overrated pianists of the 20th century

[cziffra]

i must admit, hamelin does perplex me a little- i have a recording he made of various liszt pieces and for the hungarian rhapsody no 2 he decided to write his own cadenza (some three minutes)  

Now, i'm all for pianist composers, by all means there are not enough of them around...but, when you approach a possible cadenza in a piece called a HUNGARIAN rhapsody, shouldn't your priority be to make it sound hungarian?  he had such complex jazzy harmonies involved that it was like a separate piece was starting- it did not gel with the rest of the piece at all.  it is perhaps the most bizarre musical decision i have ever encountered.  

his technique is flawless, by all means- his tempo throughout the second half of the piece basically never let up- but, and i know this is going to sound odd- it seems TOO good.  it seems so certain, so clean, so precise and so incredible that it's simply not exciting to hear.  as piotr anderzsewski says on The Art of the Piano: "being as safe as possible is often boring."  i really get the feeling that hamelin is the safest of them all.  whether that is good or bad...

[comme_le_vent]

comme_le_vent,

as it happens, Brendel happens to be quite authoritative on all 32 Beethoven sonatas... So many people (as those who think him authoritative) can't possibly be wrong...

if you look back youll see i wasnt the one who dissed brendel.

[comme_le_vent]

i must admit, hamelin does perplex me a little- i have a recording he made of various liszt pieces and for the hungarian rhapsody no 2 he decided to write his own cadenza (some three minutes)  

Now, i'm all for pianist composers, by all means there are not enough of them around...but, when you approach a possible cadenza in a piece called a HUNGARIAN rhapsody, shouldn't your priority be to make it sound hungarian?  he had such complex jazzy harmonies involved that it was like a separate piece was starting- it did not gel with the rest of the piece at all.  it is perhaps the most bizarre musical decision i have ever encountered.  

his technique is flawless, by all means- his tempo throughout the second half of the piece basically never let up- but, and i know this is going to sound odd- it seems TOO good.  it seems so certain, so clean, so precise and so incredible that it's simply not exciting to hear.  as piotr anderzsewski says on The Art of the Piano: "being as safe as possible is often boring."  i really get the feeling that hamelin is the safest of them all.  whether that is good or bad...

i see where your coming from, in fast music he lacks the feeling of danger some other pianists evoke.
but is this a psycological shortcoming on your part, or a musical shortcoming on his part?

and about the HR2 cadenza - i LOVE it, it borrows thematic material from the res of the piece and uses it in totally insane and hilarious ways - but stragely - to me at least - it all fits perfectly.
just listen more and youll hear what i mean.

[comme_le_vent]

Hamelin's recording of Alkan: Symphony for solo piano - I noticed some slight pedalling deficiencies in the first movement, right near the beginning.  That was the first thing off I noticed the first time I played it.  I ignore it now.  But still, if I noticed it the first time I heard it...

ive listened to this recording more than any other recording i own, tell me EXACTLY where you hear a deficiency, and are you sure it wasnt a colouristic effect that hamelin INTENDED?

[ayahav]

I find Murray Perahia to be very overrated. I've listened to him in concert twice. The first time I saw him he played the Goldberg variations, took two bows, and disappeared, not even giving a single encore. The second time he played some Schumann (I can't even remember what), and I could hear his fingernails hitting the keys, and I was outraged... A pianist of his stature cannot allow himself to come on stage and click his nails on the keys.

[faulty_damper]

ive listened to this recording more than any other recording i own, tell me EXACTLY where you hear a deficiency, and are you sure it wasnt a colouristic effect that hamelin INTENDED?

By deficiency, I mean the pedaling isn't with the same time as it should be let up and applied.  I turned the volume way up the first time I heard and it was much more noticeable.  But since I've turned it down, it isn't noticeable unless I listen very carefully.  I can't tell you which measures I heard this and I won't be able to for two weeks as I've lent the CD out to my teacher...  I'm going to miss hearing the symphony when I wake up in the morning.  Abstinence is good, right?

