The Best Pianist- Analytical Debate

[soliloquy]

There seem to be a ton of threads that deal with this, but I think we should try to decide who the BEST pianist is, not through personal taste, but through cold, hard analysis and consensus.  First we must decide what traits are applicable.


These are a few I'm nominating:


Speed- the ability to play rapid passages at their written rate EG Alkan Comme le Vent Op. 39, Chopin Winter Wind Etude, Xenakis Herma, Prokofiev Toccata Op. 11

Physical Technique- the ability to play works of extreme and outermost difficulty with a high level of note accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, tempo accuracy and dynamic accuracy EG. Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4, Rzewski Variations on the People United will Never Be Defeated, works of Sorabji, Stockhausen, or the more difficult Romantic-Era works such as Beethoven-Liszt Symphony Transcriptions, Busoni, Reger, Alkan etc.

Various sub-categories of technique:

Scales, Arpeggios, octaves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, glissandi, clusters, ostinatos, repeated notes, leaps, trills, tremolos, chord changes, large double-notes such as tenths or twelfths etc

Consistency: the ability to play, to an adequate degree of success, works of various era,s works containing varying technical difficulties, works containing various dynamic and tempo centers etc.

Endurance: the ability to play very taxing, long works without showing fatigue.

Interpretation: the ability to interpret pieces in a way that is the most effective to the most people.


What else?

[danny elfboy]

There seem to be a ton of threads that deal with this, but I think we should try to decide who the BEST pianist is, not through personal taste, but through cold, hard analysis and consensus.  First we must decide what traits are applicable.

No matter what but true cold and hard analysis and consensus (an utopia ever for science as physicist as Max Born made clear) can just reach a certain extent. There will always be a "it depends" aspect that escape from the analysis, there will always be "from this point on it's just a matter of taste and cold and hard preferences"

With such analysis you're not going to determine who is the BEST pianist but just what pianist has the best technique. With will create a debate as to whether there's actually an empirical better technique

If unbiased analysis would be impossible you would have agreement over "objective" judgement of art works, movies, spectables, sculptures, pictures ... or even over computer quality, piano quality, kitchen furniture quality, car quality or even scientific theories.
I've never find a consensus in any of these "objective" matters ... in fact I've never found consensus in anything ... even if apparently objective. It's just an utopia as Popper, Born, Shrodinger and others already had realized

[desordre]

 Dear Soliloquy:
 Although I think it will be very subjective, I'm in! I suggest another "category" to be considered: repertory (the consistency of playing all sort of works, from early music to 2007 compositions).
 Another important question is the production in chamber and orchestral (concerti) music.
 Best! And let's start the thread!

[opus10no2]

To me there are 3 factors -

1 - technique and mechanique

2 - repertoire

3 - intangible (charisma, musicality, other subjective things)


Repertoire is measured by the size of a pianist's repertoire and the rapidity with which they can master a new pieces. This area is primarily effected by the brain of the pianist, and it's mental grasp of the keyboard and memory for notes, figurations, and harmonies, etc.
This is also the area that is actually the prime difficulty in playing 'extremely difficult modern works' that you regularly speak of.

The factor 1 -
Technique is the ability to manipulate your 'mechanique' , with your brain, but this is independant from the repertoire factor.

Mechanique is the raw physical ability - the raw speed of fingers, wrists, etc.


In a realistic way, I think there is no clearcut way to tell who is the greatest pianist judging from this criteia, unless the elite were forced to work under set conditions, which wouldn't happen'

Unless a true SDC competition were set up.

[gonzalo]

This is just a waste of time.

[shlnsengumi]

This is just a waste of time.

To a certain extent, I agree.  It's really based upon preferences.  I favor Nobuo Uematsu now, but classical wise, my opinion as the "Best Pianist" would be Debussy, because his songs (especially Claire De'lune) seemed to captivate real emotion better than any other song i've played/heard.

