overrated pianists of the 20th century

[thalbergmad]

And please stop saying Lang Lang, he is not really 20th century, isn't he 22 or something?

He is 27, but it does not matter if he is 20th century, 21st century or the 49th century, he is still crap and always will be.

Gould was a knobend of the highest quality. Sitting 3 inches off the ground and growling does not make a good pianist.

Thal

[slobone]

Richter and Argerich. Or have they already been mentioned? I haven't been following the thread...

[prongated]

Gould was a knobend of the highest quality. Sitting 3 inches off the ground and growling does not make a good pianist.

Thal

...haha...

I have to disagree though... FWIW, there are undoubtedly moments of genius in his playing - for instance, towards the end of the 5th variation of his Beethoven op. 109 3rd movt. But granted, probably the amount of interest in him from the media is generated more by his eccentricity than his playing...

[tea cup]

Gould was a knobend of the highest quality. Sitting 3 inches off the ground and growling does not make a good pianist.

Thal

No, certainly not! but playing over 400 pieces with peerless virtuosic technique does. Gould taught pianists how to play Bach, and also taught many dis-concerted pianists the art of interpretation.

[thalbergmad]

and also taught many dis-concerted pianists the art of interpretation.

I have never understood and probably never will, how one person can teach another interpretation.

Thal

[iroveashe]

I'll jump on the Gould train too.

Sitting 3 inches off the ground and growling does not make a good pianist.

Does not make a bad one either.

[tea cup]

I have never understood and probably never will, how one person can teach another interpretation.

Thal

By recording uncommon interpretations! His idea was that all the basic statements have been made for posterity, and that all that is left to do for pianists (at least with such composers as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, etc) is to, in a sense, re-compose the piece, without distorting the artist's original intention (an interpretation that is different, unique, but still somehow right). His recording of Mozart's K. 331 is a perfect example of this. As he himself said, "[it] really is fun, and it really does make sense, and it really does say something about the architecture of that particular work". Another fine example would be his interpretation of one of Scriabin's sonatas:

[tea cup]

I agree with the first post of the page, Lang Lang is just about the epitome of an overrated pianist, so he shouldn't be dismissed! Lang Lang, if you are reading—take your foot off of the bloody pedal!

Honestly, I believe if someone removed the pedal from his piano his career would be over!

[prongated]

...oh btw, has anyone mentioned Leslie Howard? His playing is SO boring...

I have never understood and probably never will, how one person can teach another interpretation.

Thal

...depends by what you mean by interpretation I suppose...
You know, I have seen very interesting masterclasses where the student's approach of playing a piece changes just like that. One involved John Chen playing Scriabin's Sonata-Fantaisie for John Perry many years ago...it's amazing - John Perry told him to keep it going in the climactic section, and the playing suddenly became very expressive, alive, and more extroverted just like that!

I agree with the first post of the page, Lang Lang is just about the epitome of an overrated pianist, so he shouldn't be dismissed! Lang Lang, if you are reading—take your foot off of the bloody pedal!

Honestly, I believe if someone removed the pedal from his piano his career would be over!

...huh? I don't think he has a problem with pedalling...actually, if he does, it is definitely far from being his biggest problem...

[iroveashe]

I barely know anything about Haydn, so could anyone tell me, without mentioning the visual aspects of the performance (however much you despise his face or the way his arms are moving, don't mention it), specifically what is wrong with Lang Lang's playing on this video?

I'm pretty sure Thal will make a joke that won't be very helpful -but funny as always  - but I'm really curious if most listeners hate him (by him I mean Lang Lang, not Thal Thal) because everyone does, because he's overrated compared to other pianists, or simply because he's a bad musician.

[tea cup]

...huh? I don't think he has a problem with pedalling...actually, if he does, it is definitely far from being his biggest problem...