[faulty_damper]

I find Murray Perahia to be very overrated. I've listened to him in concert twice. The first time I saw him he played the Goldberg variations, took two bows, and disappeared, not even giving a single encore. The second time he played some Schumann (I can't even remember what), and I could hear his fingernails hitting the keys, and I was outraged... A pianist of his stature cannot allow himself to come on stage and click his nails on the keys.

Perrahia is overrated.  But not because he didn't do an encore or because his nails hit the keys.  (Don't sit in the nose bleed section and you won't hear it. )

His Bach extends too far into playing other composers' pieces.  His steady tempo isn't working for most any other composers' pieces.  For Bach, it works.  Chopin, Beethoven, et al, no.  Definitely not Chopin - it sounds as if he's playing the melody and bass as separate lines as in a fugue where the melody is mostly dominant.  Another thing about his Chopin, it's way too clear!  Every note is played in such a precise manner in a phrase - it doesn't flow.  This aspect of his playing is brought out even more with the separate lines comment above.

[ayahav]

Abstinence is good, right?

Only for the pope and a few other people... You only live once, don't waste any time abstaining... join in and live like there's no tomorrow - and listen to your alkan symphony if you want to....

[faulty_damper]

But didn't you listen?  I lent it out to my teacher.

[MikeLauwrie]

I also think that Perrahia is overrated, I hate his Chopin Etudes.

However he has also recorded the best version of the best piano duet with Radu Lupu: the Schubert Fantasia, I forgive him for his other stuff just for that.

My nomination for most overrated pianist is still Rubinstien, his Chopin is just so poncy it's unbelievable, he totally misses the point. Of course I realise that if he was playing now he would probably play very differently - but that's still no excuse.

Mike

[faulty_damper]

I really like Idil Biret's performances of Chopin.  She's not the most technical of players but her Chopin is very good: tempo is usually perfect and the playing doesn't drag at all even for the sacrifice of technicality.  It's that imperfection that makes her so good, too.  This can't be said of Tiboudet, though he may be technically superior to her, his Chopin drags for the sake of technicallity.  AND I DON'T LIKE IT!  And his playing sounds weak and perhaps effeminate.

Tiboudet is on my list of OP of the 20th century.

[trunks]

. . . My nomination for most overrated pianist is still Rubinstien, his Chopin is just so poncy it's unbelievable, he totally misses the point. Of course I realise that if he was playing now he would probably play very differently - but that's still no excuse.
Mike

Hi Mike,

Talking about Anton? Nicholai? Even Helena?
If it's Artur (Arthur) then I can't help but respectfully take sides with you. I'd stick to the way he played Chopin and any other composers, especially those recordings made in his ripe age, forever.
Oh . . . ahem! . . . it's Rubinstein here.

By the way I also like many from Perahia, although I have yet to listen to his Chopin Etudes to decide on that set.

[ayahav]

Damper: then ask for it back.... How long could your teacher possibly be listening to it? or is it that good that he won't stop either...?

Murray Perahia gave the Chopin etude 10.4 as an encore, and I HATED the way he played it. I play this piece, so I know what's good and what's not. He played it crystal clear, and you won't believe what he did with the coda. He played the first set loud, the second set soft, and the third one loud again, just as if it were a prelude by bach. This leads me to believe that I wouldn't like all his other etudes either... I love my recording by Nikolai Lugansky (apparently he studied with Tatyana Nikolayeva)...

I could kill whoever says Rubinstein is overrated. I have NEVER heard anyone play the Ballades as beautifully as Rubinstein... You're talking out of your ear Mike...

Here in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam there are places on the podium, where you can observe the pianists hands very clearly, and that's why I like to sit there. And I've never heard any clicking besides that of Perahia...

[cziffra]

it sounds as if he's playing the melody and bass as separate lines

that's exactly what you're supposed to do with chopin

as in a fugue where the melody is mostly dominant

need i mention that chopin absolutely loved bach?

for everyone talking about perahia as overrated, have you ever heard of craig sheppard?  he came second to perahia at the Leeds competition- i've heard him playing some liszt pieces and i'd say he's extremely underrated- perhaps you should give him a go to see if you prefer him over perahia.  