[nicco]

To a certain extent, I agree.  It's really based upon preferences.  I favor Nobuo Uematsu now, but classical wise, my opinion as the "Best Pianist" would be Debussy, because his songs (especially Claire De'lune) seemed to captivate real emotion better than any other song i've played/heard.

Ah yes, good ol' Claude had a marvelous singing voice.

[opus10no2]

This is just a waste of time.

No, it's just more proof that everything but the qualities of finger and brain virtuosity are subjective.

Discussing musicality is irrelevant and becomes a waste of time, discussing technical factors isn't.

[daniel patschan]

Which is basically the reason why you recently dismissed the 11 year old boy, playing 4 Chopin studies with incredible speed and control for his bad musicality. BTW, even Wunder couldnīt have it done much better than the boy. 

[jakev2.0]

Friedman could have.

[opus10no2]

Which is basically the reason why you recently dismissed the 11 year old boy, playing 4 Chopin studies with incredible speed and control for his bad musicality. BTW, even Wunder couldnīt have it done much better than the boy. 

I was kidding , of course, his playing is very impressive for his age, but with Wunder - you are wrong.

Friedman is a lesser pianist than Wunder.

[jakev2.0]

I was kidding , of course, his playing is very impressive for his age, but with Wunder - you are wrong.

Friedman is a lesser pianist than Wunder.

Wunder has weak fingers and no soul.

[opus10no2]

Sadly, your statement says more about yourself than about Wunder himself.

[houseofblackleaves]

I loved his op.10 no.2, I hated his winterwind.  He isn't that bad, but not my favorite on the Chopets.

My favorite pianist to this day is probobly Argerich.  The reason I like her the most is her spontanious stlye and unique musicality.  Somtimes her interps work, somtimes not so much.  Either way I think her playing is exciting and refreshing, not traditional at all (in my opinion.)  And people who say she butchers peices, well... I see where they are coming from.  I disagree.

Anyways, I'm guessing that my #1 candidate wouldn't fare very well in this crowd.  Hamelin perhaps?

[opus10no2]

True, we love pianists for the intangable factors, but we admire and appreciate them for their technical gifts and repertoire.

And yes, if i were put on the spot to choose a no1 it would be Hamelin.

[shlnsengumi]

My favorite pianist to this day is probobly Argerich.  The reason I like her the most is her spontanious stlye and unique musicality.  Somtimes her interps work, somtimes not so much.  Either way I think her playing is exciting and refreshing, not traditional at all (in my opinion.)  And people who say she butchers peices, well... I see where they are coming from.  I disagree.

I'd give that to Cziffra.  (Grand Galop Chromatique) 

[soliloquy]

To a certain extent, I agree.  It's really based upon preferences.  I favor Nobuo Uematsu now, but classical wise, my opinion as the "Best Pianist" would be Debussy, because his songs (especially Claire De'lune) seemed to captivate real emotion better than any other song i've played/heard.

..................

[pianowelsh]

One simply cannot decide these things in a scientific way - its completely subjective! we each hwave our own likes and dislikes and we have our own cultural heritages which inform our opinions. To proclaim one pianist even 'living', best over all the others would be ludicrous. I wager many of the best pianists would be people you or I have never heard!

[opus10no2]

One simply cannot decide these things in a scientific way - its completely subjective!

WRONG

The intangible elements cannot be judged, but the finger virtuosity and brain virtuosity CAN and SHOULD be quantified and compared.

To seperate these issues, I'd prefer to use the word PIANIST in the context of describing technique and other objective elements.
The word MUSICIAN should be used when discussing the other qualities the pianist may posess, it saves alot of confusion.

So on these terms, however difficult it may be to find the answer, it is possible to discover who the 'best pianist' truly is.

[gonzalo]

WRONG

The intangible elements cannot be judged, but the finger virtuosity and brain virtuosity CAN and SHOULD be quantified and compared.

To seperate these issues, I'd prefer to use the word PIANIST in the context of describing technique and other objective elements.
The word MUSICIAN should be used when discussing the other qualities the pianist may posess, it saves alot of confusion.

