Top 10 pianists ever

[ionutz]

My top ten is as following:

 1. Dinu Lipatti
 2. Vladimir Horowitz
 3. Murray Perahia
 4. Sviatoslav Richter
 5. Alfred Cortot
 6. Claudio Arrau
 7. Radu Lupu
 8. Martha Argerich
 9. Arthur Rubinstein
10. Marc-Andre Hamelin
 
Which is your top ten and I am especially interested what do you think about Dinu Lipatti and Radu Lupu?

[SteinwayTony]

Pretty neat idea for a thread, but of course you know what's going to happen, don't you?

What about Brendel?  Hess?  Haskil?  Cziffra?  Liszt?  Anton Rubinstein?  Rachmaninoff?  Conversely a few of your selections would be called into question, namely Lipatti, Perahia, and Lupu. 

What it all boils down to is the question of "how do you define a top 10 pianist?"  And the answer is, plain and simple, you can't.

[Fhugo]

Yes it is subjective, so here goes, just thought Iīd break the pattern

1. Skriabin
2. Freire
3. Moiseiwitsch

the 7 follow-ups need not mentioning

[musicsdarkangel]

1.  Sergei Rachmaninoff
2.  Vladimir Ashkenazy
3.  Dmitri Alexeyev
4.  Garrick Ohlsson
5.  Vladimir Horowitz
6.  Claudio Arrau
7.  William Kapell
8.  Alfred Cortot
9.  Maria Joao Pirez
10.Gyorgy Cziffra

Josef Lhevinne should be in there as well.  This is a tough decision because all of these pianists have strengths and weaknesses, and are better at playing Mozart vs. Rachmaninoff, Liszt vs. Bach, etc.

[steinwayguy]

I believe you should rename the thread "top ten pianists of the 20th century", in order to weed out the likes of Franz Liszt and Frederic Chopin...

1. Sviatoslav Richter
2. Claudio Arrau
And in no particular order
Josef Hofmann
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Artur Schnabel
Artur Rubinstein
Alfred Cortot
Emil Gilels
Vladimir Horowitz
Wilhelm Kempff

[SDL]

Not in any specific order but my favourite 10 are:

Grigory Solokov
Maria Jao Pires
Cziffra
Gyorgy sandor
Boris Bereszovsky
Dinu Lipatti
Moura Lympany
Myra Hess
Hamelin
Jean -Ives Thibodet

but also like

Christina Ortiz
Louis Lortie
Pommier
Daniel Adni
Helene Grimaux
Howard Shelley

[gezze]

I donīt think it is a good idea to put into the ranking pianists you have ever heard (Liszt, Chopin, etc.) , how can you have an opinion about? based on audience reports or fame?

For the rest, I am glad to see that Horowitz is in almost all your rankings, meaning that he is likely the number one.

It is difficult to say that one is better than the other one(s) but I would like to consider the following: somebody put Horowitz behind Rachmaninoff.
Do you know that Rachmaninoff himself stopped playing Rach3 in public after listening to the young Vladimir in Moskow? And have you ever compared Rach and Horoīs perfomance of Rachīs polka?    I mean, it is difficult to say that Rach was better than Horo, isnīt it?

[Motrax]

Rachamninoff's the best in my opinion (god knows how many times I've listened to his complete recordings in the course of a day or two ). Then comes Rubinstein for most pieces, but there's also Gould, Horowitz, Kappel, and possibly Arrau and Ashkenazy, and a number of others who I haven't listened to enough to make certain opinions of. Then comes a whole slew of pianists who I couldn't possibly name in one sitting - Hamelin, Michelangeli, Nikoleyeva, Richter... and so many up-and-coming pianists it'd take quite a lot of server space to list, like Olga Kern or Yundi Li.