[ayahav]

Chopin absolutely loved Bach, granted, but that doesn't mean that any Chopin piece should be played in the style of Bach. And anyways, Chopin didn't compose any fugues, and especially in 10.4 one should look for an overall sound rather than a nice melody. Both the Mikuli and the Cortot (as well, I believe) indicate a crescendo throughout the coda of this etude, and yet Mr Perahia chooses to play the 'repeat' like a Bach prelude (alternating between forte and piano). Something tells me this isn't right...

[faulty_damper]

that's exactly what you're supposed to do with chopin
 

No you're not!  Not the way Murray does it.  An exagerated way to explain the way he does it: the bass is like background music, the melody at the front.  You hear the melody but the bass doesn't complement it together.

[faulty_damper]

Here in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam there are places on the podium, where you can observe the pianists hands very clearly, and that's why I like to sit there. And I've never heard any clicking besides that of Perahia...

You do realize that everybody's hands are shaped differently including the tips of fingers.  I've never taken a long look at his hands so I can't say this about him but my tips do not allow my fingers to be trimmed so that my nails won't clank on the keyboard.  If I did attempt to trim it so that I won't make any noise, I'd bleed to death as I'd have to trim off pieces of flesh in the process.  The best I can do is trim it so that any clanking is minimized or I play with flatter fingers which is ineffective in itself.  Yes, it annoys my teacher but there is very little I can do about it.  Does it annoy me?  Not unless it grows long enough in which every strike makes noise or reduces my playing effectiveness.

But players who have worn broad their nail line / players who have receeded nail lines that I remember are, to my recollection:
that guy who's featured in the current issue of Player (? is that the title of the piano magazine or is it Pianist?)  he also leads or led the Berlin Philharmonic.  I can't remember his name.
That black guy who can play Gershwin who has really large hands.
That white woman with the blond hair and thin build and short in height.


Okay, so I can't remember their names.  But they all share the same feature of stubby finger tips!  I hate that look!  How do they open soda cans?  This trait is completely unattractive for women, especially that woman pianist I mentioned above.  That look is the nail-biter's look except nicely manicured.  It's an unattractive trait among pianists, though not universally shared (Thank vanity!)

[bernhard]

Chopin absolutely loved Bach, granted, but that doesn't mean that any Chopin piece should be played in the style of Bach. And anyways, Chopin didn't compose any fugues,

Er...

Actually Chopin composed a Fugue (A minor). It is in two voices, it has a six bar subject and countersubject, stretto, the works. Anyone listening to it and not knowing who it is by would never guess it's Chopin.

Vladimir Ashkenazy's recorded it for Decca.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ayahav]

okay.... so there is a by Chopin... but that wasn't the essence of my point....

Thank you anyway bernhard... I'd love to see the music if you have it as a pdf or something like that.

[xvimbi]

This is the most hilarious thread I have seen in a long time!

Just to sum up what we have by now: Pretty much every pianist seems to be overrated, because he or she does not perform _A_ piece by _A_ composer to the utmost liking of _A_ forum member.

I haven't seen any extended rants about the following pianists: Andras Schiff, Stephen Hough, Andre Watts, Walter Gieseking, Kristian Zimmermann, to name a few. Surely, sombody must have something insulting to contribute!

Come on, I haven't had a good laugh yet today.

[ayahav]

I think you'll find that the reason that you have heard anything bad about these pianists, is that we don't think them to be overrated.

Also, you'll find some people here seem to like calling other big pianists overrated because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Personally I just think that Murray Perahia is a bit overrated because of his performance ethics. I found it quite difficult to sit through the whole set of the Goldberg Variations in one go... I think he should have picked a few, and also played something else... An hour and a half of Bach can get quite tedious for the listener..

[Noah]

I found it quite difficult to sit through the whole set of the Goldberg Variations in one go... I think he should have picked a few, and also played something else... An hour and a half of Bach can get quite tedious for the listener..

WHAT ?? Pick a few variations ? And you want people to play encores after the Goldberg, too ?? I think you're the one who should question his performance ethics...

