Your top 10 techniques of all time?

[opus10no2]

Considering mech under this heading also, who makes your list?

This must consider *prime* techs only, ideally, but Rach's recordings among others were past their physical peak, but still worthy.

[rob47]

1. gavrilov, richter, weissenberg
2. cziffra, horowitz, rachmaninoff
3. gilels, rubenstein, moiseiwitsch
4. MA hamelin, john ogdon
5. annie fischer, AB michaelangeli, Jorge Bolet
6. horacio gutierrez, boris berezovsky, pierre aimard laurent
7. martha argerich, simon barere, glenn gould, maurizio pollini, Fou T'song, William Kappell, Ronald Turini, Vladimir Ashkenzay
8. Byron Janis
9. Leif Oves Andsnes, Piers Lane, Kissin
10. Lang Lang

poss

[rob47]

also Vadim Rudenko, Franscesco Libetta, Mei-Ting Sun, Ingolf Wunder could be tied with LL for  more than a bit impressive tech

so there is my top 34 techs 

[rob47]

one more thing

 once pianists reach a certain level and "realize how small they are" (cziffra quote),  anyone of the thousands and thousands and thousands of greats could, with little or no trouble at all, take the crown of "best tech"

[daniloperusina]

1. Artur Schnabel
2. Artur Schnabel
3. Artur Schnabel
etc
for his uncanny technical ability at shaping Beethoven's music, pulling off unbeleivable musical stunts!

[franzliszt2]

1) Arrau (just look at the way he moves and the total ease. And his hand shape! Straight fingers, and the angle they are in relation to his hand. And the sound it produces.

2) Josef Hoffman.....just look at that vidio of him playing Rach prelude!! So fluid and just so much at home with the piano.

3) I'm inclined to say Godowsky...I've seen 4 seconds of him playing when he was old, and he has same shape as Arrau. And in picture he does as well. So I'm guessing his, and by reputaion.

4) Jorge Bolet...listen to his Tanhausser live from the Carnegie hall recital and you'll understand why

5) Richter...such amazing range of sound

6) Rubinstein...amaizng sound!!! Just look at the way he moves as well.

7) Zimmerman....amazing clarity and musicianship combined. His scales are amazing!

Ronald Smith....I should rank him first as my whole technique is based on the techniques of his students who he taught it to. And I adopted it becasue I was sick of my fingery approach which created a bad sound.

9) Michalangeli...who wouldn't want note perfection all the time if they could without sacrifycing saftey..howvere his rep was limited, but still, he's amazing.

10) Horowitz... amazing. I love the way he starts pieces. It's fantastic. And the sounds he produces are amazing considering the way his hand shape is.

[jakev2.0]

10. Barere/Cziffra
9. Gavrilov/Berezovsky
8. Richter/Gilels
7. Moiseiwitsch/Schnabel
6. Arrau/Michelangeli
5. Horowitz
4. Friedman
3. Rachmaninoff
2. Gould
1. Hofmann

[gerry]

I'm always amazed as I watch Horowitz - how he can keep those hands so flat and steady while bringing out with such crystal clarity not only the the melodic lines but select inner ones as well.

Bye-the-way, is it my imagination or is there some sort of general consensus that is down on Lang Lang. In what little I've seen and heard, I realize he appears as something of a showman but he has such incredible bodily and athletic freedom I find myself fascinated watching him- to observe his expressions it's almost as if he is sitting in the audience listening to someone else play.  Anyway, I guess he is one of those that one either loves or hates - no middle ground. It will be interesting to watch wherre his genius will take him as he matures. I just would like to know why he seldom appears up there with the greats in the opinion polls.

[pianistimo]

'prime' techniques?  are we talking christopher o'reilly's from the top with proficient and technically masterful artists under the age of 20.  that's ok by me for a few hours - but i like to hear mid-life and old people play, too.

perhaps the most 'technically proficient' in the purest sense would be keith jarrett or chick corea or somebody who can just play around with the piano.  pianowolfi did impress me, too - with idle wondering about the piano as if he was swimming in the keys. 

classical pianists sometimes tend to overlearn repertoire to the detriment of actually knowing what is going on.  then, they have to catch up in college.  but, most don't have the time or energy.  it is a rare few that are proficient technically in sightreading, eartraining, theory, piano technique, teaching, performing with passion.  it's basically a lifetime thing to get rid of deficits.

i don't view technicians with as much awe anymore because some of it is 'flashy.'  i'd like to hear someone technically proficient and mentally 'there' in the music as well.  someone who has experienced life and who can bring a lot of passion into it.

ok.  i've been thinking this entire time - and still my answer is barry douglas.  he is in the prime of his life.  has taken on learning about conducting.  knows a lot about the in's and out's of piano - and also - can 'hear' from some source of 'light' the beams in the music and where to bring them out so that the audience can sit back and not be stressing over minutia.

