Is Yi Chung Huang (LaDivinaFanatic) a better technician than Hamelin?

[wildman]

So I just came across this guy today:

As you can probably see, this is...superhuman.

I've seen MANY astonishingly virtuosic performances...Kissin playing Feux follets, Berezovsky, etc

But watching this guy race through these unusually difficult showpieces is a UNIQUE experience for me.

Hamelin is generally regarded to have among the best techniques ever in all of recorded piano history. How does Mr. Huang compare to him in terms of raw technique? Because right now, I think Mr. Huang is...probably a better technician than even Hamelin.

The only other pianist I have heard that struck me just as much is Alexei Grynyuk, but I think he specializes more on octaves. I would love to hear a comparison in octave technique between the two, as I think Grynyuk surpasses everyone in octave speed.

Thoughts?

[skari123]

I would say that I agree with you that this guy has better technique than Hamelin. I actually believe that many pianists have better technique than Hamelin. Looking at how this guy moves his hands and body while playing is inspiring. I recently watched a video of Hamelin breaking down 9 virtuoso pieces on the Tonebase channel. What strikes me is that he found the first page of Ondine to be terrifying, which is not that hard at all really. This suggests to me that his technique is in many ways forced, that is not natural or sustainable in the long run. A pianist with a good solid technique should not have big problems with small technical passages like the first page of Ondine. If you actually look at videos of Hamelin in his prime playing, his technique seems very effortless. But now it seems like his technique has faded and is more forced in some ways. Im not saying this to diss Hamelin or something, but I've seen pianists that have this gift of natural technique that they don't have a clue how they do the things that they do. This has often lead to them getting injured or they get older and their technique seems to fade. I believe there is a reason that Marta Argerich can play even better than she did when she was younger. It's kind of weird for me to believe that the prodigy at my school got injured and couldn't play for weeks while I have been completely fine progressing gradually without any pain or injury. Pianists should read books about technique regardless of technical capacities, like they say, knowledge is power.   

[lelle]

This guy seems to have a natural, effortless technique.

So does young Hamelin who races through monstrous difficulties like they are nothing.

What in particular about this performance makes it stand out to you compared to Hamelin?

(Not that there is a competition anyways)

[thalbergmad]

Mechanically he is exceptional, but I lost count of the wrong notes. Not many play this as musically it is not worth the effort and this chaps effort re enforces that belief.
I don't particularly care much about Hamelin, but he has played Alkan concerto for solo piano, Reger's Telemann variations along with the Busoni and Henselt piano concertos.
When this pianist has done something like that, I may appreciate his talent, but he appears to be a mechanicus.
Thal

[ahinton]

Other than the fact that I DO care for Hamelin, it's hard to disagree with most of what Thal writes here.

[wildman]

Mechanically he is exceptional, but I lost count of the wrong notes. Not many play this as musically it is not worth the effort and this chaps effort re enforces that belief.
I don't particularly care much about Hamelin, but he has played Alkan concerto for solo piano, Reger's Telemann variations along with the Busoni and Henselt piano concertos.
When this pianist has done something like that, I may appreciate his talent, but he appears to be a mechanicus.
Thal

Is not pure mechanic the main reason why Hamelin is so popular? And if we judge by pure mechanical capability, I suspect Mr. Yi is equal to if not superior to him based on the mere fact that he can even execute the piece (if imperfectly) at such a tempo.

[roboute guilliman cfa]

&t=6s
The commentary in the description clarifies things a lot. He is able to give several months to a single piece like the Spanish Rhapsody. The big recordings pianists, competition winners, do not have this incredible luxury. I would guess his available recordings are cherrypicked for his very best signature pieces, that he's taking to competitions.

If MAH spent that equivalent time on the Chopin-Godowsky etudes, proportionally, that would be literally several decades, right? He's had to learn Yi Chung Huang's lifetime repertoire in a single year, probably multiple times over in his career so far. If he can achieve these results and level of performance after working on a piece in 2 or 3 weeks then I think your claim would have some merit.