[ayahav]

Personally i don't think that the goldberg variations are for a concert... They're more for listening to on a CD, where you can pick and choose.... but that's just my opinion... I wasn't too thrilled about them...

[thracozaag]

Er...

Actually Chopin composed a Fugue (A minor). It is in two voices, it has a six bar subject and countersubject, stretto, the works. Anyone listening to it and not knowing who it is by would never guess it's Chopin.

Vladimir Ashkenazy's recorded it for Decca.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

 In addition, Chopin composed a canon at the octave, dated 1839, and has a wonderful canon at the end of the C# minor Mazurka from the Op. 63 group.  Chopin's music is rife with counterpoint--why else would Schenker think so highly of him?  Perahia is clearly influenced by Schenkerian thinking in many of his Chopin performances--he's good friends with Carl Schachter, after all.

koji

[ayahav]

Yes, Chopin is full of counterpoint, but it needn't be played like Bach. Chopin under any school of thought falls into the Romantic category, and Bach into the Baroque category... In waltzes and mazurkas where the left hand is an accompaniment it is okay to play the melody much more prominently than the bass. However, that is not the case in most of the etudes, and we are talking about the way Murray Perahia played the etudes. I've checked my addition and the instructions atthe coda are "fff con fuoco e il piu presto possibile" (or something like that, i can't remember the exact wording), so it doesn't make sense to play the second repetition of softly (almost p)...

[thracozaag]

Yes, Chopin is full of counterpoint, but it needn't be played like Bach. Chopin under any school of thought falls into the Romantic category, and Bach into the Baroque category... In waltzes and mazurkas where the left hand is an accompaniment it is okay to play the melody much more prominently than the bass. However, that is not the case in most of the etudes, and we are talking about the way Murray Perahia played the etudes. I've checked my addition and the instructions atthe coda are "fff con fuoco e il piu presto possibile" (or something like that, i can't remember the exact wording), so it doesn't make sense to play the second repetition of softly (almost p)...

 Counterpoint is not exclusive to sylistic periods (or god, forbid "categories").

[ayahav]

i wasn't saying it was stylistically exclusive. I was saying that it is played differently in different periods. A Bach Fugue would be played completely differently from a Stravinsky Fugue. This is exactly the reason for that. So even counterpoint found in Chopin is different to that of Bach, and should be played different...

[thracozaag]

i wasn't saying it was stylistically exclusive. I was saying that it is played differently in different periods. A Bach Fugue would be played completely differently from a Stravinsky Fugue. This is exactly the reason for that. So even counterpoint found in Chopin is different to that of Bach, and should be played different...

 I'm confused as to how one plays it "differently".  One brings out counterpoint, or choses not to, whether it is Bach, Scriabin, or in this case, Chopin.  Mind you, I'm not defending what Perahia does, and in that event, he's more than capable of explaining his artistic choices, considering his knowledge in this area, (not to mention Carl's) is about a billion times that of all the members in this forum put together.

koji

[ayahav]

There are ways of playing counterpoint. Drily and thinking of every voice, or orientating oneself more towards texture, or orientating oneself to the colour of all the harmonies (or timbre, if you wish). With most romantic music most people like to think of the texture of the counterpoint as a whole. That's where I don't like Murray's way...

[Xelles]

There are ways of playing counterpoint. Drily and thinking of every voice, or orientating oneself more towards texture, or orientating oneself to the colour of all the harmonies (or timbre, if you wish). With most romantic music most people like to think of the texture of the counterpoint as a whole. That's where I don't like Murray's way...

Perahia's "interpretation" of the etudes scarred me for life. Before I heard them, I was actually planning on trying a few. Thank goodness for Claudio Arrau and his Liszt etude recordings. Also, what are your opinions on Pollini? They may have already been mentioned but I couldn't seem to find them beyond all the swearing.

[ayahav]

Pollini's recording is a  classic...

Try Nikolai Lugansky....

[Xelles]

I don't care much for the Etudes. They're nice to listen to, occassionaly. However, I would never bother learning any of them, let alone all 24 of them. They're overplayed (Not as a set, but come on...even Maksim has an interpretation on one of the etudes) and I wouldn't waste my time with them. I.M.O the best set of etudes ever written goes to Rachmaninoff's etude-tableaux op.33 and 39.