I would argue that Brendel should not be on the list. I enjoy his later Beethoven sonatas, but I detest his Schubert on almost every account from tempo to phrasing and dynamics. I also would not put Grimaux or Peres on the list - not to say they aren't wonderful pianists, but I think there are many better ones out there. (I'm one of the few who really doesn't like Peres' Mozart at all)

And as Bernhard says, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I just don't know enough of Schnabel, Hoffman, Moischewitz, Hess, Janis, Graffman, Fleischer, Weissenberg, and so on to place them in my list yet.

[Motrax]

I mean, it is difficult to say that Rach was better than Horo, isnīt it?

I would say it's difficult to put Rach behind Horowitz. Rachmaninoff had low opinions of many things he did, and in many cases I believe he was wrong about himself in that regard. I personally do not like Horowitz' 3rd concerto at all, and feel that Rachmanoff plays the piece much better. Furthermore, Rachmaninoff's Schubert is sublime in all ways - it's a pity he didn't record more of it. The composer was able to shape pieces in a perfect sort of way that I find only Rubinstein comes close to paralleling. Horowitz certainly shaped his tone in marvellous ways, and he is one of my favorite pianists, but he's still a few steps below Rachmaninoff in my book.

[SteinwayTony]

I donīt think it is a good idea to put into the ranking pianists you have ever heard (Liszt, Chopin, etc.) , how can you have an opinion about? based on audience reports or fame?

Brahms testified in one of his letters that Liszt sightread his (Brahms's) Scherzo, Op. 4, in its entirety at full tempo.  That's enough for me.

[gezze]

Rachamninoff's the best in my opinion (god knows how many times I've listened to his complete recordings in the course of a day or two ).

I do not want to be unrespectful to you, just would like to underline that if you are so used to listen to oneīs perfomances, you get "shaped" by that pianist and can hardly see differences in othersī performance as improvement, newness, positive thing, but only as "something missing".
It happened to me quite few times especially with regards to performances I have been used to since I was teenager.
Anyway, if you can list a few pieces in which Rachīs performance is not the best for you, you  healed from this "disease"  

[SteinwayTony]

I would say it's difficult to put Rach behind Horowitz. Rachmaninoff had low opinions of many things he did, and in many cases I believe he was wrong about himself in that regard. I personally do not like Horowitz' 3rd concerto at all, and feel that Rachmanoff plays the piece much better. Furthermore, Rachmaninoff's Schubert is sublime in all ways - it's a pity he didn't record more of it. The composer was able to shape pieces in a perfect sort of way that I find only Rubinstein comes close to paralleling. Horowitz certainly shaped his tone in marvellous ways, and he is one of my favorite pianists, but he's still a few steps below Rachmaninoff in my book.

It's hard to give an opinion about Rachmaninoff's playing based on his recordings; especially based on his concerto recordings, because he was forced to take the tempo faster than he desired in order for the whole concerto to fit onto the media they used (this was some time before the advent of the LP).  Because of that, I don't like Rachmaninoff's recording of his third concerto (I'm referring specifically to the Ormandy).  Horowitz's recording with Toscanini is one of the greats, and I also love Ashkenazy's recording with the LSO.

[gezze]

Brahms testified in one of his letters that Liszt sightread his (Brahms's) Scherzo, Op. 4, in its entirety at full tempo.  That's enough for me.

It means that if you are tremendously good in sightreading you are a great interpreter?
Maybe Liszt was unbelieveable as virtuoso, but lacked in communicating feelings to audience...who knows?  Though I am a great fun of Liszt, I cannot agree with you. 

[pseudopianist]

1. Marc Andre Hamelin
2. Idil Biret 
3. Yundi Li
4. Martha Argerich
5. Horowitz

[aquariuswb]

In no particular order (and it would be different if I did this tomorrow):

Arrau
Kempff
Horowitz
Rubinstein
Pollini
Michelangeli
José Iturbi (for Mozart really)
Robert Casadesus
Richter
Ashkenazy

... haha there's so many more, this is too limiting I think

[ionutz]

Nobody replied to my question on Dinu Lipatti and Radu Lupu?
I also know that there are hundreds of excellent pianists out there but my question reffered to the ones you liked best.I agree that 10 is not enough.
I also wonder why there's so little of Perahia in your lists. I think he has to be in the first 10 on anyones list.

