Pianists from the golden age(Horowitz, Rubisntein,etc.)or pianists like Yundi Li

[Alfonso Van Worden]

Do you prefer pianists from the golden age (like Horowitz, Rubinstein, Levine, Rachmaninov) or young pianists (like Yundi Li, Volodos, Kissin, Lang Lang)?
I´m very interensting to know what do you think about this topic?

[steinwayguy]

Golden Age, they're more purely musicians than the boys of today.

[Radix]

I didn't know Volodos was young...in any case, I prefer both, really.  I'm a huge Horowitz and Rachmaninoff fan, but also a huge Kissin fan.

[Motrax]

In my very humble opinion, pianists today are a few leagues behind the "golden age" pianists. That being said, there are a number of pianists who I believe could develop into legends on the same level as Horowitz, Rubinstein, etc. Pogorelich, whether you like his playing or not, is certainly a very unique musician, and I would put him on the same level as those of the older generation (though this is certainly disputable). Yundi Li and Olga Kern are my favorite young pianists, though neither one of them can compare with the likes of Rachmaninoff at this point.

[musicsdarkangel]

I prefer NEW recordings of the pianists from the golden age.

(even though they don't happen often)

as well as newbies, but for the most part, I don't like young pianists.

Yundi Li is quite an exception.


I just listened to the Horowitz plays Rachmaninoff CD, and the d minor sonata is absolutely amazing, it made my night beautiful just listening to it.

I love it when music gives me that effect.

It has taken me a while to realize how good Horowitz is, but after listening to that sonata, I know that he is a God.

[Floristan]

It's hard to compare anyone to Horowitz or, for that matter, Rubenstein, Cortot, et al.  I've been a Horowitz fan since his "comeback" in 1965.  We may never see his likes again.

I think it's too soon to tell what Yundi Li will become. 

[dinosaurtales]

I'll take a "golden age" pianist any day.  I actually don't like to listen to the young flash-and-dazzle pianists much.  They are actually boring after the first couple of pieces.  We are going to hear Alfred Brendel next week.  He's getting old, though.  It's a bygone era, I am afraid.

I blame the competition requirements, which seem to foster the flash-and-dazzle repertoire, immediately followed by recitals for the winner, whose repertoire is, not surprisingly, flash-and-dazzle stuff.  the focus is all wrong.

[Muzakian]

I prefer golden age pianists by far. There's just no comparison for me - their interpretive approach seems imbued with much more emotion and personality. I think it's sad that this tradition is gone. I agree with DinosaurTales that we can attribute much of this to the growth of piano competitions.

[Alfonso Van Worden]

Thank you for your replies, I´m the greatest fan of the pianists from the golden age, my favourites are Horowitz, Rubinstein, Cortot, Levine, Hoffmann, Michelangeli, and I do like pianists like Volodos, Kissin, and Yundi Li, but I have to confess, when I hear a recording from Horowitz and one with Yundi Li playing the same chopin´s piece I wold pick the Horowitz´s recording as my favourite with any doubt.

I asked because I also thougth that maybe my taste in pianists was influenced by my teacher, and I dindn´t know what was the general opinion.

Thank you very much.I hope I get more replies.

[maxy]

Is it really a question?

Golden age=much better by miles!

[mikeyg]

The greatest difference between the new kids and old people is quantity vs. quality.  Modern artists (like Idil Biiret) Put out and unbelievable amount of recordings of decent quility, whereas the old-timers recorded less, more perfected work.

[Pianoquake]

Kissin doesn't belong in the same list as Lang Lang or Yundi Li.
He started as a prodigy, but it's become clear over years of playing that he matured into a very special artist with an individual voice.
To see him play a classical Mozart piece four hands with Martha Argerich (and later play with Pletnev, Leif et al) shows the company he keeps.

If you want to talk about Yundi Li, Volodos and Lang Lang, let's wait ten years and see what's left after the marketing and hype settled down.
They may evolve into something great, but maybe not.

For the record, I recently heard a comparison of the impromptus by Yundi Li, Angela Hewitt and Rubinstein. Hewitt was a little mannered to my taste. Rubinstein was perfect. And Yundi Li should not have been released, even though I'm sure thousands who have not heard better are gonna rave about it.

[lostinidlewonder]

I reckon comparison like this post is like trying to compare tennis players of the 40s to tennis players of today. There is today just so much more knowledge on piano peformance that it can only effect todays leading pianists. And the instruments/technology are just getting much better.

[Alfonso Van Worden]

I completely agree with "mikeyg", they are different , but I prefer the golde age pianists...(Good reply).

[Demidoff]

What about people like Martha Argerich or Krystian Zimerman? I would not refer to them as "old school" but they aren´t exactly young either. But they definately belong in the Pantheon! Even though I am a big fan of some of the "golden age" guys (especially Samson Francois), I am tempted by the clarity and "authentic sound" of newer recordings.
And apart from a few exceptions like the Scriabin op. 8/12 etude, I never really cared for Horowitz. I don´t know why he always has to choose very metallic-sounding pianos, and I think he is overdoing everything. I´d always prefer Rach´s own recording of the Rach3 over Horowitz´s, for instance. But Rachmaninoff himself often has a strange idea of rythm. Michelangeli can be too stiff, even though his Scarlatti, K27 indeed is phenomenal. So I wouldn´t say, the old ones are better, just different. And we have to give the youngsters some time to mature.

