best pianoists in the history of the piano

[aweshana21]

who are the best pianoists in the history of the world?

[abel2]

who are the best pianoists in the history of the world?

You do know they're not called pianoists, right?

[aweshana21]

yes my spelling is not that good

[shostglass]

Ashkenazy
Bolet
Michealangeli(machine gun trills)
Agerich
Yves
Horowitz
Glenn Gould
Me
Kissin
Rubinstein
Richter
Rachmaninoff
Thelonious monk
Cliburn
Hess
Etc.

[symphonicdance]

missing out the great composers, who were also great pianists, in the 19th century?!

Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, etc.

[richard black]

Benno Moiseiwitsch
John Ogdon
Marc-André Hamelin
Ronald Stevenson
Art Tatum
Gyorgy Cziffra

At the very least, it can be said of all of those that they truly excelled in at least one area - as in, they could do it better than anyone else. They were/are also all great all-rounders.

All the players mentioned in above posts, of course.

And a couple of names that don't get mentioned often enough in lists of 'greatest ever':

Elisso Virsaladze
Peter Donohoe

[ahinton]

Benno Moiseiwitsch
John Ogdon
Marc-André Hamelin
Ronald Stevenson
Art Tatum
Gyorgy Cziffra

At the very least, it can be said of all of those that they truly excelled in at least one area - as in, they could do it better than anyone else. They were/are also all great all-rounders.

All the players mentioned in above posts, of course.

And a couple of names that don't get mentioned often enough in lists of 'greatest ever':

Elisso Virsaladze
Peter Donohoe

And (although some have been and will doubtless again be mentioned here) Michelangeli, (Yonty) Solomon, Pollini, Argerich, Grante, Powell...

A long and growing Liszt, indeed!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Powell...

That is daft and i assume you mention him as he plays all that crap you like.

His playing on the Eiges CD was divine, but he is not going to be remembered as one of the greats until he ditches that plinky plonky nonesense and we have sufficient discology in which to make comparisons with those that are accepted greats.

In time he might will be considered as one of the greats, but only a short while ago he was frustrated that he had hardly any bookings whilst others were filling up Carnegie Hall and were booked for about the next decade.

Thal

[jimroof]

Ashkenazy
Bolet
Michealangeli(machine gun trills)
Agerich
Yves
Horowitz
Glenn Gould
Me
Kissin
Rubinstein
Richter
Rachmaninoff
Thelonious monk
Cliburn
Hess
Etc.

I think you got the right guy at the top of the list.  I read a few years ago that Ashkenazy had recorded THE SOLO PIANO REPERTOIRE completely.  I am not cure what the legal definition of the 'complete solo piano repertoire' is (likely doe not include every bizarre 12 tone row piece over scribbled or all of the John Thompson arrangements of When all the Saints, Shortnin' Bread or Hot Cross Buns) but it would be all of the major composer's sonatas, the complete works of Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy... a seemingly nearly endless list that Vladimir has recorded, some of them up to 4 times.  Throw in everything by Bartok, Scriabin and it is simply incredible that anyone could have done what he has done.

I have also seen some interviews with him in which he comes across as a totally likable and non-egocentric person.  I may be wrong on that, but that is what he seems to be like to me.  We are all much better off to have heard his recordings and I was happy to hear him perform the Rach III (I think it was III) some years back in Atlanta.

[ahinton]

That is daft

No.

and i assume you mention him as he plays all that crap you like

I don't like crap. You may think that I write it, but that's up to you, of course, if indeed you do. And should we assume that the Chopin, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Albéniz, Medtner, Busoni, Granados, Rachmaninoff &c. that he plays is all crap just because he plays it?

