Horowitz, Hamelin, or Cziffra?

[cuberdrift]

In your opinion, who had the greatest technical ability?

I post 3 recordings of the HR no. 2. I have listened to all three versions, personally I find the Cziffra one the most interesting. His 'wow' factor shocked me. His rubato is a killer one! 

Horowitz

Hamelin

Cziffra

[ahinton]

In your opinion, who had the greatest technical ability?

To have the slightest hope of attaining a remotely realistic and meaningful answer to this question - which, to me, is any case a dismayingly small distance above those of the "what's the hardest piece?" type that nauseatingly and pointlessly resurface here de temps en temps - one must first determine - and secure majority agreement on - what exactly constitutes "technical ability". A pianst's "technical ability" is not all about how fast and evenly he/she can play scale passages, octaves or chords, how note perfect he/she may be, how successfuly and reliably he/she can master leaps and all that stuff which more properly falls withinthe scope of "mécanique" rather than "technique"; "technique" - and likewise "virtuosity" - is about an artist's ability to see inside the music that he/she is to perform and to communicate it in exceptionaly compelling ways to listeners in his/her rôle as intermediary and, whilst this does of course include consideration of all those aspects of "mécanique", it amounts to so much more than just that. Pianists who can dazzle with their mécanique might at the same time fail to excite with anything much else and, when that is indeed the case, they are not true "virtuosi", because their overall technical command is thereby limited. In what might have been an instance of retrospective conscience, Liszt himself is reported late in life as having barked at a student "do I care how fast you play octaves?!"...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Hamelin should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hamelin should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two.

Why not? And, by the same token, should Horowitz be mantioned in the same sentence as Cziffra?

Best,

Alistair

[classicalnhiphop]

Thal is right, hamelin was a shameless showman, who did, however, possess godly technique.  Cziffra was also a showman, just less shameless.  Horowitz was virtuosic in his prime, but that's not what he played for.  Why would he play things like scarlatti sonatas, mozart sonatas, kinderszenen, or liszt concolation (spelling i know).  I voted for Cziffra because i think he was more  virtuosic than Horowitz and was less of a show off than hamelin.  My favorite though, is by a long margin, Horowitz.

[outin]

Thal is right, hamelin was a shameless showman, who did, however, possess godly technique.

Is he dead? 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Cziffra. And I agree with Thal's comment (actually I prefer Hamelin as a composer rather than pianist).

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Pianists who can dazzle with their mécanique might at the same time fail to excite with anything much else [..]

Funny thing is, the moment I read that I thought of Hamelin.

[awesom_o]

In your opinion, who had the greatest technical ability?

Easy answer! Gould, of course!

[faulty_damper]

Easy answer! Gould, of course!

I'm sure you're joking. Maybe you want to overdub your post to make it sound like you're saying more than you actually are with just one post.

[awesom_o]

I'm sure you're joking.

No... I think Gould's technique was on another level. His technique enabled such incredible musical expression!

[classicalnhiphop]

why would he be joking?

[faulty_damper]

The key was the second part of my post: overdubbing octaves.

Anyway, expression and technique are two different things.  You can be a sh*t pianist and still sound good, just like you can be a great pianist and sound like sh*t.  Don't confuse the two.

[j_menz]

you can be a great pianist and sound like sh*t.

Perhaps an example might be in order. It sounds rather unlikely to me.

[awesom_o]

Anyway, expression and technique are two different things. 

To me, they are exactly the same thing.

[thalbergmad]

To me, they are exactly the same thing.

Me too.

Technique seems to be often confused with mechanical facility on this forum. Technique to me is what one does with mechanical ability and therefore is indistinguishable from expression.

Thal

[awesom_o]

Technique to me is what one does with mechanical ability and therefore is indistinguishable from expression.

I agree. The better your technique is, the more expressive your sound is.

The more expressive your sound is, the better developed technique you have.

[kevin69]

In your opinion, who had the greatest technical ability?

I had read 'technical ability' as meaning 'mechanical facility', rather than expression.
I.e. mostly about how someone is doing something.

From Wikipedia:
"The defining element of virtuosity is the performance ability of the musician in question, who is capable of displaying feats of skill well above the average performer.
Especially in music, both critics and musicians have mixed opinions on virtuosity. While the skill implied is clearly positive, musicians focused on virtuosity have been criticized for overlooking substance and emotion in favor of raw technical prowess."

So at least some others think that virtuosity is more about mechanical skill than emotional expression.

[awesom_o]

So at least some others think that virtuosity is more about mechanical skill than emotional expression.

Since the piano is a mechanical instrument, playing it with virtuoso-level expression requires an incredibly precise level of mechanical skill.

[faulty_damper]

To me, they are exactly the same thing.

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.

[awesom_o]

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.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

In fact, I'm not even sure if you know what you're talking about, either.

[faulty_damper]

You can have bad technique but still make it work to sound good.  And I do know what I'm talking about.  You can't seem to make the distinction that how you sound and how you play are two different things.  You can struggle to make it sound good or you can sound good and not struggle.