So on these terms, however difficult it may be to find the answer, it is possible to discover who the 'best pianist' truly is.

Finger virtuosity? That's also subjective. Rosalyn Tureck and Glenn Gould had REALLY good technique for Bach, while Brendel might have it for Beethoven.

[cygnusdei]

Before you can assess one's technique, you need some sort of access (recording, live performance) to prove the existence of such pianist. No, this is not an existensial question ala a tree falling in the forest. The set of all pianists is a valid statistical population; it is not a rare event. Jon Nakamatsu was virtually unknown before he won the Van Cliburn (he was a high school teacher). Had he not enter at all, his technique would be the same, but not accessible. How many Jon Nakamatsus are out there?

[ramseytheii]

Before you can assess one's technique, you need some sort of access (recording, live performance) to prove the existence of such pianist. No, this is not an existensial question ala a tree falling in the forest. The set of all pianists is a valid statistical population; it is not a rare event. Jon Nakamatsu was virtually unknown before he won the Van Cliburn (he was a high school teacher). Had he not enter at all, his technique would be the same, but not accessible. How many Jon Nakamatsus are out there?

This rather reminds me of a quote from Charles Rosen's essay collection, "Critical Entertainments."  This particular essay is a response to another musicologist (Tia DeNora) who claimed that Beethoven's prestige was based only on the social circumstances of his day and his good luck, rather then superior music:

"Beethoven, some think, had all the luck.  An ethnomusicologist, tenured at a respected university (he will perhaps be happy to remain anonymous), once asserted: 'There must be hundreds of symphonies just as good as the Eroica, but we just don't know them.'  This is the naive view of history immortalized in Thomas Gray's 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,' quoted not quite accurately by Tia DeNora on the last pasge of her 'Beethoven and the Construction of Genius:'

Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air."

Walter Ramsey

[pianowelsh]

What possible value has assessing the finger virtuosity of pianists as a totally abstract principle got. ABSOLUTELY NONE. You are not far removed form a company secretary in terms of digital technique if you have pianistic control devoid of musicanship.   Fingerwork alone does NOT make a pianist. To equate pianism soley with digital technique is terribly naive. 90% of technique is brain and ears not fingers..they are merely the tip of a huge iceberg.

[opus10no2]

Finger virtuosity? That's also subjective. Rosalyn Tureck and Glenn Gould had REALLY good technique for Bach, while Brendel might have it for Beethoven.

hahaha, good one.

Of those 3, Gould obviously had the best fingers.

What possible value has assessing the finger virtuosity of pianists as a totally abstract principle got. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

It has the same value as the OLYMPICS.

People compare virtuosity to circuses and typewriting...jus what?!

We're talking about SUPREME ALTHETES of the keyboard, they belong in concert halls or olympic stadiums.

And the value it has, as I previously stated, is that it is the only real way anyone can objectively tell who the greatest pianist is.

[chromatickler]

You are not far removed form a company secretary in terms of digital technique if you have pianistic control devoid of musicanship.

WRONG

the digital speed/control of typists involve:
zero evenness
zero double notes
zero chords of any kind
close to zero geographical command (handspan covers all keys)
minimal weight resistance from the keys

hence digitally they are quite a few levels below a pianist from a purely technique perspective

[ramseytheii]

hahaha, good one.

Of those 3, Gould obviously had the best fingers.

It has the same value as the OLYMPICS.

People compare virtuosity to circuses and typewriting...jus what?!

We're talking about SUPREME ALTHETES of the keyboard, they belong in concert halls or olympic stadiums.

And the value it has, as I previously stated, is that it is the only real way anyone can objectively tell who the greatest pianist is.

Why is anyone arguing with this speedhead?  He made his point, a thousand endless times, and is obviously right from his point of view.  You're not going to convince opus12 otherwise, and clearly he is listening for just one thing and is not interested in anything else.  If you don't debate opus12 on his own terms, don't debate at all, because you won't even make a dent.