Oh well, for me it is his most obtrusive fault. Especially in his Mozart and Haydn. I prefer a more transparent (or remote you could say) sound whenever I listen to Mozart... Or any composer of the classical style for that matter. Lang Lang's Mozart is prostrated in an ocean of pedal (at least as far as Mozart recordings go). It may be that for him it is a matter of taste (even if it is, it is in very bad taste I have to say). But I say it is a matter of technique. That is to say, it is beyond his ability to play such pristine and clear interpretations as Horowitz, Brendel, Fischer, et al. (due to the fact that his playing relies heavily on the use of the right-most pedal). Mozart's music should be like a breath of fresh air, not a forest which obtrudes one's sense with a pungent stench of bark and greasy fog.

Have you heard this?

Another example:

Well, those are very good and all... But from years of listening to Haydn and Mozart by many different pianists... I have to say, he hardly comes close to playing these pieces to their empyrean limits.

[prongated]

I barely know anything about Haydn, so could anyone tell me, without mentioning the visual aspects of the performance (however much you despise his face or the way his arms are moving, don't mention it), specifically what is wrong with Lang Lang's playing on this video?

Dynamic changes are superficial, designed to make it sound as cute, funny, suspicious, or strange at that exact moment as his facial expression dictates. Of course you want to go beyond what is written in the score that Haydn wrote, but Lang Lang took it too far. As a result, the climactic points aren't fully realised, and the performance is lacking in a cohesive structural conception. Granted, it is a very interesting performance.

To be more picky, those rolled chords in the opening are too short - pianofortes in Haydn's time are not capable of dampening the notes quickly enough to make it that short. Actually, sounds like that don't exist in the piano repertory until the 20th century. Of course, whether we should therefore not play it too short is perhaps open to debate.

[prongated]

I prefer a more transparent (or remote you could say) sound whenever I listen to Mozart... Or any composer of the classical style for that matter.

...Beethoven and Schubert too?

Have you heard this?

I haven't actually...and I actually think it's a good performance! At the very least, it has a lot more musical integrity than the Haydn. Actually, his BBC prom performance of the Chopin 1st concerto is also quite good - he's really tamed down his acrobatic circus these days I think!

But anyway, it's fair enough if you like your Mozarts more transparent, although I'd bear in mind the fact that while the sound of the instruments of Mozart's days have short decay, they also don't dampen as quickly as pianos today do.

[iroveashe]

Dynamic changes are superficial, designed to make it sound as cute, funny, suspicious, or strange at that exact moment as his facial expression dictates. Of course you want to go beyond what is written in the score that Haydn wrote, but Lang Lang took it too far. As a result, the climactic points aren't fully realised, and the performance is lacking in a cohesive structural conception. Granted, it is a very interesting performance.

To be more picky, those rolled chords in the opening are too short - pianofortes in Haydn's time are not capable of dampening the notes quickly enough to make it that short. Actually, sounds like that don't exist in the piano repertory until the 20th century. Of course, whether we should therefore not play it too short is perhaps open to debate.

Fair enough, though I'm rather curious about how you know his intentions or if you're just guessing them, and you did mention his face

Sorry, but the second paragraph I can't agree with. Being inaccurate for musical standards of the epoque a piece was composed is something I can understan if you critic, but what an instrument can or can't do shouldn't limit the interpretation, let alone what an instrument couldn't do 200 years ago!

[prongated]

Fair enough, though I'm rather curious about how you know his intentions or if you're just guessing them, and you did mention his face

Haha I know I did mention his face - but still in relation to sound though...and yeah, I may not come up with those exact same words to describe his intentions, but I think that at the very least, I would probably come up with "silly"...

Sorry, but the second paragraph I can't agree with. Being inaccurate for musical standards of the epoque a piece was composed is something I can understan if you critic, but what an instrument can or can't do shouldn't limit the interpretation, let alone what an instrument couldn't do 200 years ago!

...hence the last sentence I wrote . It's a debate that is still raging among musicians I think, and both sides are well-attended by today's performers. In fact, I'm quite surprised that a certain professor who thinks musicologists don't know the first thing about performance also thinks that such short sound should not exist in a performance of any classical work!

