overrated pianists of the 20th century

[Spatula]

OH and Idil Biret, she's WAY TOO SLOW on so many pieces.

[trunks]

OH and Idil Biret, she's WAY TOO SLOW on so many pieces.

Agreed partly on the slow thing here. Idil Biret is not slow on the entire pieces, but most usually at the very ending of most pieces she plays. This is not always desirable, and is often quite annoying.

By the way she is hardly rated at all. I seldom hear people talking about her, if at all.

Richard Clayderman? Aw . . . come on, like Liberace he is not a classical pianist at all.

[bernhard]

Liberace...

Here is his performance philosophy:

My whole trick is to keep the tune well out in front. If I play Tchaikovsky I play his melodies and skip his spiritual struggles. Naturally I condense. I have to know just how many notes my audience will stand for. If there's time left over I fill in with a lot of runs up and down the keyboard.
(Liberace)

Nice, eh?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Spatula]

Richard Clayderman did do a classical improv score, and it was craptacular.  

[goansongo]

David Helfgott with is recording of the Rach 3.  Hey, I love the movie Shine.  I've watched it a hundred times and I love it.  The fact is, his recording of the Rach 3, compared to others such as Bolet or Horowitz is horrible.  I think he only became more known after the movie, Shine,  came out.

Richard Clayderman.  Seriously.  Why is he so famous?  I admit that his transcriptions sound good, but he barely has any originals.  Of course, I could be wrong about that last statement since I don't listen to him much.  

[piano88]

One word, with a repetition:
Lang Lang

I hate his playing so much! Some wise guy once said that "if you like Volodos, you'll hate Lang Lang, and viceversa". Well, I love Volodos, so there. Concerning the argument about Richter, well, he was a true great and unique in his interpretation - it's not everyone's cup of tea, but the talent can't be ignored. Neuhaus once said he never taught Richter a thing! His temperement was wild!
Argerich is my favourite pianist, with Arrau a close second (my teacher was taught by him, so i may be a bit biased there). Gilels would come a close third.

Overrated, well, you'll always have arguments. Dare I say Horowitz!!
AD

[anda]

for everything i read on this thread (richter, argerich, horowitz, brendl, perahia, and pretty much all pianists that ever recorded anything)... define "overrated" please.

[piano88]

for everything i read on this thread (richter, argerich, horowitz, brendl, perahia, and pretty much all pianists that ever recorded anything)... define "overrated" please.

I think by overrated we mean that a pianists reputation and the hype surrounding them far surpasses the extent of their playing ability. Lang Lang for instance has a reputation for being flambouyant (a total understatement) and this is why many like him - his concerts are quite unpredictable. But he is in many people's (and including mine) opinion not all that good. Gould is another, introvert and enigmatic, he sung whilst he played and people found that fascinating. But focus on his erratic tempi and terrible Beethoven and Brahms recordings and you'll see that he too isn't as good as the hype made out.
Oh and whilst we're at it, does anyone else find Brendel overrated - I dislike his Beethoven Sonatas, whereas many consider them the best.......thoughts please!
AD

[willcowskitz]

Definately Argerich. I've never seen anyone's name being repeated so many times in vain. Hype hurts anyone's reputation at some point.

[piano88]

Definately Argerich. I've never seen anyone's name being repeated so many times in vain. Hype hurts anyone's reputation at some point.

Oh no, no, no........Argerich is underrated!!!!! There is so much we don't know about her because she is so reluctant to perform solo recitals or record new repertoire. Its become a rare opportunity to see her phoenomenal talent, so thats why we all get so excited about her. Hype could never harm such a talent.
AD

[trunks]

Oh no, no, no........Argerich is underrated!!!!! There is so much we don't know about her because she is so reluctant to perform solo recitals or record new repertoire. Its become a rare opportunity to see her phoenomenal talent, so thats why we all get so excited about her. Hype could never harm such a talent.
AD

Argerich is sure underrated for her eccentricity, which is why I have chosen not to listen too much to this pianist any more. Of course hype could harm no true talent. Hype could only harm the (potential) listener.

[willcowskitz]

Hype could only harm the (potential) listener.

That is the point I was looking for, thank you.