His playing on the Eiges CD was divine

Good to hear that you appreciate this; very much agreed!

but he is not going to be remembered as one of the greats until he ditches that plinky plonky nonesense and we have sufficient discology in which to make comparisons with those that are accepted greats

Er - so is Pollini out of the running (in your view) because he's played Boulez, Stockhausen and Nono? Would Michelangeli be so because he prepared (thought sadly never performed) piano music by Schönberg? And what of Arrau (who admittedly has yet to be mentioned) who also studied a fair amout of what was then contemporary and near-contemporary music privately and thought so highly of Zimmermann's Die Soldaten that he once referred to is as the greatest opera since Salome? Oh and by "discology" I assume you to mean "discography"...

In time he might will be considered as one of the greats, but only a short while ago he was frustrated that he had hardly any bookings whilst others were filling up Carnegie Hall and were booked for about the next decade.

Some people have full diaries, some less so; there seems to be no obvious connection, however, to the repertoire that they perform and, given the sheer breadth of Powell's, that should be even more obvious than it might otherwise be. I know tht he';s an organist rather than a pianist, but much the same could at times be said of Kevin Bowyer - undoubtedly one of the great organists of any generation - and, again, he has recorded and performed a vast variety of music including pretty much the complete organ works of Bach.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No.
I don't like crap. You may think that I write it, but that's up to you, of course, if indeed you do. And should we assume that the Chopin, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Albéniz, Medtner, Busoni, Granados, Rachmaninoff &c. that he plays is all crap just because he plays it?

I have never heard him play any of those composers, so i cannot pass judgement. No doubt there must be some gaping holes in my CD collection as i have nothing of him playing any of the composers you mention.

I assume there must be hundreds of CD's i am missing as no doubt all the big labels are constantly beating his door down to get this all time great to record for them.

Again, if he had not played all that Sorabji refuse, you would not be mentioning him.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Some people have full diaries, some less so; there seems to be no obvious connection, however, to the repertoire that they perform

Of course there bloody well is. You ain't going to fill up a major concert hall nor have a full diary if you programme that Opus Clavibollox or whatever it is called or some other lengthy meaningless plinker.

Those kind of works are more suited to squash court sized venues under sheet music shops and medium sized churches.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Imho, Michelangeli is the greatest pianist in the history of recorded music. Fantastically clean technique together with an incredibly precise control of the sonic image.

He's not my favourite pianist though: that is Cziffra, and I would put him somewhere in my personal top five greatests. His pianism is absolutely sui generis. You just have to compare the attempts, of varying success, to perform his own transcriptions. Wang's Tritsch-Tratsch is, in comparison, sketchy, rushed in places (and slightly cut in one of the awkward passages), Scherbakov's has a certain scholastic pedestrianism about it; even Katsaris and Volodos's Bumblebees don't match up (inferior control and shading through pedal use).

Others: Rachmaninov, Richter: who didn't really have that great a touch but could still imbue performances with a remarkable level of emotion and charisma.

I cannot understand why anyone would consider MAH the greatest living pianist whilst Katsaris is still around. MAH may have great technique but Katsaris is imo even better technically and he is the only pianist I consider to be a real challenger to Michelangeli and Cziffra for the greatest technique in recorded pianism. Listen to his Beethoven-Liszt symphonies; these are every bit as hard as just about anything Alkan (for example) wrote, and even live he's practically note-perfect, all whilst retaining a remarkable level of control over the instrumentation and voicing.

Earl Wild is vastly under-rated: excellent (though not absolutely stellar in the Cziffra sense) technique, particularly in the 50s and 60s, incredibly wide repertoire, and absolutely superb in Rachmaninov.

Many others I could name (eg Zimermann, Bolet, Volodos etc), but I don't consider them quite in the same league as ABM, Cziffra, Rachmaninoff, Richter, Katsaris (that's probably my top 5 in approximate order tbh).

Powell... seriously??? I'm sure he does a lot of good for neglected composers, but there was an Alkan Symphonie finale on youtube which made him look very limited, and if he's to be considered, I'll nominate Lewenthal 100 times, because that's about how many times better his Symphonie finale is.

[ahinton]

I have never heard him play any of those composers, so i cannot pass judgement. No doubt there must be some gaping holes in my CD collection as i have nothing of him playing any of the composers you mention.