[Dikai]

Anyway, if you can list a few pieces in which Rachīs performance is not the best for you, you  healed from this "disease"  

totally!! good saying gezze...
someone put down li yun di, i'm quite surprised....
generally i don't think younger pianists can be compared to older, more matured pianists like horo and etc...  it's likely that a great pianist is able to play an entire set of extremely difficult pieces in this young age, however, he will be playing these pieces throughout his life...  after 30+ years more or less, he will continuously be enlightened with the something new in the piece.  thus for any given pianist at any age, a certain piece played may sound quite different.  that's why younger pianists are not quite there yet....
----
however, most of these people in the lists here are the "famous" pianists, naturally they may not be the best, but they're certainly the most famous...  but for sure, for a certain composer/style of music, a "smaller" group of composers may be better at interpreting the music..  i stress, not one pianist, but a smaller group of pianists.
----
piano competitions such as van cliburn int. competition.... you think the winners are good.... ever thought of their adjudicators??  (maybe their teachers as well, but certainly the adjudicators)....
---
to conclude...
haha.... i do have a list for myself.... at least my favorite pianist for certain composer
beethoven: richard goode, robert silverman
liszt: roberto szidon, jorge bolet
chopin: rubinstein, horowitz
ravel: pascal roge
---
a bad combination tho... horowits|mozart.... that's definitely a bad combo...

[Pianostudy]

1.  Sergei Rachmaninoff
2.  Vladimir Ashkenazy
3.  Dmitri Alexeyev
4.  Garrick Ohlsson
5.  Vladimir Horowitz
6.  Claudio Arrau
7.  William Kapell
8.  Alfred Cortot
9.  Maria Joao Pirez
10.Gyorgy Cziffra

Josef Lhevinne should be in there as well.  This is a tough decision because all of these pianists have strengths and weaknesses, and are better at playing Mozart vs. Rachmaninoff, Liszt vs. Bach, etc.

I would agree with this post, except I would include Alexander Toradze in there, Czebac (sp), and possibly janis in place of pirez, cortot, and arrau

[aquariuswb]

I also wonder why there's so little of Perahia in your lists. I think he has to be in the first 10 on anyones list.

I respectfully disagree :-)

[Motrax]

I too disagree with Perahia being in the top 10. 

I disagree with Gesse's saying

Anyway, if you can list a few pieces in which Rachīs performance is not the best for you, you  healed from this "disease"Smiley   

although from the way I wrote my last post I did probably give the impression of being rather close-minded toward other pianists. So I'll go ahead and say a few things I dislike about Rachmaninoff's set...

I listen to a great deal of recordings, and I do have some problems with those of Rachmaninoff, namely Chopin's 2nd sonata, which I find to be too analytical (although he plays the 2nd and 4th movements very well, I really don't like the 3rd movement at all, and the first is pretty good but not great). For most of the pieces Rachmaninoff recorded, I had already heard other pianists' renditions before I bought the RCA set, and have over time come to appreciate Rachmaninoff's recordings as the best for much of what he played. I could not imagine a better Schubert Impromptu (number 4), or a better 3rd or 4th concerto (though there are certain runners-up). I like Rubinstein's 2nd concerto more, and the Paganinni variations are played equally well by a number of other pianists. Although his recording his G major prelude is very good, I prefer Ashkenazy's performormance. His Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody I find to be rather empty, but then again I dislike the piece in general, so I couldn't name any recordings I really enjoy of it.

As far as the cuts in the third concerto are concerned, they were not made because of any technological issues. The original release of Rach's 3rd concerto was made on 78rpm discs, using only 9 of the 10 possible sides. Rachmaninoff's tempi are perfectly justified, and I find that the very high speed he takes do not detract from the music. Other pianists play slower yet feel much more rushed (Argerich comes to mind, for the 3rd).