Why does this thread exist in the first place? Because some people are so aggressive to "convert" others to join their camp of view, gaining more rejection than support (at least from my part, because I get quickly irritated from repetition). I personally think it is ridiculous to think there is one universally superiour artist/interpreter, for the simple reason that some pianists can be very good at expressing emotion in certain composers' music, and at the same time be incapable to expose the core of different music to their audiences. I have only got one recording of Argerich - of Chopin's preludes - and according to my experience from that, she's very convincing technically but doesn't really put much into articulation. She just doesn't seem to be present in the music, thus making the message sound distant. This is of course a narrow view due to lack of material I've had at hand (or ear), and I would be more than willing to hear more of her playing, but continuous hype from teenagers who in the first place think she's sexy cause of her speedy fingers ( ) are driving me nuts, and greater the contrast between my own experience of her playing and the excessive hype becomes. Argerich cult is starting to taste as bitter in my mouth as conservative Christian fundamentalists (not that I'd eat Christians).

[Regulus Medtner]

I agree with piano88. I too somehow believed that Argerich might be a little overrated but listening to her live recently blew me away. Now, I believe with conviction that hers is a phenomenal talent (and a very modest person, I might add). I thought that her performance was in myriads of details better than her recordings, which i thought they were awesome in the first place but now pale by comparison.

[willcowskitz]

I agree about everything said about Argerich's modesty and I admit the fact that she is underrated, but I'll add that to me it appears her underratedness is exaggerated; I've heard a lot about Argerich, heard her music, but never had I ever heard the name "Lang Lang" before I became active on this forum. So how could he be overrated if I never even heard his name? Of course it depends on how many of those hysterics I will have to interact with, and in this sense Argerich is by far more spoken of than Lang Lang, hence why I am getting the same kind of throw-up reflex that some people probably get from Lang Lang, when I hear her name. I think people should generally rather be respectful towards differences in such subjective matters of taste, than (c)raise their personal favourite to some God-like status.

[anda]

Lang Lang for instance has a reputation for being flambouyant (a total understatement) and this is why many like him - his concerts are quite unpredictable.

since when is being "flambouyant" a good thing???

i remember many years ago a conductor telling me "young lady, you are efervescent! come back when you grow up - this way you are completely unpredictable and i will not play with you!"

being "unpredictable" is quite bad - and especially because you're not just unpredictable to others, but you are first of all to yourself. and pity anyone who knows how it feels to see yourself playing differently than in practice. i know i never want to go through this again.

[piano88]

since when is being "flambouyant" a good thing???

I never said it was!!! I don't believe in it at all, though Lang Lang and his troupe of admirers seemingly do!!!!!  With unpredictability, well, its dangerous.....though I would  disagree with you to an extent, because I believe that the performer has some idea of whats going to happen!!! I meant that the performance was unpredictable to the audience! Many pianists change things in concerts (richter was famous for it) though they aren't necesserily spontaneous changes.

I've heard a lot about Argerich, heard her music, but never had I ever heard the name "Lang Lang" before I became active on this forum.

Really!!!!!!!!! I though we'd all had the (dis)pleasure by now........
I'm glad some agree with my views on Argerich......it's true that listening to her recordings still doesn't prepare you for hearing her live. My experiences of seeing her live were all unforgettable. And she is the most modest musician alive! At the end of her RFH performance last March she had to drag herself up to the stage for the applause and accepted it very reluctantly. She doesn't know what all the fuss is about.....bless!
AD

[ehpianist]

Perhaps we should separate this into two categories: Overrated recordings and overrated live performance pianists.  For example, I was drawn to Murrray Perahia's performance more than any other pianist I have ever heard when I saw him live.  I then bought his recordings and found them a lot less intimate and vibrant than his live performance.

Glen Gould seems to have been the opposite.  Many excellent live performers need the audience to bring out the best music, therefore their recordings will not be the best reflection of what they do.

A pianist I have always found dry as a bone left out in the sun (both live and not) and have never understood how in the world he became so famous is André Watts. 

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[musicsdarkangel]

I hate saying this, but I agree with Richter.

