Concert Pianists

[amee]

One of my friends told me yesterday he didn't like pianists like Horowitz, Ashkenazy, etc because they were too technically orientated.  He thought instead of really trying to reach inside the music, they practiced technique too much e.g. running up and down the piano.  He said in today's world if your technique isn't top notch, then you can't become a concert pianist, so most pianists worry about this instead of the real music.  I don't really agree with this - what do you guys think?

[willcowskitz]

"He said in today's world if your technique isn't top notch, then you can't become a concert pianist, so most pianists worry about this instead of the real music."

Personally I've gotten about the same picture: you have to impress people like if you were a clown who can juggle a lot of notes faster than the other clown. Yeah its a pity. Somebody tell me I'm wrong and save my day.  


I think the characteristics of someone like Horowitz's playing kind of require high technique. Technique sets limit to how aggressively etc you can interpret, I don't see how was Horowitz "technically oriented", for according to what I've read about him he wasn't as much of a narrow-minded or simple as the media or public thought during his lifetime. He was before all a strong interpreter who had his opinions and views. And I read somewhere that Horowitz didn't get special technical education on piano, but he said that his hands just found out what to do when playing. Also, a quote by him: "Strength comes from playing musically." - I must admit he bangs the instrument a little too hard sometimes lol but I guess he did have the kind of temper and imagination that he wanted to share by any means necessary.

[amp]

I really enjoy listening to Ashkenazy play virtuistic things, he has amazing control of the instrument. However, I'm not impressed by his interpretations of lighter, more delicate pieces. I think he over does it with pieces like that. That could be an example where somebodies techinque shadows the actual music. I actually have gotten in to Maurizio Pollini, who I think plays Chopin great.

I think in anycase a concert pianist has to have exceptional techinque, and the level of technique has increased since like the time of Chopin (I think?)

So, I guess to answer your question I see a little of both, where I don't apreciate the virtuistic-showy playing, but also it is very important.

Will, I think you are right. It takes talent to play virtuistically, but even more to make it MUSIC. On a side note, I have friends who call my piano playing being like a "trained monkey." They don't understand music, kinda funny.

[frederic]

Every concert pianist will have a fearless technique. But then techinque is not really the point. Take Ashkenazy for example. He probably has the best double-note technique of any living pianist and yet i feel he sometimes is not that superb with interpretation.
I abslolutely hate how he plays Rachmaninoff's prelude op.23 no.5 and chopin's winter wind.
Its the same with Horowitz's octaves.
But there are some pianists who have really unreliable technique such as Cortot. He really is a marvellous chopin player but he makes many mistakes. He can play the right notes if he wanted to but he doesn't really care about it.

[amee]

On that unreliable technique note...

There was one pianist (who's name eludes me) who had wonderful interpretation but when you listen to his recordings, he plays wrong notes.  When asked about it, he basically said, 'who cares about notes?  Its the music that counts'.  I guess both technique and musicality are important.

[amee]

Backhaus was one person who believed "musical content should not be sacrificed in favour of a technically artistic performance".  

A quote from him is, "The simpler it is, the more beautiful it will become".

[rachfan]

Part of this discussion is really related to recording engineering today.  In making studio recordings, there are retakes, MIDI note sampling, editing of dynamics to bring out inner lines, etc. to make the technically flawless performance.  People who buy CDs then expect to hear the very same in concert halls, and are astounded when instead they get some wrong notes due to human error in, well, playing the piano.  There was a famous exchange (I wish I could recall the well-known artist), where that pianist was at the studio listening to the final fully-edited out takes for the recording.  He was absolutely aglow at the music that issued forth.  Then the recording engineer turned to him in all seriousness and said, "Don't you wish YOU could play like that?"  Ha ha!  It's so true!  

I agree with the viewpoint that the focus should be more on interpretation of the music and not on a 100% flawless technique.  The great virtuoso Eugene d'Albert used to make mistakes and suffered memory lapses.  Nonetheless, loyal audiences used to flock to his recitals, because his instant improvisations in the idioms of the composers during those lapses were often more gorgeous than what what those composers had written.  It was the same with Cortot.  His playing was so good that audiences forgave his regular technical slip-ups and memory lapses.  They were interested in the overall effect, not a clinker in measure 67.  

