Leslie Howard, what do you think about him?

[sevencircles]

He claims that he has got a larger repertoire then any other pianist in history.

Is this true and can  he play all of it accurate and uptempo live?

Anybody seen him live?

[desordre]

 Dear Seven:
 Excuse me, but I want to put another question in your thread: how much is important to have the larger repertory in history?

 There are fabulous musicians with tons of pieces on the sleeve, and other with relatively few. Does it matter at all?
 
 About Mr. Howard, he's not my favorite pianist, but I did enjoy the times I listen to him.

 Best!

[sevencircles]

There are fabulous musicians with tons of pieces on the sleeve, and other with relatively few. Does it matter at all?

Of course it does. It is a lot more demanding to play many pieces well then a few ones.

Thatīs why I changed my viewpoints about pianists like Richter and Ashkenasy recently.

I wasnīt awhare of the huge amount of works they learned and recorded until fairly recently.

[alhimia]

He claims that he has got a larger repertoire then any other pianist in history.

Is this true and can  he play all of it accurate and uptempo live?

Anybody seen him live?

Yes, I've seen him live, had conversations with him and even participated in a masterclass. All that I can tell you is that it was quite a weird experience and that the man is not very nice at all, especially not for his collegues (he called Arcadi Volodos a 'tasteless rat' and made several very negative comments about Horowitz and Cziffra as well).

The masterclass was strange too. He only accepts an exact reading of the score, you are not allowed to interpretate anything and he will take away all your passion and fire about Liszt's music, at least, that is how I feel about it.

I heard him after the classes playing a recital. Technically not bad (not very much wrong notes) but like the masterclass without any passion, colour or interesting interpretation. I didn't like it, sorry.

[clavicembalisticum]

...(he called Arcadi Volodos a 'tasteless rat' and made several very negative comments about Horowitz and Cziffra as well).

Tasteless?

That was really unnecessary, not to mention the fact that it was highly un - artistic of him. Especially given his "large" repertoire.

[opus10no2]

Of course it does. It is a lot more demanding to play many pieces well then a few ones.

Thatīs why I changed my viewpoints about pianists like Richter and Ashkenasy recently.

I wasnīt awhare of the huge amount of works they learned and recorded until fairly recently.

Well, Howard is evidently a top-class brain-virtuoso, and his fingers are good, if not particularly remarkable.

He realised his strengths early on, and focussed on amassing a repertoire more than technical facility.

Hamelin is perhaps the greatest mix of both, he is just mind-boggling in many ways.

[thalbergmad]

I started to collect some of his Liszt discs, but stopped after about a dozen or so.

They were entirely un remarkable and his attempt at the ealier versions of the Liszt Etudes appeared to indicate that he was not up to the task on a mechanical basis.

The Liszt at the Opera discs were even worse in my opinion. Totally lacking in adventure and daring. He seems to err on the side of safety which can lead to note perfect but boring playing. Many pianists surpass him in this respect.

Still, there is no denying that to record the lot was an incredible feat.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

His claim to have the largest repertoire might be credible; after all Liszt did write an enormous amount of piano music and obviously he will consider all that to be within his rep. A while back (before the completion of Leslie Howard's Liszt project) I heard it claimed that Jeno Jando had the largest recording repertoire. Once again I don't know how accurate that is.

Though it is a thoroughly commendable achievement to have recorded the complete Liszt, I can't say that I like his playing very much. I bought quite a few of the early discs and I always preferred Bolet, Cziffra and others to him, by some distance. I don't find him very imaginative or inspiring on the recordings I have - a bit bland really (nor do I particularly like his tone). In fairness, the project did take over a decade to complete and I've not heard much from the recent recordings, so his playing may have developed or become more insightful.

[thalbergmad]

He only accepts an exact reading of the score, you are not allowed to interpretate anything and he will take away all your passion and fire about Liszt's music, at least, that is how I feel about it.

Judging by some of his Liszt recordings, i can only submit that he must adopt a similar approach with his own playing.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I forgot to say: His Liszt sonata is absurd. It sounded like he wanted it to take up as little space on the CD as possible.

[desordre]

Of course it does. It is a lot more demanding to play many pieces well then a few ones.
(...)