[brewtality]

i fell uncomfortable listing a "top ten pianists ever" list so here are my top ten favourite pianists:

1. Vladimir Horowitz
2. Gyorgy Cziffra
3. Josef Hofmann
4. Alfred Cortot
5. Glenn Gould
6. Sergei Rachmaninoff
7. Emil Gilels
8. Claudio Arrau
9. Byron Janis
10. Arthur Rubinstein

[lenny]

1. Marc Andre Hamelin
2. Idil Biret 
3. Yundi Li
4. Martha Argerich
5. Horowitz

what do you like about biret's playing?
dont get me wrong - i think shes good, but IMO hardly comparable with the others you listed.

[lenny]

i fell uncomfortable listing a "top ten pianists ever" list so here are my top ten favourite pianists:

1. Vladimir Horowitz
2. Gyorgy Cziffra
3. Josef Hofmann
4. Alfred Cortot
5. Glenn Gould
6. Sergei Rachmaninoff
7. Emil Gilels
8. Claudio Arrau
9. Byron Janis
10. Arthur Rubinstein

not a very disputable list!
they are all accepted greats, in fact if there was a poll- it would look something like that.

my number 1 is cziffra, although he didnt play alot of repertoire that i like, such as rachmaninov(except the PC2), scriabin, alkan, and late romantics in general.

but what he did play - chopin, liszt, etc. are second to none.

his chopin is really underrated, often it is seemingly 'uncziffra-like', but this is merely a sign of lack of familiarity with cziffra's art - he was very subtle when he wanted to be.
his recordings of baroque music, such as rameau, couperin etc. are absolutely superb.

[steinwayguy]

Brahms testified in one of his letters that Liszt sightread his (Brahms's) Scherzo, Op. 4, in its entirety at full tempo. That's enough for me.

And then there's that nice tale that Liszt went to Vienna and programmed Chopin's Op. 25 No. 2 Etude (F Minor). He played the first measure very slowly, but in octaves at first. He kept repeating that same measure, but acclerating to the tempo (Presto). He then played the entire etude, in octaves.

And that is more than enough for me.

[lenny]

And then there's that nice tale that Liszt went to Vienna and programmed Chopin's Op. 25 No. 2 Etude (F Minor). He played the first measure very slowly, but in octaves at first. He kept repeating that same measure, but acclerating to the tempo (Presto). He then played the entire etude, in octaves.

And that is more than enough for me.

that is more than believable, in fact one of godowskys chopin studies  has the right hand in all octaves


the sightreading feat is VERY HARD to believe, ill have to look at that piece again, but to read that quickly is unbelievable.

[jlh]

the sightreading feat is VERY HARD to believe, ill have to look at that piece again, but to read that quickly is unbelievable.

But then again, we're not talking about a mediocre-level pianist, either.  I have no trouble believing that one of the best pianists of all time (if not THE best) was able to sightread that piece.

[lenny]

its not just sight-reading it that boggles my mind

its the fact that its a fast piece, and i find it pretty hard to believe he could take in all that visual information so fast

however i think it MAY be possible if he seriously glanced through the sheets beforehand to observe the difficult/fast passages, and 'memorised' them at a glance.

[thracozaag]

  Having seen ridiculous sight-reading done by such pianists as Cyprien Katsaris, Volodos, and Libetta, I have absolutely no doubt as the veracity of such claims made about Liszt's sight reading skills (Grieg concerto amongst them). 

koji (STSD)

[rohansahai]

My list would not be very disputable in terms of the pianists but on the order, maybe yes:
1. Emil Gilels
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Martha Argerich
4. Michelangeli
5. Krystian Zimerman
6. Sviatoslav Richter (Too low down perhaps in most opinions but, i stick with it)
7. Vladimir Ashkenazy
8. Shura Cherkassky
9. Joseph Lhevinne
10. Van Cliburn
However, my order keeps changing............I listened to some great Argerich recordings today, so maybe i've placed her slightly higher than she would actually be ........

[chromatickler]

  Having seen ridiculous sight-reading done by such pianists as Libetta

hilariously he still keepz a repertoire list on his site. 

