least favorite pianists

[weissenberg2]

they don't have to be alive, anyway hears my take

Idil Biret

Lang Lang

Dong-Hyek Lim

Frederic Chiu

Marc-Andre Hamelin (don't ask/ don't comment please)

[kaii]

I think Lang Lang's playing isn't that bad, I just don't like his performance style. But I think he's one of those pianists who you either love or hate.

No one who I really dislike. Listening to/looking at different interpretations is fun People are sharing their music, and their ideas with you...

On the same wave of thought, some people rather other people's interpretations of Rachmaninov than the composer himself (they thought he played it as if he was bored of his pieces) ... agree or disagree?

[tanman]

if you consider richard kastle a pianist, then DEFINITELY him.

[retrouvailles]

Marc-Andre Hamelin (don't ask/ don't comment please)

Why not? Is his name just there to piss people of? He and Frederic Chiu are great musicians and I don't know why in the world they would be your least favorites. If you can't give reasons for your choices, don't even bother naming them.

[weissenberg2]

Why not? Is his name just there to piss people of? He and Frederic Chiu are great musicians and I don't know why in the world they would be your least favorites. If you can't give reasons for your choices, don't even bother naming them.

Well the only reason I do not like Marc-Andre Hamelin is because I find his playing to dry (I.E. not enough of himself) and I lost a lot of respect for him when he said he can not listen to old recordings (E.G. Rachmaninoff, Friedman)  because they take to many liberties with the music. I like Chiu's Prokofiev (except for the sonata no.6 in A-major) but when I saw him in concert his Mendelssohn sonata and rondo capricioso were very boring (and he faked split octaves in the rondo capricioso), the Chopin etudes he played, he got caught up to much in the virtuosity and in op.10 no.3 his tone was harsh. The Liszt was technically fantastic but it was to dry.

I could have given reasons but I do not need to explicate my opinions.

[birba]

 rondo capricioso were very boring (and he faked split octaves in the rondo capricioso),

I could have given reasons but I do not need to explicate my opinions.

How do you fake split octaves?  And why would you have to fake anything in this intermediate piece?

[weissenberg2]

How do you fake split octaves?  And why would you have to fake anything in this intermediate piece?

it is not that hard, you just play them parallel. I don't know why he did.

[perfect_pitch]

if you consider richard kastle a pianist, then DEFINITELY him.

Don't be stupid... He's not a pianist! I don't think ANYONE considers him a pianist unless you count that schizophrenic moron on YouTube who seems to glorify his crap.

But I would concur with you tanman and weissenbergs vote for Lang Lang.

Also - Sokolov & Glenn Gould

[retrouvailles]

I could have given reasons but I do not need to explicate my opinions.

Yes, you need to "explicate" your opinions if you want people to respect your opinions and take you seriously. You're 12 years old, so you have a lot to learn. I don't know about your Chiu and Hamelin choices. There are many, many more pianists who are more deserving of the status of being "worst" pianist, namely those who have few to no redeeming qualities, like Richard Kastle (his pianist status is debatable in the first place) and people like Maksim.

Also - Sokolov & Glenn Gould

Wow, two very controversial claims here. I can't say I would think about considering Sokolov for the title, but I can understand why someone would choose Gould. For all of his weird idiosyncrasies, you either love him to death or hate him to pieces.

[weissenberg2]

Yes, you need to "explicate" your opinions if you want people to respect your opinions and take you seriously. You're 12 years old, so you have a lot to learn. I don't know about your Chiu and Hamelin choices. There are many, many more pianists who are more deserving of the status of being "worst" pianist, namely those who have few to no redeeming qualities, like Richard Kastle (his pianist status is debatable in the first place) and people like Maksim.

okay. The thread is actuallly "least favorite pianists" not "worst pianists".

[communist]

Also - Sokolov & Glenn Gould

it is called interpretation...

[perfect_pitch]

it is called interpretation...

Maybe - but Sokolov did a SHITTY job of playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto.

[communist]

Maybe - but Sokolov did a SHITTY job of playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto.

maybe, but not one can never do a good job with everything.

[perfect_pitch]

Maybe... but he didn't do a bad job of Rachmaninoff... he did a REALLY bad job...