I do want to see him at the next round of Van Cliburn/Tchaikovsky/Chopin competition. But if he's only interested in exotically difficult pieces that lack benchmark recordings so that people can't compare him to others, that's not going to happen. I think it's more impressive when someone like George Li still stands out among hundreds of legends with the Liszt HR2, La Campanella or Chopin op 10 no 2 or Dimitri Shiskin with his Mephisto Waltz, under the highest possible level of pressure at the Tchaikovsky competition.

[roboute guilliman cfa]

Also he has a pretty poor performance of the Robert le Diable Liszt transcription at the end of this video here,

. He plays the grande paganini etude after and it's messier than the one you posted, which was already not the cleanest perrformance. Everyone has off days, this is purely to show that if you cherrypick the person's best performances, you'll have an incomplete impression. This is him presumably playing something with not several hundred hours of practice.

[wildman]

&t=6s
The commentary in the description clarifies things a lot. He is able to give several months to a single piece like the Spanish Rhapsody. The big recordings pianists, competition winners, do not have this incredible luxury. I would guess his available recordings are cherrypicked for his very best signature pieces, that he's taking to competitions.

If MAH spent that equivalent time on the Chopin-Godowsky etudes, proportionally, that would be literally several decades, right? He's had to learn Yi Chung Huang's lifetime repertoire in a single year, probably multiple times over in his career so far. If he can achieve these results and level of performance after working on a piece in 2 or 3 weeks then I think your claim would have some merit.

I do want to see him at the next round of Van Cliburn/Tchaikovsky/Chopin competition. But if he's only interested in exotically difficult pieces that lack benchmark recordings so that people can't compare him to others, that's not going to happen. I think it's more impressive when someone like George Li still stands out among hundreds of legends with the Liszt HR2, La Campanella or Chopin op 10 no 2 or Dimitri Shiskin with his Mephisto Waltz, under the highest possible level of pressure at the Tchaikovsky competition.

Be that as it may, what matters in the end is how fast he is able to play such a difficult piece. And Hamelin can't seem to achieve that. He's basically a record breaker.

[roboute guilliman cfa]

You have no idea what you're talking about lol. Hamelin has never even recorded this piece, only the s141 version. You seriously can't tell these versions apart?

It does not matter if you set a record if no one else is trying to set that record or is even aware of the race. You win a race where you're the only participant - does that mean anything? How exactly does Hamelin know you want him to play this specific piece and beat this pianist he's never heard of in a speed race with no regard for hitting the right notes?

 And If he were half as good as you think he'd have played at the Chopin or Tchaikovsky or Van Cliburn or Geneva or Arthur Rubinstein or Leeds in the last year.

Any of those competitors can dig up some obscure transcription that no one else plays and then set a record. Just because no one else plays them.

Finally did your parents ever teach you about 'apples-to-apples' comparison? How much two people spent on one piece matters is the only thing that matters. If someone learns 3 things exceptionally, and someone else can learn 30 things exceptionally (in the same amount of time) that second person is the far superior technician. Imagine a teacher gives one student 3 weeks to master a Liszt opera transcription and then gives another student 8.5 months. Is that how you do things?

[wildman]

You have no idea what you're talking about lol. Hamelin has never even recorded this piece, only the s141 version. You seriously can't tell these versions apart?

It does not matter if you set a record if no one else is trying to set that record or is even aware of the race. You win a race where you're the only participant - does that mean anything? How exactly does Hamelin know you want him to play this specific piece and beat this pianist he's never heard of in a speed race with no regard for hitting the right notes?

 And If he were half as good as you think he'd have played at the Chopin or Tchaikovsky or Van Cliburn or Geneva or Arthur Rubinstein or Leeds in the last year.

Any of those competitors can dig up some obscure transcription that no one else plays and then set a record. Just because no one else plays them.

Finally did your parents ever teach you about 'apples-to-apples' comparison? How much two people spent on one piece matters is the only thing that matters. If someone learns 3 things exceptionally, and someone else can learn 30 things exceptionally (in the same amount of time) that second person is the far superior technician. Imagine a teacher gives one student 3 weeks to master a Liszt opera transcription and then gives another student 8.5 months. Is that how you do things?

