how good was chopin as a pianist?

[stevie]

simple question

i believe, its pretty obvious that musically he was likely one of the greatest keyboard artists of all time, with great rhythmic and tonal mastery and imagination.

but also, he was notoriously flawed, he couldnt play above mezzo forte, and i find it hard to believe he could have played his own etudes satisfactorily.

anyway, comment, or dont.

[ivoryplayer_amf]

simple question

i believe, its pretty obvious that musically he was likely one of the greatest keyboard artists of all time, with great rhythmic and tonal mastery and imagination.

but also, he was notoriously flawed, he couldnt play above mezzo forte, and i find it hard to believe he could have played his own etudes satisfactorily.

anyway, comment, or dont.

Wow thats a bold comment.  Couldn't have played his OWN etudes satisfactorily?  I dont think Chopin would have let them out in the public until it was to his OWN Satisfaction.  Just me though.  But you explain that comment?

[tyler_johnson]

Where'd you hear that he couldn't play above mf?  Were his arms weak?  I don't get it, a little girl can play above mf.  Personally, I believe he is the greatest pianist to ever live.  My opinion though.

[debussy symbolism]

Chopin could play loud. He didn't want to. Chopin seldom practiced, and graduated from a musical school in 3 years. His physical condition probably inhibited him from spending too much time on technique, as he was sick a lot. Otherwise he could play very well in my opinion.

[nightingale11]

.

[jas]

It wasn't until he got really ill and lost most of his strength that he had trouble with playing above a mezzo-forte. It was artistic preference; he apparently had an enormous degree of dynamic control, which allowed him to play different shades of piano and pianissimo more than any other pianist around at the time. And when he visited Vienna early in his career he said that people weren't keen on his playing because they were too used to the "piano pounding of the artists here". (That quote might not be exactly right, but it was something like that...)

Also, if there was something he felt he wouldn't be able to play satisfactorily in his later years, he'd get a student to do it for him. Until then he had a great reputation as a pianist and sold out concert halls when he decided (or was persuaded) to perform. I have no doubt whatsoever that before he got too ill he could play everything he ever wrote, and better than anyone else could. I remember reading a quote by Moscheles along the lines that a lot of Chopin's works didn't make any sense until he heard Chopin himself play them. He was renowned for making the most difficult works seem very easy, and there are loads of contemporary accounts that corroborate this.

Outside Paris he wasn't so well known because he didn't tour, so his performances weren't so successful, but judging from accounts of those who actually heard him play, he must have been amazing. This was a time when virtuoso pianists were all over the place, buzzing all over the concert circuit in Europe and America, and the only 3 who were really revered by connoisseurs and non-musicians alike were Chopin, Liszt and, to a slightly lesser extent, Thalberg. Sir Charles Hallé, who was himself a pianist and knew all three, wrote:

[Thalberg] created a sensation in Paris, and became the idol of the public, principally, perhaps, because it was felt that he could be imitated, even successfully, which with Chopin and Liszt was out of the question.

As nightingale11 said, Chopin preferred Pleyel's pianos. He said he played an Erard when he wasn't feeling great because it had a "ready-made tone". When he felt well he'd play a Pleyel because they're more responsive and personal.

If you get a chance, have a look at "Chopin: Pianist and Teacher, As Seen by his Pupils" by Eigeldinger. It's got a lot of really interesting accounts of his playing.

I really should stop writing essay-answer posts...

[stevie]

Where'd you hear that he couldn't play above mf?  Were his arms weak?  I don't get it, a little girl can play above mf.  Personally, I believe he is the greatest pianist to ever live.  My opinion though.

this is the kind of opinion i am contending with

its impossible to know, but how can anyone think he was the greatest to ever live?