[nearenough]

I always had suspicions of Rubinstein, although I loved his playing and followed his career for years. (I'm 72 now and have all of his recordings, having seen him live perhaps almost a dozen times). He played with grand panache, soaring musical output, a good romantic line and he was an excellent chamber artist and played wonderful miniatures. Somehow his technique was just not up to the impossibly high standards of some of today's artists. Take Yuja Wang; only 22 now and able to play nearly anything on short notice -- whole complex fearsome pieces like the Prokofiev 2nd concerto and Stravinsky's Petrouchka (incidentally dedicated to Rubinstein which I heard him play live but failed to see him record). AR never recorded the Chopin Etudes which confirmed my suspicions that he couldn't master that last 2% of of pianistic dexterity. He never played the Rach 3. Hardly any Prokofiev except some of the Visions. I will say he did the Chopin Preludes fairly well but was chary about doing a better sounding version.  Some of his performances sound scrambled with dropped notes (even Horowitz was so accused). I think his career was more than pure music; he was a bon vivant, a personality, an actor as much as a musician. Story-telling, cigars, food, womanizing, all in all a cheerful, hearty rogue. All that helped his popularity; but it wasn't all music (as for example the savant Glenn Gould). So in this regard he was over-rated. In the end I suppose nothing succeeds like success.

[slobone]

I always had suspicions of Rubinstein, although I loved his playing and followed his career for years. (I'm 72 now and have all of his recordings, having seen him live perhaps almost a dozen times). He played with grand panache, soaring musical output, a good romantic line and he was an excellent chamber artist and played wonderful miniatures. Somehow his technique was just not up to the impossibly high standards of some of today's artists. Take Yuja Wang; only 22 now and able to play nearly anything on short notice -- whole complex fearsome pieces like the Prokofiev 2nd concerto and Stravinsky's Petrouchka (incidentally dedicated to Rubinstein which I heard him play live but failed to see him record). AR never recorded the Chopin Etudes which confirmed my suspicions that he couldn't master that last 2% of of pianistic dexterity. He never played the Rach 3. Hardly any Prokofiev except some of the Visions. I will say he did the Chopin Preludes fairly well but was chary about doing a better sounding version.  Some of his performances sound scrambled with dropped notes (even Horowitz was so accused). I think his career was more than pure music; he was a bon vivant, a personality, an actor as much as a musician. Story-telling, cigars, food, womanizing, all in all a cheerful, hearty rogue. All that helped his popularity; but it wasn't all music (as for example the savant Glenn Gould). So in this regard he was over-rated. In the end I suppose nothing succeeds like success.

nearenough, you should read Rubinstein's autobiographies -- two volumes. First of all they're a great read, and he addresses exactly what you're talking about.

He admits he was never the greatest pianist technically. The way he puts it is "Horowitz is a better pianist, but I'm a better musician." Which his admirers (me) would certainly agree with.

He also says that in his early years he made a lot of mistakes in performance and "cheated" by simplifying difficult passages (which Horowitz also did, some say). But when he began to perform a lot in the US, he found the music critics here much less forgiving of that approach. Also around that time he made a lot of recordings, so he went back and re-learned all his pieces to make them more accurate (this was in the 30's).

I certainly don't hold it against him that he didn't record the Chopin etudes (which I think are Chopin's most boring pieces anyway). I just love him for all the wonderful music he did record. He was never a show-off, but he got right to the heart of every piece.

[slow_concert_pianist]

I think this thread is terribly unfair. There is not a single pianist "beyond" criticism. I am eternally grateful for all the criticised pianists here. Lang Lang is about the only one mentioned who has made a habit of sacraficing the detail in order to promote "showmanship".

