Horowitz or Marc-Andre Hamelin? Who has the best technique?

[musicioso]

Just curious, because i read on this forum many times that Marc-Andre Hamelin has the best technique ever.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Just curious, because i read on this forum many times that Marc-Andre Hamelin has the best technique ever.

Art Tatum had the best technique ever.

Rachmaninoff said that he was the best musician in any Genre and Horowitz said that if he took on classical music, he would quit the next day.

[j_menz]

Horowitz's technique suffered terribly as a result of his death. Hamelin has the advantage of still being alive, so his technique is currently better.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Horowitz's technique suffered terribly as a result of his death. Hamelin has the advantage of still being alive, so his technique is currently better.

LOL!

[chadbrochill17]

Horowitz's technique suffered terribly as a result of his death. Hamelin has the advantage of still being alive, so his technique is currently better.

I see what you did there.

[ahinton]

Horowitz's technique suffered terribly as a result of his death. Hamelin has the advantage of still being alive, so his technique is currently better.

Well, that's as effective an attempt as any to encourge the closure of this thread which has no business being here in the first place; there is no answering those questions seriously, as some of us here know and appreciate.

Best,

Alistair

[pianoman53]

Well, that's as effective an attempt as any to encourge the closure of this thread which has no business being here in the first place; there is no answering those questions seriously, as some of us here know and appreciate.

Best,

Alistair

Another very effective way to let these threads die is to not comment. A less effective way is to write how effective an attempt was, since the attempt will be completely useless if someone comments on it.

Best,

Ali's stairs.

[ahinton]

Another very effective way to let these threads die is to not comment. A less effective way is to write how effective an attempt was, since the attempt will be completely useless if someone comments on it.

Should we assume that you've just demonstrated your theory by posting here again?

In any case, I have little interest in whether or not the thread actually dies and my comment was prompted more by dismay that yet another one such had been initiatied.

Ali's stairs.

Not as good as Ligeti's!

[fftransform]

Hamelin is a much better machine than Horowitz ever was.  Anybody who disagrees with this is delusional.

However, this says very, very little about who is/was the better pianist, when we're talking about pianists of this caliber.

[musicioso]

Then who has better technique, Kissin or Hamelin?

[retrouvailles]

Then who has better technique, Kissin or Hamelin?

It doesn't matter because Kissin isn't half the pianist that Hamelin is, whether you want to talk about technique or not. Hamelin also doesn't still live with his mother.

[musicioso]

It doesn't matter because Kissin isn't half the pianist that Hamelin is, whether you want to talk about technique or not. Hamelin also doesn't still live with his mother.

Kissin lives with his mother because piano is the only thing he cares about. Come on, dont judge a pianist by his personal lifestyle.

And tell me, why do you think Hamelin is more than twice the pianist than Kissin?

[patrickd]

Hamelin.

[chadbrochill17]

Kissin lives with his mother because piano is the only thing he cares about. Come on, dont judge a pianist by his personal lifestyle.

And tell me, why do you think Hamelin is more than twice the pianist than Kissin?

Because Kissin sucks.

[musicioso]

Because Kissin sucks.

How does he suck? What aspect of his playing sucks? Explain please

[philb]

Can we kill this garbage?

[chadbrochill17]

How does he suck? What aspect of his playing sucks? Explain please

His lack of emotion and his love of fortississississississimo. His interpretations are merely pounding away technically perfect pieces that are at a constant loudness

[ahinton]

His lack of emotion and his love of fortississississississimo. His interpretations are merely pounding away technically perfect pieces that are at a constant loudness

Insofar as this can be dignified with the term "thread" it is supposedly abouot Horowitz & Hamelin - or Horowitz v. Hamelin - or something - not about Kissin; perhjaps the fact that Kissin's now been brought into the fray is some kind of indicator of the sheer threadbareness of the thread...

Best,

Alistair

[musicioso]

His lack of emotion and his love of fortississississississimo. His interpretations are merely pounding away technically perfect pieces that are at a constant loudness

Can you tell me how Hamelin has more emotion in his playing than Kissin? Can you describe that?

Yes, maybe he loves fortissississississississississississississississimo very much, thats his personal taste. Does that make him a less good pianist? Why?

There is no such thing as perfection, surely not in playing music.

A constant loudness? Really? You have to listen some more of his works, because thats wrong.

This far, the only thing that sucks is your argumentation..

[musicioso]

Can we kill this garbage?

Dont be so rude.
This is just a 'thread' on a forum on the internet. It wont harm you. If you really dont like this whole idea of comparing pianists and stuff, then just dont open this thread.

I dont understand you guys, if you dont like this, just say that. Why are you so sarcastic and rude? I opened a new topic, i didnt kill anyone..