OK, but that is not my point. Suppose that a pianist record a CD of Chopin, with a selection of his pieces, and it's just wonderful: technique, interpretation, insights, etc. An outstanding achievement. Would you say that this fictional pianist is worst than one that records the complete works, just because the latter did it?
 I agree that is very hard to have a high quality large repertory, but the amount of pieces is irrelevant in front of the quality. One single perfect work speaks more than a pile of crap.
 Best wishes!

[sevencircles]

I agree that is very hard to have a high quality large repertory, but the amount of pieces is irrelevant in front of the quality. One single perfect work speaks more than a pile of crap.

When I heard Richter the first i was disspointed since I had heard how amazing his technique was. There were lots of wrong notes I thought but then I realised how huge his repertoire was and  his charisma and musicallity more then compensated for the wrong notes.

Michelangeliīs recordings were almost noteperfect and musical as well but his repertoire was a fraction of Richterīs

I rank Richter as a significantly  better pianist then Michelangeli despite having a lot less noteperfect recordings

Just an example that the size of  the repertoire should be considered

[desordre]

 Dear Seven:
 I would consider exact the opposite: Michelangeli first.
 Anyway, let me clarify my point. When I wrote "perfect", the "flawlessness" is just a small percentage of it. I think that a remarkable interpretation go far beyond it, and sometimes even a rendering with a mistake or two is completely acceptable.

 Going further, you do agree with me. When you considered Richter, you wrote about his "charisma and musicallity", and that's why Richter is the artist he is. The fact that he have an incredible repertory does not matter. By the way, you seem to "excuse" him for some wrong notes because this amount of pieces. I believe that even if he had one piece in his repertory, he would not play it without wrong notes. However, this is just my speculation.
 Now, about Michelangeli, he was a very complete artist, much more than Richter in my opinion, and this is reflected in his somewhat limited repertory. But, something of absolute importance, everything that he plays is perfect.

 Well, in the end we're talking about two pianists that I just can't listen enough, and your comparison was very cool, because they were artists of very different styles that are in the highest degree of the pianistic artistry.

 Notice that if you think that "more is better", I respect your position. It's up to yourself. Anyway, I am tired of the "hardest"-"biggest"-"whateverest" way. But that is up to me. 

 Best wishes!

 

[alhimia]

Perhaps the most perfect pianist with the biggest repertoire today is Arcadi Volodos.  Problem is, he plays only a very small part of it in public. But if you ask him privately, you can ask him to play any piece, and he would play it for you, probably perfect.

He said more times in interviews that for every single piece he plays in public, he has studied and played the whole output of that composer (thus not only piano music but also symphonies, operas etc.) at home.

One time I met him backstage and he asked me what I was playing right at the moment. I mentioned the second sonata of Rachmaninoff (very hard piece) and immediately he played the whole third movement 

I think Liszt, Hoffman, Godowsky and Rosenthal could do more or less the same, although not completely sure about that.

[sevencircles]

Perhaps the most perfect pianist with the biggest repertoire today is Arcadi Volodos.  Problem is, he plays only a very small part of it in public. But if you ask him privately, you can ask him to play any piece, and he would play it for you, probably perfect.

He said more times in interviews that for every single piece he plays in public, he has studied and played the whole output of that composer (thus not only piano music but also symphonies, operas etc.) at home.

One time I met him backstage and he asked me what I was playing right at the moment. I mentioned the second sonata of Rachmaninoff (very hard piece) and immediately he played the whole third movement

Really, how come he has recorded and played so few pieces in public?

Do you have any idea about that?

[alhimia]

Really, how come he has recorded and played so few pieces in public?

Do you have any idea about that?

It's probably lazyness and the fact that he wants everything he plays in public to be absolutely as perfect as possible. From what I have heard, he thinks all the time of the ideas behind the music and want them to sound as lively as possible. He treats every piece very personal and absolutely wants to come as close as he could to what the composer wanted to say.
But on the other hand, I agree with you that he could play much more different pieces in public and it's actually quite a shame that he (with his potential and capacities) doesn't do it.
Also one of the reasons why he loses public's interest more and more (at least in Holland) and people now are much more crazy about for example Lang Lang.