[frederic]

Vasary was the same. He said that we can't concentrate too much on playing accurately or we will end up playing like a computer.

[tosca1]

Well spoken David and Frederic. Some of the pianists that I have found the most endearing and whose playing touched my heart were far from being flawless technicians.  As a child I can remember hearing Lili Kraus in recital.  She had suffered privations in a prisoner of war camp and she was a very charismatic personality. Her playing, despite memory lapses and wrong notes, was inspirational and we all loved her. Later in her career, she re-established herself in Vienna and became acclaimed for her interpretation of Haydn and Mozart.

Kind regards,
Robert.

[lea]

i think that you need good technique to have a good performance, so i agree!!!

maybe your friend is just a bit confused

without technique i wouldnt be able to play as well as i am now

if u do lots of technique work then you will have a good foundation. My old jazz dancing teacher used to say that u needed a good foundation if u wanted to have walls on a house, the foundation being the technique and the walls being the music

[amee]

Lea,

Yes technique is important but playing the piano is not just about how fast your fingers can go up and down the instrument - musical interpretation and the actual music is important as well.

[titos]

  The discussion about "technique" and "musicality" can be endless... However, we have to know the real meaning of the word "technique". It is of ancient Greek origin and has to do with the art itself and one's  expressive abilities. Therefore, we must distinguish between technique and mechanical accuracy, which is a different thing. And of course it is positive, that nowadays mechanical accuracy has developed enormously (pieces regarded as unplayable some decades ago are played by almost every student in music academies), but the commercialised music world misses the unique technique and sound of Cortot, Friedman, Hofmann etc. Anyway, we have to cope with this situation trying to be as honest (musically speaking) as possible in our views and performances.

[frederic]

hey Robert,

You like lili krauses playing??
She taught my teacher i think.
So you might think my playing is "inspirational"??  
Just joking, just joking....  

Hey, any of  you heard ashkenazy play winter wind? how did you like it? I thought he did exactly the opposite as what chopin wrote. But mind you, he is a strong interpreter, especially chopin, but maybe didn't do to well with that particular piece?

[tosca1]

Yes, Frederic,  Lili kraus could well have taught your teacher as she was resident in Christchurch for a time.  She was Hungarian but left  Europe and was offered New Zealand citizenship which she was always proud to acknowledge.  At least she was able to resume her international career from here and then she returned to live in Europe.  
It must be special to be taught by a pupil of Lili Kraus.
Regards,
Robert.

[amee]

I've got a recording of Ashkenazy playing Winter Wind - what did he do that was the opposite of what Chopin wrote?

[frederic]

Well first off, at the beginning it's written piano, but ashkenazy plays triple f as hard as he could. Then he goes on playing really strange and doesn't make much sense to me. the only thing i liked was at the end when he played in the bottom notes of the left hand accented which forms the main theme. But maybe i've got a more older recording which he done when he was still young so hes still not a mature player then.

[BuyBuy]

Any pianist that aims for a professional career should make sure he's got a very good technique. Anything less than that is pure amateurism (like me for example...). It's like the architect saying that it doesn't matter what quality of material he's using for the house as long as it looks good... The technique is the one that allows you to express anything you got inside.

Now, anyone speaking against Horowitz is gonna be in deep trouble with me. All technique, zero music ? Well, his interpretations of many coomposers are among the best, with a lot of imagination, colorful shadings, emotional range. How ? Through his fabulous technique, for without it he wouldn't be able to be Horowitz. When you put a CD on, ther is no way to miss that he is playing. Not because it is technically perfect (he actually used to make wrong notes in different places), but because the way he expresses the music is highly recognizable.