Lang Lang

Although she's good at his concertos, I can't stand Uchida's recordings of Mozart sonatas.  I think that Marie Jaoa Pirez does a much better job.

Don't flame me for my answer, it is my opinion and my taste.

[musicsdarkangel]

horowitz was possibly the most overrated pianist of all time- (or at least, he's vying for the spot against paderewski) why does everyone like him so much?

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000026FI/qid=1103590745/sr=1-49/ref=sr_1_49/104-1736100-4447925?v=glance&s=music

Listen to track 4, the Moszkowski.......somehow.  No one can touch that.

His transcription 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody (Liszt) is unbeatable as well.

That guy could sure play.

[dmk]

Funny Story...

I was at dinner with a few of the advanced students from my music school and my music teacher for Christmas.  Our waiter asked us why we were there and we told him why.  He then proceeded to tell us how his son was starting piano lessons next year and how he hoped he would become a great pianist.

My teacher then asked him, who is your favourite pianists and he said:

"I really hope my son can play like Richard Clayderman"!!!.  We just drank our wine in silence......

[willcowskitz]

I can't believe so many people think Horowitz was "the most overrated pianist". I'm aware of the "Horowitz syndrome", but even so I think Horowitz *was* one of the greatest musicians because of what he did with the piano. If you compare Horowitz's playing with most other pianists, it sounds as if there's much more space involved in the dynamics of the sound, somehow he was able to tame the piano to produce extraordinarily colourful tones and a multidimensional harmonic experience, he never fails to bring out the outlines of details in the beautiful harmonic picture without doing so on expense of either. I think he was chosen to interpret Rachmaninoff's music, he understood it best, whereas with Liszt I can't say this after hearing i.e. his Mephisto Waltz and Hungarian Rhapsody II; mountain-like strength and Liszt don't go hand in hand, like with Rachmaninoff's music. Liszt is more fragile, knowing there's no such thing as completion, but Rachmaninoff was perfectionistic and I think his compositions - and not just the theoretical structure of them - reflect this mentality. There is more determination and expansionism of his persona and human mind in general, when Liszt is more about naivically (and this word doesn't have any negative meaning to it here, it only describes openmindedness and purile ignorance of the rotten side of man) exploring the internal world of ourselves and feeling the flowing of that freed energy that his music unleashes. For Liszt, I would have to say Cziffra was the one. It is obvious that there is a deeper connection between Cziffra and Liszt, which is probably due to cultural factors. However Cziffra suffers from "Cziffra syndrome" which is very similar to Horowitz's; he bangs the piano! My ears literally hurt when I listen to his recordings - the volume can be right for most of the time but when you get to the firey parts he just can't control his fingers and they produce the most unpleasant sounds that I would no longer call music because they're above all SOUNDS that strike the nerve and try to communicate the music but fail miserably. Did he record on dry pianos or something? Even despite this fact that he has the tendancy to make me suffer physically, I would call him the greatest Liszt interpreter because of the understanding he proves to possess of Liszt's music, his technical superiority just sometimes seduces him away from the beauty of music produced by handling the piano sensitively (which is possible with the use of strength).

[Tony Bennett]

If you can even consider him a pianist.  The worst most visable player I've ever seen was Dino.

[jeff]

dino ciani?

[Alde]

Van Cliburn

[Tony Bennett]

Dino Kartsonakis - He has some "Christian" show on t.v. and goes around to big churches and what not.  I had the misfortune of seeing him in college.

[gyzzzmo]

Martha Argerich.
Almost perfect technique, but a lot of pieces are played with lack of musical quality

[Clarinette]

  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

How is Perahia influenced by Schenkerian thinking? How can you notice that? And how does he apply this analysis in the performance? I really want to know this from a long time! Thanks!