I am a great fan of Balakirev's Islamey, an oriental fantasy. Thus I have accumulated 26 reference recordings. Boris Bereskovsky plays in the most authentic "Russian style". Brendel is the only one who plays it note perfect (to my study). Horowitz play the most outrageous bout of showmanship (in the best possible). Kissin sacrafices a lot of detail, but what an exciting rendition.....

Do over rate or under rate all or any of these great performers?

[ivankadp]

I think about  some greatyoung pianists......Adam Gyorgy, or Nikolai Luganski......they are really good

[jeroen991]

music = music 

[simonjp90]

Glenn gould & andrei gavrilov are the most overrated pianists of the 20th century in my opinion.

for gavrilov, apart from everything hes ever played, this is the main reason :

and for gould, because of his bach, brahms, scriabin & prokofiev. and everything else.

perahia & pollini are the real deal

[fmrecords]

Claudio Arrau. (my second favourite).

My first ever recording of Beethoven given to me by my father was played by him. I fell in love with both the piano and Beethoven at once.

[m]

Glenn gould & andrei gavrilov are the most overrated pianists of the 20th century in my opinion.

for gavrilov, apart from everything hes ever played, this is the main reason :

In order for your opinion to have some credibility could you please elaborate and give somewhat more intelligent reasons.

and for gould, because of his bach, brahms, scriabin & prokofiev. and everything else.

Dear Simonjp90,

May I take a liberty to suggest you to mind your manners. Don't forget, you are talking about one of the most outstanding musical minds of the 20th century (some say, genius). In order to understand that fact alone, one already has to be on a certain level.

As for Gavrilov, although he never made a big career (at least not to the extent to be called "overrated", by any stretch), he plays (or at least used to play) piano better than 99% pianists out there (including Pollini and Perahia together)

perahia & pollini are the real deal

Is it for real? No further questions.

Best, M

[tea cup]

for gavrilov, apart from everything hes ever played, this is the main reason :

Is that really Gavrilov? It sounds like it has been dubbed with someone else's own seventh rate Scarbo recording. It must be a joke. For a pianist that recorded Handel with Richter, and recorded Gaspard de la Nuit three times in the last 20 years, I'm suspicious.

This video is similar:

It is amazing how many people think that is really Brendel playing!

[prongated]

As for Gavrilov, although he never made a big career (at least not to the extent to be called "overrated", by any stretch), he plays (or at least used to play) piano better than 99% pianists out there (including Pollini and Perahia together)

I agree with what you say regarding Gavrilov's career, but this particular performance of Campanella probably convinces me he's worse than 99% pianists out there! Or am I listening to the wrong thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5f4dULwo6s

[timmyb]

I've always had my doubts about Horowitz.I've heard him do some great things in Scarlatti and Scriabin for instance, but just take a listen to this hatchet job on Beethoven's op 101.I know everyone has their off days but this is ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWzUo25l-k&feature=related

[stucoy]

I've always had my doubts about Horowitz.I've heard him do some great things in Scarlatti and Scriabin for instance, but just take a listen to this hatchet job on Beethoven's op 101.I know everyone has their off days but this is ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWzUo25l-k&feature=related

The sound quality is very poor, plus he was drugged up to the eyeballs.

[furtwaengler]

It is amazing how many people think that is really Brendel playing!

HAHAHA...I'm sorry. That is so wrong, but this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen, and uh...its way to much free time and a certain creative insanity at work for someone to go through the editing process. But this is hilarious! 10/10 ROFL.

P.S. I'm watching the Zimerman "Super Mario Brothers" shred. I can't believe people do this. It's been a long time since I laughed this hard.

[iroveashe]

P.S. I'm watching the Zimerman "Super Mario Brothers" shred. I can't believe people do this. It's been a long time since I laughed this hard.

I thought I was the only one who found those videos histerical

[xerxais]

Van Cliburn
Alfred Brendel
Glenn Gould
Lang Lang
Ignaz Paderewski (my opinion, sorry...)

