Does someone also have the feeling that today's star pianists are

[datuzi]

full of showmanship, energy, passion, techniques, but the music is not as secure, correct, and profound as before? Was this the same case as in 50 years ago or even more earlier as  when Argerich, Zimerman, Schiff, Kempff, Horowitz and etc were young?

[visitor]

nope. I think there are valid points to liking older interpretations more (personal tastes, since interpretation norms and traditions tends to change w/ time).  But today's star pianists are stars for a reason, in the private sector space and open market, the competition is stiff and best cream rises to the top. I like the very old guard more personally (ie Rosenthal, Turek, Neuhaus etc) but to say that there are not modern stars worthy is silly. ie Earl Wild was a beast.

Then there is music like this that is both newly composed and interpreted by modern 'stars' and it's quite wonderful ie

[datuzi]

It is true that today's competition is even more demanding, but the market power grows much more stronger than before.

[adodd81802]

I think the competition is so stiff now that it creates the pianist rather than the pianist deciding where the music is going.

I agree the market can always have an affect I mean look at Justin Bieber.... lol.

However, I have watched a number of Lang Lang 1-1 sessions, this pianist is often regarded for his unorthodox performances that many disagree with being up there with the top, but when you hear how he thinks watch how he breaks stuff down the guy is very much a professional, that can perform music at such a high level he decided to change it up.

It's also worth noting that showmanship, energy and technique is definitely part of core values to being a concert pianist and that can go as far back as Liszt who would often take pieces and change them either on the fly or for more interesting performances, and not just his own pieces.

An interpretation is a big thing that will always leave fans arguing about the best performance that will always be biased to personal preference whether that be loving music that's exactly like the score, or someone performing variations etc, much like a cover of an original song.

[pianoman1233]

What I think is that a lot comes from marketing and the artist's image and stuff like that. Especially in the popular music culture and entertainment, but also in the piano music. This is how humans act. They need to be learned what's hot, what's in and which is good music.

There are sciencetifical researches about this issue (music trending). Also the social pressure means a lot, more than people can normally imagine. Of course you need to be good at what you do, at the top level, but without the work done by labels it's hard to became famous.

I think the competition is so stiff now that it creates the pianist rather than the pianist deciding where the music is going.

People want money and success and that's why people want to do things that can be sold, as the popular music genres. Also recording labels shape the top talented musicians to the form that will sell. All they want is money, and against that they raise the artist to the top and popularity by creating the image, creating music that sell, and advertising the artist on TV and other media.

[pianoman1233]

This man does nothing special but thanks to the show, people think he is the most amazing pianist in the world. 2:15

[datuzi]

Today more and more teachers instruct their students about the "trending"--body, facial expression as part of the music training.  It might not be the case 20 years ago.

It will be interesting to see research on how the industry shapes the pubic reviews, and vice versa, along this trending.

[pianoman1233]

Today more and more teachers instruct their students about the "trending"--body, facial expression as part of the music training.  It might not be the case 20 years ago.

Music should come straight from the soul. Training these kind of matters will grow your ego, which resist getting touch with the soul.

[louispodesta]

full of showmanship, energy, passion, techniques, but the music is not as secure, correct, and profound as before? Was this the same case as in 50 years ago or even more earlier as  when Argerich, Zimerman, Schiff, Kempff, Horowitz and etc were young?

What Dr. Neal Peres Da Costa ("Off The Record," Amazon.com) and I have discussed is that the "German Tradition" and the current method of piano performance is a combination of two things.

First, until Igor Stravinsky made the statement that the piano was not a melodic instrument, it was a percussive instrument, the early 20th Century philosophy of Modernity/Modernism was only meant to apply to new works of art and not pre-existing works/compositions.

So, when aficionados of Mr. Stravinsky like Arthur Rubenstein, made the decision to not play rolled chords, and instead play a "percussive" block chord, then the rest of the piano world for the next 50 years had to make a choice.

It has nothing to do with a the so-called evolution in performance practice.  Instead, what is at play here is a pianist like Rubenstein (and others like Arrau, Backhaus, Gieseking, etc.) made the decision to embrace and at the same time bastardize the philosophy of Modernity/Moderniism.

