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
Topic: best pianoists in the history of the piano