[rohansahai]

My opinions on the two highly debated "overrated" pianists above:
M. Argerich - A very carefree, unplanned, daring, but still fantastic interpretations. The first three words (carefree, unplanned, daring) is what gets most people finnicky about her, but judging from the whole bunch of "similar" pianists sitting these days, such pianists(like Argerich) who breaks most rules become very important and necessary in the musical society ! P.S. her performances sound very much like improvisations at times..............a thing which i like (subjective though). In fact, pianists like Argerich give us a better chance to appreciate OTHER more interpretatively CORRECT pianists who otherwise we might have started getting bored of.
S.T. RIchter - Quoting Neuhaus, "Richter used to absorb and understand the CONTENT of each piece very quickly". Note the word CONTENT. Most of Richter's performances, IMO, are generally "summary" performances. It is like viewing it from the outer perspective. The structuring will be clearly demarcated........however very often he tends to neglect the finer details in the passages. HENCE, Richter sounds good at:
Pieces which are not very commonly played (because the content of the piece will be very efficiently communicated to the listener). In fact, many of the Schubert sonatas were brought back to light by him only.
P.S. Enough about overrated pianists.........i'll add one underrated one, EMIL GILELS.

[SDL]

Artur Pizzaro ( heard his rach 3 live in leeds - its the worst Ive heard - no excitement!)
Martha Argerich (everything is too flash!)
Stephen Kovacevich (boring)
Solomon (boring)
John Lill (really boring!)
Evgeny Kissin (un-moving!)

... to name a few

[Classicalized]

Richter,
Ed

Surely not Richter!  I believe Schnabel, but it doesn't really matter who is overrated and who is not.

[steinwayguy]

What a tremendous topic to bring back, Classicalized.

All this talk about Richter is just plain blasphemy. I can't believe you could say Richter, overall, is an overrated pianist. Maybe for Chopin or Beethoven, but nothing past that. His Schumann, Scriabin and Prokofiev are absolutely unbeatable. You haven't heard much better Liszt, Rachmaninoff or Brahms (except Gilels) either.

All of you who say Schnabel and Cortot, yet reject any thoughts of Marc Andre Hamelin, Lang Lang and Kissin are absurd. Schnabel and Cortot were pure 100% musicians. I'll admit, their "technique" is pretty terrible a lot of the time, but Hamelin, Lang Lang and Kissin's musical qualities are terrible all of the time. Not to mention M. Argerich, who, excepting Ravel, Bartok and Prokofiev, is a pile of rubbish.

Horowitz, I used to be mesmerized by him. Then I learned what an "honest interpretation" and "good tone during fortissimos" are. Just listen to his Mephisto Waltz, and you'll know this man is one of the most overrated pianists of the 20th century. "Oh but he his technique was perfect!". Yeah, but I don't give a damn.

Underrated- Gilels, Cortot, Annie Fischer, Solomon, Michelangeli.

[cziffra]

Horowitz, I used to be mesmerized by him. Then I learned what an "honest interpretation" and "good tone during fortissimos" are. Just listen to his Mephisto Waltz, and you'll know this man is one of the most overrated pianists of the 20th century. "Oh but he his technique was perfect!". Yeah, but I don't give a ***.

His technique wasn't even that good anyway.  If you go by Neuhaus's definition of technique as being all to do with the production of SOUND, and considering horowitz's supposed "technique" seems to bypass this funny idea of tone quality completely, he has ZERO technique. 

The finger acrobatics are usually dissapointing anyway- i have a video of him doing scriabin's vers la flemme and the way he plays most of it struggling awfully... sure, he plays octaves pretty fast, but if you've heard cziffra's flight of the bumblebee (not a studio recording, one of the live encores from paris) you'll know what true finger acrobatics are. (and cziffra was capable of good tone, too- you need only hear HIS mephisto waltz)

[Waldszenen]

Paderewski

Lang Lang

Yundi Li (not because I don't like his playing, I think it's wonderful, but... he's a mere popstar - just look at his promo vids on DG). And he talks like a three year old.

[Classicalized]

I can't believe you could say Richter, overall, is an overrated pianist.

Dear SteinwayGuy:

      I'm sorry; I used bad choice of words.  Richter is phenominal, and so is Gilels (both under the same teacher).  I wrote, "Surely not Richter!" as a double-negative technique--in other words, I rebutted eddie92099 (nothing personal, sir Ed) of his remark on the awesome perfomer.

Sincerely,

Classicalized

[hodi]

glen gould
he plays just plain bad, with no emotion at all, his bach WTC sounds like a midi, and worst of all he sings while he is playing and ruins the recordings..
he plays the mozart sonatas very bad too.. here k310 by him... he is playing it prestissimo!