I did not confine my remarks to CDs, as I had (apparetly vainly) hoped was reasonably clear.

I assume there must be hundreds of CD's i am missing as no doubt all the big labels are constantly beating his door down to get this all time great to record for them.

No big labels beat down anyone's doors these days, as I'd have assumed you'd already know. That said, JP has quite a lot of recorded material coming out within the next year or so, though quite possibly not the kiond of thing that you might feel best disposed to want to hear.

Again, if he had not played all that Sorabji refuse, you would not be mentioning him.

Sorabji refuse? I've never known him to refuse to play Sorabji. But that's not really the point. Although he has many Sorabji CDs to his name with more to come, my initial encounter with him related to his involvement with the music of Scriabin, on whom he is an internationally recognised authority (he is, for example, the author of the Grove article on that composer); I've not forgotten his performance of all 10 Scriabin sonatas as a single programme - something that very few pianists have ever essayed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Hardly sufficient to consider him in the light you do.

Thal

[pencilart3]

zimerman blechacz pollini ashkenazy kholodenko roge biret

[ahinton]

Hardly sufficient to consider him in the light you do.

In your view - to which you're perfectly entitled, of course; that said, the mere fact that you don't happen to like some of the repertoire that he plays is hardly sufficient to consider him in the light that you do!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is not I that is making absurd claims. I happen to think he is a very fine pianist that wastes his talent on plinkers.

At 46, he is far too young to be considered as one of the all time greats.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is not I that is making absurd claims. I happen to think he is a very fine pianist that wastes his talent on plinkers.

At 46, he is far too young to be considered as one of the all time greats.

I see. What age would you consider to be a cut-off point below which a pianist would be ineligible, then? Would you discount, for example, all living pianists?

I've no idea who or what "plinkers" are, but I suspect that this descriptor might well apply to a number of great pianists, including Ogdon, Pollini, Cherkassky...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Would you discount, for example, all living pianists?

I think it is difficult to fully appraise those that are still with us and reasonably functional, since we do not know what they have left to offer.

Thal

[visitor]

will begin by throwing this into the mix. yep. supberb

[visitor]

Rosen, a giant

[visitor]

of course I'll plug Wild, as always. If i could be one pianist when i grow up, it would be earl.

[ahinton]

I think it is difficult to fully appraise those that are still with us and reasonably functional, since we do not know what they have left to offer.

The first part of that's fair enough insofar as it goes and the last part obviously true. However, when a pianist has such obviously remarkable achievements to his/her credit that set him/her apart from most other living ones, it likewise seems reasonable at least to suggest that he/she might already be classifiable as one of the great pianists of his/her day by virtue of these alone, even if he/she goes on to play not another note; would it not therefore seem reasonable to have singled out from the past century, for example, Horowitz, Cherkassky, Cziffra, Michelangeli and Ogdon (who are no longer with us) and Pollini, Argerich and Grante (who are) during their lifetimes (I omit Hamelin since I'm respomnding to someone whose views on him I do not share but do know!).

Also, for all that you do not care for a fair amount of Powell's repertoire, would you not at the very least acknowledge that he has successfully conquered immense pianistic challenges that few others of any generation could approach (particularly in the sheer quantities in whe has done this)?

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

At 46, he is far too young to be considered as one of the all time greats.

Thal

Though we have no recordings om them: Chopin? Mozart? To name a few? (As pianist or else)? Too young for consideration?

All best,
gep

[ahinton]

Though we have no recordings om them: Chopin? Mozart? To name a few? (As pianist or else)? Too young for consideration?

Indeed - and, nearer our own time, perhaps Dinu Lipatti, from whom we do have recorded evidence - clearly on the grounds that you have put forward here, namely that none of these ever had the good fortune to reach the age of 46. And, come to think of it, John Ogdon only reached the age of 52 and had already made his inimitable mark on piano performance history by te time he had reached his early 20s.