2. pogorelich
the rest can be under 20. some really great recitals can be given by very young people.  i forgot to mention  my teacher carl cranmer - of which i actually place above barry douglas barely.  they are in a tie kind of.

[mike_lang]

Garrick Ohlsson, anyone?

[pianistimo]

yes!  excellent accompanist, too.  all around good musician. 

[elevateme_returns]

4. MA hamelin
9. Kissin

you'd really put hamelin 5 places above kissin?? kissin is fab but technically hamelin wouldnt even be in my top 25

[thalberg]

I'd put perahia and argerich at 1 and 2.  Perahia because of his sound, Argerich because of her insane speed and clarity.  Many would disagree with me about Perahia, but that's only because you haven't heard him live. I didn't care for him until I heard him live, then suddenly he was my number 1.  He's unbelievable live.  You won't beleive it till you see it.

[mike_lang]

{Sings "Can't Touch This"}

[gerry]

Garrick Ohlsson, anyone?

Saw him live recently - he nailed the Prokofiev 6 and the Liszt b minor - very impressive.

[pita bread]

Saw him live recently - he nailed the Prokofiev 6 and the Liszt b minor - very impressive.

You sure it wasn't the Prokofiev 7?

The program I say him play at the Walt Disney Concert Hall was:

Beethoven Sonata Op. 90
Liszt Sonata
Szymanowski Masques
Prokofiev Sonata #7

[gerry]

Of course you're correct, it was the 7th (senior moment). He played the same concert here in Santa Rosa to a 2/3rds full audience - sigh - such apathy up here - so many don't know what they missed - and only $35/tix !!

[pita bread]

I got in for free 

[gerry]

For encores: Chopin Waltz Op34 #3 and of all things Rach's C#m Prelude.

[g.gould]

1. Sokolov
2. Pogorelich
3. Horowitz
4. Hamelin
5. Richter
6. Cziffra
7. Schiff
8. Kissin
9. Yundi li
10. Pollini

[jlh]

1. Sokolov
2. Pogorelich
3. Horowitz
4. Hamelin
5. Richter
6. Cziffra
7. Schiff
8. Kissin
9. Yundi li
10. Pollini

Randomly, why isn't Gould in your top 10? 

[dutch_pianist]

1. Horowitz because he had everything from extreme pianissimo's to extreme fortissimo's. he wasn't the fastest player, though.
2. Argerich
3. Richter (I was deeply impressed by his etude op 42-5 by Scriabin)
4. Gilels
5. Kissin
6. Volodos
7. Sokolov
8. Volodos
9. Hough.
10. Cziffra.

[g.gould]

Randomly, why isn't Gould in your top 10? 

I chose the name G.gould to my username just because he was available not because I like his playing

[nicco]

I chose the name G.gould to my username just because he was available not because I like his playing

...lol. You are smart.

[sevencircles]

you'd really put hamelin 5 places above kissin?? kissin is fab but technically hamelin wouldnt even be in my top 25

Kissin wouldn´t be in my top 25

Never heard any liverecording by him ever that impressed me nearly as much as Hamelin´s greatest recordings (Nothing Kissin has done as an adult at least)

[etudes]

I'd put perahia and argerich at 1 and 2.  Perahia because of his sound, Argerich because of her insane speed and clarity.  Many would disagree with me about Perahia, but that's only because you haven't heard him live. I didn't care for him until I heard him live, then suddenly he was my number 1.  He's unbelievable live.  You won't beleive it till you see it.

happened to me as well...with the true god ingolf WUNDER..his live sound is the best sound from piano I have ever heard I would dare to say much better than sokolov,Pollini,Pogorelich,LL ....too bad for many people here who judge him as an idiot or a stupid pianist before they witness how genius Mr.true god actually is

[hodi]

hamelin and volodos.