[stevie]

It wasn't until he got really ill and lost most of his strength that he had trouble with playing above a mezzo-forte. It was artistic preference; he apparently had an enormous degree of dynamic control, which allowed him to play different shades of piano and pianissimo more than any other pianist around at the time. And when he visited Vienna early in his career he said that people weren't keen on his playing because they were too used to the "piano pounding of the artists here". (That quote might not be exactly right, but it was something like that...)

yes, this nuance and subtlety in the softer ranges must have been incredible, but i dont think it was personal choice to play softer, completely.

look through chopin scores, quite alot of FF, his music is often bold and dynamic.

piano 'banging' is most often a bad thing, but it doesnt mean that everytime someone plays very loud theyre banging; great pianists like cziffra and horowitz could play very loud with subtle gradiations in tone between FF and FFF, and beyond.

I have no doubt whatsoever that before he got too ill he could play everything he ever wrote, and better than anyone else could.

works like the nocturnes, yes. but not things like the polonaises or etudes.

chopin envied liszt's playing in these kind of pieces.

[jas]

yes, this nuance and subtlety in the softer ranges must have been incredible, but i dont think it was personal choice to play softer, completely.

look through chopin scores, quite alot of FF, his music is often bold and dynamic.

piano 'banging' is most often a bad thing, but it doesnt mean that everytime someone plays very loud theyre banging; great pianists like cziffra and horowitz could play very loud with subtle gradiations in tone between FF and FFF, and beyond.

I didn't say that, he did! Anyway, not banging doesn't necessarily mean your technique isn't up to it. He was one of the most original pianists of his time for that very reason.

chopin envied liszt's playing in these kind of pieces.

He envied him his strength and his confidence in front of an audience. He probably was a bit jealous. But they were two completely different types of pianist, as well as people. There's nothing to suggest that they were even really comparable. Their paths crossed often, but they frequented different circles, played difference music in different places in different styles. The only reason they're so often compared is because they're the only two of the Parisian pianist-composers who are still widely known and played today.

works like the nocturnes, yes. but not things like the polonaises or etudes.

Of the thirty or so concerts he gave in his life, there are accounts of many that contained etudes and polonaises. And of him playing them in private. At his very last concert in Paris in 1848 he played an etude, among a number of other things.

Here's a couple of contemporary quotes:
From the Gazette musicale:
"In his case, virtuosity is never isolated; however developed, however arduous, it is never repellent because one feels that it has a raison d’être. It summarises all one can demand of the instrument without destroying the primacy of the idea."

Also from the Gazette (from a review of his last concert in Paris):
"[Chopin] kept his word, and with what success, what enthusiasm! It is easier to tell you of the reception he got, the transport he excited, than to describe, analyse, divulge, the mysteries of an execution which has nothing analogous in our terrestrial regions.... Only Chopin can make Chopin understood: all those who were present at the séance of Wednesday are convinced of this as well as we."

His pupil, George Mathias:
"First of all, those who have heard Chopin may well say that nothing remotely resembling his playing has ever been heard since. His playing was like his music; and what virtuosity! what power! yes, what power! though it would only last for a few bars; and the exaltation, the inspiration! the whole man vibrated! The piano became so intensely animated that it gave one shivers. I repeat that the instrument which one heard Chopin playing never existed except beneath Chopin's fingers..."

Mendelssohn:
"There is something entirely his own in his piano playing, and at the same time so masterly that he may truly be called a perfect virtuoso..."

German poet, Heinrich Heine:
"I must hark back again and again to the fact that there are but three pianists: Chopin, the gracious tone-poet, who, unfortunately, has been very ill this winter and not much seen; then Thalberg, the gentleman of music, who, in the end, does not need to play piano at all, in order to be greeted everywhere as a pleasant sight, and who really seems to regard his talent as no more than an appanage; and finally, our Liszt, who, in spite of all his perversities and wounding angles, still remains out cherished Liszt, and at this moment is once more exciting the Paris world of beauty."

Sophie August-Leo:
"... no one who has not heard Chopin’s compositions played by their composer will ever have an intimation of how, quite without regard to tradition, or to praise or blame, the purest inspiration may be carried along on the wings of the spirit. Chopin was himself, surely the first, probably the eternally unique manifestation of his species..."

Charles Hallé:
"At the last public concert he gave in Paris, at the ... beginning of 11848, he played the latter part of his 'Barcarolle', from the point where it demands the utmost energy, in the most opposite style, pianissimo, but with such wonderful nuances, that one remained in doubt if this new reading were not preferable to the accustomed one. Nobody but Chopin could have accomplished such a feat."