Another factor to consider is when exceptionally fine pianists speak / write highly of the prowess of their colleagues, as, for example, Carlo Grante has done of Jonathan Powell and as Marc-André Hamelin also did about Jonathan Powell's performance of Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum in New York almost a dozen years ago; Hamelin had long since believed that it was impossible to play this piece as written but there he was listening to the evidence that it can! You'd think that pianists of their calibre would be expected to know what they're talking about, n'est-ce pas?...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Though we have no recordings om them: Chopin? Mozart? To name a few? (As pianist or else)? Too young for consideration?

Of course not, but we can make a judgement on what we know, in the knowledge that due to their expiry, they have nothing left to add, unless they get in contact with Rosemary Brown.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Hamelin had long since believed that it was impossible to play this piece as written but there he was listening to the evidence that it can! You'd think that pianists of their calibre would be expected to know what they're talking about, n'est-ce pas?...

Pianistic greatness does not depend on the ability to play 4 hour long works in front of small audiences, nor, the opinion of a few fellow artists.

Perhaps only a few pianists could have done this, but i wager very few would actually want to.

Mr Powell is a very fine pianist with arguably an unprecedented technique and levels of stamina, but you are looking through rose tinted glasses at the moment.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Some other notable all time greats must include:

Frederic Ullen
Donna Amato
Michael Habermann
Tellef Johnson

Thal

[ahinton]

Pianistic greatness does not depend on the ability to play 4 hour long works in front of small audiences, nor, the opinion of a few fellow artists.

Who said that it did? For one thing, you cannot possibly have audience statistics for all of Jonathan Powell's performances. For another, you're obviously referring to his performances of Sorabji, so here, for your information, is a list of the Sorabji works that he has peformed (with apologies if I've left any out):

Piano Sonata No. 1
Le Jardin Parfumé
Fragment (Prelude & Fugue)
Toccata No. 1
Djami
Piano Sonata No. 4
Opus Clavicembalisticum
Fantasia Ispanica
Gulistān
St. Bertrand de Comminges
two of the 100 Transcendental Studies
Concerto per Suonare da me Solo
Schlußszene aus Salome (Strauss) (concert paraphrase)
Sequentia Cyclica super Dies Irć
Un Nido di Scatole
Passeggiata Veneziana
Rosario d’Arabeschi
20 Frammenti Aforistici
Piano Symphony No. 6
Il Grido del Gallino d'Oro
Villa Tasca
piano parts to several of the songs for voice and piano

How many of those are "4 hour long works"? Well, I'll tell you, to save you the bother of checking; one of them plays for more than 7 hours, two occupy between 4 and 5 hours and the remainder are nowhere near this length, the majority taking well less than one hour to play; indeed, there are several instances in which two or three would fit confortably into on half of a conventional length piano recital. A little more homework is recommended before making statments such as that!

Perhaps only a few pianists could have done this, but i wager very few would actually want to.

Leave your wagering for the bookmakers' or the local corner shop where you buy National Lottery or Euromillions tickets! It is surely well known to you that there are many works by many composers of all eras that this, that or the other pianist prefers not to play; greatness in piano playing is hardly dependent upon individual artists' repertoire choices or omissions!

Mr Powell is a very fine pianist with arguably an unprecedented technique and levels of stamina

I agree (obviously!) - and it's good to hear you say so - but well, what else would you demand or expect of a pianist in order for him/her to merit the descriptor "great"?

but you are looking through rose tinted glasses at the moment.

On the contrary, I'm looking through my usual photochromic lensed ones - but then I have no need of any kind of spectacles in order to listen to pianists, great or otherwise!

It is increasingly clear that, for you, pianistic greatness cannot possibly pertain in respect of pianists who play too much of the kind of piano music for which Thal has nothing but disdain; again, however, the question as to whether a pianist passes the Thal repertoire test is hardly of relevance to everyone who listens to pianists in terms of the greateness or otherwise of those pianists! Incidentally, you didn't answer what I wrote about those widelly respected pianists who have also played what one might call "non-Thal repertoire".

