Superficial show-off or profound musician?

[lenny]

many pianists have been accused of a lack of musicality because their playing is bombastic, very fast, or 'flashy' in any way.

great pianists such as argerich, horowitz and cziffra have been accused of this, and id like to hear your opinions regarding this type of criticism, is it just? or is it ignorant?

i think, in the cases of the above artists - it is absolute ignorance.

i especially abhor criticism of cziffra in this vein.

[Regulus Medtner]

Musicality can - and does - exist even in bombastic, fast or otherwise playing. It all has to do with the piece and the ability of the performer to convey emotion and render the piece meaningful. There is no recipe for this and these discussions can never be subjective (well, except when criticising LL and extoling YL as part of the demented conspiracy masterplan discussed in another topic! ).

As for Argerich, I have to say that her musicality is magical and her recordings (phenomenal as many of them are) really don't do her justice . I had to see her live to appreciate what a truly phenomenal pianist she really is. And it really is my conviction that a recording can never truly capture the full artistry of any pianist.

[Motrax]

Sometimes the accusations are just, and sometimes they're not. It just depends on how you view music. I, for one, detest Argerich to a great degree. I've never seen her live, but judging by her Chopin, Rach 3, and some Bach I listened to, she has this mad obsession to rush through the most beautiful parts in music. Especially in the concerto, she always seems to blister through any fast passage with a great deal of recklessness and very little musical thought. She certainly has a unique style of playing, and isn't lifeless or anything, but I find her interperetations to be shaped in a completely unnatural, forced manner.

Jus' my two cents. 

[argerich_smitten]

(just because my reputation makes it obligatory)

I will give you that she is a little predisposed to ... go fast (I think 'rush', especially in the Bach is far to harsh).  Rushing implies a lack of control, or rhythmical  awareness I think, and most of the time her playing is very controlled, just very rapid and often on the edge.  Out of all the recordings of Rach 3 i've heard, I think she catches the piece in it's entirety the best, but washes over a lot of detail like you said in a somewhat reckless manner.  I do not believe that what she is doing is playing without musical thought, but rather playing the work as a whole instead of one note at a time (and in such an enourmous piece, the big picture is a lot more important than the details). 
and about her playing being unnatural
have you ever seen a video of her playing?  Strictly talking about her technique i'd say it's the most 'natural' out there (natural is not to be confused with 'efficient' or 'best').  She doesn't seem to worry about hitting anything, and is obviously playing in the manner that is easiest for her.  It's like she's thinking about the piece "and now there are a few notes here...  ah chord then octaves..." and then she just excecutes with no exertion or thought.  It almost as if my magical powers her hands just appear where they are supposed to play. 
I would suggest you listen to her studio Gaspard de la Nuit (my favorite gaspard, but perhaps I am biased?) as opposed to her live which goes like a bat out of hell.  I would be very suprised if you found the musicality unnatural or forced.

[SDL]

Best Gaspard -  Arturo Michelangelo Benedetti - Scarbo is very atmospheric like Ive not heard before - I have some Italian record of him playing.
Or Louis Lortie esp Ondine
Ive heard other versions - Ashkenazy etc not a patch!! they are too heavy in these light passages

[Floristan]

I would suggest you listen to her studio Gaspard de la Nuit (my favorite gaspard, but perhaps I am biased?) as opposed to her live which goes like a bat out of hell.  I would be very suprised if you found the musicality unnatural or forced.

I agree.  I like Michelangeli's almost as much, but the Argerich studio recording of Gaspard from about 1975 (Deutsche Grammaphone) is still my favorite and one of the great recordings of all time.

I understand the criticisms some have of her, but to me she gets exactly the effect she wants, has total control, is more likely to look at the big picture than the details, has passion up the you-know-what...and well, it almost being Valentine's Day and all, she has my heart 

But seriously, back to the original question, pianists like Argerich, Cziffra, and Horowitz transcend their technique.  Horowitz was the most telling case, because he often played show-stopping, technique-busting pieces as encores (Mozkowski, et al.), and he played them with all the bravura they deserve.  But in the rest of his playing, the music rules and has obvious priority over showing off at the keyboard.

We have some pianists today whose technique is flawless, and whose phrasing and musicality is likewise flawless -- it sounds almost like it is all learned and none of it is from the heart or soul.  I'm thinking now of Marc-Andre Hamelin and, to a lesser extent, Yundi Li.  I think Yundi is just young and will mature into a fine interpreter.  Hamelin has had time to grow, but I still find his playing almost artificial...perfect but somehow not quite human.  I marvel at his technique; I admire how much expression he brings to these hugely difficult pieces.  But it all leaves me cold, like it was performed by a computer program.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this type of pianism, it's just not my favorite kind of pianism. 

Oh, now I'm going to get it from the Hamelin fans!!! 

[lenny]

im a big fan of hamelin, and was fortunate enough to meet the great man after one of his recitals

hamelin is an unaffected pianist, elegant, and actually plays down the drama of the music.

i feel he is at his best in short salon music, and large scale difficult works such as alkan's concerto and symphony.


as someone said - bombast and speed does NOT automatically equal superficiality, and likewise slow and soft playing alone does NOT by any means equal profound music making.

check out this review -

https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=205

whilst it is relatively POSITIVE, i totally disagree with many of the things he says.

'An hour with Cziffra is like a day at the circus. You behold his fanciful phrasing and roller-coaster technique, gape at those souped up rhythmic surges and accentuations, and wonder what's going to happen next.'

this is all true in a way - but he percieves these elements as superficial niceties - and not real profound music-making.

i completely disagree...

[SDL]

Hamelin has been around for a while now (when you said hes time to grow! )
His Alkan is astonishing!  I heard a few others try and play Alkan (Ronald Smith for example) and they are not a patch on Hamelin.  Ive heard Hamelin play Alkans 'Esops fables', Grande Sonata and the Solo Concerto for piano, and they are absolutely breath taking!  Granted his technique is flawless and does sound like machine perfect but he has style, energy AND musicallity.  Incidentally his Shostakovich P.Concert no.2 with BBC Scottish SO and Andrew Litton (Hyperion) is joint best with Christina Ortiz, Ive heard yet.  (How bad is Maxim Shostakovich on the Shostakovich P.Concerto 2!!    )