Schumann:
"... when the etude was ended, we felt as though we had seen a radiant picture in a dream which, half awake, we ached to recover..."

And I found the Moscheles quote I mentioned in my last post:
"At my request he played for me, and it is only after hearing him play that I am now able to understand his music. I was also able to grasp why he has such an enthusiastic following among the ladies. The ad libitum passages adjoining his works, which become mere displays of tactlessness when attempted by other interpreters of his music, are the essence of charming originality in his own performances."

And one of the most important music critics of the time, Ernest Legouve, said he was the best pianist of the day, not Thalberg or Liszt.

It all depends on whether or not you believe that showmanship and constant demonstrations of transcendental virtuosity are what makes a great pianist. I think it's pretty clear from contemporary accounts there's no doubt that he was one of the greatest pianists of his time. He wasn't one of the loudest pianists of his time, but loud doesn't equal great. There were loud pianists everywhere, they were nothing special or unusual. His pianism was more unique than that of any of his contemporaries.

Oh, in case you're thinking that I have waaay too much free time on my hands, I had all these quotes on my computer anyway because I wrote my dissertation on a related subject.

[stevie]

It all depends on whether or not you believe that showmanship and constant demonstrations of transcendental virtuosity are what makes a great pianist. I think it's pretty clear from contemporary accounts there's no doubt that he was one of the greatest pianists of his time. He wasn't one of the loudest pianists of his time, but loud doesn't equal great. There were loud pianists everywhere, they were nothing special or unusual. His pianism was more unique than that of any of his contemporaries.

there was a famous story i read somewhere, that chopin and liszt were both at a musical gathering, and they decided to play a trick on the public, liszt was to play and to try and convince them that he was chopin, which he did, even to chopin's surprise.

now, i think its inconcievable that the opposite could happen, that chopin could imitate liszt.

i think liszt evidently had better all round technique, and was a greater 'all round' pianist.

but chopin certainly was unique and special.

[Kassaa]

there was a famous story i read somewhere, that chopin and liszt were both at a musical gathering, and they decided to play a trick on the public, liszt was to play and to try and convince them that he was chopin, which he did, even to chopin's surprise.

now, i think its inconcievable that the opposite could happen, that chopin could imitate liszt.

i think liszt evidently had better all round technique, and was a greater 'all round' pianist.

but chopin certainly was unique and special.

Maybe Liszt was the Cziffra and Chopin the Arrau (not sure about this one) of the romantic era?

[ahinton]

"Jas" has provided so much interesting material here that there should be no question of anyone considering his posts overlong on this fascinating yet frustrating subject. The trouble is - inevitably - that we can only go by contemporary accounts, however well qualified and interesting many of these may be. There are, of course, no recordings and none of us is old enough to have heard him live. I wonder what his friend Alkan thought of his playing...

Best,

Alistair

[jas]

there was a famous story i read somewhere, that chopin and liszt were both at a musical gathering, and they decided to play a trick on the public, liszt was to play and to try and convince them that he was chopin, which he did, even to chopin's surprise.

now, i think its inconcievable that the opposite could happen, that chopin could imitate liszt.

i think liszt evidently had better all round technique, and was a greater 'all round' pianist.

but chopin certainly was unique and special.

I read that somewhere, too. But it looks like your actual[//i] question was: who was better, Chopin or Liszt?

"Jas" has provided so much interesting material here that there should be no question of anyone considering his posts overlong on this fascinating yet frustrating subject.

Thank you, at least I know one person didn't fall asleep two miles down the page! (Although, "he" is a "she".)

[stevie]

Maybe Liszt was the Cziffra and Chopin the Arrau (not sure about this one) of the romantic era?

well, if you like, but i dont really like arrau.

I read that somewhere, too. But it looks like your actual[//i] question was: who was better, Chopin or Liszt?

not really, just discussing the weaknesses and strengths of chopin's pianism.

i still really dont think chopin could play his more bravura works in the way he may have imagined them in his head.