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is increasingly clear that, for you, pianistic greatness cannot possibly pertain in respect of pianists who play too much of the kind of piano music for which Thal has nothing but disdain

Utter horsecrap. Greatness depends on the Worldwide acceptance by musicians, fellow artists, critics and the general listening public, so Mr Powell is not a sensible proposal.

There are pianists that I consider great that actually play Schumann, so bollox.

Thal

[ahinton]

Utter horsecrap.

You do seem to have something of a preoccupation with equine excrement which should best be taken on board for what it isn't worth in the present context.

Greatness depends on the Worldwide acceptance by musicians, fellow artists, critics and the general listening public, so Mr Powell is not a sensible proposal.

It depends on a number of factors including but not limited to those that you mention here; what you omit to take account of is that greatness can manifest itself without its always necessarily arising entirely from its due recognition; bear in mind, for example, the case of a certain German composer who died in the mid-18th century but whose undoubted greatness was not accorded anything like its due recognition until several generations later - or the case of the 20th century Russian composers Roslavets and Weinberg whose stature has only come to be widely recognised in recent decades.

There are pianists that I consider great that actually play Schumann, so bollox.

We all know so well here that you consider the entire output of Schumann to be bollox, so there seems to be no obvious need to reiterate it yet again but, yes, of course there are great pianists who play Schumann's considerable output for piano and have been pretty much since Schumann's own time.

Greatness in performance, however, also takes a number of forms and is by no means about - still less hidebound by - the performer's repertoire choices, be they Schumann, Szymanowski, Shostakovich or Schorabji!

Finally, could the OP (or someone else able to do so) PLEASE correct the spelling of "pianoists"?!...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

This is a very strange thread. I don't really see what relevance Mr Powell's advocacy of Sorabji has to anyone other than Alistair, nor do I see why it particularly enhances any citation he might have to be a "best pianoist (sic) in the history of the piano". I'm quite impressed that Thal hasn't counter-nominated Francesco Nicolosi for his similar advocacy of another niche composer 

Nor is Powell a remotely obvious contender! Of course this is all subjective, but dozens and dozens of pianists would come to mind first for the vast majority of pianophiles. I'll allot myself three minutes typing time..

Liszt, Chopin, Thalberg, Alkan, Tausig, Busoni, Rosenthal, Lhevinne, Friedman, Barere, Rachmaninov, Moiseiwitch, Rubinstein, Gieseking, Horowitz, Michelangeli, Lipatti, Wild, Cziffra, Ogdon, Cherkassky, Lewenthal, Pollini, Askhenazy, Kentner, Curzon, Hough, Demidenko, Donohoe, Katsaris, Hamelin, Argerich, Bolet, Thibaudet, Kissin, Volodos, Trifonov.. and that's without any thought required and I'll undoubtedly have missed out obvious options.

[ahinton]

This is a very strange thread. I don't really see what relevance Mr Powell's advocacy of Sorabji has to anyone other than Alistair, nor do I see why it particularly enhances any citation he might have to be a "best pianoist (sic) in the history of the piano".

It has relevance to plenty of others, actually, but that's not really the point; I have not put him forward because of that advocacy and he has a vast repertoire outside the world of SOrabji and his work.

Nor is Powell a remotely obvious contender! Of course this is all subjective

Ah, yes; so it is!

but dozens and dozens of pianists would come to mind first for the vast majority of pianophiles. I'll allot myself three minutes typing time..

Liszt, Chopin, Thalberg, Alkan, Tausig, Busoni, Rosenthal, Lhevinne, Friedman, Barere, Rachmaninov, Moiseiwitch, Rubinstein, Gieseking, Horowitz, Michelangeli, Lipatti, Wild, Cziffra, Ogdon, Cherkassky, Lewenthal, Pollini, Askhenazy, Kentner, Curzon, Hough, Demidenko, Donohoe, Katsaris, Hamelin, Argerich, Bolet, Thibaudet, Kissin, Volodos, Trifonov.. and that's without any thought required and I'll undoubtedly have missed out obvious options.