Secondly, all of the pianists (since 1945, Earl Wild's words, not mine) have done is to follow the Adele Marcus "lie" of Urtext meticulous attention to the score.  That, plus the horrible influence of the Piano Competition syndrome of Van Cliburn have got us to where we are today.

Musicality or musicianship has nothing to do with it.  Columbia Artists, and all the other booking agencies and Record Companies, all promote the same propaganda.

That is why concert pianists play the way they do today!

[rubinsteinmad]

Secondly, all of the pianists (since 1945, Earl Wild's words, not mine) have done is to follow the Adele Marcus "lie" of Urtext meticulous attention to the score.  That, plus the horrible influence of the Piano Competition syndrome of Van Cliburn have got us to where we are today.

This is very interesting. I learned from an alleged-student of Adele Marcus, and she didn't allow me to do any crescendos when Beethoven didn't write crescendos; I wasn't allowed to do my own articulation; etc.

I also am not a fan of Van Cliburn, as well.

Can you please give citations so I can look into it more? I think what you posted is very interesting and I would love to look into it.

[pencilart3]

No, I don't.

[schumaniac]

This is very interesting. I learned from an alleged-student of Adele Marcus, and she didn't allow me to do any crescendos when Beethoven didn't write crescendos; I wasn't allowed to do my own articulation; etc.

I also am not a fan of Van Cliburn, as well.

Can you please give citations so I can look into it more? I think what you posted is very interesting and I would love to look into it.

While the whole story is interesting, it reads like a conspiracy theory! Why would there need to be "propaganda" to play block chords? What's in it for the record labels?

And does it even make SUCH a big difference in sound (which is what the OP is asking about? A difference SO big that it affects the listener's sense of the music, to feel profound emotions?

While the transition to our "modern" style of piano playing coincides with Stravinsky's time, I don't think his statement was the one, immediate moment that caused everyone to play block chords, as Mr. Podesta's post suggests. And interestingly, one of my teachers once told me about how professors would insist on playing the bass and the melody together; this was not in Juilliard or in some "modern music capital" but in Leningrad or Petrograd or Stalingrad (whatever the hell they called it back then) of Soviet Russia...

[rubinsteinmad]

And interestingly, one of my teachers once told me about how professors would insist on playing the bass and the melody together; this was not in Juilliard or in some "modern music capital" but in Leningrad or Petrograd or Stalingrad (whatever the hell they called it back then) of Soviet Russia...

liar.

The alleged Juillard student said that I could not do the bass and melody separate, AT ALL. She said that was "European-style playing". And this was in.... CHOPIN.

I later changed teachers to a student of... A RUSSIAN CONSERVATORY. In his light Russian accent, he said rolling is not very fashionable for Beethoven, BUT I COULD DO IT IN CHOPIN, ETC.


So stop lying, you freaking idiot.







WAIT...........

Maybe that alleged Juillard student was a liar! Because I recently went to a festival where a renowned Juillard graduate was teaching, and HE SAID HE WAS FINE WITH PLAYING THE BASS AND MELODY SEPARATE. So, maybe, that alleged b!tch teacher was lying when she claimed she went to Juillard! Ah-hah! Solved it!

[schumaniac]

liar.

The alleged Juillard student said that I could not do the bass and melody separate, AT ALL. She said that was "European-style playing". And this was in.... CHOPIN.

I later changed teachers to a student of... A RUSSIAN CONSERVATORY. In his light Russian accent, he said rolling is not very fashionable for Beethoven, BUT I COULD DO IT IN CHOPIN, ETC.


So stop lying, you freaking idiot.







WAIT...........

Maybe that alleged Juillard student was a liar! Because I recently went to a festival where a renowned Juillard graduate was teaching, and HE SAID HE WAS FINE WITH PLAYING THE BASS AND MELODY SEPARATE. So, maybe, that alleged b!tch teacher was lying when she claimed she went to Juillard! Ah-hah! Solved it!

Ok cool now we know about your personal grudges.
Now like John Oliver says after ppl laugh at his jokes: "THE POINT IS"

The point is, I just don't think that this whole rolled vs block thing affects the sound of a player SO much. I'm sure it's not the sole reason why young players sound different. There are (or at least, there must be) a number of other factors out there.

