Could you take the Blindfold Test?

[goose]

I’m curious about classical concert pianists and their ‘voices’. In the jazz world, critics often bemoan the fact there’s no Monk, Mingus or Miles working today (just to dip into the ‘M’s). In short, that today’s young players (i.e. under 40) don’t have their own idiosyncratic personalities.

But I’d disagree. I’m pretty confident that in a blindfold test I could tell the difference between the piano styles of, say, Brad Mehldau, Bill Charlap, Jacky Terrasson, Danilo Perez, or Jason Moran, as easily as I could pick out a Bud Powell, Bill Evans, McCoy Tyner, or Tommy Flanagan. (And I’m talking about recognizing them even if you’ve never heard the recording before.)

But that is jazz, which is based on how pianists voice their chords, signature melodic licks, and so on – as well as their choice of repertoire. How would it be with classical musicians who have to ‘stick to the notes’?

Imagine you had to take the Blindfold Test for some concert pianists. Sure, you’d narrow down your selection by era, according to the recording quality. And you'd know some pianists never touched some composers. But could you tell who it is just by touch, phrasing, rhythmic feel and tempo? What other factors are involved?

Which pianists could you recognize? To get the ball rolling I’ll start with the obvious:
Gould playing Bach would be a hard one to miss.

Are others as distinctive? Do some put such a clear stamp on one composer; say, Perahia for his Mozart, or Pollini for his Liszt?

And how important is it these days in classical music to have a distinctive ‘voice’ in the first place, as opposed to simply executing the piece flawlessly?

[BoliverAllmon]

I would bomb that test for sure.

[missmarple]

Maybe Pogorelich?

[goose]

What would it be about Pogorelich's style that would differentiate him, do you think? Which of his recordings would you say he sounds (within reason) unmistakeably himself?

[gkatele]

Moravec for sure

[goose]

Thanks for getting this started. But I think we need more than a name. I guess I wasn't very clear by my example. I'll try again:

I would recognize Glenn Gould playing Bach because:
a) of the unusual tempos he chooses
b) his incredibly clear voice independence and the way he accents certain lines
c) his humming (of course)
d) the dud Columbia piano he often used

What is it about other pianists that would make them recognizable to you if you just switched on the radio mid-performance?

[Hmoll]

Anyone who's listened to lots of recordings of the greats - and not so greats - would be able to pick out - among others - many of these for the obvious reasons:

Horowitz

Cziffra

Richter

Gilels

Pogorovich

Lupati

Pletnev

Kapell

Zacharias

Argerich

Rubinstein

Schnabel

Kempf

Michelangeli

Gould

Van Cliburn

Hamelin

[goose]

That's a good list. I freely admit that I haven't heard recordings of them all. What interests me is what are the 'obvious reasons'?

What is it about Van Cliburn's playing that makes him sound different from, say, Gilels?

[LVB op.57]

Gould-for his incredibly mechanical playing of bach, and his disgusting interpretation of everything else

Rubinstein-for his tone, though i don't particularly like it

Jeno Jando-for sounding a lot like Rubinstein

Leon Fleisher-for his soft yet clear tone

[goose]

Hey LVB, that's what I was looking for. Kind of negative, though. You only recognize pianists you don't like much?

[Kapellmeister27]

Cziffra-his unwieldy use of random tempo changes is very recognizable

[kapelli]

Zimerman,
he's like no one else.

[steinwayguy]

Perahia for his really weird tone (I think it's the piano) on a lot of recordings.

Ashkenazy for being really boring.

Schnabel's Beethoven is quite different from the "norm" nowadays.

[Ed Marlo]

Rachmaninov - Constantly morphing tempo, inability to count    Has a richness when playing some of his own music that others dont seem to be able to muster.

Horowitz  - Plays drastically differently from others.  Emphasis, tone, tempo..

[LVB op.57]

Hey LVB, that's what I was looking for. Kind of negative, though. You only recognize pianists you don't like much?

Unfortunately, I feel that while there are many good pianists, few stick out to me outside of the ones that I dislike.  For example, Perahia. Does he have a very respectable technic? Yes. Are his interpretations sufficient? Yes.  But the reason I don't recognize his playing is that there's nothing in it that seperates him from other pianists.   

[DarkWind]

I think I would be able to tell only Argerich, Hamelin, Arrau, and Rubistein, most of all, Rubinstein. Why? He just has such unique playing. He doesn't rely so much on the tone and dynamics while performing as most performers do. Rather, he gives a good tone and good dynamics, but his sense of the tempo, rythm, and the rubato he uses makes his recordings sound perfectly unique.

[iumonito]

My wife and I often try to do this when we hear piano works on the radio.  The great ones are easy, Horowitz for the clarity of the line, the great contrast between what has pedal and what does not and for the wrong notes; Arrau for the grand rubato, the thickness of the sound and in the later recordings for the heavy breathing; Bolet for the Grand manner, the inexorability of the rhythm and the apocalyptic progression of the form; Argerich for the impulsively fast tempi, the great virtuosity and the total disregard of detail in favor of the larger lines.

Minor pianists are much more difficult.  If I have not heard the recordings in advance, I am not sure I could tell you "yeah, that Tchaikovsky first is Fazil Say or Yefim Bronfman" (both of them terrific, and actually among the most recognizable in the field).

...and for those who presume Lipatti is recognizable, for at least 20 years a Chopin E Minor concerto by Halina Czerny-Stefanska was marketed as Lipatti's and everybody revered the recording.  There is a piano roll of Chopin's 2d scherzo attributted to Rachmaninov which I truly can't imagine to be his (absent are the masterfull establishment of the tempo and the rigorous counting  ).