[thalbergmad]

1. Horowitz because he had everything from extreme pianissimo's to extreme fortissimo's. he wasn't the fastest player, though.
2. Argerich
3. Richter (I was deeply impressed by his etude op 42-5 by Scriabin)
4. Gilels
5. Kissin
6. Volodos
7. Sokolov
8. Volodos
9. Hough.
10. Cziffra.

Volodos made it twice in your list.

He must be good.

Thal

[pita bread]

For encores: Chopin Waltz Op34 #3 and of all things Rach's C#m Prelude.

Hm, for us, he encored three Chopin Waltzes.

[elevateme_returns]

Kissin wouldn´t be in my top 25

Never heard any liverecording by him ever that impressed me nearly as much as Hamelin´s greatest recordings (Nothing Kissin has done as an adult at least)

are we talking technique? surely hamelin doesnt come anywhere near kissin?

[opus10no2]

Obviously different people have different definitions.

Broadly, the main 2 are -

The ability to play the notes with the most physical command, accurately and evenly

Dynamics/Tone

We cannot bring in rhythm, because that is an element of musicality, and even the dynamic element is difficult to judge because of the inherently musical relation.

A pianist really only has 2 things to work with - volume and time.

It's funny, technique is all about command of velocity - velocity of individual finger strikes for dynamics, and allround velocity of groups of notes for the first definition.

Taking away the subjectively related musical elements, it all comes again back to fast fingers.

Yes, Hamelin has faster fingers than Kissin.

[elevateme_returns]

technique isnt about velocity, its about the quality of the sound produced. hamelin's sound just isnt there, lots of top pianists say that, whereas kissin's is. and where's the proof that hamelin's fingers are faster than kissin's anyway??

[opus10no2]

The uality of the sound produced is all about the relations between the different key strokes, which is all about command of velocity.

You say Hamelin's sound isn't there, but it doesn't convince anyone, it's a subjective statement and holds zero weight.

You bring up the inherent difficulty of comparing when both pianists barely have any cross-over repertoire.

It just seems obvious to me, from various recordings and videos, that Hamelin has the superior mechanism.

[elevateme_returns]

have you seen hamelin live? im sure you would think differently if you saw him live

[sevencircles]

spam

[elevateme_returns]

the alkan concerto is great music. i wish there was someone better than hamelin at the forefront of alkan performers. perhaps he would be more popular if there was.

jack gibbons is good

[opus10no2]

have you seen hamelin live? im sure you would think differently if you saw him live

Yes, I have, and was very impressed.

I have never heard Kissin play anything more technically demanding then this live

Well, that isn't really relevant, Kissin sticks to mainstream repertoire and it's still possible to truly unleash the same level of physical dexterity in those pieces.

Point is, on a NPS ratio in passages of similar figuration, Hamelin comes out on top when both are on form.

[franzliszt2]

The uality of the sound produced is all about the relations between the different key strokes, which is all about command of velocity.

You say Hamelin's sound isn't there, but it doesn't convince anyone, it's a subjective statement and holds zero weight.

You bring up the inherent difficulty of comparing when both pianists barely have any cross-over repertoire.

It just seems obvious to me, from various recordings and videos, that Hamelin has the superior mechanism.

man you are so wrong about everything. Command of velocity?? what? You can tell you have never had a teacher, andyou can tell you have the typical amatuer pianist sound.

How the hell do we know who has the fastest fingers?? There is no such thing as "fast fingers"

Hamelins alkan concerto is crap. It's technically perfect, in that he hits the notes. But it's not good. Such a shame people class him as the leading Alkan interprater.

There is no doubting Kissin's tecnique. Doubt his ideas at times, but to judge his technique as stupidly as you people do shows you are amateurs. Do you seriously think that he plays things that strecth his technique??? Most people don't play Alkan and stuff because they don't like it. I like Alkan a lot, and SOME Godowsky. But I'd much rather play a beethoven concerto than the Alkan concerto. It's so sad that people on here can't see the difficulties of a Beethoven concerto becasue you's are so unmusical and havn't the slightest clue about technique or musicality. The only reason Hamelin is so popular to you guys is becasue he hits the right notes. VERY FEW people have given me reasons for liking Hamelin, and these are people I respect a lot, and they as I expected give me good answers. Unlike your joke of a response about finger speed. You have no respect for Hamelin whatspever and it's a disgrace you even talk about him like you do. If anyone ever talked about my playign the way you talk about Hamelins I'd quit!! Thats not what music is about.