[swagmaster420x]

nope. I think there are valid points to liking older interpretations more (personal tastes, since interpretation norms and traditions tends to change w/ time).  But today's star pianists are stars for a reason, in the private sector space and open market, the competition is stiff and best cream rises to the top. I like the very old guard more personally (ie Rosenthal, Turek, Neuhaus etc) but to say that there are not modern stars worthy is silly. ie Earl Wild was a beast.

i LOVE paranoid android, that;s one of my favorite songs.
The cover is very interesting, it's "messy" in a good way.

[pianoman1233]

i LOVE paranoid android, that;s one of my favorite songs.
The cover is very interesting, it's "messy" in a good way.

I'm sure Radiohead's guys free their minds with drugs. That's why they can compose something like that. No classical pianist do that, only the rock musicians. That's what makes the difference.

[schumaniac]

I'm sure Radiohead's guys free their minds with drugs. That's why they can compose something like that. No classical pianist do that, only the rock musicians. That's what makes the difference.

A pianist that had a problem with drugs: Samson Francois. One of the best exponents of the "French school" whose playing was also unique in its own way.

[rubinsteinmad]

A pianist that had a problem with drugs: Samson Francois. One of the best exponents of the "French school" whose playing was also unique in its own way.

Dude you should truly stop with the "insert nationality here school" thing. There's no such thing as that in piano performance. Unless you're talking about the "American school" of piano playing, which is slowly dying out due to talented pianists such as Eric Lu and Kate Liu.

That way, you will avoid messing up putting people in the wrong nationality. (That b!tch teacher once quoted, "German school, I. e. Beethoven, Schubert..."........ I laughed [behind her back, mind you] about her for a heck of a long time because she thought Schubert was German  )

[schumaniac]

Dude you should truly stop with the "insert nationality here school" thing. There's no such thing as that in piano performance. Unless you're talking about the "American school" of piano playing, which is slowly dying out due to talented pianists such as Eric Lu and Kate Liu.

That way, you will avoid messing up putting people in the wrong nationality. (That b!tch teacher once quoted, "German school, I. e. Beethoven, Schubert..."........ I laughed [behind her back, mind you] about her for a heck of a long time because she thought Schubert was German  )

oh the different schools are totally a thing!
(e.g. you can't deny that there is a Russian school...)
maybe you should flip through this thing: https://books.google.com/books?id=gtlCuMH2O4gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

and if there is an American school, it's playing everything objectively: every pianist sounds "nice" and there's nothing much unique about them.

and there is an idea of "Austro-German" composers (that's a thing in Chinese)- which would include Beethoven and Schubert, and Mozart and Haydn too. idk how that works

[rubinsteinmad]

oh the different schools are totally a thing!
(e.g. you can't deny that there is a Russian school...)
maybe you should flip through this thing: https://books.google.com/books?id=gtlCuMH2O4gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

and if there is an American school, it's playing everything objectively: every pianist sounds "nice" and there's nothing much unique about them.

and there is an idea of "Austro-German" composers (that's a thing in Chinese)- which would include Beethoven and Schubert, and Mozart and Haydn too. idk how that works

The American school is perfect playing, loyal to the score like a dog is to his master. However, it has no soul and has a very thin understanding of music. No sincerity. Eric Lu and Kate Liu are changing this through their amazing playing.

And "Austro-German" is not the same thing as "German". Franz Schubert was an Austrian. The German Schubert was Francois Schubert. Francois only composed one known work: l'Abeille (for violin)

[rubinsteinmad]

I don't think Arrau, Argerich and Baremboim are the "Chilean-Argentinen School"

[schumaniac]

I don't think Arrau, Argerich and Baremboim are the "Chilean-Argentinen School"

no you idiot that's an exception to the rule hlaigufshlieudshlakwdjfhl aksjdhvlsdajhglkfjdhblkjdhlkarguhilfddkhjlfahflg they studied in Europe fsliguhalneviugnaliufnlvaifuhnlaekjfhsn

[pencilart3]

no you idiot that's an exception to the rule hlaigufshlieudshlakwdjfhl aksjdhvlsdajhglkfjdhblkjdhlkarguhilfddkhjlfahflg they studied in Europe fsliguhalneviugnaliufnlvaifuhnlaekjfhsn

Wow, very well said.

