Which professional pianist has the worsest technique?

[retrouvailles]

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

[furtwaengler]

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

What?! Horowitz had great technician!

(Franz Mohr)

[franz_]

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

You stupid cow. Go away and listen to some of his recordings.

[retrouvailles]

That's precisely what I have done. If I hadn't heard any of his recordings, I wouldn't have made that statement.

[gyzzzmo]

All famous professional (classical) pianists have great technique. And i dont think any of us here can judge if someone has the worst technique, since a famous professional would not performe a piece wich he doesnt technical control.
You could however, check all famous pianist's repetoire and try finding out wich things he/she tries to avoid and draw vague conclusions. Anyone interested? :p

[prongated]

Martha Argerich. It doesn't ever seem like she can get anything up to tempo.

Sviatoslav Richter. His fingers are bigger than sausages and he's always hitting multiple notes because he can't fit between the keys.

Emmanuel Ax. His hand position is totally improper.

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

What, for deliberately skipping notes?

In any case, the fact he could also vary tone colors (on top of playing fast fast fast) means that technically he's a step ahead of Lang Lang ^^

[mcgillcomposer]

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

...uhm, have you heard his early recordings of the Rach 3 and Brahms 2? His technique is mind boggling...

[gyzzzmo]

Or his chopin etude 10/4....

[retrouvailles]

...uhm, have you heard his early recordings of the Rach 3 and Brahms 2? His technique is mind boggling...

Well, I should have specified. His early recordings do show a good technique.

[mcgillcomposer]

Well, I should have specified. His early recordings do show a good technique.

Then I agree with you - in his later years he certainly did let his technique slip. This said, Horowitz was a real showman ... I think it was a secondary concern for him - nonetheless, this says nothing against your post, you really do have a point.

[communist]

,

[point of grace]

ouch, i see that this topic didnt work very well!!
nobody shares the same idea about the word Technique...
quite difficult though


i´d say instead that i dont like horowitz´s sound on the keyboard and Lang Lang´s technique, but cant say why...

[imchopin]

I know, but it intrigates me. I like it. His sound is good, and I like his 'strangeness'. Sitting on an old chair, leggs crossed, sitting very low, singing,...
A phenomen in his style.

agreed. He isn't too bad.

Gould mastered the art of fugue and equal voicing.  I like his Well-Tempered Klavier, but his infamous Mozart recordings are awful. I have them and I never listen to them.  His technique also isn't very healthy, posture-wise.  Great accuracy though. 

Are not there many facets to a solid technique?  Maybe one person's strength is another person's weakness.  If we were all the same then piano music would die an ugly death.

[m]

Horowitz. No amount of tone coloration could excuse his poor technique.

Well, it is very popular to trash Horowitz on those boards, esp. in regards to his so called "poor technique".

Let me remind you a few things:

First, Rachmaninov for example had a very different opinion on that matter, and I kinda trust his judgement, as something tells me he knew something about keyboard playing... just a little bit.

Second, ability to produce unbeliavable "amount of tone coloration" already implies a great technique.

Third, indeed as an old man his technique has deteriorated (mainly due to health conditions and lack of consistant practicing).

Listen however to his 30s-40s recs (which BTW, are unedited), listen to something like Andante Spianato, 4th Scherzo, unbelievable articulation in Chopin etudes, Scarlatti Sonatas, Dance Macabre, Wedding March, Rachmaninov 2nd Sonata from 1968, absolutely demonic Liszt renditions, etc. etc. etc.

If after that you can say with straight face he's got the worsest technique among professional pianists, I'd recommend to educate yourself and stop playing smarty.

Best, M

[retrouvailles]

Well, it is very popular to trash Horowitz on those boards, esp. in regards to his so called "poor technique".

Let me remind you a few things:

First, Rachmaninov for example had a very different opinion on that matter, and I kinda trust his judgement, as something tells me he knew something about keyboard playing... just a little bit.

Second, ability to produce unbeliavable "amount of tone coloration" already implies a great technique.

Third, indeed as an old man his technique has deteriorated (mainly due to health conditions and lack of consistant practicing).

Listen however to his 30s-40s recs (which BTW, are unedited), listen to something like Andante Spianato, 4th Scherzo, unbelievable articulation in Chopin etudes, Scarlatti Sonatas, Dance Macabre, Wedding March, Rachmaninov 2nd Sonata from 1968, absolutely demonic Liszt renditions, etc. etc. etc.

If after that you can say with straight face he's got the worsest technique among professional pianists, I'd recommend to educate yourself and stop playing smarty.

Best, M

You obviously didn't read my post after that. I said that his early recordings are much better. I actually enjoy a few of them. He will never be one of my favorites though, because of the amount his technique slipped in his later years. And I am plenty educated in this, thank you very much, and I say things with conviction and with proof. You cannot deny that his early recordings are good. And you cannot deny that his later recordings have slipped. Proof enough? Yes.

[m]

You obviously didn't read my post after that. I said that his early recordings are much better. I actually enjoy a few of them. He will never be one of my favorites though, because of the amount his technique slipped in his later years. And I am plenty educated in this, thank you very much, and I say things with conviction and with proof. You cannot deny that his early recordings are good. And you cannot deny that his later recordings have slipped. Proof enough? Yes.

Mmmm... not quite.

So what those "later years" are we talking about? His mid seventies, when most of his old fart peers start already wearing pumpers and he was still playing Rahmaninov 3rd Concerto (!), late seventies, when he was on heavy medications, or eighties, when most of his peers are already usualy one leg in the grave, and he still was playing Rachmaninov 2nd Sonata the way not many youngsters could?

What's up? Do you realize what are you talking about? Or you want to see an 80 years old man running 100meters in 8 seconds? C'mon, you cannot be serious.

I just cannot help, but wonder, according to you that's the reason he did not become your favorite? What a strange reasoning!

[opus10no2]

It will be *very* interesting to see what Hamelin and the current young generation of pianists play like in their late years.

[dnephi]

You forgot Pletnev - he doesn't dance around like a clown enough when he plays.