Plenty of fine material there, of course, although you could indeed have missed out less than you have had you typed a little faster!

Best,

Alistair

[rubinsteinmad]

Trifonov is amazing. He made himself a legend in his teens. How does he do it?

[thalbergmad]

I'm quite impressed that Thal hasn't counter-nominated Francesco Nicolosi for his similar advocacy of another niche composer 

I was tempted, but i would be reducing myself to Hinty's level of absurdity. Nor would i submit pianists just because they have played Thalberg, because that would include Hamelin and Lisitsa. But i  would submit others that have played Thalberg, such as Wild, Katsaris and Ponti as they have done so much else besides.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Nor would i submit pianists just because they have played Thalberg, because that would include Hamelin and Lisitsa. But i  would submit others that have played Thalberg, such as Wild, Katsaris and Ponti as they have done so much else besides.

I happen to think that Wild is the greatest ever American pianist, with the caveat that we have no real way of assessing Gottschalk.

Yes, actually Ponti has a huge discography.

[ahinton]

I was tempted, but i would be reducing myself to Hinty's level of absurdity.

Do consider trying to check your own first!

Nor would i submit pianists just because they have played Thalberg, because that would include Hamelin and Lisitsa.

That's the first time I've ever encountered those two in a single sentence and I hope never to do so again!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Agreed, it is pretty insulting to Lisitsa.

Thal

[ahinton]

Agreed, it is pretty insulting to Lisitsa.

Sadly, I daresay she is sufficiently thick-skinned to be able to take it. As I've noted previously, there are plenty of pianists worse than her but I simply find her perfomances largely unremarkable and unmemorable.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Greatness depends on the Worldwide acceptance by musicians, fellow artists, critics and the general listening public,

If that were true in general, people like Bruckner or Mahler would not have been great during there lifetime, but great now. Whether any musician or artist in general in 'great' or not does not depend on acceptance in one way or another, or shift with time. Among the very last I would depend considering greatness of any artist would be the critics (ever heard about Hanslick?). The 'general listening public' will usually applaud any artist who is known to be known, even when he played the Moonshine Sonata backwards, and stay away (i.e. not even try getting an opinion) from any 'unknown' if (s)he played the Godowsky Sonata better than its composer.

Rather than rest much value by this kind of discussion I am, despite my large and acutely felt lack of understanding how music works,  arrogant enough to like exactly those composers, performers and whatnot that I do like, and like them for the reasons I like them. How much CDs they sell, how big their audience is, what any critic finds about them, how famous they are; I do not care. I have a taste and opinion of my own, based on being honestly interested in getting to know news things and new visions and new ways, rather than copy it from others. I trust that any true artist would want his or her audience base their appreciation or dislike of what (s)he does on what (s)he does, and their like or dislike on how they feel about the music played based on an open and honest hearing, rather than any preconceived or ‘gotten’ taste.
The one thing that a concert of, say, Sorabji played by Powell has (among many other ‘out of the ordinary’ composers and performers), is an audience that may be smaller than say LangLang, but consists solely of people who want to get to know the music, rather than merely hear it to one degree or another. If anyone wishes to disdain the different likings or preferences of someone else solely based on the facts that these likings or preferences are different from one’s own, please do. I can perfectly live with someone disliking my favourites, just as well as I can live with someone whose favourites I dislike. But I do have an opinion about people who wish to value my tastes and perhaps with it my personality based on their tastes and to what extend mine overlap or not.

Hmm, the above seems a bit strongly put, but it’s how I feel!

All best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

When i go to a concert, which is very infrequently, it is not because i want to get to know the music, but because i want to hear the pianist and i don't give a crap what is performed.

That to me signifies greatness.

Thal

[gep]

When i go to a concert, which is very infrequently, it is not because i want to get to know the music, but because i want to hear the pianist and i don't give a crap what is performed.