[pseudopianist]

what do you like about biret's playing?
dont get me wrong - i think shes good, but IMO hardly comparable with the others you listed.

I know people have a hard time with Biret but her playing really moves me. Her choice of tempo is perfect and her interpretations (sp?) of Chopins works (except the etudes) are mindblowing. NO ONE can play the nocturnes like she does IMO

[lenny]

  Having seen ridiculous sight-reading done by such pianists as Cyprien Katsaris, Volodos, and Libetta, I have absolutely no doubt as the veracity of such claims made about Liszt's sight reading skills (Grieg concerto amongst them). 

koji (STSD)

what kind of feats did they do, and under what circumstances did you witness these?

[DarkWind]

In no order:

Arrau
Rubinstein
Horowitz
Argerich
Hamelin
Bolet
Hofmann
Richter
Thibaudet
Tharaud

(Additionally, one could say Liszt and the like. To claim that he might have not been musical or emotional is pointless. He created the symphonic poem, was a fluent composer, and wrote works like Un Sospiro, or Au bord d'une source, beautiful works that are contested by almost none)

While some may not be the best pianist ever, they are certainly among the best.

[gezze]

(Additionally, one could say Liszt and the like. To claim that he might have not been musical or emotional is pointless. He created the symphonic poem, was a fluent composer, and wrote works like Un Sospiro, or Au bord d'une source, beautiful works that are contested by almost none)

So, all the composers who wrote musical/emotional piano pieces, were necessarily great pianists?
Anyway, I do not want to be misunderstood, I am a great fan of Liszt  (This morning while driving to work I was listening to his Totentanz performed by Cziffra, just amazing!).

My point is: if I want to make a my PERSONAL ranking, I should take into account only the pianists I happened to hear somehow, live or through recordings.  Any kind of reports, even incredible as Brahmsī one, it is not enough to let me judge.  Music is feeling, first of all.

Next topic I would like to deepen is about Horowitz performing Mozart. I know  people who hate his interpretation. In my opinion, Mozart is one of his favourite authors, specially when he was old. He even admitted it when was interviewed during Mozart KV488 recording with Giulini&Filarmonica della Scala (you can find a DVD of that event), "Mozart is the number one!" he said.   
He can perform it with fantasy, creativity, simplicity but above all with that "theatrical effect" which is always present in Mozart.  Mozart is opera, first.  And his characters, with Horo, are dancing and playing on the keyboard.

[thracozaag]

what kind of feats did they do, and under what circumstances did you witness these?

  Saw Libetta devour score after score of completely obscure transcriptions by Tausig, Friedman, etc.  There's no way he could have seen these pieces before hand and sight read them flawlessly.  Cyprien was in a way, even more amazing as he sight-read incredibily difficult Liszt, Busoni, etc. pieces and ADDED textual emendations along the way.  It was truly something to witness.  I have a friend at school, that I saw sightread the orchestral part to the Ravel G major concerto (which is very difficult) without any trouble at all.  These freaks DO exist, trust me.

koji (STSD)

[SteinwayTony]

what kind of feats did they do, and under what circumstances did you witness these?

Doubting Liszt?  You've got balls, man.

I think the fact that he found it necessary to conceive the idea of a solo piano recital is enough you need to give him the respect he deserves.

[Allan]

Definitive List------

1.) F. Liszt and Art Tatum

2.) Cziffra and Horowitz

---assorted others

[steinwaymodeld]

original release of Rach's 3rd concerto was made on 78rpm discs, using only 9 of the 10 possible sides. Rachmaninoff's tempi are perfectly justified, and I find that the very high speed he takes do not detract from the music. Other pianists play slower yet feel much more rushed (Argerich comes to mind, for the 3rd).

Very well written and justified.

[steinwaymodeld]

And then there's that nice tale that Liszt went to Vienna and programmed Chopin's Op. 25 No. 2 Etude (F Minor). He played the first measure very slowly, but in octaves at first. He kept repeating that same measure, but acclerating to the tempo (Presto). He then played the entire etude, in octaves.