[arturfan]

Cziffra, Wild, Richter

[rob47]

I agree with what you say regarding Gavrilov's career, but this particular performance of Campanella probably convinces me he's worse than 99% pianists out there! Or am I listening to the wrong thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5f4dULwo6s

for gavrilov, apart from everything hes ever played, this is the main reason :

You obviously have no clue what is behind the scene.

both those solo recitals were prepared in less than a day under unfortunate circumstances.

And also, Gavrilov is without a doubt the coolest person to ever touch a piano

[prongated]

You obviously have no clue what is behind the scene.

both those solo recitals were prepared in less than a day under unfortunate circumstances.

...oh, so that's what I'm missing...I recently did an overnight Schubert Impromptus 142 live, but an overnight Scarbo is SO SICK!

[simonjp90]

horowitz isnt the best pianist of all time like people say. hes pretty good but not that good

[simonjp90]

Dear Simonjp90,

May I take a liberty to suggest you to mind your manners. Don't forget, you are talking about one of the most outstanding musical minds of the 20th century (some say, genius). In order to understand that fact alone, one already has to be on a certain level.

As for Gavrilov, although he never made a big career (at least not to the extent to be called "overrated", by any stretch), he plays (or at least used to play) piano better than 99% pianists out there (including Pollini and Perahia together)

Is it for real? No further questions.

Best, M

no sorry you may not take such a liberty. it's my opinion and you havent made a difference at all.

great that you think gavrilov is better than 99% of pianists including pollini and perahia! you have your own opinion and thats fantastic. good for you buddy

im not quite sure what you mean when you say "is it for real?" is what for real? and no further questions from you or for you?

[simonjp90]

By recording uncommon interpretations! His idea was that all the basic statements have been made for posterity, and that all that is left to do for pianists (at least with such composers as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, etc) is to, in a sense, re-compose the piece, without distorting the artist's original intention (an interpretation that is different, unique, but still somehow right). His recording of Mozart's K. 331 is a perfect example of this. As he himself said, "[it] really is fun, and it really does make sense, and it really does say something about the architecture of that particular work". Another fine example would be his interpretation of one of Scriabin's sonatas:

thats possibly the worst rendition of that piece ive ever heard. go for kissin or gordon fergus-thompson if you want to hear a good one

[prongated]

Glenn gould & andrei gavrilov are the most overrated pianists of the 20th century in my opinion.

...

and for gould, because of his bach, brahms, scriabin & prokofiev. and everything else.

thats possibly the worst rendition of that piece ive ever heard. go for kissin or gordon fergus-thompson if you want to hear a good one

In each and every single post you made about Gould, NONE of them contained any explanation as to why you think he's a terrible musician. So as it is...

no sorry you may not take such a liberty. it's my opinion and you havent made a difference at all.

...your 'opinion' is presently nothing more than a little kid's nonsensical rambling. Please, do elaborate as to why that is what you make of Gould! While I am not a big fan of Gould (I do not agree with many of his musical decisions), I absolutely do share the consensus (albeit a lot of it from the media) that he is a special musician whose artistic works can be justified in certain ways as those of a genius. To knock off someone like that (nay, anyone!), at least back it up with proper explanation!

[m]

no sorry you may not take such a liberty. it's my opinion and you havent made a difference at all.

great that you think gavrilov is better than 99% of pianists including pollini and perahia! you have your own opinion and thats fantastic. good for you buddy

im not quite sure what you mean when you say "is it for real?" is what for real? and no further questions from you or for you?

Dear Simon

First, not to be rude, but for your information, I am not your buddy, have never been one, and looking at your immature posts, there is very little chance will ever become.

Second, we all know that opinions are like a$$es--everybody has one, and there are enough smart a$$es on this particular board in whose "opinion"   even Richter is "overrated", or Horowitz is "pretty good , but not that good" (!!!) .

That you know, opinion can be called opinion only (and only) when behind it there is some knowledge. So far you did not provide any, so if you are an intelligent person please instead of rambling, support your opinions with some substance, if you want them to have any value or credibility.