[trunks]

Ah, and Beethoven too! He has got some of the finest 'etudes' for the piano - extremely good exercises for technique indeed, and each and every one of them very musical.

Beethoven has chosen to call them the sonatas.

[ayahav]

I love the etudes... I can find an etude to describe any mood that I've ever had.

[comme_le_vent]

I love the etudes... I can find an etude to describe any mood that I've ever had.

AMEN

[cziffra]

Chopin under any school of thought falls into the Romantic category

Chopin didn't consider himself to be a romantic- funny really, when you think about what he did for Romanticism

[ayahav]

But everyone else except Chopin himself, then, classify him as a Romantic (or almost everyone....)

[MikeLauwrie]

Horowitz overrated?  Well, I suppose we're all entitled to our opinion, but I must respectfully and strongly disagree.

I agree: Horowitz was one of the (very) few true artists, who understood music. His version of the Pictures is unsurpassed.

Also there were many pianists who seemed afraid to play in a way which was considered wrong - Horowitz only cared about the music, and so he played however he felt the music should be played, and wasn't controlled by the critics.  

Many people avoid playing too loud for fear of a harsh tone, Horowitz knew that this was bollocks - and played accordingly!

[thracozaag]

Chopin didn't consider himself to be a romantic- funny really, when you think about what he did for Romanticism

 Which once again, shows the wisdom of these categorizations.

koji

[comme_le_vent]

Also there were many pianists who seemed afraid to play in a way which was considered wrong - Horowitz only cared about the music, and so he played however he felt the music should be played, and wasn't controlled by the critics.  

Many people avoid playing too loud for fear of a harsh tone, Horowitz knew that this was bollocks - and played accordingly!

AMEN

[cziffra]

I agree: Horowitz was one of the (very) few true artists, who understood music. His version of the Pictures is unsurpassed.

Also there were many pianists who seemed afraid to play in a way which was considered wrong - Horowitz only cared about the music, and so he played however he felt the music should be played, and wasn't controlled by the critics.  

Many people avoid playing too loud for fear of a harsh tone, Horowitz knew that this was bollocks - and played accordingly!

cziffra took this a lot further than horowitz did!
can someone explain to me why cziffra fell into relative obscurity while horowitz went on to keep such ridiculous fame?  i have only seen some footage of horowitz in the 70's and, yes its good, but...why is he pretty much the only word in a pianist's vocabulary?  

[thracozaag]

cziffra took this a lot further than horowitz did!
can someone explain to me why cziffra fell into relative obscurity while horowitz went on to keep such ridiculous fame?  i have only seen some footage of horowitz in the 70's and, yes its good, but...why is he pretty much the only word in a pianist's vocabulary?  

 Cziffra was wildly popular in France (His Paris 1957 debut nearly caused a riot--the performances from  that concert are absolutely coruscating) and other parts of Europe, but as you stated, never did achieve the world-wide fame someone of his ability deserved.  Perhaps his willful attitude  rubbed certain people the wrong way who were used to much more sedate playing.  Critics unfairly pigeon-holed (as critics like to do) him a Liszt-only player who was a musical moron (which he certainly was NOT).

koji

[cziffra]

Critics unfairly pigeon-holed (as critics like to do) him a Liszt-only player who was a musical moron (which he certainly was NOT).

AMEN

[comme_le_vent]

haha it feels good to be a trendsetter.


i think dre's musicality is underrated.

dre's style is relatively uncapricious, but its so damn clear and 'pretty'.
i have to say ive never heard any other pianists make such 'pretty' sounds.

[willcowskitz]

This thread probably is (or should be) dead but it sure is funny.

Notice the original subject: OVER-RATED PIANISTS ---

It didn't say "THE BEST PIANISTS" or "THE WORST PIANISTS".  Still, the whole thread has been about who plays well and who doesn't, everyone getting mad when their favourite gets mocked.