Horowitz, by the way, did not play only brilliant virtuoso pieces. As encores, he could play a Chopin etude as well as a Mendelsohnn romance, a Rachmaninov transcription as well as a Debussy prelude. And that bang on the piano that some apparently don't like, it is just an unlimited expression of the mood of the piece. Music reflects our emotions : if Chopin Ballade in G m has a ff on a chord to express desesperation, why should we feel we need to balance that ff ? Cause it is too much ? Cause it is going to scare the little old lady in the first row ? I guess that in this case none of us should play Albéniz, with its ppppp and ffff...

[frederic]

Horowitz is a good pianist but to me he sometimes gets carried away and plays TOO boldly, more than he should

[amee]

Amazing how different people's interpretations can be...

Take Toscanini for example.  He believed in following everything the composer wrote on the score and he was known for his ferocious temper.  He followed every note, every dynamic marking in the piece.  But this was not so for his rival conductor Furwangler, who had just the opposite viewpoint.  He believed musical interpretation is up to the performer.

Interesting how these two conductors can be so different.

[titos]

  I don't think, that any pianist would doubt about the legendary and phemomenal playing of Horowitz, his individuality, imagination and his very special touch!
  However, if someone has a wide knowledge of his recordings, he/she will come to the common conclusion, that no pianist until now could play everything with the same success. We all know Horowitz "hits" (and they are a lot actually!!), but I would suggest, that we also hear for example his recordings of Prokofiev's 7th Sonata, some Beethoven Sonatas (apart from 101, which is marvellous) or Liszt's Vallee d'Obermann. Just to realize that even this titan of piano was not a God, but human...

[amee]

titos has got some good points.

Didn't Arthur Rubinstein once say something like, "Horowitz is the new Liszt" or something?

[frederic]

Yes he did.

[amee]

Artur Rubinstein mentions something related to this topic; he said he would "rather miss a few notes than play by phrases instead of as a whole."  In an interview, Rubinstein said it was "not quite due to my (Rubinstein's) own character but to my great impression of the much older, great pianists at my youth...they did not play carefully like nowadays.  I accuse this careful playing of today...to the fact that pianists will not play so well as on their recordings.  Because...the records come out fine, faultless, whereas in the concert, pianists might miss one or two notes.  So pianists today are terrified and concentrate on the prefection of the performance.  And as a result they sometimes lose the line of a composition!"

What do you guys think?

[ned]

I have heard Artur Rubinstein, Horowitz, Ashkenazy Pollini, Brendel, Murray Perahia, Van Cliburn,  Richter, Kissin, Serkin father and son,  and others in live concert. Rubinstein was far and away the most magnificent. His tone was rich and penetrating, the line was always there, his tempos were right, and the overall effect was indescribably  noble and satisfying. I simply would not say that about any of the others. In fact no one I have ever heard comes close to his Brahms or Chopin. But he did get into trouble quite often,  with sometimes terrifying sprays of wrong notes, but he always extricated himself quickly and moved on. It really had no effect on the performance. Plus I think Rubinstein sometimes said things in inteviews that were designed for effect.
Ned

[rachfan]

I too was fortunate to see and hear Rubinstein in recital at Symphony Hall in Boston.  Any Rubinstein appearance was an event.  The hall was sold out, and they had erected seats on the stage for the conservatory students.  When he entered through the stage door, what a commanding presence and what a reception from the audience!  His playing was magisterial throughout.  Rubinstein did not have the "biggest technique".  It wasn't unusual for him to strike a wrong bass note now and then, but nobody cared.  He understood better than anybody how to put a piece over to an audience.  In his autobiography he discussed this point about wrong notes.  He basically said that in the event of a wrong note, he simply tried to make the the next note sound twice as good and move on.  (Incidentally, his playing was sloppiest when he was in his 40s, and he worked hard to clean up his act thereafter, especially once Horowitz became a phenomenon.)  Given his age, in his own youth Rubinstein had heard many of the greats like Eugene d'Albert, so he had captured the essence of the most authentic performance practices close up and first hand, and was able to maintain those traditions through his own playing decades later.  When it came to music and piano, Rubinstein had always seemed  to be there somehow, even after he had stopped performing in his 90s and had become practically deaf and blind.  When he died in 1982 it left such a void.  He was his own institution.  I still miss him a lot.