[rubinsteinmad]

oh the different schools are totally a thing!
(e.g. you can't deny that there is a Russian school...)

Well that Russian school is slowly disappearing as Ukrainians and Americans such as Eric Lu and Kate Liu are catching up

[schumaniac]

Well that Russian school is slowly disappearing as Ukrainians and Americans such as Eric Lu and Kate Liu are catching up

"catching up" to what? we're talking about styles of playing here...... an American can play in the Russian style too

sometimes piano is just what it is... you can't really sensationalize or dramatize it

[louispodesta]

"Schumaniac and Rubinsteinmad":

"It has nothing to do with a the so-called evolution in performance practice.  Instead, what is at play here is a pianist like Rubinstein (and others like Arrau, Backhaus, Gieseking, etc.) made the decision to embrace and at the same time bastardize the philosophy of Modernity/Modernism."

For the record, absent Backhaus, none of the other pianists had a lesson after their teenage years.  Therefore, when they performed, or most importantly recorded, they played it straight from the score (block chords and no breaking of the hands).

Secondly, there is a difference between style and performance practice.  Rubinstein, Arrau, Gieseking, and Backhaus all played in different styles, but they all played with the same note perfect block chord performance practice.

Conversely, Fanny Davies, Adelina de Lara, Ilona Eibenschutz, and Carl Firiedberg (students of Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms), all played in very different styles, but yet utilized the same performance practice of the spreading of chords, asynchronization, improvisation, and tempo modification, when they thought it approporiate.

Urtext ("bogus Urtext"-Robert Winter (UCLA)," "Urtext Mob"-Jorge Bolet) was invented by Heinrich Schenker:

["Having failed to gain recognition as a composer, conductor, and accompanist, by 1900 he shifted his focus increasingly on problems of musical editing and music theory . . .  Already in his 1895 article "Der Geist der musikalischen Technik," he spoke of the adulteration of contemporary music editions of classical composers, and advocated using Urtext editions.

Between 1913 and 1921, Schenker brought out an explanatory edition of four of the last five Beethoven sonatas. While examining the autograph to Beethoven's Sonata, op. 109 In 1910 . . .

Schenker wrote excitedly to Emil Hertzka, the head of Universal Edition, of the "sensational new changes" he would incorporate into his new edition of Beethoven's Op. 109, having examined the autograph, a revised copy by Beethoven, the original edition and other later editions.  Federhofer credits Schenker with initiating the modern Urtext movement of examining multiple authentic sources to arrive at a reading."]

During his lifetime, Heinrich Schenker could not attain a university teaching position, and he had to teach out of his house.  Because, to all of those who performed in the practice of the time, he was a fraud and a joke.  No one played the music of any composer, especially Beethoven, strictly according to the score.

Specifically, the causality of Schenker's initial thesis was that performers were taking their common improvisations and then having them published as the true way to play Beethoven.  Theirs was a gross misrepresentation of Beethoven!

However, for Schenker to state unequivicoally that the autograph (Beethoven) was the genuine performance article was a major falsehood.  The composer, in his early years, was the most famous improviser pianist in all of Vienna.  He never played anything the same way twice.

The point is:  Adele Marcus and Rossina Levinne at Juilliard (after 1945) chose to re-invent this Schenkerian bogus applied musicology in order to promote a note perfect, elitist, classist method of playing.  Except, and to this day, there was and is no prior musicological basis for this performance practice (absent Rubinstein, et al).

[dcstudio]

"Schumaniac and Rubinsteinmad":

"It has nothing to do with a the so-called evolution in performance practice.  Instead, what is at play here is a pianist like Rubinstein (and others like Arrau, Backhaus, Gieseking, etc.) made the decision to embrace and at the same time bastardize the philosophy of Modernity/Modernism."