When you look at the world, or the average person, what do you expect?  Will you listen to the general opinion and form yours based on it?  Seems like that to me, since I'm sure some of people's "views" (even on this thread) have been heavily guided by others. It shows on how one describes a pianist or a composer, its always the same clichy words and expressions recycled over and over again.  Seems to me like people are ghosts who have already forgotten the child's ability to handle abstract formations called thoughts, and instead they communicate with each other by only words and words meaning other words. Nobody can anymore see INTO these words but it doesn't matter, for communication still "works" by it's inner rules (yet with no real attachment to an objective reality).

For example:  After reading this thread, I've had my dose of certain names being repeated over and over again, and based on this I can say:  Pianist XYZ is overrated.  Of course its overrated, its been forcefully stuffed down my throat and I have no choice but to throw it back up.

Any kind of HYPE sucks. Why do people want to speak with such big words about a person?  You either understand an artist, or you don't.  This could be because the artist lacks real view and is actually basing his art on the fact that nobody can yet perfectly define art, therefore making it impossible to absolutely exclude this particular work of art - be it act of performance, a sculpture or a painting. You can't PROVE them to be wrong, but you can form basis of what reveals him to be a pseudo-artist.

Why do people praise a person, lift him above others to join the God?  Maybe it is that by grabbing Franz Liszt by his neck and raising him to clouds, you actually promote yourself by drawing a clear line between this genius and "the rest", and since there must exist a mutual understanding between the genius and you for this madness to even occur, you join yourself with them. Nietzsche said that feeling pity is only a way to grant power to oneself.  Analogy?

In the end it gets down to this:  People are so uncertain about what they want and like, that they need to seek mutual agreement from others. Instead of being happy with the fact that something opens itself up for you (maybe some particular pianist's performance and interpretation), you drive to form something more solid out of this "view", and this leads to forming of the general concensus.  And that's exactly what finally makes the ones outside it despise it.  There wouldn't be a problem if instead of hammering down the pianists that a person doesn't personally like, they'd try and put in a frame the things that make a pianist good, so you can achieve an understanding of why somebody would like Horowitz while not liking Ashkenazy.

"Just my two cents."


Oh almost forgot: most over-rated pianist is, IN MY OPINION, Sergey Rachmaninoff.  I've heard enough recommendations of his recordings, yet they always sounded dry (I must accept that, knowing the recording quality of the times), conservative and "clinic".  He didn't enjoy performing, which kind of adds to the big picture of mine. On the other hand, I don't listen to the hype much so I'm not sure which pianists are the ones that everyone's SHOUTING about.  I like Grigory Sokolov's playing of Prokofiev's second war sonata, to name a good, famous pianist.

[Beet9]

Ashkenazy is NOT a good pianist.  I heard a recording of him playing some Beethoven sonatas, and i almost gagged.  The playing was so dry and harsh.  

[faulty_damper]

Didn't you listen to what Willcowskitz said?  Seeking validation from others is a sign of insecurity hence why we ask others of their opinions and then disagree harshly when they disagree with our own!

No one better disagree with me.

[EthanT]

Horowitz... enough said

[JK]

How can you justify saying that Horovitz was the most overrated pianist!!? I recently watched a video of him playing Rach3, stunning, simply stunning. Not overdone or over fast like say Argerich, even on an old video his tone was absolutely bell-like and his shaping of phrasing and little rubatos is so unique not to mention the accuracy! I admit that sometimes, especially in his younger days he played a bit too fast, but even then it still worked, and even though he plays thaik1 in under 30mins (normally takes at least 35!) you don't feel that it's too fast, (unlike Argerich which is simply fast for the sake of it!).

I personally think that Richter is the greatest of all, his power and sheer technical control is breathtaking, and on top of this he is never virtuosic for the sake of it just simply musical.

[Spatula]

In Spatula's humble opinion,

Kissin (think Moscow 1984 concertos)! and Horowitz are amazing players, so I revere them.  I like Richard Goode and Jon Kimura Parker.

But talk about like David Helfgott and Jean-Yves, I don't find them anything special, if not just "piano celebrities"

And don't even mention Richard Clayderman, that sac-religious beeping bleep.  Yeah I don't like him.