[Goldberg]

I'll take a "golden age" pianist any day.  I actually don't like to listen to the young flash-and-dazzle pianists much.  They are actually boring after the first couple of pieces.  We are going to hear Alfred Brendel next week.  He's getting old, though.  It's a bygone era, I am afraid.

I blame the competition requirements, which seem to foster the flash-and-dazzle repertoire, immediately followed by recitals for the winner, whose repertoire is, not surprisingly, flash-and-dazzle stuff.  the focus is all wrong.

I think DinosaurTales has a very good point here. I for one cannot stand competitions/competition pianists *in general* (I do understand that some of the best pianists, even from the "golden age", earned fame through competitions)--that is to say, what kind of playing a competition typically garners. I think there has been a rather universal trend in contemporary art, that is, from, say, Horowitz's time onward, that preaches a sort of mass production of what, ideally, is regarded as "perfection" (though as Horowitz would say, rightfully I think, the only way to really achieve true perfection is through imperfection) which essentially results in a sterility in the art. Over-contrived and facilitated, mostly through monotony, our music, literature, even movies, seem to lack the life force and intrinsic excitement given to us by Romantic creators, and even those before that era. Competition pianists, for instance, are generally required to learn pieces "exactly" as they are written, without any *real* interpretation (playing it to the smallest detail in the text I think is regarded as "perfection") and in doing so they strip the music of its organic qualities. Again, though, I don't think this is exclusive to music but most art today: it's disgustingly sterile. Of course it's small wonder why, given that we live in an age well accustomed to mass-production, ease, efficiency, and expectations of brevity in all things.

But that is not to say there are no good pianists today, of course. Obviously I prefer the older legends, though, by far. I spend a lot of time researching such people, and could hardly care less for Lang Lang, Kissin, and so forth (though to be fair I actually like Volodos for what he does, and Yundi Li has some good moments). The best thing I can say about Lang Lang is that he seems to at least get attention drawn back to classical piano music, but at the same time he makes it look so damned ridiculous it's frightening to think that he could form the next piano revolution.

My favorite pianist personally is Cziffra; there's an artist who was not afraid of adrenaline and extemporaneous embellishments, all tasteful, but who also had an enormous respect for all repertoire and was willing to play a few uncommon pieces. To me, he was the perfect blend of poet and supreme virtuoso. Of course, Gould is a close second, followed by the typical Michelangeli, Lipatti, Rubinstein, Fiorentino, and so forth. There's one pianist who really impresses me but I wish they had more records of him on CD: Nyreghazi (spelling probably way off), who made his own enormous operatic transcriptions and had the technique to match them. Kocsis and Katsaris are also up there, and they're considerably more contemporary...

[pianonut]

i always find myself 'in the moment' whether listening to a recording or a live performance.  sometimes, if you listen to a recording, you can see the lack of interest some of the 'golden age' pianists had for exact notes played and minimal rubato.  they had lots of feeling - but in terms of today's technique and instruments (as lostinidle put it) we have a sort of 'perfection' they didn't. 

some artists (like pollini, arrau) have both incredible technique and strive for perfection in their recordings.  they are sort of in the middle of the golden age and modern young performers.  some performers give you their own rendition, some as muchas possible the composers.  in that respect, i like some of the older pianists (not putting so much of their own interpretation in) and some new.

what i like about younger pianists is that the music is fresh and alive.  i suppose, like mozart (the composer and pianist), when you have a virtuoso that is sure of himself - his playing - possible composing, too, when coming upon cadenzas, etc. - an ability to draw sound out of the piano - and audience appeal (speaking, etc.) there is more at work than just going out and playing someone else's music. 

guess what i am trying to say, is that even if you are of the old school, you have to think about a modern recital in terms of what is offerred by the particular pianist you are listening to.  maybe they have a talent in selecting super tuned pianos or piano tuners(which in my opinion - has a lot to do with tone), or play with an excellent touch, or have a certain personality that comes through with a certain composer really well.  often when i hear a recital, i will like some pieces over others...so it's hard to compare apples with oranges.

[Glyptodont]

The golden age pianists for me.  Some current pianists are also excellent.  Vladimir Ashkenazy comes to mind.

Alas, when listening to the golden age performers, sometimes one has to settle for less than the best quality in their recordings.

-------------------------- 

Pianonut questions that some of the golden age pianists had enough perfection.

Yesterday I listened to the Red Seal recording of Horowitz playing the Tchaikovsky First along with Toscanini and the NY Philharmonic.

He played the fastest octaves I have ever heard.  The notes were all clear and distinct.   I really didn't hear any mistakes, although who knows at that speed if a few snuck by?

But -- get this -- it was a live performance.  You can hear the audience applause.

Many current pianists play the thing eight times in the studio, and the editors patch the best segments together into a performance.

Try playing those octaves at that incredible pace in a live performance, with no backup and no "Plan B."

So I don't know if, in general, the golden age pianists "lacked perfection" -- but that does not seem to have been a problem with Horowitz.  At least, when he was at his best.