Until then I am afraid, I will take a liberty anyway, to advise you to mind your manners.

Best, M

P.S. And while we are on that, please do not put words into my mouth. I never said such a stupid thing as "Gavrilov is better than 99% of pianists including Pollini and Perahia!" Please, come back to my original message read it again, and try to understand what I wrote, if you can.

[rob47]

simonjp
Did you read the link i posted to Gavrilov talking about the circumstances that video was filmed in?

Listen to Andrei's Prokofiev sonatas CD; your friend Pletnev's Prokofiev sonatas will seem so awkward and dull afterwards.

[simonjp90]

P.S. And while we are on that, please do not put words into my mouth. I never said such a stupid thing as "Gavrilov is better than 99% of pianists including Pollini and Perahia!" Please, come back to my original message read it again, and try to understand what I wrote, if you can.

As for Gavrilov, although he never made a big career (at least not to the extent to be called "overrated", by any stretch), he plays (or at least used to play) piano better than 99% pianists out there (including Pollini and Perahia together)

hahaha

[simonjp90]

simonjp
Did you read the link i posted to Gavrilov talking about the circumstances that video was filmed in?

Listen to Andrei's Prokofiev sonatas CD; your friend Pletnev's Prokofiev sonatas will seem so awkward and dull afterwards.

yeah i read it but he says like, and i quote, "i assure you that scarbo is a pretty easy piece for me that i can literally play with my eyes closed at any speed and power"

i like the prokofiev sonatas though, didnt even know pletnev recorded them! gavrilovs recordings are also great thanks for the recommendation

[simonjp90]

That you know, opinion can be called opinion only (and only) when behind it there is some knowledge. So far you did not provide any, so if you are an intelligent person please instead of rambling, support your opinions with some substance, if you want them to have any value or credibility.

sure. lets do a bit of the scriabin that has been mentioned further up this page. (1969 Sony BMG)

with a title like drammatico you expect it to be dramatic. in my opinion gould's opening is more pathetic than dramatic, because of many things. for example :

scriabin marks forte - gould plays a sort of mezzo piano and for me personally this sounds ridiculous

scriabin puts a metronome marking (crotchet = 69). goulds is nearly half this speed

gould seems to spread most of the chords even though i feel a dramatic sound would be to play them as scriabin wrote them. i think he overdoes the spreads and it starts to sound a bit wimpy, and when scriabin does write a spread, for me it totally loses its effect as that's how he's already played all the previous chords.

Scriabin marks the next section as mp - This isnt very far off the dynamic that Gould uses at the start, so, again .. it seems to lose its effect


so... is he playing scriabin or gould? it seems a bit insulting to scriabin to ignore virtually everything he's written...
  

 thats the end of the first page.

i'll do some bach - goldberg variations (Recorded 1954/55) (Urania 2005)


Gould seems to play the bass note a split second before the rest (my teacher calls this arcing - not sure if anyone else uses this word). For me this is a bit too chopin-esque, and gives it a little too much of a romantic feel. it might be acceptable every once in a while, but gould does it with nearly every note so it just starts to sound a bit ridiculous (ker-chunk, ker-chunk etc)

Also, he uses a little too much rubato for my taste. again, it makes it sound too romantic. some will say that the aria is supposed to sound romantic - i think thats perfectly ok, but there are ways to do that other than the cheap tricks that gould uses.

after the first few bars, gould has cut his opening speed by about 20%. this is not an exaggeration. for me this gives it a sort of confusing feel, as if he doesnt quite understand what the speed should be.

he is inconsistent with his dotted rhythms - for example in bar 8 he double dots the last quaver but in bar 9 he doesnt. I personally think that when it comes to playing dotted rhythms in bach and to an extent all early music, it's best to be consistent with dotted rhythms.

in my opinion he uses too much sustain pedal, again it just makes it sound too romantic. as i mentioned before there are better ways to be expressive in bach

towards the end of the aria in the semiquaver passages gould again drastically changes speed. this gets a bit annoying for me as hes already done this near the beginning. it doesnt seem to make sense, and it seems to me as if he's not in control of what he's doing.



hope that suffices as an explanation. sure seemed easier to me to just say : "i don't like his playing"

i would honestly personally rather listen to lang lang than glenn gould anytime. both crap, but at least lang lang is entertaining crap. gould is just crap.