That to me signifies greatness.

Thal

I dare say your write this in sarcasm and the truth it quite the opposite of what you write, but I also trust you are aware of, and perhaps quite appaled by, the number of people attending concerts who do so exactly as you describe, coming for the performer(s) and bugger what they play and how.
I recall a concert I went to (a Bruckner Symphony) with a very famous conductor (I won't mention his name); a packed house and a minutes long standing ovation. I hardly recognised the piece as it was hacked to bleeding stumps that had very little to do with Bruckner, or music at that. It's that mindless 'star-crazed' attitude I cannot stand, and I very much doubt you can either!

Greatness doesn't lie in the amount of CDs you sell, or how big your audiences are. How many 'great' performers play, oh, 10 pieces from the rusty Iron Repertoire in the most dead-trodden way and draw elated crowds? While the tastes and preferences of you and me may differ, I think you might at least partially agree with me on this!

all best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

I dare say your write this in sarcasm and the truth it quite the opposite of what you write, but I also trust you are aware of, and perhaps quite appaled by, the number of people attending concerts who do so exactly as you describe, coming for the performer(s) and bugger what they play and how.

I did not write it in sarcasm in the slightest. If Katsaris comes to town, i would go in an an instant even if it were an all Schumann recital. I would treat Volodos in the same fashion. What they play is less important to me than how they play, but if it were Katsaris playing a Beethoven/Liszt Symphony, it would be extra special.

When a pianist trancends the music he plays, he has reached a level of greatness. Do you think that people went to hear Schubert/Liszt waltzes, or went to hear Horowitz?

Whislt you may be appaled at the amount of people who attend such concerts, it is difficult to argue against a mandate of the masses. To do so, is musical snobbery and elitism, but i expect nothing less from those that like to sit in crappy little churches and look important whilst someone plays a 7 hour stream of piss.

As you say, strongly put, but how i feel.

Thal

[ahinton]

I did not write it in sarcasm in the slightest. If Katsaris comes to town, i would go in an an instant even if it were an all Schumann recital. I would treat Volodos in the same fashion. What they play is less important to me than how they play, but if it were Katsaris playing a Beethoven/Liszt Symphony, it would be extra special.

When a pianist trancends the music he plays, he has reached a level of greatness. Do you think that people went to hear Schubert/Liszt waltzes, or went to hear Horowitz?

Whislt you may be appaled at the amount of people who attend such concerts, it is difficult to argue against a mandate of the masses. To do so, is musical snobbery and elitism

So "the masses" know everything and are always right, then?

You mention Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann and Liszt here; do you suppose that, in their capacity as composers, any of them would have taken the same stand as you on this and endorsed a situation in which audience members attend performances solely or principally in order to listen to the performers rather than what they perform? You appear to take little or no account of the fact that had those composers not composed their work in the first place the performers would have nothing to play!

You write of "when a pianist transcends the music he plays"; how do you suppose that such a notion would have gone down with Michelangeli, who believed in the very opposite and, in his performances, endeavoured never to come between the composer and the listener (and it is generally accepted that he was one of the great pianists). When someone attends a performance only or mainly because of who it is that's performing, they are defeating the very object of the exercise - and don't forget that the concept of the star performer counted for little in the days before Paganini and Liszt.

Also bear in mind that Alkan had grave reservations about Liszt in the days when Liszt was at the height of his "showman" powers and people fawned all over him (and this was hardly fired by professional jealousy, given Alkan's own pianistic prowess and the fact that he was the one pianist before whom Liszt himself was nervous of playing) - and that this aspect of Liszt's career was relatively short-lived in any case.

Did most people who went to listen to Rachmaninoff's performances do so because of the performer or the composers whose work he performed? What about John Ogdon (who would have been 79 yesterday), who would have been utterly horrified by such an idea?