Walter Ramsey

[danny elfboy]

There's nothing as easy as speed
Real artists here ignore the speed argument because they know speed it the less demanding, hard and worth-praising thing about playing. It's nothing but a thing mental barrier of motocoordination that has nothing to do with muscles, strength or athleticism

What physiologically and anatomically process you believe make your finger fast?
Tendons? Muscles? In your fingers? What?
The truth is that your fingers are not fast ... fingers are never fast.
They're just the tool. They need to be conditioned. It's the brain that do it all
Fingers are nothing than weight trasmitting bridge. By themselves they have nothing to do with speed.

Speed is trivial. Any serious artist and musician would laught at the idea that the criteria that determined who has mastered the hardest aspect of piano playing is speed

[opus10no2]

what?

YOU are laughable.

MUSCULAR CONTRACTIONS are what cause the movement of EVERY JOINT IN OUR BODIES.

They have to be CONDITIONED to increase speed and endurance.

The musces that take up most of the workload of finger movements aren't 'in the fingers' , they are in the forearms, known as the flexors and extensors.
They are conditioned to play fast...by playing fast, and continually pushing boundaries.

With your tension free approach, you will NEVER push boundaries - you will hone your technique to cope with your static and substandard mechanique.

If speed is easy, prove it - make a recording of Chopin's op10no2 in 55 seconds.

If you think I'm saying speed is all there is to piano playing, you're wrong.

I said, simply, that it's the most readily and objectively identifiable and quantifiable element to a pianist's instrumental prowess.

[danny elfboy]

what?

YOU are laughable.

MUSCULAR CONTRACTIONS are what cause the movement of EVERY JOINT IN OUR BODIES.

They have to be CONDITIONED to increase speed and endurance.

The musces that take up most of the workload of finger movements aren't 'in the fingers' , they are in the forearms, known as the flexors and extensors.
They are conditioned to play fast...by playing fast, and continually pushing boundaries.

What conditioned to play fast means?
What does a muscle do to play fast?
Actually what playing fast mean?
What happens in fast playing? What movements become fast and how?
How can a muscle become faster?
How can the physiology of a muscle incorporate "speed"?
Why in the world your muscles should be chronically contracted to play fast?
How can you avoid co-contraction if you're always contracted?

I don't care listening to you playing fast, because the world is full of technically flawed injuried ex-pianists that were able to play anything at the speed of light
I'd instead love to see a video of your technique at the piano, see what YOUR body does as you play fast pieces

[opus10no2]

It's not one 'chronic contraction', it it a long series of very rapid contractions, which is involved in piano playing.

Nothing on your body can move without a muscle contracting, are you insane?!

[danny elfboy]

It's not one 'chronic contraction', it it a long series of very rapid contractions, which is involved in piano playing.

Nothing on your body can move without a muscle contracting, are you insane?!

You're just playing semantics here
A series of very rapid contractions IS necessarily a series of contractions and releases.
To contract the muscle you must start from a "relaxed" and "released" state
You can't contract a contracted muscle, logically

So the level of contraction is not how strong the contraction is but "how quickly you can release the contraction" (to be able to contract again)
This is NOT AT ALL the only component of speed but it's the only "physical" one
Only that how quickly you can released a contracted muscle doesn't depend on the muscle fibers but on the brain impulses. There's nothing in the fibers and cells of your muscle tissue that gets conditioned to release as quickly as possible a contracted muscle. It's all in your brain. When one becomes able to shorten the time he/she is able to release a contracted muscle NOTHING HAS PHYSICALLY CHANGED in the muscles fibers and cells ... just in the brain signaling to the muscle contracticle receptors

[opus10no2]

No, there are pressing down and lifting up motions, performed by seperate muscles, and they work in rapid co-succession to make the finger move quickly.

[danny elfboy]

No, there are pressing down and lifting up motions, performed by seperate muscles, and they work in rapid co-succession to make the finger move quickly.

