldens liebestod, ernani, and reminiscences de norma. these pieces were surely the highlight of the recital, especially norma. his virtuosity semmed entirely effortless, as did his passion. for encores he played two debussy preludes and two pieces that i cant identify. i think this recital showed how versatile of a pianist he is, in addition to how virtuosic and passionate he can be. if that isnt a well-rounded pianist, i dont know what is. point being - hamelin is one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, if not the best.

not to mention, he is very smart. we had a very long converation after a lecture he gave the night before the concert about sorabji and and conversation about vladigerov after the concert. i think i managed to mildly amaze him by showing off my "knowledge" of these obscure composers. he said he will play more vladigerov, but no more sorabji, to the dismay of you sorabjians out there.

[krittyot]

Same can be said regarding Horowitz. He seems like one of the nicest guys you could meet.

Horowitz is NOT nice at all. He treated Rubinstein harshly and other pianists too. He only cares about himself.

[Waldszenen]

*seems*...you might change your mind if you heard his comments about asians...

Really? What did he say about them?

*I don't really like asians anyway so I probably won't mind*

[musik_man]

I wonder what Hamelin would be like with some Bach or other baroque - or even classical - music. But I agree, he lacks nothing to the best of my knowledge. Anyone care to expand on this, possibly finding something he does lack? Then maybe we could spend the rest of this thread discussing whether or not he's perfect :lol:
Henrah

Hamelin has the artistic and musical capabilities of a player piano.  Discuss.

[stevie]

Hamelin has the artistic and musical capabilities of a player piano.  Discuss.

 

he just belongs to a certain pianistic school which values smoothness, accuracy and objectivity over other things....

Really? What did he say about them?

*I don't really like asians anyway so I probably won't mind*

krittyot told me the exact quote..., ill ask him to reply

[henrah]

Hamelin has the artistic and musical capabilities of a player piano. Discuss.

Doesn't a player piano play piano rolls which performers record? Therefore he has the artistic and musical capabilities of a performer, of which he is, so he is himself.

Heh, looped that back around quite easily. Shot number two please
Henrah

[jlh]

Doesn't a player piano play piano rolls which performers record? Therefore he has the artistic and musical capabilities of a performer, of which he is, so he is himself.

Heh, looped that back around quite easily. Shot number two please
Henrah

Piano rolls record notes, but those notes are all the same dynamic, as there's no way on the paper roll to record dynamics or pedal.

Now about Art Tatum... there's no doubt in my mind that he was a great pianist, but you cannot, I repeat CANNOT compare him to performers in other genres -- specifically classical.  That's not to say that he can't compare with them (in fact he may be better than most), but there's no standard with which to compare them.  Sure, he may be one of the best jazz improvisors of our time, but because you can do that with a complicated RH and creative LH that doesn't mean you're a greater pianist than pianists WHO ARE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME GENRE.

Please refrain from comparing apples to oranges, so to speak.

[bach-liszt]

[
Now about Art Tatum... there's no doubt in my mind that he was a great pianist, but you cannot, I repeat CANNOT compare him to performers in other genres -- specifically classical.  That's not to say that he can't compare with them (in fact he may be better than most), but there's no standard with which to compare them.  Sure, he may be one of the best jazz improvisors of our time, but because you can do that with a complicated RH and creative LH that doesn't mean you're a greater pianist than pianists WHO ARE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME GENRE.

Please refrain from comparing apples to oranges, so to speak.

Thanks for your comments, jlh.   

When I purchased a while ago the printed transcriptions of some of Tatum's incredible playing, I realized that from a talent, giftedness and artistic standpoint, Tatum was every bit the equal of Horowitz, Richter and some of the select others.   As I pondered more his  phenomenal playing I began to be of the personal opinion (just my opinion, mind you) that his skills even surpassed other classical and jazz pianists.  Although Tatum played in the jazz style (and in many ways his own style), it is still, of course, music. 

My own personal view is that Tatum's transcendent virtuosity exceeded the other jazz and classical pianists of his day.  I believe there were few things that Tatum could not have done at least as well, and in some instances better, than any of the classical or jazz pianists of his day.

One of my favorite Tatum quotes is from Horowitz himself who once told Tatum,  "I can play as fast as you, but I can not keep up with you."   (Quoted in the Tatum biography, Too Marvelous For Words by James Lester.)

[henrah]

Didn't Tatum play some Chopin? If so, we have something to compare him to classical pianists who also played the same Chopin.

Jlh, I remember hearing a piano roll of Levinne (methinks) and it had quite a bit of dynamics, but I'm not so sure about the pedal.

[sevencircles]

My own personal view is that Tatum's transcendent virtuosity exceeded the other jazz and classical pianists of his day.  I believe there were few things that Tatum could not have done at least as well, and in some instances better, than any of the classical or jazz pianists of his day.

Not sure about that.

Lhewinne and Hofmann were capable of miracles. Hofmann did never play full speed during the recordings from his prime and I believe that he could play the Minute Waltz in less then 50 sec (with very few wrong notes and without speeding up the lyrical melodies too much.

Barere was almost superhuman when he was sober too.

[jlh]

Jlh, I remember hearing a piano roll of Levinne (methinks) and it had quite a bit of dynamics, but I'm not so sure about the pedal.

We must be talking about different piano roll mediums then.  The rolls I'm thinking of are the old time ones that are actually paper on a roll.  There are holes in the paper where air is allowed to escape.  When the holes allow air to escape, a note is played for that key.  There is no way to get dynamics involved in that (that I'm aware of anyway). 