[lostinidlewonder]

Hamelin has much more access to music than Horowitz ever did, so one would assume that Hamelin has gone through a lot more technique than Horowitz because of that. Just like when you compare a tennis player from the early 20th century to today, the equipment, training etc where all different. Thus today they are much better.

This is only talking about technique nothing to do with how lovely each player plays and which one is better. Technique is easy to measure because we can simply look at the music that these two have experienced and then come to some conclusions as to which one has a "greater" technical experience, not that it means much anyway.

[musicioso]

Hamelin has much more access to music than Horowitz ever did, so one would assume that Hamelin has gone through a lot more technique than Horowitz because of that. Just like when you compare a tennis player from the early 20th century to today, the equipment, training etc where all different. Thus today they are much better.

This is only talking about technique nothing to do with how lovely each player plays and which one is better. Technique is easy to measure because we can simply look at the music that these two have experienced and then come to some conclusions as to which one has a "greater" technical experience, not that it means much anyway.

tnx for your reply.

so you think modern pianists, the best ones, have better technique than the old masters?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yes, maybe he loves fortissississississississississississississississimo very much, thats his personal taste. Does that make him a less good pianist? Why?

Well the more fortissisisisisiiisisisisisisisisiisiisissisisisisisisisisiisisisisisisisisisisisisisimo you play, the less effective your climaxes are. 

He plays forte the whole time so his rendition of this Scriabin etude sounds flat.  And we both know that a flat interpretation for a romantic piece is NOT good.  There's always a big climax in romantic pieces, which Kissin didn't execute at all. 

I'm not saying Kissin is a bad pianist, but I think his playing is too flat. 

[fftransform]

Hamelin, Cziffra, Katsaris and Fiorentino are a couple leagues above Kissin, IMO.  Pogorelich, Libetta (young), Gavrilov (young), Zhukov and Pollini in there, as well.

[musicioso]

Hamelin, Cziffra, Katsaris and Fiorentino are a couple leagues above Kissin, IMO.  Pogorelich, Libetta (young), Gavrilov (young), Zhukov and Pollini in there, as well.

What about Volodos?

[musicioso]

Well the more fortissisisisisiiisisisisisisisisiisiisissisisisisisisisisiisisisisisisisisisisisisisimo you play, the less effective your climaxes are. 

He plays forte the whole time so his rendition of this Scriabin etude sounds flat.  And we both know that a flat interpretation for a romantic piece is NOT good.  There's always a big climax in romantic pieces, which Kissin didn't execute at all. 

I'm not saying Kissin is a bad pianist, but I think his playing is too flat. 

Thanks for your reply, i learned something from this.

You see, we can talk without being rude and stuff. I come here to learn something and i already learned something, i also learned some new names of great pianists i never heard of before.

[philb]

Hamelin, Cziffra, Katsaris and Fiorentino are a couple leagues above Kissin, IMO.  Pogorelich, Libetta (young), Gavrilov (young), Zhukov and Pollini in there, as well.

Cyprien is quite the pianist.

OT: Anyone over at NYC see him preform at The New School?

[thalbergmad]

Hamelin is mechanically superior but sometimes his playing is less interesting than the shipping forecast.

Thal

[49410enrique]

this has turned into a youtube comments feed lol

i'll play. will do my best to contribute something at least as useful and relevant.



best i could do as i'm too late to post "first"

[ahinton]

Hamelin is mechanically superior but sometimes his playing is less interesting than the shipping forecast.

Have you heard any of his more recent recordings? - and, if so, does your opinion here still apply?...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not heard anything since the destruction of the Rubinstein 4th.

Anything of late you would suggest??

Thal

[ahinton]

Not heard anything since the destruction of the Rubinstein 4th.

Anything of late you would suggest??

Try the Godowsky Waltzes and J Strauss transcriptions or the complete Albeniz Iberia and other works for starters - not that they're all that recent but more so, I think, than what you refer to here.

Best,

Alistair

[scherzo123]

Marc-Andre Hamelin, I think.

[alkanlisztrachmanioff]

i would say hamelin but nobody can beat horowitz`s octaves.

[emrysmerlin]

Technique isn't exactly what Horowitz was most famous for.

[abudabi]

art tatum had great technique for jazz etc but not classical he didn't have the memory or style for it hamelin has played far harder repertoire than horowitz ever did on hearing both many years i have come to the conclusion hamelin had better technique

[preludetr]

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue that Horowitz had a better technique than Hamelin, who has just about the greatest technique of the whole recorded era, maybe excepting Cziffra. If we're talking about musicality, it becomes a totally different debate.