[ahinton]

Thank you, at least I know one person didn't fall asleep two miles down the page! (Although, "he" is a "she".)

Apologies! I wasn't sure, so I intended to omit the third person pronoun altogether when I started to write this but must have got distracted before I finished!

Best,

Alistair

[Kassaa]

well, if you like, but i dont really like arrau.

not really, just discussing the weaknesses and strengths of chopin's pianism.

i still really dont think chopin could play his more bravura works in the way he may have imagined them in his head.

Or maybe we have them in our head with too much bravura?

[stevie]

Or maybe we have them in our head with too much bravura?

unlikely, FFF means FFF

[mikey6]

I heard somewhere that Liszt invented the 'projecting' tone after he 'invented' the piano recital, so his sound could reach the back of the halls. Perhaps Chopin came from the former school and his mf was an f just not projected.  (I haven't read everything here so this may have been mentioned before)
I heard Demidenko play Chopin last year and it was incredibly restrained - I had heard reports that Chopin's playing was similar.

[firebolt145]

Liszt invented the 'projecting' tone

Can't be true. A 'projecting' tone is needed to play Classical concertos as well. No difference just because one is solo.

Chopin was physically weak. He had an extremely soft tone (and was often criticized for it). However, he COULD play his etudes well, though he once said that he wished he could play his etudes the way Liszt did. Obviously, Liszt had immense power, the one thing Chopin lacked.

Chopin was also very shy to play in public, prefering to play in salons or in small parties with his personal friends. If you're just playing in a salon, there is no need for large tone.

[brewtality]

there was a famous story i read somewhere, that chopin and liszt were both at a musical gathering, and they decided to play a trick on the public, liszt was to play and to try and convince them that he was chopin, which he did, even to chopin's surprise.

Yeah this is a legendary feat, shows the ego of da pimp coming through. The way I heard the story he said "you see, Liszt can be Chopin when he wants to be, but can Chopin be Liszt?". Reminds of how at another gathering, Liszt played all these complicated variations that left the audienced gasping then demanded that Mendelssohn play something, the latter responded by asking Liszt not to get mad then playing back what Liszt had just improvised. Liszt was too impressed to be angry.

[firebolt145]

I find that second story hard to believe. Liszt had phenomenal technique that no one else equalled.

[brewtality]

I find that second story hard to believe. Liszt had phenomenal technique that no one else equalled.

Well we can only speculate as to the accuracy, but what impressed me more than being able to physically repeat what liszt had played, was the ability to remember everything after one listen, despite the complex nature of the variations (i.e. the ability of total recall). I think there is little doubt that Mendelssohn could do the latter as he is one of history's greatest natural geniuses.

[jlh]

Interestingly, Chopin and Liszt jointly wrote a letter to Hiller on June 20, 1833.  In this letter we find Chopin's wish that he could steal Liszt's secret of playing his own (Chopin's) etudes.

[pianowelsh]

The story of Chopin playing very softly is always blown out of proportion  - he didnt project to the back of Very large concert halls in the way Liszt was known for doing at the similar time. However this as no doubt partially due to the fact he preferred a more mellow instrument to Liszt - he also hated large halls he enjoyed intimate performances better. I tell you Chopin wouldnt write ff unless he meant it... he tends to be more sparing in these regards though and often writes in a less bravura style than Liszt say. We can i believe conclude that he favoured a softer palette of sounds BUT when he marks loud he means loud.

[maxd]

Chopin was born in 1810 and LEARNED TO PLAY ON HIS MOTHER'S PIANO.. which was made in that era..

anyone who has played a piano from 1810-1820 KNOWS that it can only go above mf in a HARSH AND INELASTIC TONE...

since Chopin's playing was the maximum expression of tone color and nuance, he payed a HUGE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION to tone...

so EVEN THOUGH by 1848 piano action had become heavier and pianos had higher tension and could play louder than 10 or 20 years before, the sound DID degenerate when the keys are struck hard or loud..

there was no need to shout in Chopin's world, it was a world of intimacy not showing off or mindless twiddling..