It matters in the sense that it is an absurdly difficult piece which is as hard or harder than most of which Hamelin does, and Mr. Yi plays it at a superhuman speed. Whereas others have managed to play what Hamelin has played (e.g. Maltempo, Ogdon, etc.) at a similar tempo (maybe with more mistakes but almost pretty much at the same speed), watch how Petrov and Filipec tried to play Mr. Yi's piece but struggled to play it at a much slower tempo. I know what I'm talking about because I attempted to play this piece myself.

[ahinton]

Is not pure mechanic the main reason why Hamelin is so popular? And if we judge by pure mechanical capability, I suspect Mr. Yi is equal to if not superior to him based on the mere fact that he can even execute the piece (if imperfectly) at such a tempo.

The answer to your question is an emphatic "no", which should be obvious if you listen to his latest 2-CD box set of the complete Nocturnes and Barcarolles of Fauré, works which, whilst also technically challenging and demanding, are so in quite different ways to the kind of writing under considration here so far. Mr Yi's "execution" is indeed far from perfect in terms of textual accuracy, for all that his mechanism is considerable.

[mjames]

I would say that I agree with you that this guy has better technique than Hamelin. I actually believe that many pianists have better technique than Hamelin. Looking at how this guy moves his hands and body while playing is inspiring. I recently watched a video of Hamelin breaking down 9 virtuoso pieces on the Tonebase channel. What strikes me is that he found the first page of Ondine to be terrifying, which is not that hard at all really. This suggests to me that his technique is in many ways forced, that is not natural or sustainable in the long run.

Marc-Andre Hamelin is 62 years old, and is still performing and recording virtuoso works all the time. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

[skari123]

Marc-Andre Hamelin is 62 years old, and is still performing and recording virtuoso works all the time. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

First off, age has nothing to do with decline in piano technique, Martha Argerich is a prime example of this. Just because someone can hammer a difficult piece into his fingers does not make one a virtuoso. It's not that Hamelin is a bad pianist by any means, i just found it slightly alarming that the guy states that the first page of Ondine is terrifying. There are many pianists out there that play that page like drinking water. If something technically is hard for you to play means that you haven't solved that technical problem. There are fairly known pianists like Sergio Tiempo, Cyprien Katsaris that have a more effortless technique than Hamelin. The truth hurts

[ranjit]

It's not that Hamelin is a bad pianist by any means, i just found it slightly alarming that the guy states that the first page of Ondine is terrifying. There are many pianists out there that play that page like drinking water.

Every pianist has certain isolated things they find difficult, so I wouldn't go just by what he said about the piece. He may also have been trying to make a point. Every technical approach will have certain strengths and weaknesses. The perfect pianist could switch between all of them at will, but no one is perfect.

Is pure technique what makes Hamelin famous? I think it's also a certain kind of intellectual approach plus a great memory for complex contemporary repertoire. While it may not be to everyone's taste, he has recorded plenty of Godowsky, Alkan etc. and thus occupies a niche.

That said, the way he moves during fast jumps and octave/large chord playing strikes me as being more efficient than Hamelin. I personally enjoy his sense of musicality, at least in these pieces, more as well.

I still find the ultimate, technique-wise to be Cziffra. I do not see the same kinds of bursts of speed that he could achieve on occasion even with this pianist, as far as I can tell.

[skari123]

Every pianist has certain isolated things they find difficult, so I wouldn't go just by what he said about the piece. He may also have been trying to make a point. Every technical approach will have certain strengths and weaknesses. The perfect pianist could switch between all of them at will, but no one is perfect.

Is pure technique what makes Hamelin famous? I think it's also a certain kind of intellectual approach plus a great memory for complex contemporary repertoire. While it may not be to everyone's taste, he has recorded plenty of Godowsky, Alkan etc. and thus occupies a niche.