[Kassaa]

It's probably lazyness and the fact that he wants everything he plays in public to be absolutely as perfect as possible. From what I have heard, he thinks all the time of the ideas behind the music and want them to sound as lively as possible. He treats every piece very personal and absolutely wants to come as close as he could to what the composer wanted to say.
But on the other hand, I agree with you that he could play much more different pieces in public and it's actually quite a shame that he (with his potential and capacities) doesn't do it.
Also one of the reasons why he loses public's interest more and more (at least in Holland) and people now are much more crazy about for example Lang Lang.

Volodos is a lot more popular among pianists than Lang Lang in Holland though .

[alhimia]

Volodos is a lot more popular among pianists than Lang Lang in Holland though .

True, anyone with good ears and taste will hear the difference in quality between Volodos and Lang Lang.

But still, the facts are that Lang Lang has sold a lot more cd's than both Volodos and Sokolov together...

[richard black]

Obviously it's impressive just how large Howard's repertoire is (and especially given that a large amount of it is what most people would consider very difficult to play) but let's face it, when one hears a pianist play one piece all that matters is how good that is. In the end, the main advantage of a large repertoire, artistically, is that it gives one plenty of 'cross-fertilisation' from one piece, and one composer, to another.

[maxreger]

"I rank Richter as a significantly  better pianist then Michelangeli despite having a lot less noteperfect recordings"

I laugh at posts like this. You "rank" Who cares what you "rank".

So what, you have ranked him better, higher, more complete... what is this ranking going towards outside of making you have to judge two great pianists against each other for no other reason then so you can feel great about your ability to "rank" such masters?

I suppose if god comes down from the heavens and says he will abolish you to hell if you dont submit to him a proper ranking of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, then such rankings would be good to have under your belt. But, in reality, why does it matter who has the largest rep?

I dont think its incorrect to prefer ones playing to someone elses, but this idea of ranking someone, like its a sports championchip is laughable to me.

[etudes]

"I rank Richter as a significantly  better pianist then Michelangeli despite having a lot less noteperfect recordings"

I laugh at posts like this. You "rank" Who cares what you "rank".

So what, you have ranked him better, higher, more complete... what is this ranking going towards outside of making you have to judge two great pianists against each other for no other reason then so you can feel great about your ability to "rank" such masters?

I suppose if god comes down from the heavens and says he will abolish you to hell if you dont submit to him a proper ranking of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, then such rankings would be good to have under your belt. But, in reality, why does it matter who has the largest rep?

I dont think its incorrect to prefer ones playing to someone elses, but this idea of ranking someone, like its a sports championchip is laughable to me.

who cares about god when we have the true god ingolf wunder?

[dnephi]

Besides, Richter's just more legendary.

[jakev2.0]

who cares about god when we have the true god ingolf wunder?

&mode=related&search=

I'd rather be an atheist.

[sevencircles]

"I rank Richter as a significantly  better pianist then Michelangeli despite having a lot less noteperfect recordings"

I laugh at posts like this. You "rank" Who cares what you "rank".

Many people seems to be interested in what other people think since there have been so many polls here.

Go to another forum if you donīt like to hear what people think about certain pianists.

[thalbergmad]

But still, the facts are that Lang Lang has sold a lot more cd's than both Volodos and Sokolov together...

And Britney Spears has sold more CD's than Volodos and Solokov together, but it don't mean she is a better musician.

Thal

[maxreger]

Many people seems to be interested in what other people think since there have been so many polls here.

Go to another forum if you donīt like to hear what people think about certain pianists.

Im interested in what people have to say, no doubt. Im not interested in your own childish ranking of artists that are beyond your reproach.

[liszt-essence]

I think he sucks

[soliloquy]

Ian Pace and Massimiliano Damerini have larger repertoires; so does another Italian pianist although I always forget his name.  He is comparable to Pace as far as the types of music he plays.  Howard is a pretty useless pianist, and nobody would know his name if it weren't for the fact that he recorded the complete works of Liszt; the fact that his Liszt is painfully bland, colorless and boring doesn't make a difference; people just know of him as "that guy who plays all the Liszt".  That's all he'll ever be, and he didn't do that well at all.  Howard is also possibly the only pianist than can challenge Katsaris in an ego contest, which makes me like him all the less.