Chopin focused on creating music for himself and a FEW others.. ONCE UPON A TIME all musicians who were pro worked for SOMEBODY as personal entertainers and party musicians..

were not talking beer-hall party like MODERN piano, but salon playing..

I think that puts an end to the discussion of volume...widespread by ignorance and convenience..

it is much more difficult to play softly and distinctly than to play loudly...

[pianowelsh]

Agreed! To play with pearly tone in the softest dynamic is extremely hard. Particluarly on the more 'voiced' pianos we have today which are designed to not only get to the back of a concert hall but most of the way through the foyer too!  It would had they lived in pc literate times have been very interesting to feed their playing into a computer for analysis and see who actually played louder etc. I believe we may be surprised if we were to find the results. SO much can be suggested and alluded to in performance. SO many tricks of the ear. So many illusions we can create by physical gesture. Chopin by all accounts was a restrained performer with elegent placing and turning of the hands and his famous wrist action. Liszt, was always seen as someone who eat up the keepboard with fiery gestures and theatrics...Two intrinsically very different performing styles both with huge followings.  I certainly have no difficulty in saying that Chopin had NO difficulty with his own works in performance...Just look at his age when he composed what are actually the most origional etudes for the piano. He knew and understood technique in a way most of us could only dream of. He made his own which not only could handle anything up to that point but infact took piano ability to new heights.

[liszt-essence]

There's an intresting book called the Genius of the Piano

It focuses on chopin's etudes and what they mean for piano music

For example the first etude being an etude which requires physical mastery of the thumb and a loose hand in order to get to the end without strains

Liszt actually learned a lot from Chopin regarding some technique. Later on, he invidualized his technique and created an unique one, just like Chopin has. But I believe Chopin had aquired his own unique technique much earlier than Liszt did.

[pianowelsh]

Chopin never really studied with a professional piano teacher so He was forced by necessity to develop his own approach to playing.. in many ways it is an extremely natural approach and extremely pianistic.  If you find you are struggling with Chopin in a physical way there is a good chance you are not approaching it the way he would have ..he always used to exhort his students 'facile' - easy...not make it heavy weather. All is elegence and grace with Chopin.  Liszt although learning immensely from Chopin as you pointed out accurately takes a much more traditional bravura approach to piano playing and delights in the altheticism of piano playing...Chopin by and large negates it or smoothes over it.

I still believe the Chopin 24 are far harder to bring off than the Liszt transcendentals.

[ramseytheii]

Just for fun I'll contribute a few anecdotes about Chopin's playing that are not as well known.

"Chopin gave a recital of his own compositions in Paris, which Dreyshock attended in company with Thalberg.  They listened with delight throughout the performance, but on reaching the street Thalberg began shouting at the top of his voice.
'What's the matter?' asked Dreyschock, in astonishment.
'Oh,' said Thalberg, 'I've been listening to piano all evening, and now, for the sake of contrast, I want a little forte.'"

"How well did Chopin play Beethoven's op.26?  He played it well, but not so well as his own compositions; neatly, but with no contrasts - not like a romance, mounting from variation to variations.  His mezzo voce was a whisper, but he was unapproachable in his cantilena, endlessly finished in coherency of construction - ideally beautiful, but womanish!  Beethoven is a man, and never ceases to be a man!... I, too, was charmed - but only by his tone, by his touch, by his elegance and grace, by his absolutely pure style.  As we drove back together, I was quite sincere when he asked my opinion.
'I indicate,' he remarked, without any touchiness - 'the listeners must finish the picture.'"

Unfortunately, I can't find the book where I originally read this, but Liszt once took Vladimir de Pachmann to play for Wagner (so it goes), and Wagner declared that de Pachmann would one day be the greatest pianist, presumably after Liszt died.  Liszt told de Pachmann that he played Chopin's compositions better than Chopin himself, who apparently played them in a "mannered" fashion.  If anyone knows where that coems from, let me know!

Walter Ramsey

[liszt-essence]

Just for fun I'll contribute a few anecdotes about Chopin's playing that are not as well known.

"Chopin gave a recital of his own compositions in Paris, which Dreyshock attended in company with Thalberg.  They listened with delight throughout the performance, but on reaching the street Thalberg began shouting at the top of his voice.
'What's the matter?' asked Dreyschock, in astonishment.
'Oh,' said Thalberg, 'I've been listening to piano all evening, and now, for the sake of contrast, I want a little forte.'"

"How well did Chopin play Beethoven's op.26?  He played it well, but not so well as his own compositions; neatly, but with no contrasts - not like a romance, mounting from variation to variations.  His mezzo voce was a whisper, but he was unapproachable in his cantilena, endlessly finished in coherency of construction - ideally beautiful, but womanish!  Beethoven is a man, and never ceases to be a man!... I, too, was charmed - but only by his tone, by his touch, by his elegance and grace, by his absolutely pure style.  As we drove back together, I was quite sincere when he asked my opinion.
'I indicate,' he remarked, without any touchiness - 'the listeners must finish the picture.'"

Unfortunately, I can't find the book where I originally read this, but Liszt once took Vladimir de Pachmann to play for Wagner (so it goes), and Wagner declared that de Pachmann would one day be the greatest pianist, presumably after Liszt died.  Liszt told de Pachmann that he played Chopin's compositions better than Chopin himself, who apparently played them in a "mannered" fashion.  If anyone knows where that coems from, let me know!

Walter Ramsey

I don't know where that last quote comes from, but it's probably right as Chopin himself had said that he wished he could play his own etudes like Liszt did.

[pianowelsh]

It begs the question - where they meant to be played in a mannered fashion!?!? The same story is retold with Moseiwitsch and Rachmaninov playing out the roles.  I dont think we can assume with people like Chopin and Rachmaninov that they played their works in that way because they were unableto play them differently.  If they played them in that style I would suggest that there was a good reason for doing so.  I would suggest that the interpreters who follow on may find new ways of expressing the same music which may indeed be more to our taste  and inkeeping with our general performance trends today BUt I question whether we can really say they played them better than the composers themselves.. A case in point would be Debussy also. Now some of his performances of his own works wouldnt actually pass college exams today. BUT they have a wonderfull richness of colour and understanding of the 'core' of the pieces that is undeniably extrememly high quality but to our ears today they do sound laboured, pedantic and even pedestrian! We simply have different listening criterior today and are obssed with speed and clarity. These were really quite alien concepts to the great pianist composers of previous generations. Speed and brilliance was only one part of a gamut of skills required to be a 'musician'. Much has changed as many of todays competition winners demonstrate - unfortunately.

[maxd]

well said!

[demented cow]

It's clear that Chopin didn't have something against loud sounds per se. Remember the annecdote where a student apologised for breaking a string while playing the A major polonaise, whereupon Chopin said 'if I could play it the way I wanted to, there wouldn't be a string left in the piano. This seems to suggest that it was at least partly his abilities, not his intentions, that limited his upper dynamic range.

Something I don't understand: People say that good loud playing is not a matter of physical strength but of optimal use of weight. Chopin seemed to have such a natural, relaxed technique, quite unique for its time, that it's surprising that this aspect of technique wouldn't have come naturally to him. Someone might argue that, being quite slim, he didn't have enough weight on him to produce a loud sound by arm weight alone (without banging the piano, which he would have hated). But if that were the full story, how could e.g. Liszt and Horowitz also produce big sonorities, despite lacking the girth of someone like John Ogdon? Does anybody have a theory about this?

[dnephi]

Quote from Liszt to illuminate his apparent mediocrity:

"He could never play anything requiring endurance or bravura.  His study in C Minor [Op. 25 No. 12] he never played."

It's true.

[pianistimo]

then why is one of his last works so hard for pianists - the polonaise-fantasy?  i think chopin's hands are very telling.  he didn't work the 'muscles' of his arm or hand - but played in a very relaxed fashion.  otherwise - he'd have gotten major tendonitis.

i think it's a matter of what you are born with.  chopin had a light frame and light body.  i think liszt was more compact.  each person, also, has an approach to the piano.