[wervel]

Lang lang is not a factor, he looks like a zoo monkey and he plays like a circus monkey. Only another monkey would take him seriously.

good contenders: Cortot (technically mediocre), Horowitz (technically mediocre), Sofronitzky (technically really bad), Sokolov (technically mediocre, vulgar to bits, no sense of rhythm,tries to be interesting in pretty much the same way a 13 yr old does), Argerich (annoying little brat), Brendel (pseudo-intellectual of the worst kind), Pogorelich (technically good, but not able to construct a performance) etc etc.

In fact, classical music lovers are no better than the common people: they like the vulgar and the ugly most.

Much more relevant question would be: most underrated pianists yadda yadda

[ahinton]

Lang lang is not a factor, he looks like a zoo monkey and he plays like a circus monkey. Only another monkey would take him seriously.

Are you quite sure about that?!

good contenders: Cortot (technically mediocre), Horowitz (technically mediocre), Sofronitzky (technically really bad), Sokolov (technically mediocre, vulgar to bits, no sense of rhythm,tries to be interesting in pretty much the same way a 13 yr old does), Argerich (annoying little brat), Brendel (pseudo-intellectual of the worst kind), Pogorelich (technically good, but not able to construct a performance) etc etc.

Personal opinion or not, I am loath to consider that this is even deserving of serious response...

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

Can a pianist actually be overrated?
I mean like, if a pianist gets alot of 'fame' (wich is required to be able to be overrated here), there are obviously a big mass of people that somehow 'enjoy' it. And the main goal of music ( i think) is, to enjoy people

gyzzzmo

[prongated]

good contenders: Cortot (technically mediocre), Horowitz (technically mediocre), Sofronitzky (technically really bad), Sokolov (technically mediocre, vulgar to bits, no sense of rhythm,tries to be interesting in pretty much the same way a 13 yr old does), Argerich (annoying little brat), Brendel (pseudo-intellectual of the worst kind), Pogorelich (technically good, but not able to construct a performance) etc etc.

Cortot, Horowitz, Sofronitsky, Sokolov = technically mediocre? Brendel = charlatan? Argerich = annoying?

Troll activity obviously.

Can a pianist actually be overrated?

Glenn Gould does get a LOT of attention from the media, especially in Canada (of course). I think he is overrated in that sense - I bet no other pianist comes close to constantly being hailed as a genius than Gould.

[pianowolfi]

sure. lets do a bit of the scriabin that has been mentioned further up this page. (1969 Sony BMG)

with a title like drammatico you expect it to be dramatic. in my opinion gould's opening is more pathetic than dramatic, because of many things. for example :

scriabin marks forte - gould plays a sort of mezzo piano and for me personally this sounds ridiculous

scriabin puts a metronome marking (crotchet = 69). goulds is nearly half this speed

gould seems to spread most of the chords even though i feel a dramatic sound would be to play them as scriabin wrote them. i think he overdoes the spreads and it starts to sound a bit wimpy, and when scriabin does write a spread, for me it totally loses its effect as that's how he's already played all the previous chords.