Lifting up motions is dependent on your torso
If you try to stand let your upper arms hang at the shoulders and try to raise your forearms with the lease effort possible slowly ... you'll find a point where your arms are weightless and naturally supported by the torso.

Pressing down is not a muscular task at all since it is the task of gravity. No amount of muscular effort should be used in pressing down as you just need to let the gravity fall you hand in the keyboard. In fact the real basic movement of sound production is neither pulling down or pushing down but falling on

As for fingers movements they are very small and often unecessary. If you look a pianist with a flawed technique and alignment in stop-motions you will see that the finger are 90% of the time never raised and when they do the movement is as tiny as possible. Most of the movements should be of hand falling and hand rolling. Contraction is as short as possible because it allows the weight to be trasmitted to the individual finger.
Moving the fingers a lot and especially raising them is the most common cause of severe and often unreversible injuries. The most basic movement you seen when you observe flawless pianist technique in step motion is a consecutive falling.
If you start from your pinky and let the hand fall contraction and releasing as quickly as possible each individual finger at the moment of impact with the keyboard you have the most basic movement of playing. And yet there's no real finger movement just a gravity movement towards the key and a contraction to trasmit weight to the "falling" object

I say stop-motions because the movements are so beautifully internalized and instinctively occuring in a matter of milliseconds that looking the at normal speed they appear completely different and even when there's no real finger movements it may appear there are finger movements indeed.

All in all "fast fingers" is a misnomer
First of all because most movements are just "functional" to the finger but don't start from the finger. If you let your hand in playing positiong fall on the keyboard it's your fingers playing and yet they didn't move at all

Second because what the muscle is contracting. Rapid contraction means logically rapid release. If you look isotopomer and spectroscopy of a muscle still taking a lot of time to release (beginner) and a muscle that can release as quickly as the speed of light (conditioned) you will see there's ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in the fibers or cells or number of receptors. The only difference is in the brain in the neurology of signaling

Finally fast fingers conveys the idea that speed come from moving the fingers fast (which you can see in any stop-motions video, including yourself, is not true) while it come from releasing as quickly as possible. The faster you release the faster you'll play. Faster release is a task of the brain that doesn't physically affect the condition of the body tissue, muscles or ligaments

[opus10no2]

I don't think you understand the role of the extensors in finger motion.

The finger CAN be dropped, the hand CAN be dropped, and yes, this way of playing with extremely minimal muscle activity is very good to conserve fatigue and energy.

BUT to perform rapid actions, rapid muscular contractions must be involved.

The opposing muscle releases as the other contracts, and vice versa.

This is extremely basic and obvious human physics.

What you've been taught is how to best serve yourself and refine your technique with your current mechanism, not knowing that you can in fact improve your mechanism by conditioning it.

[danny elfboy]

BUT to perform rapid actions, rapid muscular contractions must be involved.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying
What's the fastest contraction possible?
The neverending contraction
This may sound stupid but it's actually logically.
Everything that doesn't change its state its as fastest as possible
Playing two keys together (hence removing the delay between one key and the other) is the fastest speed possible at which you can play those two keys

So controlling speed requires the "breaking" of the fastest possible state
In the case of keys is adding the shortest deleay possible
In the case of muscle contraction is releasing as quickly as possible

Contracting rapidly and releasing rapidly are effectively the same exact thing, the same exact concet. It's just a matter of semantic whether you call it rapid contraction or rapid release

[opus10no2]

Yes, but you seem to think the maximum speed is defined by the powers of the brain, where I say it is defined by the muscle itself.

k...

