Re: RUBINSTEIN:Chopin of 20th century. any argumen

[Hmoll]

Hmm... One was a composer. One was not. One had a long career as a performer. One had a very short career. One was famous as a teacher. One was not.

Why do you think Arthur Rubinstein was the Chopin of the 20th century?

[allchopin]

Hmm... One was a composer. One was not. One had a long career as a performer. One had a very short career. One was famous as a teacher. One was not.

Why do you think Arthur Rubinstein was the Chopin of the 20th century?

  Actually, Arthur did compose a bit, but only on weekends.    

I believe playing_by_heart was referring to musicalty.
Personally, I don't find all of what I think Chopin wanted, in Rubinstein's playing.  He touches the heart with some of his works (Nocturnes and Impromptus most notably) however, I think he loses focus when approaching larger works (Grande Polonaise and Scherzos most infamously).  Not Chopin's equal, but certainly brings out intrinsic beauty in a lot of his works.

[Xelles]

 his interpretation is the deepest.

This coming from someone who obviously has never heard any of Chopin's pieces played by Martha Argerich. You just can't compare her Preludes or other Chopin works performed to anything Rubinstein did. He's alright, but everyone knows who the true master is.

[thracozaag]

This coming from someone who obviously has never heard any of Chopin's pieces played by Martha Argerich. You just can't compare her Preludes or other Chopin works performed to anything Rubinstein did. He's alright, but everyone knows who the true master is.

 Yup, William Kapell

[dj]

This coming from someone who obviously has never heard any of Chopin's pieces played by Martha Argerich. You just can't compare her Preludes or other Chopin works performed to anything Rubinstein did. He's alright, but everyone knows who the true master is.

o come now....argerich has excellent technique sure....but chopin is about so much more! and no one can interpret all his subtleties like rubinstein can

[rainmaker]

 thanks dj. thank god there is someone who can understand the real talent of rubi.
 there is something more than that.. to be imortal interpreter in this da*n piano!

[conartist]

Cortot, Friedman and Koczalski are among the pianists who are definitely much more divine and touching than Rubinstein.   Rubinstein's Chopin, which has its own truly beautiful things, is dull and unimaginative in comparison.

[zhiliang]

All of these is very subjective and personal, can anyone say in words how should Chopin sound like? I been trying to find how to describe it.

For me, it would be Cortot and Rubinstein... probably because all i can say is they sound most right to me...

[trunks]

Rubinstein was the true prophet of the composers he played. His Chopin is but a small fraction of his musicianship. He also played Brahms, Schumann, Liszt, Prokofiev, Villa-Lobos, Albeniz, Debussy, Beethoven . . . everything to full conviction and authority. The only snags were found in some of his Chopin Preludes - which he never recorded for stereophonic anyway.

The grand golden tone, the natural flow of music and temperament, among many others, were the hallmarks of Rubinstein the artist.

My opinion - when Rubinstein played all other pianists could've well packed up and gone home. Argerich and Horowitz are by leaps and bounds no match for Rubinstein in musical terms, although they have phenomenal technique.

Branding Rubinstein as the "Chopin Player" is a gross understatement. He was an all-round artist, convincing in everything he did.

[pseudopianist]

Naxo's Idil Biret does some really great interpiations (sp?) and she really gives great deepth to many of the pieces. Rubinstein wasn't that bad himself but Miss Biret all the way.

[Saturn]

I COMPLETELY agree, PeterHK!

I don't like to think of Rubinstein as a Chopin specialist.  His Chopin was good, but it didn't comprise the majority of his discography, and it definitely wasn't the only composer he was good at playing.  His repertoire was huge, and he played almost everything well.

I like to think of his interpretations as "scholarly." No matter what he's playing, he plays with authority and a good understanding of the style, mood, and form of the piece.  He's passionate in his playing, but rarely overdramatic.  His playing has lots of feeling, but he rarely seems to get lost in the emotional atmosphere.  He's always detached just enough to maintain control over his music.

Rubinstein didn't have a special sense or instinct for playing Chopin.  He played it the way he played everything else--with good knowledge, good sense, and good feeling--and it just happened to work out quite well in most of Chopin's works.

[trunks]

Thanks for sharing my view, Saturn.

Some examples. Rubinstein's Rachmaninoff is by far more convincing than Rachmaninoff playing himself in the Concerto No.2 in C minor, Op.18 and the Variations on a Theme by Paganini, Op.43.

Michelangeli's Debussy (CDs on the Deutsch Gramophon label) was played with an awesomely mellow tone that is so soothing to the ears. Yet the tone in his studio Debussy was no match for Rubinstein's tone in his live Debussy.

The naturalness, spontaneity and the lack of idiosyncracy, eccentricity and mannerism in Rubinstein mark him outstanding from other pianists.

[rainmaker]

 thank you guys!!!!!!!! but as we all know rubi is known as THE interpreter of chopin and personally i can ''see'' in his recordings his deep deep , the deepest feelings/emotions that someone could bring out to us through chopin's masterpieces. but i guess that's one opinion only. anyway, it doesn't matter, i am glad that you can see his oddness!the man has got THE style!!!!