Total Members Voted: 40
In your opinion, who had the greatest technical ability?
Hamelin should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two.
Thal is right, hamelin was a shameless showman, who did, however, possess godly technique.
Pianists who can dazzle with their mécanique might at the same time fail to excite with anything much else [..]
Easy answer! Gould, of course!
I'm sure you're joking.
you can be a great pianist and sound like sh*t.
Anyway, expression and technique are two different things.
To me, they are exactly the same thing.
Technique to me is what one does with mechanical ability and therefore is indistinguishable from expression.
So at least some others think that virtuosity is more about mechanical skill than emotional expression.
You can do it the hard way, or you can do it the easy way. Either way, you can still sound the same. Hence being a bad pianist but still sound good. Just because a person sounds good doesn't mean their methods are good also.
Since the piano is a mechanical instrument, playing it with virtuoso-level expression requires an incredibly precise level of mechanical skill.
I can imagine someone who can play very precisely and with great control,but who has no musical ideas: technical ability with no expression.I can also imagine someone who has great expression but a limited technique(for example, someone who can play very expressively at a slow speedbut struggles with any high-tempo piece).
there is something quite magical about Horowitz's best recordings.
The only comparison to Horowitz could be some pianist never recorded, like liszt or Anton Rubinstein. Most people actually don't realise how good horowitz was. As an arranger, he was top notch. He could do anything at all, especially in his younger years at the piano, and improvised like a mad man apparently. Another thing most people don't realize is that though he only played only a limited rep publicly, and recorded the same, he could actually play all the standard repertoire from memory if pressed (except for Bach). The difference between horowitz and the other two is that he could play a piece at a much slower tempo, and blow the whole world of music away technically and otherwise.I won't speak of Hamelin because he is still alive and active and a respectable pianist who has accomplished more in his life than almost anyone on earth. I hope to meet him one da!Cziffra was mechanically great, but also a bad musician. Who would ever want to hear him play Mozart? His ease at the keyboard for running up and down relentlessly is impressive, but there are many, many pianists who can do that, even today. Horowitz certainly could! But if you listen to Cziffra improvizing, it is really a bunch of noisy, impressive garbage that gives no impression of deep musical understanding. I mean, he played jazz but couldn't swing! Have you seen his etudes? Yes they are difficult, but all flash and no reason, he didn't understand the concept of a musical 'effect'.
Hamelin is nothing besides Horowitz and Cziffra. He has an incredible mechanical facility, but unlike the other two, he has no idea what to do with it.
His Reger-Telemann Variations had not one ounce of feeling, his Rubinstein 4th piano concerto was no better than a midi and much of his Alkan is all fingers and no brain.
Perhaps he is better suited to playing horseshit by Sorabji that requires extreme mechanical facility but bugger all else.
listen to Lang Lang as at least he tries to stamp some individuality onto his performances
What's your take on his Iberia and the Godowsky Waltz CD (that includes three of the Symphonic Metamorphosen on waltzes by J Strauss II)?
Are we even having this discussion?Cziffra was the essence of showmanship. He was Liszt reincarnated. He could make "chopsticks" sound like a concert study.
Not heard the Iberia, but the Godowsky Waltz transcriptions were wooden at best. I took the CD down the charity shop where no doubt it still remains.
Cziffra was likely more like one of Liszt's students, like Tausig. Absolutely flawless mechanics, but little sensitivity or musical understanding. He could never make audiences cry. He was one dimensional, and lacking in imagination- ie. the abstract aspect of piano playing. Liszt was transcendent. He was so unbelievably musical and creative that one would forget it is the piano he was playing. He was, by all accounts (and there are literally thousands of them), the equivalent to listening to the greatest symphony orchestra imaginable, all by himself. He literally had no musical shortcomings, which is why he was Liszt. Does that sound like how Cziffra is described? No, but it does sound a bit like Horowitz! People of Liszt's day were thrown into a fervor trying to outdo him, and nobody came even close; except possibly in pure mechanics, such as Dreyschock with his octaves. Horowitz, also awakened and stirred up so many students of piano that many, many careers have been cut short, or never to be realized because every young pianist was trying to emulate him, and failed, or decided to be themselves. This modern phenomenon of ultra virtuosic technique mixed with extreme cleanliness is all because of Horowitz's influence. Many pianists have achieved his tone (like every Tchaikovsky competition winner in the last 50 years), but none have even scratched his musical genius.
Can you seriously listen to these performances without getting goosebumps? Are these not as imaganitive as they are technically impressive? He takes studies and makes them his own, not only technically but musically as well. You can't mistake a Cziffra recording when you listen to one.On the other hand, I never quite understood people's fondness of Horowitz. I find a lot of his musical choices odd, and I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. He's alright, but I wouldn't even put him in my top 15 pianists. Would certainly not crown him as the king of virtuoso pianists.
Poll
Topic: Horowitz, Hamelin, or Cziffra? 