And that is more than enough for me.

It's because he heard the story of Alexander Dreyschock played the Revolutionary in LH octave(by practicing 15 hours a day for 2 months)

[steinwaymodeld]

  Saw Libetta devour score after score of completely obscure transcriptions by Tausig, Friedman, etc.  There's no way he could have seen these pieces before hand and sight read them flawlessly.  Cyprien was in a way, even more amazing as he sight-read incredibily difficult Liszt, Busoni, etc. pieces and ADDED textual emendations along the way.  It was truly something to witness.  I have a friend at school, that I saw sightread the orchestral part to the Ravel G major concerto (which is very difficult) without any trouble at all.  These freaks DO exist, trust me.

koji (STSD)

I have to say this

"DAYYYYYYYYUUUUMMM"

[Hamfast]

1. Krystian Zimerman
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Gyorgy Cziffra
4. Arthur Rubinstein
5. Martha Argerich
6. Maurizio Pollini
7. Vladimir Ashkenazy
8. Sviatoslav Richter
9. Ivo Pogorelich
10. Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli
11. Piotr Andereszewski

[krittyot]

https://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/8618/pianists.html

[rachmaninoff_969]

What a silly thread.  So just for kicks let me throw the American Gottschalk into the picture.  Not that I believe he was one of the top ten, but what does it matter?  No one here ever heard Liszt or Chopin play, so what's the point on speculating.  Hell, what about Beethoven and Mozart.  Mozart could sight read anything as well...and Beethoven, even with a sloppy technique his playing was supposedly the culminating point of expressive pianism.

[etudes]

Gyorgy Cziffra
Vladimir Horowitz
Arthur Rubinstein
Krystian Zimerman
Martha Argerich
Sviatoslav Richter
Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli
Emil Gilels
Marc Andre Hamelin
Claudio Arrau

[Hamfast]

https://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/8618/pianists.html

                 You right!

[SteinwayTony]

What a silly thread.  So just for kicks let me throw the American Gottschalk into the picture.  Not that I believe he was one of the top ten, but what does it matter?  No one here ever heard Liszt or Chopin play, so what's the point on speculating.  Hell, what about Beethoven and Mozart.  Mozart could sight read anything as well...and Beethoven, even with a sloppy technique his playing was supposedly the culminating point of expressive pianism.

If it's that silly to you, why did you feel compelled to post?  Your points about Liszt and Chopin have already been brought up, so that can't be the reason.  On the whole it seems like you don't know what you're saying or why.

[Awakening]

No real order:

Rachmaninoff
Argerich
Kissin
Cziffra
Richter
Volodos
Ashkenazy
Rubinstein
Horowitz
Cliburn

Not by any means a definitive list, because there are so many great pianists I have not heard.

[mkljackson]

ok, I'm not going to choose a top ten...  all I have to say is I think Artur Rubinstein is awful. he's not on my list 

[jono]

Hi everyone!
I must say I'm very surprised that not a single one of you have done as much as named the very good cembalist Wanda Landowska...  She did also play the piano you know.
Have a blast!   /Jono

[musicsdarkangel]

It is difficult to say that one is better than the other one(s) but I would like to consider the following: somebody put Horowitz behind Rachmaninoff.
Do you know that Rachmaninoff himself stopped playing Rach3 in public after listening to the young Vladimir in Moskow? And have you ever compared Rach and Horoīs perfomance of Rachīs polka?    I mean, it is difficult to say that Rach was better than Horo, isnīt it?

Yes, and I don't give a crap, because I love Rach's playing and think that he kills Horowitz when it comes to the Rach 3.

Rachmaninoff was just a gentleman.  His Rach 3, was of the perfect tempo, and so incredibly lyrical, that I have listened to it about 300 times and have not become even remotely close to sick/bored of it.  This IMO is the perfect recording, I will never find a better recording in my life of anything. 

It's all about personal taste.