Who do you think is more beautiful?

[thalberg]

Okay....two videos to watch.  We were debating this Grimaud/Argerich issue in the chat room the other day.  Argerich talks at about 2:20 and according to Jake she speaks french like a lumberjack, slurring everything together.  Her husband, Dutoit, is in the next room.  Grimaud looks elegant in her recording. 

I would just like to say I think they are both very beautiful and this poll is just for a laugh.

[counterpoint]

This is not fair!!!!! 

You can't compare a very cool video with Argerich from the 1972s with a disgusting video of the Choral Fantasie where Helene Grimaud is accidentally the pianist(e).
(I think, Grimaud doesn't understand the strangeness of the Choral Fantasie at all.)

Here's a better video with Helene:

[thalberg]

This is not fair!!!!! 

You can't compare a very cool video with Argerich from the 1972s with a disgusting video of the Choral Fantasie where Helene Grimaud is accidentally the pianist(e).
(I think, Grimaud doesn't understand the strangeness of the Choral Fantasie at all.)

Here's a better video with Helene:

Thanks for the lovely video, counterpoint.  I agree with you that the Choral Fantasie is bad, but  doesn't Grimaud look gorgeous in that video? 

[zheer]

   Here is truly beautiful piano playing by Grimud, and she is very beautiful.



             

[counterpoint]

Thanks for the lovely video, counterpoint.  I agree with you that the Choral Fantasie is bad, but  doesn't Grimaud look gorgeous in that video? 

Of course 

[pianistimo]

somehow, her beauty comes from the piano.  i'd like to have seen her play a less 'flimsy' sounding piano, though, as she is perfectly capable of playing a stiffer one.  the extraneous noises from that piano were noticeable and detracted, imo, from the unity of the 'chorale' sound.

also, i felt that she was not sensitive at one point to the speed that the chorale was taking the piece at their entrance (sopranos) - and yet, brought it into check really quickly.  i would have liked to see her take it at the speed that the conductor was intending and being less of a 'tennis match' - although she never intends it this way.  it just comes out because she knows what she wants from a piece.  that is why - pianists should also be conductors.  then they can do whatever they like and not be relegated to #2.

argerich is way more mature than grimaud will ever be - but that doesn't matter because one is dramatic - and the other is light and french sounding.  they aren't competing.  in fact, they compliment differences - but helene's repertoire should be more limited, imo - to things that show off her amazing talents and not to rachmaninov and things like that.  for one thing - she is little.  littler than her pics show.  and she can easily whip out things - but that doesn't mean it's musical in the deepest musical sense.  i think - she has to find her flavor and stick to it.

argerich is able to have a wider rep - but she's also older.  and sultry.

helene is not as sensitive as argerich, imo - but, she can be extremely sensuous sounding when she wants to.  it really seems to me to not be any sort of competition. helene has a good tone.  argerich has the best.  perhaps the pianos make a bit of difference.  helene rushes.  argerich takes her time. 

[pianistimo]

helene is largely self-taught.  how about argerich?  i think she chose a more traditional route and stuck with her teachers didn't she?  helene has intense lyricism.  argerich seems to have a command of the harmonies better.  i heard helene play the rach 2 and didn't like it.  just my opinion.  it was too 'lyrical.'  i would rather have heard her play something french.  but, she doesn't like 'the french school' she says.  i don't know why. 

if i could be in charge of helene's concert programming - i'd make sure she played mendelssohn's piano concerto, perhaps some schumann and schubert somehting or others.  definately want to hear some saint-saens (which i think she avoids as many pianists do - thinking 'too easy')  this is a mistake, imo, because she does not realize that her talent also lies in lyricism.  not many people have what she does in this area.  the lightness and freeness and spontenaity that ripples like sunlight through a field.  she continually wants to prove herself the other way.  strong.  manly.  rachmaninov.  i just don't think she pulls it off effectively.

[pianowolfi]

I voted for option no. 1. I love the choral fantasy.  And Argerich was never "my type of woman" (if something like that plays a role at all in this context) though I respect her very much as a pianist, of course. Grimaud has said something very important about her relation to music that someone quoted here on the forum a while ago. This statement was very important to me, I placed it on my piano (I hope I'll find it again in the current chaos there) and I used to show or copy it to some of my students. Unfortunately I seem to be too disorganized to find it at the time But what she said seemed very "attractive" to me. So this makes a difference, as it seems. Thoughts can be "attractive". I put all this in quotes since, yeah , the question of beauty is very "subjective" and this whole thread just seems to ask your subjective opinion and nothing else, anyway. Well yeah what should I say then? "Beauty is an experience".  (I would need so many tongue smileys lol )

[mike_lang]

Umm...Naida Cole, anyone?

[pianowolfi]

 Anyway, is this actually a beauty contest? I almost feel guilty for having posted in here lol because it's my opinion that of course both of these pianists are very beautiful, though they are both not my favorites, whether as pianists nor as "beauty contest candidates", I choose my favorites elsewhere, maybe. The ability to express musical content is per se beautiful to me. Very beautiful.

[thalberg]

Anyway, is this actually a beauty contest?

No, but when you've got women that look like these ones, one can't help but stop and assess.