[pianowelsh]

mate your muscles aint gonna do much if your brain dosent tell them what to do.  If you cant think fast you have no hope of playing fast. In fact your ear has a huge amount to do with it to ie if you are in a very echoey hall you will find you aoutomatically start to play slower because the ear/brain cannot process the aural image as efficiently so you slow down to a level where you can hear the feedback from your physical actions. I once sat in a masterclass where a teacher said you cant/shouldnt play faster than you can verbalise a passage.  If you go faster than that it will be unintelligable.. just like if someone speaks to fast at you -you have to say 'pardon, i didnt understand can you repeat that?'
Regarding the difficulty of playing fast - Its not the physical motion of moving fast that is difficult atall.. Its amazing how fast we can waggle our fingers really without much training.. Its actually controlling the ends of the notes so that when we play quickly things dont become garbelled that is difficult.  If you were to step of the top of the Chrysler building (im not suggesting you should) you would have no difficulty in travelling fast to the street level, the difficulty in fact would be trying to stop yourself. In passagio if you have the correct poise then the physical movements needed are not difficult its a matter of velocity. the difficulty as I have said is controlling the clarity of the sound you produce by listening to the ends of the notes... pianists are often too concerned with the front of the note and not the end.

[danny elfboy]

Yes, but you seem to think the maximum speed is defined by the powers of the brain, where I say it is defined by the muscle itself.

Which is utterly physiological and anatomical nonsense
Again: can you explain me how muscles are conditioned to fast playing if not through neurological signaling? What do you think PHYSICALLY change in the muscles fibers that make you play faster. PLEASE describe to me the physiological process that make muscles fast (release of nitrogen, increase of myofibrils, water retention)

You don't seem to understand that endurance athleticism depends on available energy sources (ATP, Phosphate Creatine, Lactate, Glycogen, Fatty Acids) and fatigue IS NOT a byproduct of hard movement but of "energy consuming movements"
That's also why the calories consumed playing the piano are almost irrelevant; you don't seen to understand the impact of either muscle conditioning and resistance of big muscles that has a weight bearing (100 + pounds) task while the weight bearing potential at the piano is less than 2 OUNCES
Sorry you're everything but an athlete!

Finally I'd like to understand what do you thinkg fatigue is all about
You really seem to get your knowledge from the superficial appareance of things
So we use the word fatigue to mean "tired of doing something" but why?

Physiologically there's a more deep reason that doesn't allow such platitude nonsense
Fatigue either come from running out of energy (which could never happen at the piano even if you were playing for 10 hours) lack of oxygen and proper oxygenation or from causing some kind of wearing and tearing of the ligaments, tendongs and muscles (fatigue can also be caused by ill health: adrenal weakness, electrolites deficiencies, orthostatic postural intolerance and so on)

Wearing and tearing of ligaments can happen only when they repeatedly scratch on a surface. Our anatomy doesn't allow this to happen only wrong alignment of our body
As for muscles only co-contraction can tear them apart.
Co-contraction is contracting a muscle without releasing another.
This is one of the most crucial aspect of speed and it's not controlled by the physical nature of the muscles but the neurological nature of the brain-muscle connections

So you don't only should explain to us what other forms of fatigue are there and what changes physically in the muscle when you can play faster. Why again you don't observe magnetic resonance studies and pictures to see that nothing ever change in the muscle structure? So again if nothing change in the muscle structure how in the world can speed at the piano defined by the muscles itself
What the hell the muscle do to define their maximum speed?
Contract and release quickly? That's a neurological process not a physical one
What else is there?

If you would take the time to read something about focal dystonia (especially studies) and how suddenly prevent a pianist from playing (especially fast) you would understand better it all ...

[opus10no2]

I see..

Let's say you're correct, which pianists have the greatest piano technique? in your opinion.

And is it true that, which a great technique, it's possible to play over 10 octaves a second in both hands for 10 hours with virtually zero fatigue?

Also, why not provide evidence of your playing theories by showing us your playing?

[daniel patschan]

Joyce Hatto, without doubt.

[jakev2.0]

Presenting Jake's list of...