[pianistimo]

pachmann did (from the beginning) study chopin mostly.  according to this book he was born in 1848 - and had a 'flexible technique and imagination of a concert artist' but did retire for some years in his youth (dissatisfied with his progress) and devoted himself to intensive study.  after a tour of his native russia (he was born in odessa) in 1869, he remained out of action for eight years.  then he emerged for a short european tour in 1877, and by 1880 he was a phenomenal success.  old  musical dictionaries make statements like the following:  'de pachmann is a player of a highly poetic temperament, refined sensibilities and extraordinary personal magnetism.  he is at his best in works demanding extreme delicacy of touch, for there he can legitimately display his marvelous velvety tone and ethereal pianissimo.  in this respect he probably never had a superior, and certainly few equals.'

but, it goes on to say that sadly pachmann lost some of his virtuosic technique in later years and it showed with choppy rhythms, wrong notes, simplifications and textual changes.  de pachmann was imperturbable.  if the going got too hard, he merely slowed down to where the  music was manageable, or he simplified...his ancestry was most likely in the hummel-cramer group of pianists - those who stressed tone and pure finger technique without drama.  he had a few terrible recordings - such as the godowsky paraphrase of chopin's revolutionary etude for the left hand alone.  he could 'no more handle it than he could handle the brahms b -flat concerto, and the result is a whatnot of chopped lines, all-but-palpable desperation and wrong notes... at his besthe must have had a series of pianissimo shadings not unlike chopin's own.  but never is there a feeling of planning, of a through-and-through conception; and how he achieved his reputation among serious musicians must remain a mystery.'  (this is according to the book)

now, personally - between you and me - reading all this makes me kind of endeared to the guy.  it is true that one can ususally have a faster mental ability to conceptualize entire works (especially of chopin) at a younger age - but not impossible as one gets older. and i see nothing wrong with slowing down occasionally to bring out a passage.  i think it's that chopin almost demands 'perfection' for everyone to accept it as really polished.  but, hey- that's where beethoven comes in.  you can make a mistake in beethoven and one hardly notices it.  in chopin -it's 'oh, no'  let's either start over or smile at the audience and hope for the best.  i think when one becomes a pianist - one should become more compassionate for the musical unelite.  they may never be on the top rung - but they give it their best shot.

i think he probably was quite a virtuoso after those eight years of study.  too bad everyone judges people by their last recording.

[jas]

Someone might argue that, being quite slim, he didn't have enough weight on him to produce a loud sound by arm weight alone (without banging the piano, which he would have hated). But if that were the full story, how could e.g. Liszt and Horowitz also produce big sonorities, despite lacking the girth of someone like John Ogdon? Does anybody have a theory about this?

I'm no expert, but I doubt that "being quite slim" is really the same as "dying of tuberculosis". The fact is that he was very ill for a very long time. His playing was tainted by it, or influenced by it, or whatever term you want to use, for most of his life, and certainly his concert-giving life (he gave less than 30 in his entire life, and yet still became known as one the century's great virtuosos). It's true that he may not always have been able to play his works the way he'd have wanted to, but most of us who have ever composed a piece - especially a good piece - can't. Unlike most of us, however, he astounded his contemporaries by making the absolute most of what he did have, and to incredible effect.

A number of people here seem to be unable to distinguish between Chopin's (apparent) inability to play his works the way he'd have liked them to be played and jealousy of Liszt. Liszt wasn't Chopin's only contemporary, and judging by Chopin's own correspondences he certainly wasn't much of a pianistic influence on him. He isn't the benchmark by which all pianists past and present should be judged. He was one of many, especially in his own lifetime. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that we can really compare the two. If you read contemporary accounts you'll see that not only did they frequent different circles and have completely different styles of pianism, they were friends only for a short while; their differences in character and pretty much everything else prevented them from becoming close. They had a number of mutual friends, which is why their paths crossed as often as they did. It's today's romanticised view of the era that makes these two great composers the best of friends, not reality. If Chopin was influenced by anyone pianistically - which I don't think he really was, anyway - it was pianists of a much more classical bent than Liszt.

When did it come about that all great piano playing was measured against "Lisztian" standards? Their 19th c. peers largely seemed to be equally enamoured of both, and today's increasingly common view that a pianist is only "great" if s/he can deliver enough in the way of mind-boggling pyrotechnics is both sad and misguided. Liszt was a great pianist, but despite what Belgiojoso said, he wasn't the only one.