[pianiststrongbad]

Guess I'm in the minority on this one.  I watched a masterclass and a recital of his.  The masterclass was wonderful and he had lots of original ideas and seemed he very openminded.  His recital was also very nice, featuring a lot of works I was not familiar with. 
I met him after the masterclass and he seemed very modest.  I'm curious as to where you found this quote that he has the largest rep ever.  I think he is a wonderful person and a great musician. 

[sevencircles]

Here is an infopage that claims that  he has got the largest recorded repertoire as well and I doubt that.

https://members.ozemail.com.au/~pjtogher/instrum/howardl.htm

Here is another link https://www.le.ac.uk/press/press/lisztattheopera.html

[sevencircles]

Im interested in what people have to say, no doubt. Im not interested in your own childish ranking of artists that are beyond your reproach.

If anyone is childish itīs you

[pies]

I think his Beethoven symphony no. 9 recording is decent. 
I would have to agree with those who characterize his recordings as bland.

[indutrial]

Ian Pace and Massimiliano Damerini have larger repertoires; so does another Italian pianist although I always forget his name.  He is comparable to Pace as far as the types of music he plays.  Howard is a pretty useless pianist, and nobody would know his name if it weren't for the fact that he recorded the complete works of Liszt; the fact that his Liszt is painfully bland, colorless and boring doesn't make a difference; people just know of him as "that guy who plays all the Liszt".  That's all he'll ever be, and he didn't do that well at all.  Howard is also possibly the only pianist than can challenge Katsaris in an ego contest, which makes me like him all the less.

I hope your idea of "useless" doesn't also encompass the amount of researching Howard put into the discovery of all that Liszt material, whether his playing is the best or not. I'll agree that his playing is pretty unsatisfying to the ears at some points (e.g. I didn't like anything about his Mephisto Waltz No. 1).

I do appreciate Pace's capacity as an absolute piano genius, but if his repertoire is so vast, why doesn't he share more of the haughty genius advertised on his site and actually record more of that massive and ridiculous list he has (split into alphabetically sections no less). I would love to hear something like, say, his interpretation of the Dutilleux sonata instead of just seeing as another listed item in his "what's what of modern piano" grocery-list.

[sevencircles]

I do appreciate Pace's capacity as an absolute piano genius, but if his repertoire is so vast, why doesn't he share more of the haughty genius advertised on his site and actually record more of that massive and ridiculous list he has (split into alphabetically sections no less). I would love to hear something like, say, his interpretation of the Dutilleux sonata instead of just seeing as another listed item in his "what's what of modern piano" grocery-list.

Would prefer to see a live video

He can always edit the studiorecordings to make it seem like he can play stuff that he is not even close to be able to play uptempo and accurate live.

[indutrial]

Indeed, videos alongside recordings of those loads of pieces would help to elevate his aegis for me.

I was always pleased with the Arditti Quartet's ability to record almost every crazy piece that entered their repertoire, even really wild stuff like the Helicopter Quartet by Stockhausen

[pita bread]

...(he called Arcadi Volodos a 'tasteless rat' and made several very negative comments about Horowitz and Cziffra as well).

The masterclass was strange too. He only accepts an exact reading of the score...

Howard's Liszt isn't exactly bubbly with taste either...

[prongated]

If anyone is childish itīs you

...ha very nice...

But maxreger, these people do talk about why they 'rank' these pianists accordingly. Is there something wrong with saying "I prefer Michelangeli to Richter" or otherwise? While they are beyond 'reproach' to most of us here, our respect for them obviously do not go to the extent we listen to their recordings without thinking about their merits...

[maxreger]

Prefer who ever you want. But "I rank so and so as better." Sounds to me like someone else should give two %$#@ about where that ranking lies. He is free to like whoever he likes, just phrases like:

I rank pianist genius 1 over pianist genius 2 seem limiting to me. Will we have to burn the recorded output of one over the other? They both have strong and weak points, as do all human beings.

[prongated]

...I see...difference between ranking preference and ranking [skill, musicality, technique, whatever]...

They both have strong and weak points, as do all human beings.

Agreed.