Scriabin marks the next section as mp - This isnt very far off the dynamic that Gould uses at the start, so, again .. it seems to lose its effect


so... is he playing scriabin or gould? it seems a bit insulting to scriabin to ignore virtually everything he's written...
  

 thats the end of the first page.

i'll do some bach - goldberg variations (Recorded 1954/55) (Urania 2005)


Gould seems to play the bass note a split second before the rest (my teacher calls this arcing - not sure if anyone else uses this word). For me this is a bit too chopin-esque, and gives it a little too much of a romantic feel. it might be acceptable every once in a while, but gould does it with nearly every note so it just starts to sound a bit ridiculous (ker-chunk, ker-chunk etc)

Also, he uses a little too much rubato for my taste. again, it makes it sound too romantic. some will say that the aria is supposed to sound romantic - i think thats perfectly ok, but there are ways to do that other than the cheap tricks that gould uses.

after the first few bars, gould has cut his opening speed by about 20%. this is not an exaggeration. for me this gives it a sort of confusing feel, as if he doesnt quite understand what the speed should be.

he is inconsistent with his dotted rhythms - for example in bar 8 he double dots the last quaver but in bar 9 he doesnt. I personally think that when it comes to playing dotted rhythms in bach and to an extent all early music, it's best to be consistent with dotted rhythms.

in my opinion he uses too much sustain pedal, again it just makes it sound too romantic. as i mentioned before there are better ways to be expressive in bach

towards the end of the aria in the semiquaver passages gould again drastically changes speed. this gets a bit annoying for me as hes already done this near the beginning. it doesnt seem to make sense, and it seems to me as if he's not in control of what he's doing.



hope that suffices as an explanation. sure seemed easier to me to just say : "i don't like his playing"

i would honestly personally rather listen to lang lang than glenn gould anytime. both crap, but at least lang lang is entertaining crap. gould is just crap.

I suppose you might be quite embarrassed if you discover with whom you are argueing here....

[adaubre]

so... is he playing scriabin or gould? it seems a bit insulting to scriabin to ignore virtually everything he's written...
  

I'm not a big Gould fan but I fully respect him as a brilliant pianist.
I do feel that when pianists interpret the works of others - even to the point of ignoring
or changing dynamic markings etc - it makes for a more interesting musical community (when combined with those
pianists who follow the markings to a T).

We see this with various theatre groups interpreting the works of Shakespeare to the point of putting Hamlet on a spaceship
or King Lear in a concentration camp.   No, its not always pretty, but it does make for an interesting theatrical community
when combined with those who interpret Shakespeare traditionally.  And yes, those sometimes very risky interpretations are
both celebrated and criticized but regardless, are most often respected as valid attempts at creativity by people who are
fully aware of what they are doing.

adaubre

[simonjp90]

I suppose you might be quite embarrassed if you discover with whom you are argueing here....

oh sorry it wasnt supposed to sound like an argument, its just apparently my opinion counted for nothing unless i went into more detail (?!) so thats what i felt sort of forced to do. i know who marik is... i think somebody called Mark Fouxman? ive never heard of him... why would i be embarrassed.. BRILLIANT rach moments musicaux on the audition rooms here but i dont like his ballade 4 at all

[simonjp90]

I'm not a big Gould fan but I fully respect him as a brilliant pianist.
I do feel that when pianists interpret the works of others - even to the point of ignoring
or changing dynamic markings etc - it makes for a more interesting musical community (when combined with those
pianists who follow the markings to a T).

We see this with various theatre groups interpreting the works of Shakespeare to the point of putting Hamlet on a spaceship
or King Lear in a concentration camp.   No, its not always pretty, but it does make for an interesting theatrical community
when combined with those who interpret Shakespeare traditionally.  And yes, those sometimes very risky interpretations are
both celebrated and criticized but regardless, are most often respected as valid attempts at creativity by people who are
fully aware of what they are doing.

adaubre

interesting for some, boring for others. in my opinion gould is boring. is that ok with everyone..? i dont get the point in these discussions if people arent allowed to say who they think is overrated without being slaughtered... are we expecting every answer to be lang lang & kissin?

if youre comparing goulds playing to modern takes on shakespeare, surely it should be "scriabin sonata no 3 - as arranged by glenn gould"