And then there's the curious case of Ronald Stevenson who - perhaps mindful of Rachmaninoff and Busoni - decided against pursuing a career as a pianist, mainly because of a perhaps understandable fear that it would interfere with his work as a composer (remember that Rachmaninoff broadly separated his into three parts at different times as conductor, composer and pianist and Busoni did all these and far more simultaneously and paid the price by a short life); anyone listening to his recordings would recognise him as a great pianist despite the fact that so few people know his playing at all.

Lastly, consider the history of performances of Busoni's monumental piano concerto during his lifetime (i.e. over some two decades); only one (I think) was given without Busoni but the others were fairly evenly divided between those in which he appeared as piano soloist and those that he conducted. Busoni was, as you know, regarded as one of the great pianists during his tragically short life, yet do you suppose that people went to listen to his concerto because he was playing but might have stayed away from the performances when he was conducting? Would this "star pianist" have drawn full houses when he conducted Elgar's Enigma Variations?

Lisitsa, for example, has ensured that she's a "big name" pianist and one may admire the particular tenacity with which she has developed her self-publicist talents, yet I think that we both agree that she is merely a competent but not much better than ordinary pianist; there are far more people who have listened to her than have listened to vastly better but much less exposed pianists.

No, Thal, I find this stance of yours as expressed here does not accord to reality and it most certainly does not make sense to a composer whose purpose is to give performers music to perform and to reach listeners through them. Look at your own vast collection of 19th century piano concertos that includes many works by relatively obscure composers; yes, if one of these were to be performed by a "big name" pianist the performance would likely draw a larger audience than it would if played by one who does not fit that description, but does that fact make the music better in the former case and worse in the latter? Of course not - it makes no difference at all! The sheer humility of Michelangeli is a valuable object lesson here - and even Argerich has little time for peple who attend her performances just because it is her playing!

Anyway, let's bear in mind that the thread topic is "best pianists in the history of the piano", not "best superstars in the history of the piano".

P.S.; I've never encountered anyone letting forth a stream of piss for 7 hours and, whilst such an activity might be a remarkable act of virtuosity requiring superhuman renal stamina, it's hardly one that's likely to draw the crowds...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Please try and keep your posts to less than Sorabjian length. I have not the time to plough through that.

Thal

[ahinton]

Please try and keep your posts to less than Sorabjian length. I have not the time to plough through that.

I am not - and cannot therefore be held - responsible for the amount of time that you have available to you either to read mine or anyone else's posts here or elsewhere, or for piano or banjo practice, or indeed for anything else. The length of this particular post is not "Sorabjian" and I've no idea what you mean by this; it comprises just over 800 words, which is not that much, so heaven knows how you'd cope with some newspaper articles, let alone whole book chapters (to say nothing of War and Peace!).

Whilst it is of modest length, it has as many words as it does because I have endeavoured to take seriously what you had written and accordingly to address points that you raised with which I am in fundamental disagreement and I doubt that I would be alone in so being.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I don't mind reading long posts or in fact large books, if there is a good chance they are interesting.

Thal

[ahinton]

I don't mind reading long posts or in fact large books, if there is a good chance they are interesting.

Well, that's not what you wrote earlier; you stated that you "have not the time to plough through" long posts, which is clearly a quite different consideration.

As to whether or not a particular post, book or whatever else might or might not be "interesting", it would at the very least be necessary to skim read it in order to glean sufficient from its contents to determine this, but it would seem that you have yet to do so; another vital factor in assessing its "interest" value is that of its contents being in direct response to what you had yourself written, so the likelihood is that any shortcomings in "interest" to you must be attributable at least in part to the extent to which you own was of "interest". I found it to be of sufficient interest to warrant taking it apart and responding to it in ways that should indicate that I took it seriously, even though I disagreed with fundamental premises therein.

By the way, until and unless the OP re-spells "pianoists" in the thread topic, each respondent to the thread may amend each of his/her response/s thereto as I have done here.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, that's not what you wrote earlier; you stated that you "have not the time to plough through" long posts, which is clearly a quite different consideration.

I actually said "I have not the time to plough through that" which was clearly referring to your post.

Thal