[rob47]

Gavrilov Rach 2 3rd mvt.

notice the signature speedy rise from the bench after the last chords

and
and here's a slightly better? performance of the whole concerto with Alexis Weissenberg

[opus10no2]

man you are so wrong about everything. Command of velocity?? what? You can tell you have never had a teacher, andyou can tell you have the typical amatuer pianist sound.

How the hell do we know who has the fastest fingers?? There is no such thing as "fast fingers"

Watehfuxxorz?

Do you even understand what is and isn't possible at the piano?

Besides hitting the right notes, a pianist can only effect -

1 - the volume of the note

2 - exactly when it is struck and ended (pedaling figures into this also).


Now, the volume of the notes is controlled by the technique of finger and hand positioning and the velocity of strike.

Velocity and timing defines and causes just about EVERYTHING that comes out of and goes into a piano.

How can you refute that?

[sevencircles]

"The only reason Hamelin is so popular to you guys is becasue he hits the right notes. "

Most of us like him since he is trying to explore repertoire that is unknown to us and play these works in a way that is technically brilliant and often also musically better then any previous recordings of these works

Most important is that his ego isn´t out of control and he seems to be a really nice guy.

Kissin on the other hand......

[elevateme_returns]

Most important is that his ego isn´t out of control and he seems to be a really nice guy.

Kissin on the other hand......

Kissin on the other hand knows he is good and might not be a nice guy, i dont know, ive never met him. franz has though, maybe you should ask him?

what does that have to do with his technique?

[elevateme_returns]

Besides hitting the right notes, a pianist can only effect -

1 - the volume of the note

2 - exactly when it is struck and ended (pedaling figures into this also).

yes, and these two things factor into sound, and why kissin's is better than hamelin's.

hamelin has nimble fingers, as do most concert pianists, but he brushes over the keys and doesnt get to the root of them. kissin always gets to the root of the key! and makes a much broader sound. its hard to explain, try it.

in the words of ashley wass (leeds finalist?):

"I get very frustrated at the general lack of attention many of today's pianists pay to the quality of sound they produce. Perhaps that is partly connected to the condition of the pianos and the size of the rooms in which many students have to practice during their college years: under those circumstances, one becomes almost immune to an ugly tone."

[opus10no2]

Getting to the root of keys does nothing, once the hammer has struck, it can only decay or cease.

[richard black]

Come on, if you don't like what Hamelin does with the music that's fine. As it happens I do (including for instance a Schubert sonata, can't remember offhand which, which he played as if making it up on the spot), but that's all taste. But in terms of technical virtuosity there's not much wrong with him, not that any known piano compositions can root out.

Interestingly, Hamelin said to a friend of mine, talking about the _organist_ Kevin Bowyer, 'I wish I had his keyboard technique' - and what Bowyer can do with his feet doesnt' bear talking about. So maybe he's the greatest pianist manqué of all time!

[elevateme_returns]

Getting to the root of keys does nothing, once the hammer has struck, it can only decay or cease.

im trying to think of an easier way to explain it so you can understand, but i cant.

PUSH not HIT. PRESS not HIT. hamelin sometimes produces harsh tones and uneven sounds

Come on, if you don't like what Hamelin does with the music that's fine. As it happens I do (including for instance a Schubert sonata, can't remember offhand which, which he played as if making it up on the spot), but that's all taste. But in terms of technical virtuosity there's not much wrong with him, not that any known piano compositions can root out.

Interestingly, Hamelin said to a friend of mine, talking about the _organist_ Kevin Bowyer, 'I wish I had his keyboard technique' - and what Bowyer can do with his feet doesnt' bear talking about. So maybe he's the greatest pianist manqué of all time!

kevin bowyer is a family friend who my parents know from a place called oundle? the only thing i can think of that he might be better at hamelin than is legato fingering, organists have a need for it. lol

[elevateme_returns]

Getting to the root of keys does nothing, once the hammer has struck, it can only decay or cease.

i used to think the same, til i went and stayed with my friend at college

[franzliszt2]

opus10no2 if you think that those are the 2 things to do with piano you are stupider than I ever imagined.