[Waldszenen]

glen gould
he plays just plain bad, with no emotion at all, his bach WTC sounds like a midi, and worst of all he sings while he is playing and ruins the recordings..
he plays the mozart sonatas very bad too.. here k310 by him... he is playing it prestissimo!

His Bach WTC sounds like a MIDI?

o_O

[LVB op.57]

There are a handful of "great" pianists that I don't care for, but as for overrated...

Glenn Gould- sounds like a MIDI file is right. Though he mostly played Bach, he still managed to butcher Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin as well.

Lang Lang- Technic to burn, but lacking in musicality. Hopefully, that's something that will come as he grows older.

Kissin-Superficial and unconvincing musicality.

[LVB op.57]

There are a handful of "great" pianists that I don't care for, but as for overrated...

Glenn Gould- sounds like a MIDI file is right. Though he mostly played Bach, he still managed to butcher Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin as well.

Lang Lang- Technic to burn, but lacking in musicality. Hopefully, that's something that will come as he grows older.

Kissin-Superficial and unconvincing musicality.

Underrated-Leon Fleisher

[steinwayguy]

Dear SteinwayGuy:

      I'm sorry; I used bad choice of words.  Richter is phenominal, and so is Gilels (both under the same teacher).  I wrote, "Surely not Richter!" as a double-negative technique--in other words, I rebutted eddie92099 (nothing personal, sir Ed) of his remark on the awesome perfomer.

Sincerely,

Classicalized

I wasn't directing that at you. I was directing at the flaming idiots who had posted earlier.

Also, I second the Glenn Gould!

[DarkWind]

Glenn Gould can be sporadically ok outside of Bach. But, as I've mentioned before, his La Valse makes me want to eat my ears. In all honesty, I've heard midi files of La Valse that are better than Glenn Gould's recording. I'm serious.

[Waldszenen]

I can't believe you think Gould sounds like a MIDI!

Preposterous!

[trunks]

I can't believe you think Gould sounds like a MIDI!
Preposterous!

Of course, if he plays Beethoven or anything other than Bach then he sounds worse than MIDI.

[stormx]

Guys,

Have you realized that EVERY GREAT PIANIST has (at least) a member that really DISLIKES him?

All the big names have appeared in the OVERRATED topic...
And most of the same names appear in the UNDERRATED section...


 

[trunks]

Guys,
Have you realized that EVERY GREAT PIANIST has (at least) a member that really DISLIKES him?
All the big names have appeared in the OVERRATED topic...
And most of the same names appear in the UNDERRATED section...

Of course. This is the diversity of art. Cherish it!

[Waldszenen]

Of course, if he plays Beethoven or anything other than Bach then he sounds worse than MIDI.

Actually I agree with that. Thank God he played no Schumann or Debussy.

[tds]

In Spatula's humble opinion,

 I like Richard Goode and Jon Kimura Parker.

I think Jon Kimura Parker is way underrated. He is musicians' pianist. A very personable human being, Jackie a truly inspiring performer!!

[Skeptopotamus]

lang lang and meiting sun.

[presto agitato]

Martha Argerich.
Almost perfect technique, but a lot of pieces are played with lack of musical quality

I completely agree with you.

[apion]

Lang Lang 

(technically, he's of the 21st Century ........)

[steinwaymodeld]

Brendel (all the time, he is the reason people why people think Classical music is boring, i own more than 45 Cds of Brendel, yet found anything interesting)
Ashkenazy (in the late years) (evidence: 3 set of Chopin etude, one recorded before he won CHopin competition, one right after he won, one that is very readily available. U can tell the later it gets, his technique declines and drier as well as musical value decline.)
Pollini (in the late years, amazing when young and before won the chopin competition, just listen to the 14-yrs-old live Chopin etude recording)
Rubinstein (compare to his early days, his late recordings are rather tame, just try the recording of those several Brahms 1st, the late ones are boring, but i was in SHOCK after listening to his early recording in the Vol1 Rubinstien collection)
Argerich ('nuff said, IMO i think she is much better working with Orchestra and assemble)