True Virtuoso Pianists

Finger control (articulation, and accuracy at high speeds): 1. Gould 2. Hofmann 3. Rachmaninov
Tone, color, voicing: 1. Horowitz 2. Hofmann, Rachmaninov, Moiseiwitsch
Chords/octaves: Gilels, Arrau, Rachmaninov, Barere, Horowitz (though usually innacurrate)
Power: 1. Barere, Richter 2. Berezovsky, Berman, Gilels
Dynamic constrast: Horowitz, Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch
Absolute rhythmic conrol: Gould, Hofmann, Rachmaninov, Friedman, Richter
Trills: Schnabel

Honorable mentions to: Cziffra, Lhevinne, Bolet

In my opinion, Hofmann was the all-round greatest pianist ever recorded and possessed a truly exceptional balance of everything mentioned. Rachmaninov comes second. Gould and Horowitz are tied for third - they are totally unique pianists and mastered aspects of the piano that nobody else have.

[opus10no2]

True Virtuoso Pianists

Finger control (articulation, and accuracy at high speeds): 1. Gould 2. Hofmann 3. Rachmaninov
Tone, color, voicing: 1. Horowitz 2. Hofmann, Rachmaninov, Moiseiwitsch
Chords/octaves: Gilels, Arrau, Rachmaninov, Barere, Horowitz (though usually innacurrate)
Power: 1. Barere, Richter 2. Berezovsky, Berman, Gilels
Dynamic constrast: Horowitz, Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch
Absolute rhythmic conrol: Gould, Hofmann, Rachmaninov, Friedman, Richter
Trills: Schnabel

In my opinion, Hofmann was the all-round greatest pianist ever recorded and possessed a truly exceptional balance of everything mentioned. Rachmaninov comes second. Gould and Horowitz are tied for third - they are totally unique pianists and mastered aspects of the piano that nobody else have.

Subjectivity as it's most rampant and reckless.

Study my above posts and you will progressively become more owl-like.

[jakev2.0]

All there is to judge piano playing is our own subjectivity...that is if you're not a complete moron who counts "npz".

The list I gave is merely the opinion of a music lover who has heard many recordings by many pianists.

Richter does not give me the phenomenal feeling of sublime digital control that Gould does...nor can Gould play broken octaves like Richter! Rachmaninov's fast scales sound much more controlled than those of Schnabel, for instance. You see, the great thing about art, music, and the piano, is that worth is purely in the ears of the beholder.

[opus10no2]

These are intangible criteria.

In my posts I make a division between discussing pianists and musicians.

It is possible to be a lesser pianist and to be a greater musician, and evidently vicenuttsversa.

[jakev2.0]

These are intangible criteria.

In my posts I make a division between discussing pianists and musicians.

It is possible to be a lesser pianist and to be a greater musician, and evidently vicenuttsversa.

WRONG.

Phone Charles Rosen (or just about any sane pianist or critic) up with your set of "objective" pianist-ranking criteria. Prepare to be laughed off the line.

[jakev2.0]

Also, I'm of the belief that musicality and pianistic pyrotechnics are very closely intertwined. For something to be virtuosic, it has to sound good. Octaves that sound like a chimp spasming are not as technically impressive as Cziffra or Arrau at full tilt.

[opus10no2]

Well, this is a matter of where objectively technicality ends and where subjective musicality begins.

I'll break down the objective ways to assess the jakeness-


Finger control (articulation, and accuracy at high speeds): measured by finger speed, evidently, articulation is a byproduct and an indication of how much of the pianist's maximum speed is being used.

Tone, color, voicing: Important matters of technique, of course, but impossible to quantify in a competitive and objective way....and beyond the basics, the main difficulty would be applying these things at speed, which again greatly depends upon raw finger speed.

Power: 1. Barere, Richter 2. Berezovsky, Berman, Gilels
Power=force=velocity of key strike, again, back to speed.

Dynamic constrast: More an element of musical taste and choice than a technical ability, and again the majoy difficulty would be to do a great dynamic contrast at speed - again invoking the 666th ammendment - finger speed.

Absolute rhythmic conrol: A subjective musical matter, the only occasions in which a metronomic pulse cannot be kept is when the fingers can't keep up with the speed. Always back to speed.