Watehfuxxorz?

Do you even understand what is and isn't possible at the piano?

Besides hitting the right notes, a pianist can only effect -

1 - the volume of the note

2 - exactly when it is struck and ended (pedaling figures into this also).


Now, the volume of the notes is controlled by the technique of finger and hand positioning and the velocity of strike.

Velocity and timing defines and causes just about EVERYTHING that comes out of and goes into a piano.

How can you refute that?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "tone production"? You can strike the note millions of ways and there is proof to show that you can get a lot more out of a note than this. You are clearly so deaf you have never experienced anything amazing. I had a masterclass with Peter Donohoe once, and he said.."You need to cresendo through this note" and I replied.."but thats impossible, it's a semibreave" and he smiled and said..."yes it is impossible in theory, but you can create the illusion". Your scientific view of piano is stupid, all this mechanic crap you speak of. You are not an artist, you are just someone who looks upon greater people than yourself and trys to copy them...and fails.

"The only reason Hamelin is so popular to you guys is becasue he hits the right notes. "

Most of us like him since he is trying to explore repertoire that is unknown to us and play these works in a way that is technically brilliant and often also musically better then any previous recordings of these works

Most important is that his ego isn´t out of control and he seems to be a really nice guy.

Kissin on the other hand......

Hamelin does explore repertoire, that is true. But he plays it so boringly it makes me think "thats why that stuff isn't played!" Technique is all he has! His sound is dreadfull in my opinion. The repertoire he plays is still nothign compared to the great piano works of Beethoven. All his recordings of the common repertoire are dreadful! His Schubert? His Brahms concerto? His Shostakovich....even better..his Haydn!! The thing that bugs me about his playing is it all sounds the same. It's just to "perfect" and to me it doesn't say anything other than I can play the notes. I understand that may be different to other peoples views, but thats my opinion. It's all light fast fingerwork.

He does seem like a nice guy, but I wouldn't say he was in anyway the great romantic hero, like many of the composers of the music he plays. He's very down to earth from what I've guessed by interviews etc.. but he doesn't seem that interesting. Kissin however is a HUGE personality. And a very nice guy. My teacher is friends with him, and has told me a lot about his personality. He clearly has an artist personality with a lot more to say about thnings than Hamelin.

It's strange however if you make a non pianist (but musician) listen to Hamelin playing they all get bored. Yet play them a Cortot recording, and they don't.

i used to think the same, til i went and stayed with my friend at college

hahaha he should have came to stay, maybe I could have made him think differently as well. We used to be exactly the same though elevateme, don't forget that...speed speed..remember..op10no1 in 1 minut 10 seconds!! phoar!!!!......Horowitz carmen variations, stars and stripes!! Alkan scherzo diablique!!!.....thing was we were 14 and actually played the stuff (badly)...op10no2 is like 23 and doesn't.  maybe when he's 30 he'll mature.

[elevateme_returns]

lol i know mate "omg he can play underwater cathedral dead fast phwoar phwoar"

[opus10no2]

opus10no2 if you think that those are the 2 things to do with piano you are stupider than I ever imagined.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "tone production"? You can strike the note millions of ways and there is proof to show that you can get a lot more out of a note than this. You are clearly so deaf you have never experienced anything amazing. I had a masterclass with Peter Donohoe once, and he said.."You need to cresendo through this note" and I replied.."but thats impossible, it's a semibreave" and he smiled and said..."yes it is impossible in theory, but you can create the illusion". Your scientific view of piano is stupid, all this mechanic crap you speak of. You are not an artist, you are just someone who looks upon greater people than yourself and trys to copy them...and fails.

Incorrect, no matter how you dress it up in psychobabble, the mechanical facts remain true.

Of course a good tone demands an acute ear, but this is useless without command over the velocity of the mechanism.

The shaping and motion play a part, but still, their use is overrun by the velocity of the strike.

So, even with the most flawed range of motions, if a pianist has the utmost command of velocity with them, he can produce virtually any dynamic imaginable.



PS. I can play faster than you.