[faulty_damper]

For old times sake, I re-introduce... *drum roll* please..............
................................................................
.........................................
.........................
...............
..........
.......
.....
...
..
.

RICHARD KASTLE!

(If you don't know Richard Kastle, you're in for a treat!   )

[kevin69]

Since the piano is a mechanical instrument, playing it with virtuoso-level expression requires an incredibly precise level of mechanical skill.

This is where i disagree.

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 speed
but struggles with any high-tempo piece).

The best pianists have both of course, but i don't think that either *requires* the other.

[classicalnhiphop]

I understand what they are saying i think, though i agree more with thal, awesome_o, and other.  An example of having a lacking technique but still making the music sound good and expressive is Wilhelm Kempff. 

[awesom_o]

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 speed
but struggles with any high-tempo piece).

I'm sure that you can imagine both of these people.

In my experience of real people who are not imaginary, however, I haven't seen either. 

Everyone has musical ideas, and everyone struggles with precision and control in some way or another.

[abudabi]

HAMELIN 1ST 2ND AND 3RD
 cziffra was more of a showman than hamelin whilst great he added his own flourished and idiosyncracies to the pieces which detracted from the music horowitz was great but standard repertoire whereas hamelin can play a variety of genres and is a composer and understands the music and plays far harder pieces with aplomb

[thalbergmad]

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.

I would actually rather listen to Lang Lang as at least he tries to stamp some individuality onto his performances.

Thal

[pencilart3]

I greatly dislike all of the 3 mentioned.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hamelin should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two.

Absolutely.

Whilst I think Cziffra was the greatest and most unique virtuoso in all recorded piano history, there is something quite magical about Horowitz's best recordings. Even when I don't like the recording (eg Liebestod) I know after 20 seconds that it is a great pianist playing.

Hamelin has a very fine digital mechanism, but dissimulates emotion with all the conviction of a soggy souffle. It's almost like listening to a version of Brendel with proper technique and slightly better tonal colouring. I much prefer him as a composer tbh.

[thalbergmad]

there is something quite magical about Horowitz's best recordings.

Indeed and he can take something so mechanically simple such as a Schubert Impromptu and play it so divinely, that one is left stunned. Hamelin cannot do this.

Thal

[aweshana21]

horowitz

[isaach]

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'.

[preludetr]

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'.

I would be hesitant to say that there are many pianists today who can play with the ease of Cziffra.

[pencilart3]

Between these three, I will have to go with Zimerman.

[outin]

Between 3 three I would abstain from voting.

Firstly because the original question is quite irrelevant. In the end it makes no difference to me who possess the greatest amount of technical ability as long as they all have enough to play the music.

Secondly because I have heard great recordings from all 3 and at the same time others that I don't care for hearing again. None of them are among my favorites, but I also assume that hearing them live would be a completely different experience than listening to a recording.

[piulento]

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.

[ahinton]

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.

Have you heard him recently or are you basing your dismissive views on his earlier work?

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.

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)?

Perhaps he is better suited to playing horseshit by Sorabji that requires extreme mechanical facility but bugger all else.

You just had to say that for effect, didn't you?! - and you did so in apparent disregard of the fact that he has only ever performed and recorded two works by Sorabji - the work now known as his first piano sonata (even though another precedes it) and the third of his Trois Pastiches; none of Sorabji's music is "horseshit" but at least horseshit has its uses as a fertiliser, which is perhaps rather more than could reasonably said for your virulent anti-Hamelin statements...

listen to Lang Lang as at least he tries to stamp some individuality onto his performances

Indeed he does, albeit in a "never mind the composer, watch the pianist" manner as a rule - although I would concede that listening to his playing is a marginally less unpleasant experience than watching it. That said, as an ambassador, he has done quite well and might have done better still were he only able and willing to discard his exhibitionism, something of which neither Hamelin nor Stevenson nor Ogdon nor Smith nor Pollini nor Michelangeli (for example) has any kind of reputation at all.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

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)?

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.

Thal

[isaach]

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.

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.
 

[ahinton]

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.

Well, that's your view and I can no more agree with it than I can imagine that this CD remins in the charity shop to which you say that you took it; you could have tried to sell it, anyway!...

Best,

Alistair

[piulento]

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.

[thalbergmad]

Well said that man.

Thal

[isaach]

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.

Please, don't get me wrong, Cziffra was great, really very extraordinary! I Don't think I ciuld identify his playing if I didn't know it was him, but that's ok, he was still very individualistic. The first recording didn't exactlybgive me "goosebumps", but the Chopin was very nicely done- though I would refer you to Horowitz's own recording if you want to really be transfixed

For me, I prefer the masters of color and harmonic tension like Horowitz, Ignaz Friedman, or that even Gieseking (depite his being a Nazi ) but I also have to say, if you don't understand why Horowitz is great, try to analyze and figure out what he's doing, and emulate so you can drive yourself crazy like so many other pianists!