Rant over.

[jericho]

I find that second story hard to believe. Liszt had phenomenal technique that no one else equalled.

Liszt feared Alkan. Interpret.

[pianistimo]

good points! 

liszt fearing alkan - hmmm.  i just don't know what to make of that.  didn't he already have an established name (liszt) by the time alkan came around.  i always imagined alkan was much younger.  was alkan quite a virtuoso in his youth?  i always think of thalberg.  but, perhaps this is a misconception that he was the only one to challenge liszt.  thalberg created some music to imitate three hands as well.

liszt 1811
alkan 1813  pretty close in birth i guess.  alkan didn't play much in public - but he awed his contemporaries with his compositions (and some pieces which are fairly unplayable - in terms of public consumption).  busoni called alkan's pieces 'the greatest achievement in piano music after liszt.'

some of liszt's pupils:  eugene d'albert, conrad ansorge, arthur friedheim, arthur de greef, alfred reisenauer, rafael joseffy, frederic lamond, jose vianna da motta, moriz rosenthal, issac albeniz, emil von sauer, alexander siloti, bernhard stavenhagen, constantin von sternberg.

i think clara schumann could have played more liszt if she wanted to.  i'm sure she was capable.

[pianistimo]

other virtuosos of the time.  'thumpers' like leopold de meyer, poets like chopin, salonists like herz, eccentrics like alkan, shy ones like heller and henselt, extroverted ones like litolff and rubinstein, scholarly ones like clara schumann and hans von bulow, and showmen like dreschock.'  (from schonberg's, 'the great pianists')

'moscheles was being outdone by pyrotechnics.  those that remained close tot he keys were not as showy as those who 'strolled out, the lords of creation, and lifted their hands high, with crashing sonorities and extravagant body movements to match...power and showmanship elbowed the classic proprieties into oblivion...liszt with the cascade of his grand gallop chromatiqe, dreyschock with his octaves.  piano playing became an orgy, and the serious old-time musicians clucked about it like a flock of hens in a coop around which prowled hungry foxes.  the virtuoso was king.  after liszt's performances in berlin in 1842, he was transported by a carriage drawn by six white horses, escorted by thirty carriages-and-four, and follwed by hundreds of private coaches.  even the court had ridden into town to take a look...not like a king but AS a king did he depart, surrounded by the shouting crowd.'

[pianistimo]

perhaps it is just me, but in my mind i associate mendelssohn and saint-saens as perhaps the ones that i would have liked to hear play chopin.  for me, mendelssohn wouldn't make it as flashy as it would be 'frenchly neat,' precise, and elegant.  but, the thing is - i don't think mendelssohn played much liszt did he?  the thing is 'he played improvisations that contained grand thirds, sixths, and octaves.'

[zheer]

  Judging by his composition for piano, he must have been one of the best. He was also the first composer with Liszt to expand and develop piano possibility, this is why  many pianists are stuck when the reach Chopin, since Bach Mozart  Beethoven ect, did'nt compose in such a style.
   I dont think he would have got first prize in many of todays piano competitions or even have played as well tecknically, compared to many of the pianists we know to today,but then again non of these pianist would have been playing to such a level had chopin not  written for the piano. So you see he remains one of the greatest pianists in history along-side Liszt and Rachmaninoff.

[ahinton]

41 replies to what, whilst an obviously fascinating question, is simply incapable of reliable answers from anyone, since no pianoforum member is quite old enough to remember having actually heard him play. Astonishing! All we have to go on is hearsay and contemporary documentation from the days when he did play - and that is sufficient only to allow mere speculation. I'd love to have known the answer, of course, but then I'd have loved to be a better pianist than Rakhmaninov. too...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Liszt feared Alkan. Interpret.

Alkan went home and started to cry when he first heard Liszt play. Interpret.

[avetma]

One proffessor once told me that Chopin always liked to hear Liszt playing his pieces instead of himself. Including nocturnes and similar pieces, too.