Am I way off here?  I know the modern disklaviers can definitely record dynamics and pedal, but as for my comment earlier, we must not be talking about the same thing.

[jlh]

Not sure about that.

Lhewinne and Hofmann were capable of miracles. Hofmann did never play full speed during the recordings from his prime and I believe that he could play the Minute Waltz in less then 50 sec (with very few wrong notes and without speeding up the lyrical melodies too much.

Hard to believe... almost every recording of the minute waltz is 2 minutes long.  I think I'd actually have to see it in person to believe it.

[musik_man]

Didn't Tatum play some Chopin? If so, we have something to compare him to classical pianists who also played the same Chopin.

Jlh, I remember hearing a piano roll of Levinne (methinks) and it had quite a bit of dynamics, but I'm not so sure about the pedal.

I have a CD of Jelly Roll Morton Rolls, and it says that the dynamics were put on the CD by a scholar of Jelly Roll.

[andyd]

Reading through this thread again, a few things came to mind:

Bugs Bunny plays the minute waltz in 30 seconds in a cartoon(actually if I remember rightly 'he' only plays the fast part and it really takes much less time)

Can we only truly compare pianists when they are playing the same piece on a similar quality piano with similar recording equipment etc? 


And two quotes:

With Hofmann, Lhevinne and Godowsky still around, Horowitz had not quite yet reached the top of the pile, and so he took to making his own finger-wrenching transcriptions, using them as his finales. Audiences had already gone wild over the "Gypsy Theme from Carmen" and, especially, his "Stars and Stripes Forever"; Horowitz was in search now for a new, more effective theme. He chose Vincent Youman's "Tea for Two". Months and months of work produced a virtuoso showpiece so knotty that it took Horowitz several months more to prepare and learn it for performance. Always the conscientious artist, he wanted first to have the opinions of those whom he respected before taking the transcription to the public; of course he asked Tatum.
Up in his apartment, Horowitz sat himself at the piano and began to pay "Tea for Two" for his Jazz counterpart. Thunder and lightening, hail and brimstone, Horowitz finished the piece and looks up immediately at Tatum with an eager set of eyes.
"What do you think?" asks the Russian.
"Very good. I enjoyed it." comes the answer. Pause. Tatum continues: "Would you like to hear my version of 'Tea for Two'?"
"Certainly I would. Go ahead."
Tatum gets up and launches into the piece that has always been one of his specialties. Horowitz' mouth drops when he hears what he hears and as soon as the Jazzman finishes:
"My God! That was fantastic! Where did you get that transcription? You must give it to me!"
"Transcription?" answers Tatum, "That was no transcription. I was just improvising!"
Horowitz still likes to play "Tea for Two" for his own pleasure; but to this very day, he has never played it in public.


The next great genius/innovator, Bill Evans, came along in the 50's. I rate him 8 notches above Tatum mainly because of his composition legacy. Evans absorbed into his playing the early styles mentioned (Blues, Boogie Woogie, Ragtime, Stride, New Orleans bands), plus the Swing,(Goodman/Herman/Basie), Be Bop,(Bud/this/Parker), and the Modern,(Tristano), eras,(1930-1960). Bill also had a complete knowledge of Western classical music from Bach to Schoenberg under his fingers and in his ear. Bill Evans represents the last stage in the evolution of jazz. Jazz cannot go any higher; it is NOT dead! It does have a future however, but everyone after Evans only evolves sideways.


Regards

Andy

[sevencircles]

Hard to believe... almost every recording of the minute waltz is 2 minutes long.  I think I'd actually have to see it in person to believe it.

Hofmann made a recording of the Minute Waltz that is just over a minute long and you can hear that he propably could play it significantly faster.

Godowsky is another pianist that propably could play significantly harder stuff then he did on his recordings.

I wondered what his "Ignis Fatuus" sounded like. Maybe even more impressive then Libetta´s.

[jlh]

Hofmann made a recording of the Minute Waltz that is just over a minute long and you can hear that he propably could play it significantly faster.

Godowsky is another pianist that propably could play significantly harder stuff then he did on his recordings.

I wondered what his "Ignis Fatuus" sounded like. Maybe even more impressive then Libetta´s.

I can play it in just over one minute as well (or could when I practiced it), but what's the point?  There's no musical value to a performance of it that insanely fast.  Guess that's what happens when you have so much sexual tension bottled up.  Some people seriously need to get out more.

[krittyot]

Friedman's Minute Waltze is freaking fast too.

[sevencircles]

I can play it in just over one minute as well (or could when I practiced it), but what's the point?  There's no musical value to a performance of it that insanely fast.

That´s propably what Hofmann thought too since his recordings wasn´t full speed.

The minute Waltz will never be tastefull if you play it faster then a minute.


I asked a great pianist and a friend of mine about the best pianists.

His opinion was that the greatest pianist in the world right now "all categories" is Keith Jarett and the greatest classical pianist is Ivo Pogorelish.

He added that there may be better ones out there that he didn´t knew about.

I think I agree with that actually,

[krittyot]

*sigh*

Listen to Pogorelich Brahms.

[Waldszenen]

Hofmann made a recording of the Minute Waltz that is just over a minute long and you can hear that he propably could play it significantly faster.

Hofmann, in the live recording, also played the second section in thirds, without losing any tempo. Insane.