Trills: This is obvious - basic finger speed.

So the somewhat hilarious and revelatory conclusion is that, departed from music and anything which is not quantifiable, technique is primarily served and judged - by raw speed.

[jakev2.0]

Finger control (articulation, and accuracy at high speeds): measured by finger speed, evidently, articulation is a byproduct and an indication of how much of the pianist's maximum speed is being used.

Oh really? I never knew that mastery of legato, non-legato, portato, staccato...were dependent on speed.

Tone, color, voicing: Important matters of technique, of course, but impossible to quantify in a competitive and objective way....and beyond the basics, the main difficulty would be applying these things at speed, which again greatly depends upon raw finger speed.

I really hope you're kidding. Horowitz and Wunder play the Chopin C# Minor Mazurka at roughly the same tempo. One performance sounds absolutely dead. Care to explain?

Power: 1. Barere, Richter 2. Berezovsky, Berman, Gilels

Power=force=velocity of key strike, again, back to speed.

Your obvious ignorance of physics speaks for itself.

Dynamic constrast: More an element of musical taste and choice than a technical ability, and again the majoy difficulty would be to do a great dynamic contrast at speed - again invoking the 666th ammendment - finger speed.

At speed, dynamic constrast is a function of control, which is obviously an aspect of technique. How could Gilels go from fff to pp almost instantaneously in the coda of the Prokofiev A minor Sonata? Because he had outstanding control...another factor that escapes your totally embarassing attempts at measuring virtuosity.

Absolute rhythmic conrol: A subjective musical matter, the only occasions in which a metronomic pulse cannot be kept is when the fingers can't keep up with the speed. Always back to speed.

WRONG. Rhythm has to do fundamentally with a sense of pulse and secondly due to control. Why is Mr. Chromatickler's fast playing so humiliatingly inept? Because he as no sense of pulse and is basically a pianist without control.  It doesn't matter how slow a pianist without pulse plays - fast (Chopin 10/1) will be out of time as much as slow (a fugue subject (!) rather embarrassingly in a certain pianist's case). 

Trills: This is obvious - basic finger speed.

I didn't make Schnabel the trill-champion because he has the fastest fingers in town. Rather amazingly, Schnabel's trills more than ornamental and evoke a wide range of colors.

So the somewhat hilarious and revelatory conclusion is that, departed from music and anything which is not quantifiable, technique is primarily served and judged - by raw speed.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[pianowelsh]

volume and articulation are controlled/regulated by a principle called the speed of key. This is undisputable. If the key is knocked down fast you get a loud sound if you put it down slowly you get NO sound or very little sound. Legato and legatissimo are defined by the speed at which you overlap the piston action of the fingers. Staccato and Staccatissimo are also dependant on the speed of key and the speed of key release.  But this is not the same as playing FAST its thinking fast and reacting to the sound your piano makes - as each piano has a different ratio for speed of key dependant on the action etc. This is why the best pianists can sound great on anything they learn to adapt their sound to the piano that they have to work with they dont just sit there and say well this is the way I rehearsed it so it dosent matter if the pianos dodgy I'll play the same and then just blame the instrument (as many wanabes an amateurs do) but they either adapt - super fast! OR make the hard decision to say - this piano really isnt upto the job SORRY new piano or cancel the concert.

[opus10no2]

To the above 2 posts -

You obviously both don't realise the difference between 'fast fingers' and 'fast playing'.

At WHATEVER TEMPO -  having FAST FINGERS facilitates the articulation, dynamic control, and yes - MUSICAL POTENTIAL of any passage of piano writing.

Sure, there is a degree of refinement and 'musical imagination' required to utilise this raw ability into the criteria which Jake outlined, but still - the major key to them all is quite simple - raw finger speed/dexterity.

The reason so many of you think the way you do is because you settle with the dexterity you have and try to work hard to improve efficiency of technique and musical control ....yet you all neglect to realise, every one of these skills are GREATLY facilitated by the increase of raw finger speed.