That said, the way he moves during fast jumps and octave/large chord playing strikes me as being more efficient than Hamelin. I personally enjoy his sense of musicality, at least in these pieces, more as well.

I still find the ultimate, technique-wise to be Cziffra. I do not see the same kinds of bursts of speed that he could achieve on occasion even with this pianist, as far as I can tell.

Thank you for your reply Ranjit. I know about this simple fact that pianists find certain technical aspects harder than other. I don't think that technique is the only thing that makes Hamelin famous and have never stated otherwise. However, this post thread is distinctly talking about pure technique so I offered my opinions on this subject. Each individual has their opinions on what pianists they find good or bad. I don't believe that every technical approach has strengths and weaknesses, although many of them do. The best approach for technique I believe is to be constantly trying to deepen your knowledge of how your hands and body work for the most efficient movement possible. While this approach will probably always leave pianists with weaknesses due to them not being able to adress them, it does not have any weaknesses in theory. The difference between that and, let's say the German school is that you cannot predetermine which weaknesses the pianist will have. The last time I checked the modern standard of teaching piano technique seems to consist of practice tips and technical exercises/etudes. Probably the reason many people struggle with technique for a long time, but that's a different topic.
Cziffra is definitely one of the greatest of all time, that's for sure

[goethefan69420]

This guys my friend. We will be doing concerts, and he is going to start doing many concerts in the US hopefully too

He is a great artist, I've heard him sightread Henselt concerto, Brahms concerto, and many other works.

He has been playing lots of Sorabji lately as wlel.

I think he is better than Hamelin, because Hamelin isn't as big of a fan of old school pianists and basically his goal is to play like Hofmann, Lhevinne, Rachmaninoff. oh ALSO HE IS SUPER BIG FAN OF YUDINA, ALSO OPERA. he Is the biggest Maria Callas fan ever, and he loves a lot of great old school condcutoirs.oirs.

 My goal is to play like Neuhaus, Paderewski, and Cortot.

We want to revive the old school style of playing and also think to be a grea tpianist you must listen to all music, and be very educated on the literature, paintings, poetry, etc.

[lostinidlewonder]

Playing technically tough works and focusing on it is NOT the best way to make a name for yourself as a performer. Some pianists are so caught up over "difficulty" and technical acrobatics they forget that those buying tickets are not pianists nor motivated to be "wowed" by technical prowess. Yoyo Ma said it very well here https://stringsmagazine.com/yo-yo-ma-on-communicating-effectively-with-your-audience/

“If it sounds at all hard, we’ve lost the music."

[roboute guilliman cfa]

He has some great gifts but is this really true, 'his goal is to play like Hofmann, Lhevinne, Rachmaninoff'? Easy to say something like that but almost everything I can find of his playing shows his biggest influence is more Simon Barere than those guys.

He seems so focused on these opera transcriptions, and apparently Sorabji now (omg why just why)? He is just not interested in the 'regular' repertoire?

[pianocomposer]

Every pianist has certain isolated things they find difficult, so I wouldn't go just by what he said about the piece. He may also have been trying to make a point. Every technical approach will have certain strengths and weaknesses. The perfect pianist could switch between all of them at will, but no one is perfect.

Is pure technique what makes Hamelin famous? I think it's also a certain kind of intellectual approach plus a great memory for complex contemporary repertoire. While it may not be to everyone's taste, he has recorded plenty of Godowsky, Alkan etc. and thus occupies a niche.

That said, the way he moves during fast jumps and octave/large chord playing strikes me as being more efficient than Hamelin. I personally enjoy his sense of musicality, at least in these pieces, more as well.

I still find the ultimate, technique-wise to be Cziffra. I do not see the same kinds of bursts of speed that he could achieve on occasion even with this pianist, as far as I can tell.

Totally Agree, Cziffra is unsurpassable, I really cannot imagine anybody in the future play that Galop chromatique or Faust waltz the way cziffra did !
If cziffra had access to the sheets of this or was challenged to play it, he would probably give a stunning account of it, as he is the good old cziffra we will always remember him to be 

[anacrusis]

He is very skilled, but I think Hamelin is a better technician still and more importantly, has more to say musically.

[wildman]

He has some great gifts but is this really true, 'his goal is to play like Hofmann, Lhevinne, Rachmaninoff'? Easy to say something like that but almost everything I can find of his playing shows his biggest influence is more Simon Barere than those guys.

He seems so focused on these opera transcriptions, and apparently Sorabji now (omg why just why)? He is just not interested in the 'regular' repertoire?

I'm kind of guilty of the same syndrome. Recently I avoid common works (why play something which has been played a thousand times already?) and go for rare romantic or late classical repertoire, usually of the highly technical kind (La Clochette, L'infatigable, Czerny op. 364, etc.).

I also find myself trying to copy pre-Horowitz pianists, particularly Cortot. Or at least, sounding a lot like them (mistakes and amateur recording quality included).

Maybe it's a trend these days? A reaction against the somewhat sterile "Chopin competition superstar" convention?

[lelle]

I also find myself trying to copy pre-Horowitz pianists, particularly Cortot. Or at least, sounding a lot like them (mistakes and amateur recording quality included).

Maybe it's a trend these days? A reaction against the somewhat sterile "Chopin competition superstar" convention?

Probably not among those who try to be "Chopin Competition superstars"

But I definitely think there are more people today who are interested in the earlier styles of pianism compared to, say, 50 years ago. I can definitely get behind borrowing stylistic elements from romantic era pianism.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

&t=6s

Yeah... no.
It is an impressive performance; heck, ANY performance of the Spanish Fantasy is impressive. That's just how hard it is.
However, there is very little musicality, and the wrong notes are far too plentiful. I'd rather listen to a MIDI recording...
Honestly, this seems to just be another one of those people who only cares about how hard the piece is, and not how good it sounds.

[snorefest]

I would say that I agree with you that this guy has better technique than Hamelin. I actually believe that many pianists have better technique than Hamelin. Looking at how this guy moves his hands and body while playing is inspiring. I recently watched a video of Hamelin breaking down 9 virtuoso pieces on the Tonebase channel. What strikes me is that he found the first page of Ondine to be terrifying, which is not that hard at all really. This suggests to me that his technique is in many ways forced, that is not natural or sustainable in the long run. A pianist with a good solid technique should not have big problems with small technical passages like the first page of Ondine. If you actually look at videos of Hamelin in his prime playing, his technique seems very effortless. But now it seems like his technique has faded and is more forced in some ways. Im not saying this to diss Hamelin or something, but I've seen pianists that have this gift of natural technique that they don't have a clue how they do the things that they do. This has often lead to them getting injured or they get older and their technique seems to fade. I believe there is a reason that Marta Argerich can play even better than she did when she was younger. It's kind of weird for me to believe that the prodigy at my school got injured and couldn't play for weeks while I have been completely fine progressing gradually without any pain or injury. Pianists should read books about technique regardless of technical capacities, like they say, knowledge is power.

Well I don't see Argerich practicing more as she's getting older. I think she's relies on her natural prowess no less than Hamelin is not more. Hamelin just play unconventional repertoire than populists like Argerich never treaded onto, which are some harder harder and more substantial.

[lelle]

Anyone who thinks Hamelin does not have fantastic technique is out of their mind. He is also in his 60s so an eventual slight physical decline compared to his 30s/40s/50s is not exactly unheard of.

[transitional]

Well I don't see Argerich practicing more as she's getting older. I think she's relies on her natural prowess no less than Hamelin is not more. Hamelin just play unconventional repertoire than populists like Argerich never treaded onto, which are some harder harder and more substantial.

I don't really think Hamelin's repertoire is extremely off the beaten path. He plays much more difficult music, but his repertoire is largely part of a broader body of well-known composers that may not be as frequently played as Chopin. Argerich definitely practices but she said herself that she doesn't spend much time on fundamentals. Hamelin says that he doesn't do anything particularly special to play extremely difficult pieces, he just eliminates current flaws, which is a reasonable approach that he simply dedicates a lot of effort towards.