Pianist with best timing?

[sevencircles]

Who has got the best timing among  classical pianists as far as you know?

I donīt mean playing like he/she has got a built in  metronome but rather being able to change the tempo in a very tastefull way and still being able to return to the  original tempo at any beat.

[werq34ac]

Best... timing?

Timing is part of the interpretation so you can't really say which pianist has better timing.

Although it IS possible to have bad timing. Though at the professional level, that should most certainly not be a problem.

[sevencircles]

Timing is part of the interpretation so you can't really say which pianist has better timing.

Many modern pieces demand really good timing (chambermusic in particular) so you have to have great timing to play them well.

Sometimes it can be a nightmare to be 100% in sync if you play with a violinist or a pianotrio and have constantly changing time signatures in a fast polyrhythmic counterpointpiece.

[werq34ac]

Like I said, at the professional level, musicians do not have bad timing. At all. It's just not acceptable. Wrong notes, fine whatever as long as the piece is played well. Bad timing is a lack of musical understanding. I'm pretty sure at that point, they understand the music pretty well.

[j_menz]

I'm pretty sure at that point, they understand the music pretty well.

Methinks you may be too kind. 

I agree that timing isn't an issue for any pianist of any calibre.

[sevencircles]

Like I said, at the professional level, musicians do not have bad timing. At all. It's just not acceptable. Wrong notes, fine whatever as long as the piece is played well. Bad timing is a lack of musical understanding. I'm pretty sure at that point, they understand the music pretty well.

Martha Argerich has bad timing sometimes, she plays faster then the rest of the orchestra on some recordings 

[werq34ac]

Martha Argerich has bad timing sometimes, she plays faster then the rest of the orchestra on some recordings 

It's not argerich who has the bad timing then... it's the conductor, or orchestra that can't keep up with argerich.

[sevencircles]

It's not argerich who has the bad timing then... it's the conductor, or orchestra that can't keep up with argerich.

The conductor sets the tempo and the pianist should follow that tempo if she has got good sense for music I think 

[werq34ac]

The pianist SHOULD NOT follow the orchestra. The orchestra should follow the pianist. The pianist tells the conductor how fast he/she is going to play the piece. The conductor does set the tempo, but it is the pianist who determines what this tempo is going to be (this is all done in rehearsal). When playing a concerto with orchestra, YOU are the soloist. YOU are the star of the performance. The work prominently features YOU. The orchestra is the accompanist. If the pianist and the conductor are not together, and if the pianist is not playing in a ridiculous fashion (which mind you, Argerich DOES NOT), then it is the conductor's fault, not the pianist.

[sevencircles]

If the pianist and the conductor are not together, and if the pianist is not playing in a ridiculous fashion (which mind you, Argerich DOES NOT), then it is the conductor's fault, not the pianist.

As a pianist you can usually play  faster then the orchestra, it is fun to really play fast sometimes and the conductor might keep up with you but sometimes the orchestra canīt and that doesnīt mean that itīs a bad orchestra. I heard Berliner Philharmonics play the 2:nd movement from Shostokovich 10 with Von Karajan on cd today and a couple of the oboists couldnīt keep up with Karajanīs tempo, if he slowed down just a bit it would have worked great.

Important that you pick a tempo that the orchestra can play in a convincing way.

[werq34ac]

You really think Argerich plays fast for fun? First of all, she HAS the technique to play fast. But more importantly, she doesn't play fast to show off. Playing at that speed, the longer lines are more apparent, thus the quicker tempo is for a MUSICAL reason. And she doesn't play at ridiculous speeds (to play at maybe, but not to listen to). Playing slower than you want to is a compromise in your interpretation. The star of the show shouldn't have to compromise.

As for your example of the oboists, then it's the oboists' lack of competence rather than Karajan's imprudent choice of tempo. I'm not saying the oboists are bad musicians, they ARE playing in the Berlin Phil after all, but really the maestro is in charge of the orchestra and should not have to compromise. In an orchestra, it's not a democracy. The conductor is the dictator that is willing to listen to the orchestra's suggestion, but not obliged to listen to it. Important that you pick a tempo that the orchestra can play in a convincing way? Maybe in a high school orchestra but at the level of Berlin Phil? The conductor doesn't have to compromise with the oboists. The oboists are forced to follow the demands of the conductor.

[jmanpno]

To answer the question.... Rubinstein has about the best timing of any of them.  MANY have very poor timing in the strictly interpretive sense.

[sevencircles]

To answer the question.... Rubinstein has about the best timing of any of them.  MANY have very poor timing in the strictly interpretive sense.

Any good examples?

Richter is one of my favorite pianists when it comes to sense of timing actually, Keith Jarrett too but you mostly hear that when he plays Jazz.

[marik1]

Who has got the best timing among  classical pianists as far as you know?
 

My vote goes to Chopin and Schumann. Both were born in 1810. Next comes Liszt, who was born about a year later.

I'd give the honorable mention to S. Prokofiev, who died the same day with I.V. Stalin. Of course, since the later while being the best in anything he ever did (in fact, he was claimed to be the father of entire nation (!!!)), there is no indication of him being a classical  pianist, so understandably, Prokofiev cannot get higher on the scale.

Best, M  

[j_menz]

Stalin .... had no indication of being a classical  pianist

He did actually (and personally) write music reviews.  There's a famous review by him in Pravda of Shostakovich's opera Lady Macbeth of Mtensk. Not a favourable one, incidentally.

[marik1]

He did actually (and personally) write music reviews.  There's a famous review by him in Pravda of Shostakovich's opera Lady Macbeth of Mtensk. Not a favourable one, incidentally.

Indeed, Stalin was a fan of classical music (for example, his favorite pianists were E. Gilels, and M. Yudina). It is a well known fact, after a huge success of the "Lady Macbeth" in Russia and abroad it was shut down for some quarter century (until 1961) in a matter of one evening (after Stalin attended the show). Could you give any details confirming Stalin wrote that review himself?

Best, M  

[j_menz]

Could you give any details confirming Stalin wrote that review himself?

I'm not aware that there is solid proof.  My understanding is that it was widely known to be by Stalin, that is to say that it was unofficially made known (as is sometimes the way in regimes of that sort). Certianly Shostakovich believed it was by Stalin, as attested to in his autobiography "Testimony".

[marik1]

I'm not aware that there is solid proof.  My understanding is that it was widely known to be by Stalin, that is to say that it was unofficially made known (as is sometimes the way in regimes of that sort). Certianly Shostakovich believed it was by Stalin, as attested to in his autobiography "Testimony".

There certainly is place for doubts.

First, nothing has ever been done by Stalin himself, except for (of course) "being the father and patron of all nations" and "making life better and more joyful than ever" (how about that?).

Second, certainly the "Testimony" by NO ANY stretch is an autobiography. Moreover, it is a highly controversial essay (by Solomon Volkov) with extremely unreliable source, with overwhelming amount of facts whether being bent, made up, or else never being proved.

A father of a very close friend of mine for many years was Shostakovitch's assistant and close companion. I trust his remembrances, words, and documents much more that anything else. If anything, certainly, that book cannot be a source of any trustful information.

As far as Stalin is concerned, indeed, he gave directives, but I have never seen any indication he was writing the reviews himself. Moreover, there would be a huge surprise he was writing his own (many volumes) books himself. The same goes to Brezhnev, and many others, so none of that can be taken into reliable or serious consideration...    

Best, M