I mean something as big and monumental as the Rach 3 should NOT be done with such flimsy care.

[retrouvailles]

I mean something as big and monumental as the Rach 3 should NOT be done with such flimsy care.

I agree, but about 90% of the million or so recordings of that work are very flimsily done, which is quite unfortunate. There are only about 5 recordings out of the 100 or so I've heard that I can even listen to again, on the rare occasion that I want to hear that work.

[communist]

I agree, but about 90% of the million or so recordings of that work are very flimsily done, which is quite unfortunate. There are only about 5 recordings out of the 100 or so I've heard that I can even listen to again, on the rare occasion that I want to hear that work.

Have you ever heard Feltsman's recording? if not it is very worth looking into.

Just wondering, do you not like the work?

[retrouvailles]

Have you ever heard Feltsman's recording? if not it is very worth looking into.

Just wondering, do you not like the work?

I generally do not like Feltsman's playing, so I won't be checking out his recording. I used to really love the work, but it was a phase and I've since moved on. I still have a soft spot for it, but I consider the work to be vastly overrated, and there are many piano concertos better than it, in my opinion. I don't think it should be as popular as it is.

[mike_lang]

.

[mike_lang]

.

[furtwaengler]

Well the only reason I do not like Marc-Andre Hamelin is because I find his playing to dry (I.E. not enough of himself) and I lost a lot of respect for him when he said he can not listen to old recordings (E.G. Rachmaninoff, Friedman)  because they take to many liberties with the music. I like Chiu's Prokofiev (except for the sonata no.6 in A-major) but when I saw him in concert his Mendelssohn sonata and rondo capricioso were very boring (and he faked split octaves in the rondo capricioso), the Chopin etudes he played, he got caught up to much in the virtuosity and in op.10 no.3 his tone was harsh. The Liszt was technically fantastic but it was too dry.

I could have given reasons but I do not need to explicate my opinions.

Normally I don't consider it beneficial to respond to cliche, useless, baseless threads such as this, but...well here I go.

1) On Hamelin. You ought to hear him play Beethoven. You may not like it, which would be perfectly understandable, but you would be shocked at *his* concept and the liberties he takes, which are opposed to the view of him expressed above.
2) On Chiu. I like Frederic Chiu's Prokofiev, especially the 6th Sonata. It is funny how opinions go, isn't it? Who do you like in the 6th Sonata (asks my genuine curiosity)? The Chopin etudes caught up too much in the virtuosity? This I cannot believe. When I saw him play a set live, though they were not technically perfect, they were filled with witty insights, and very spontaneously and musically delivered. I dare say I enjoyed the exact opposite reaction. I must admit too in passing, that Frederic Chiu is a very gracious, humble, and considerate man, and yes, I believe this transfers to his playing. Oh, and his Lieutenant Kijé transcription is a work of genius!

[weissenberg2]

I generally do not like Feltsman's playing, so I won't be checking out his recording. I used to really love the work, but it was a phase and I've since moved on. I still have a soft spot for it, but I consider the work to be vastly overrated, and there are many piano concertos better than it, in my opinion. I don't think it should be as popular as it is.

I am not sure if it is "vastly overplayed" and I am not sure if there are many piano concertos better than it but I would totally agree there are many piano concertos that should be played much more (E.G. Rubinstein, Kalkbrenner).

Normally I don't consider it beneficial to respond to cliche, useless, baseless threads such as this, but...well here I go.

1) On Hamelin. You ought to hear him play Beethoven. You may not like it, which would be perfectly understandable, but you would be shocked at *his* concept and the liberties he takes, which are opposed to the view of him expressed above.
2) On Chiu. I like Frederic Chiu's Prokofiev, especially the 6th Sonata. It is funny how opinions go, isn't it? Who do you like in the 6th Sonata (asks my genuine curiosity)? The Chopin etudes caught up too much in the virtuosity? This I cannot believe. When I saw him play a set live, though they were not technically perfect, they were filled with witty insights, and very spontaneously and musically delivered. I dare say I enjoyed the exact opposite reaction. I must admit too in passing, that Frederic Chiu is a very gracious, humble, and considerate man, and yes, I believe this transfers to his playing. Oh, and his Lieutenant Kijé transcription is a work of genius!

To answer the questions I like Richter's and Freddy Kempff for the 6th sonata. With the Chopin etudes, he was thinking to much about how fast he could play them and not about the musical qualities of them.

[tanman]

Any of you would be lucky to have in concert a moment's worth of the artistry of any of these musicians of whom you speak.

even Richard Kastle and Maksim? 

[communist]

May I ask just what you all are trying to achieve by this thread?  Any of you would be lucky to have in concert a moment's worth of the artistry of any of these musicians of whom you speak.  Shame on you all.

Sincerely,
Michael Langlois

I think the point is to see who peoples least favorite pianists are since I have not seen any threads like these, and it is not about who is better than who and who is bad, it is about who you personally do not like. and all threads in the polls section do not really achieve anything since no suggestions/knowledge are being shared.

[communist]

I generally do not like Feltsman's playing, so I won't be checking out his recording. I used to really love the work, but it was a phase and I've since moved on. I still have a soft spot for it, but I consider the work to be vastly overrated, and there are many piano concertos better than it, in my opinion. I don't think it should be as popular as it is.

I understand how you would not like his playing, sometimes I can just hear his pomp (especially in his Bach)

[perfect_pitch]

even Richard Kastle and Maksim? 

Oh wait a minute... Although Maksim may not be a proper pianist, he still does play piano to some sort of a professional level - although it may be in a different form and may bend the original style to try and liven it up for the teenagers who may think classical music is for old people... he still has a degree of showmanship and has fairly decent technique...

Sure you may hate him, but he's proven a sh*t load more than Kastle, who's an egotistical prick who has his head so far up his arse, he could kiss his own colon... Kastle pretends to be brilliant... Maksim doesn't.

[pies]

a

[retrouvailles]

Hamelin
Oppens

This isn't the thread to nominate your favorite pianists. And besides, what good is a nomination without an explanation?

[ahinton]

Moi.

Or that would at least be the case if I were one...

(At least no one can legitimately argue with that)...

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[thalbergmad]

Hamelin:

Reger Variations - note perfect - dry
Henselt Concerto - note perfect - dry
Alkan solo concerto - note perfect - dry
Schawenka concerto - note perfect - dry
Busoni concerto - note perfect - dry
Godowsky/Chopin - note perfect - not as dry as the above, but still dryish.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

Hamelin:

Reger Variations - note perfect - dry
Henselt Concerto - note perfect - dry
Alkan solo concerto - note perfect - dry
Schawenka concerto - note perfect - dry
Busoni concerto - note perfect - dry
Godowsky/Chopin - note perfect - not as dry as the above, but still dryish.

Thal

I actually find the Alkan (new one) and Busoni recordings to be rather impassioned and with a lot of flavor. They are still rather subtle, but that is Hamelin's style. The others are very dry, yes, but that doesn't make them awful recordings. I still think Hamelin deserves a ton of respect for what he can do, for there is a certain art to playing to how he plays, for he may be rather dry, but there is still a great amount of artistry and musicianship in his playing, and many of you would kill to have it, nevermind his technique.

[gep]

I’ve seen before and elsewhere that opinion of some people that Hamelin is a “dry” pianist. Although (and of course) everybody is utterly free to have their own opinions and tastes, I find such notion baffling. Hamelin’s playing has never been short of hugely impressive, stimulating and invigorating to me. What he doesn’t have is a taste for the “Me-Big-Pianist” style of playing (the type that will have big audiences going hysterical when said pianist merely walks onto the platform), nor does he have the “sensationalist” style (the one’s that show they can play 5000 notes a minute). He’s also blissfully free of “interpretation”, something of a curse in this our day, in which rather too much artists of all kinds feel the need to interpret that what they wish to present which, in combination with the quest for “originality”, makes for  presentations where you can’t hear the music for the musician, can’t hear the symphony because of the conductor or can’t see the opera because of the director. If I go to a Beethoven concert, I want to hear Beethoven, rather than Short Short’s interpretation thereof
Hamelin “merely” plays the music, and his technical mastery is such that what you hear is the composer, and forget that there is a pianist in between the composer and you. Of course, he has a distinct own sound, but you don’t notice that when you’re listening, like you don’t notice it when you’re listening to someone like Schnabel, or Mravinksy, or Haitink, or Martzy. Such musicians allow the light that comes from the music to penetrate your mind unabated, undiluted and uncut, allowing it to pass the prism that is your mind to produce it’s full colours in you, rather then repainting, trimming and adjusting it for you.
His playing makes for a non-superficial sound which, to appreciate it in full, needs listening deeper than the surface. Not unlike the music of so many great composers. Too many pianists play Alkan as the "weirdo/technowizzard", rather than letting the music speak for itself.

All that said, I think Hamelin is the kind of musician you either love of hate. Usually, these are the most interesting!

Gep

[ahinton]

I agree with much of what retrouvailles and gep have written in the above two posts.

Hamelin indeed remains something of a controversial figure who somewhat more often than most invites extremes of reaction. In his younger days he used on the one hand to be lauded by sycophants who seemed capable of seeing little in him beyond his superhuman facility and for whom he could do no wrong and on the other hand derided by those who either weren't interested in the kind of music he wanted to perform or considered him to be too "dry" or both; any kind of middle ground seemed at one time to be occupied by all too few people. Hamelin is certainly not a "demonstrative" - let alone "sensationalist" - pianist in his general mannerisms and attitudes or his demeanour at the instrument. He has no more travelled the conventional route to "stardom" than he considers himself to be any kind of "star" in any case; he's not played the usual competition game, nor has he kow-towed to others' demands that he should play mostly what he's told to play.

My only concern in the past has been that, whilst he is an expressive pianist possessed of ample ideas which he has thought out with great care and conviction, too many of his earlier performances tended on occasion to find him giving the impression of playing to himself rather than projecting his playing to others; I recall hearing him playing the Reger Bach Variations and the four Chopin Ballades live (not in the same programme!) and sensing a kind of detachment not only from the audience but also almost from the instrument itself, yet it was obvious that, for him, he was totally involved in what he was doing. I have no doubt that this kind of thing was as subconscious as it was unintentional and I have noted with pleasure that this characteristic of his performances has more or less vanished in recent years; those who may still doubt this should listen to him playing such things as the Alkan Symphonie, Iberia and other works of Albeniz, the three Brahms Piano Quartets (with the Leopold String Trio) and the three big Godowsky transcriptions of Strauss waltzes, not to mention two CDs' worth of Haydn sonatas (he's releasing another two of more of them later this year).

Does his Busoni Concerto possess the depths of Ogdon's accounts of it? No (but then does anyone's?!), although the orchestral contribution is vastly superior. It nevertheless remains one of the best recorded performances of that great concerto that there has ever been (if one can overlook the rather uncomfortably brisk-and-breezy approach to the early part of its magnificent central Pezzo Serioso, which I have to admit I find rather hard to do!).

Hamelin is without doubt on of today's most remarkable pianists and his performances are more engaging now than they sometimes used to be. Some of these "dryness" obeservations strike me as having at least part of their origin in received opinion and some seem to stem from a far from complete aural survey of his work to date.

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[retrouvailles]

Anyone get the impression that Oppens doesn't prepare enough for her recordings?  It sounds like she sight-reads nearly everything.  I haven't listened to any of her stuff for a long time but I remember being annoyed by how rushed and cursory everything sounded.  I have the recording of her playing a mile from Rzewski's The Road and it just sounds... wrong.  At many points she ignores dynamic indications, which is extremely annoying.  I have her playing Mayn Yingele, too, and it's stale.  And her recordings of Carter's piano sonata and Rzewski's El Pueblo Unido variations are among the worst I've heard  She sounds like a machine.  Wonderful technically but horrible interpretations, which is why I think she's like a female Hamelin.  They should get together to make blandest 2 piano/4 hands recordings ever.  Or maybe have some sort of bland-off?  It would be painful to watch and hear.

I think you're alone in these sentiments. I can say with conviction that Oppens is every bit as good in her recordings as she is live, and she is quite an experience to see live. I have heard a good number of her recordings also. I can't say that I prefer her interpretation of everything that she has recorded that other people have also recorded, but she has never turned out any recordings which sounded "under prepared". I think you're just trying to create attention for yourself at this forum by posting things which are just controversial and outlandish. Oppens is a great music, very much akin to Hamelin perhaps in some people's eyes in terms of interpretation, who has done many things worthy of admiration. I happen to think her Carter sonata is one of the best recordings I've ever heard. Her other recordings that you mentioned are also very good. I don't find then bland or dry at all. What exactly are you looking for from these pianists? An ego larger than Tom Cruise's? You won't find it, kid. There really isn't such thing as an egotistical pianist these days with that sort of repertoire. They're too busy playing overplayed standard repertoire.

[pies]

a

[retrouvailles]

What am I looking for?  Something that doesn't sound mechanical and dry.

Well, what I was asking is: what constitutes a pianist that doesn't sound mechanical and dry? What qualities would (s)he have to have so that (s)he passes your test?

[communist]

Well, what I was asking is: what constitutes a pianist that doesn't sound mechanical and dry? What qualities would (s)he have to have so that (s)he passes your test?

not playing exactly what is in the score. Besides that it is a phenomenon how certain pianists are mechanical and dry.

[retrouvailles]

not playing exactly what is in the score. Besides that it is a phenomenon how certain pianists are mechanical and dry.

Well, what constitutes "not playing exactly what is in the score"? How does one know what to "not play exactly according to the score"? Why does "playing a piece well" require that one "not play exactly what is in the score"? I think pies just is either not articulating his thoughts correctly, or is just trying to piss people off (like always). Oh well, if Hamelin and Oppens are on the dry side, I still like it, much how I prefer dry wine.

[pies]

Well, what I was asking is: what constitutes a pianist that doesn't sound mechanical and dry? What qualities would (s)he have to have so that (s)he passes your test?

More/some emotion and nuance I guess?  It's hard to define exactly what I'm looking for.  They need to sound more 'human' and less like those savant retards that can play all the right notes but with no emotion.

[lostinidlewonder]

I laugh at the critique of Hamelin (or any well known pianist for that matter). It's just a tall poppy syndrome going on here.

[retrouvailles]

I laugh at the critique of Hamelin (or any well known pianist for that matter). It's just a tall poppy syndrome going on here.

Admittedly, I had to look up what "tall poppy syndrome" was (being American and all), but I totally agree. Our "friend" pies here is just looking for attention. Seriously, dude, get out and get attention from real people instead.

[pies]

a

[weissenberg2]

I laugh at the critique of Hamelin (or any well known pianist for that matter). It's just a tall poppy syndrome going on here.

Just to let you know I was not critiquing Hamelin or Chiu. They are both very good musicians I just don't like them.

[eminemvsrach]

I think that Hamelin's interpretation of Kapustin is fine, especially his 2nd sonata. Here's the 1st movement.

[retrouvailles]

I think that Hamelin's interpretation of Kapustin is fine, especially his 2nd sonata. Here's the 1st movement.

Nothing compares the the 4th movt from that same performance. It's mindblowing. Btw, just so you know, that performance is all over the internet.

[imbetter]

I heard Oppens live once and she was very good. Not comparable to giants such as Hamelin but very good.

[eminemvsrach]

Nothing compares the the 4th movt from that same performance. It's mindblowing. Btw, just so you know, that performance is all over the internet.

Well yah the 4th is very impressive. I like it a lot.

[pianisten1989]

if you consider richard kastle a pianist, then DEFINITELY him.

Well... He's not a pianist. So no, he doesn't count =/
Anyways
I dislike Idil Biret so much! She kills everything in her way!
Jando. Why the hell do one record everything there is for piano, only to play everything without any musicality what so ever!
Berezovsky, could easily be replaced by a robot...

That's kind of it...

[weissenberg2]

Well... He's not a pianist. So no, he doesn't count =/
Anyways
I dislike Idil Biret so much! She kills everything in her way!
Jando. Why the hell do one record everything there is for piano, only to play everything without any musicality what so ever!
Berezovsky, could easily be replaced by a robot...

That's kind of it...

Jeno Jando! get out of town. Unmusical? have you heard his Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies or Beethoven sonatas? I am not a huge fan of Berezovsky either, but he is not like a robot. I agree about Idil Biret though. Her Brahms is so awful.