You ask how to tell apart Gilels from Cliburn.  Gilels' sound is luminous, his rhythm moving and compelling, his chords rich.  Cliburn you hear the melody above everything else, the rhythm is a little later than you expect, but not to the detriment of the music, and the orchestra (if it's a concerto) can never follow (he must have been really difficult to accompany).

[goose]

It’s really interesting that so many people here claim to recognize pianists by their ‘faults’. Is that really how a pianist is recognizable? Or – to be uncharitable for a second – is it because people think they appear more discerning if they criticize the playing of someone who’s generally acknowledged to be one of the greats?

I’m not knocking anyone who admits to recognizing those they dislike more than those they admire (but who deliver the music well with no particular idiosyncrasies). I happen to like Perahia’s limpid readings of Mozart, Schubert and Schumann. But I certainly don’t have enough experience with him to hear his Chopin and know that it’s him playing. But I’d give him the benefit and say that’s from my lack of knowledge, not his unworthy playing.

Which leads to the secondary question. Are pianists there to serve the music? Or to stamp their own imprint on it? (Or maybe that's another thread.)

Minor pianists are much more difficult.  If I have not heard the recordings in advance, I am not sure I could tell you "yeah, that Tchaikovsky first is Fazil Say or Yefim Bronfman" (both of them terrific, and actually among the most recognizable in the field).

Thank you for the considered and insightful comments, Iumonito. It’s interesting what you say about hearing the recordings in advance. I guess a variation on the Blindfold Test would be to have ten recordings of, say, the same Beethoven sonata. And even supply all ten names of who performed them and be able to match player to performance.

I don’t suppose anyone has the technology (or time) to put together a quiz like this?

...and for those who presume Lipatti is recognizable, for at least 20 years a Chopin E Minor concerto by Halina Czerny-Stefanska was marketed as Lipatti's and everybody revered the recording.

That's hilarious. Anyone know any other stories like that?

I’d still like to see more responses from people who have piano heroes. I mean, everyone here claims to love music, right? I get a kick out of the playing of every jazz player I listed at the start of this thread. I didn’t expect the classical world to have quite such a negative bias.

Surely we all have players who inspire us. I know there's another thread (maybe more) about which recordings people find inspiring. Is there nothing about these performances that you could recognize if you didn’t already know it was them?

Argerich for the impulsively fast tempi, the great virtuosity and the total disregard of detail in favor of the larger lines.

Brilliant. In a nutshell. No other takers?

[stormx]

I beleive that the ability to recognize pianists is a little exagerated...

An Argerich friend let her listen to some Chopin etude, telling her the performer was Pollini. Argerich just said "yes? i like it". His friend then told her that it was actually HER recording of that etude.

So, Argerich was unable to recognize Argerich. 

PD: the anecdote is taken from an Argerich interview.

[kilini]

Not surprised, stormx. 

Not surprised...

[Motrax]

Rachmaninoff's sense of rhythm was close enough to perfect (I'd argue that pretty much any pianist who's made any professional recordings would have a close-to-perfect sense of rhythm - most rhythms in pre-contemporary classical music are rather simple in the grand scheme of things) - as was his sense of rubato. You'll notice that if you count out loud, although his melodic line rarely falls nicely in step with the beat, the overall timing is pretty exact. Rubinstein, Fischer, and Michelangeli in a few cases (just to name a few) had a beautiful sense of rubato and were able to bend and twist the rhythm in the melodic line to their advantage. Recording quality aside, I would still be able to differentiate these pianists "blindfolded" simply due to their very unique use of dynamic and rhythmic expression.

Pianists today are much less distinct in my opinion, and I would not claim to be able to tell most apart. Lang Lang, in my opinion, is rather distinctive in his lack of expression and his generally noisy approach, but I probably wouldn't be able to tell him apart from Pollini (who I also dislike immensely) or any number of technically apt, dull pianists. On the flipside, pianists like Olga Kern and Yundi Li play beautifully, but still do not have such distinctive styles that I'd be able to differentiate the two.

Then there's Pogorelich, who I think I could pick out pretty quickly for his emphasis on portions of music that other pianists don't pay attention to (which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't). A Volodos "transcription" is always easy to pick out by the sheet amounts of sound coming from the piano, though I don't know his playing well enough to say anything about the other pieces he plays. Hamelin has a surgical touch, and even his rubato and dynamic fluxuations seem calculated as opposed to spontaneous, though I'm really not sure if I could tell him apart from another similar pianist (if any similar pianists exist).

(Edit: Yeah, it's Edwin Fischer. I haven't  listened to Annie Fischer.)

[steinwayguy]

I'd argue that pretty much any pianist who's made any professional recordings would have a close-to-perfect sense of rhythm

I've been listening to a good bit of Annie Fischer in the last couple days, and I must say, I have been very disappointed. Her rhythm is almost always off, most notably in the first and third movements of the Hammerklavier.

[iumonito]

I've been listening to a good bit of Annie Fischer in the last couple days, and I must say, I have been very disappointed. Her rhythm is almost always off, most notably in the first and third movements of the Hammerklavier.

I totally agree Rachmaninov rhythm is great.  Never fails to deliver the climax of the phrase, the section and the piece.

The Fischer referred to by Motrax, I suppose, is Edwin Fischer.  A very great musician and a truly recognizable master.  Alas, perhaps the most beautiful singing line ever.

[mikeyg]

To the question: No

[Daevren]

Guitar: easy

Piano: no

[larse]

Well, yes...I agree with stormx. It's hard to recognize classical pianists...
but Glenn Gould could I recognize anywhere. and Cziffra'sviolent Liszt performances could I probably guess...I've just viewed the clip where he plays Grand Gallop Chromatique.. That's a power demonstration like nothing else.