For the record, absent Backhaus, none of the other pianists had a lesson after their teenage years.  Therefore, when they performed, or most importantly recorded, they played it straight from the score (block chords and no breaking of the hands).

Secondly, there is a difference between style and performance practice.  Rubinstein, Arrau, Gieseking, and Backhaus all played in different styles, but they all played with the same note perfect block chord performance practice.

Conversely, Fanny Davies, Adelina de Lara, Ilona Eibenschutz, and Carl Firiedberg (students of Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms), all played in very different styles, but yet utilized the same performance practice of the spreading of chords, asynchronization, improvisation, and tempo modification, when they thought it approporiate.

Urtext ("bogus Urtext"-Robert Winter (UCLA)," "Urtext Mob"-Jorge Bolet) was invented by Heinrich Schenker:

["Having failed to gain recognition as a composer, conductor, and accompanist, by 1900 he shifted his focus increasingly on problems of musical editing and music theory . . .  Already in his 1895 article "Der Geist der musikalischen Technik," he spoke of the adulteration of contemporary music editions of classical composers, and advocated using Urtext editions.

Between 1913 and 1921, Schenker brought out an explanatory edition of four of the last five Beethoven sonatas. While examining the autograph to Beethoven's Sonata, op. 109 In 1910 . . .

Schenker wrote excitedly to Emil Hertzka, the head of Universal Edition, of the "sensational new changes" he would incorporate into his new edition of Beethoven's Op. 109, having examined the autograph, a revised copy by Beethoven, the original edition and other later editions.  Federhofer credits Schenker with initiating the modern Urtext movement of examining multiple authentic sources to arrive at a reading."]

During his lifetime, Heinrich Schenker could not attain a university teaching position, and he had to teach out of his house.  Because, to all of those who performed in the practice of the time, he was a fraud and a joke.  No one played the music of any composer, especially Beethoven, strictly according to the score.

Specifically, the causality of Schenker's initial thesis was that performers were taking their common improvisations and then having them published as the true way to play Beethoven.  Theirs was a gross misrepresentation of Beethoven!

However, for Schenker to state unequivicoally that the autograph (Beethoven) was the genuine performance article was a major falsehood.  The composer, in his early years, was the most famous improviser pianist in all of Vienna.  He never played anything the same way twice.

The point is:  Adele Marcus and Rossina Levinne at Juilliard (after 1945) chose to re-invent this Schenkerian bogus applied musicology in order to promote a note perfect, elitist, classist method of playing.  Except, and to this day, there was and is no prior musicological basis for this performance practice (absent Rubinstein, et al).

wow Louis' -- that was very well said.   

[gustaaavo]

From Konrad Wolff's book Schnabel's Interpretation of Piano Music:
"According to A. Thayer's Life of Beethoven, Czerny in 1816 permitted himself certain alterations, such as adding passage work and using higher octaves, while playing Beethoven's Piano Quitent, op. 16 -composed twenty years earlier- and was severely reprimanded by Beethoven in the presence of other performers. Beethoven, in a letter written the next day, reiterated that as 'a composer... [he] would have preferred to hear his work exactly as he wrote it, no matter how beautifully you played in general.' "

What you say about blocked chords is very interesting, Louis. I guess that once pianos allowed voicing melodies (and pianists learned how to do it) it was no longer necessary to roll all chords (of course this theory is much less amusing than yours). But it would certainly do no harm to include melody anticipation and delaying in our pianistic toolboxes.

Nevertheless, I think you are taking this too far. Are you really telling a story about piano playing in which Arrau and Rubinstein (and, dare I guess, Schnabel) are antagonists?

This takes me directly to what I would like to write with regards to the original post. It is impossible to be objective, obviously, about, e.g., which pianists are profound and which aren't. Nevertheless, I can say that, subjectively, no recording of Buniatishvili, Wang, Cho, etc. ("superstars"), has affected me as deeply as some of Arrau, Rubinstein, Schnabel, Horowitz, Richter, Zimerman, Gould, etc. have.

But that does not imply that pianism is on decline. I think the fault lies much more on record companies, managers, competitions and the likes than on pianists and piano teachers. In short, I'd say that famous pianists are no longer the best pianists.

And, finally, a silver lining: