Greatest Technique of the 20th Century

[theodopolis]

What is everyone's opinion on the most exceptional pianist with regard to pure technique?

My vote goes straight to Georges Cziffra.

Some of Marc-Andre Hamelin's work brings him up a close second.

Thanks
Theodopolis

[Barbosa-piano]

  For me, either Slaviostav Richter, Georges Cziffra or Josef Hoffman.

        I tend to agree on Josef Hoffman.
                                                         

[thalbergmad]

Godowsky for me

[rachmaninoff_969]

If you are speaking strictly technique Glenn Gould wins hands down.

[Teddybear]

Argerich.

Hamelin is also very impressive, but his expression is so pale that I lose interest.

T

[Barbosa-piano]

We cannot forget about Vladimir Horowitz and his lightning speed octaves. This is a tough decision to make!

[rob47]

well i'd say Lang Lang has the greatest technique of the 21st century

[rob47]

but then again, define technique

[chromatickler]

technique = SPEED above an acceptable level of accuracy

[Etude]

Probably Hamelin.

[JamesS]

I think that technique is very often wrongly seen as being the speed at which someone can play and the accuracy with which they play. Surely technique has as much to do with musicality (whatever that is) and sound as anything else. The "technique" is the means of expression so surely they cannot or at least shouldn't be separated. As for who had the greatest technique of the last century well that obviously very much depends on what you're looking for in a technique. technique is something that is different for everyone due to everyone having different physical attributes therefore it is very difficult to say one is better than another, much easier to say that one is different from another. However I do adimire Richter a great deal, as well as Pollini, and of course Arrau for his wonderful tone, so deep and distinctive. In fact most if not all of the great pianists had fabulous techniques (whatever that may be defined as), it just depends what you value most in a performance.

J.

[JP]

What is everyone's opinion on the most exceptional pianist with regard to pure technique?

My vote goes straight to Georges Cziffra.

Some of Marc-Andre Hamelin's work brings him up a close second.

Thanks
Theodopolis

  For me, either Slaviostav Richter, Georges Cziffra or Josef Hoffman.

        I tend to agree on Josef Hoffman.
                                                         

I agree with both of you..

Cziffra, Richter, Hoffman, Hamelin.

[steinwayguy]

I'd go for Richter and Michelangeli for their seemingly flawless execution of their musical ideas (which are sophisticated and moving as opposed to the likes of Kissin, Lang Lang, Pollini etc.). It really depends on the composer for me though; for example, I wouldn't take Richter in Beethoven, I'd take Kempff, Solomon or Goode. I wouldn't take Richter in Chopin, I'd take Rubinstein or Zimmerman.

[Allan]

I was going to pick Cziffra and Horowitz, then I realized...Art Tatum could do things even those two could not.  The answer is Art Tatum.

[musicsdarkangel]

I pick Josef Lhevinne by far.

Runners up - Horowitz, Cziffra, Richter, Rachmaninoff, Hamelin, Kissin, Wild

wow, I just confused Wild with Ax.

[odsum25]

Cziffra, Hoffmann, Wild, Hamelin, Horowitz.

[Alde]

If you are speaking strictly technique Glenn Gould wins hands down.

Being a fellow Canadian, I have the greatest respect for Glenn Gould.  However, I doubt Gould could ever perform a Chopin Etude.

Have you ever heard of his performance of the Brahms 1st Concerto - very slow.  His technique suits the music that he is famous for - Bach.  In terms of a virtuosic technique, not at all.

[JamesS]

Have you ever heard of his performance of the Brahms 1st Concerto - very slow.  His technique suits the music that he is famous for - Bach.  In terms of a virtuosic technique, not at all.

Gould had a fabulous technique. He could have played flamboyantly and fast if he had chosen too. However it was exactly this sort or virtuosity, virtuosity for the sake of it, that he hated and therefore avoided.

[Goldberg]

Agreed. Gould did in fact have one of the most astonishing technical mechanisms I've ever heard. Check out his Wagner transcriptions to see pieces that are, in may respects, similar to Liszt pieces in technical demands (and therefore musical as well). He could also play some very awkward 20th century pieces...not to mention that his Baroque and Classical music never suffered in the least due to his incomparable finger control. I know he editted a lot and his recordings are mostly idealized, but even hearing him live--there are several recordings--gives an example of extreme mastery.

The Brahms concerto had nothing to do with his ability to play it as fast as other pianists. He was using it as a vehicle to demonstrate, and expound upon, his theory about general rhythmic equality between movements of pieces--a theory which he likened to Schoenberg using the 12 tone charts as building blocks for pieces, only in which he used tempo relations to create an effective performance. He later would perfect his interpretation and apply it to the '82 Goldberg recording, playing it slower and with much more tempo correlation between the movements. It's really quite fascinating! Wish I could explain it as lucidly as he does..

The other thing about the slow tempo in Brahms is that he could bring out a lot more about the piece than most pianists could, who blazed through it. It was actually the first recording of the Brahms d minor that I ever heard, and was extremely disappointed when I went to another standard pianist (not a legendary one) and heard what I assume to be a "standard" performance, which indeed had little fire or even potential for fire compared to Gould's; and, of course, a good deal of the interesting parts in the piano were completely muddied over by the blurred pace.

[JamesS]

Agreed. Gould did in fact have one of the most astonishing technical mechanisms I've ever heard. Check out his Wagner transcriptions to see pieces that are, in may respects, similar to Liszt pieces in technical demands (and therefore musical as well). He could also play some very awkward 20th century pieces...not to mention that his Baroque and Classical music never suffered in the least due to his incomparable finger control. I know he editted a lot and his recordings are mostly idealized, but even hearing him live--there are several recordings--gives an example of extreme mastery.

The Brahms concerto had nothing to do with his ability to play it as fast as other pianists. He was using it as a vehicle to demonstrate, and expound upon, his theory about general rhythmic equality between movements of pieces--a theory which he likened to Schoenberg using the 12 tone charts as building blocks for pieces, only in which he used tempo relations to create an effective performance. He later would perfect his interpretation and apply it to the '82 Goldberg recording, playing it slower and with much more tempo correlation between the movements. It's really quite fascinating! Wish I could explain it as lucidly as he does..

The other thing about the slow tempo in Brahms is that he could bring out a lot more about the piece than most pianists could, who blazed through it. It was actually the first recording of the Brahms d minor that I ever heard, and was extremely disappointed when I went to another standard pianist (not a legendary one) and heard what I assume to be a "standard" performance, which indeed had little fire or even potential for fire compared to Gould's; and, of course, a good deal of the interesting parts in the piano were completely muddied over by the blurred pace.

Exactly. Gould's recording of the Brahms concerto is very interesting, it is often told that Bernstein totally disliked Goulds' interpretation however this is blown out of proportion, in fact by the time it came to the performance Berstein very much understood and was convinced about Goulds' ideas about the piece. Part of the reason for the slow tempos is the idea that Gould had of relation of tempos between movements, it became an obsession by the time he recorded the Goldberg variations for the last time, some of his explanations of tempo relations in that recording are very complicated...! The slow tempo of the Brahms is partly I think Goulds' response to the virtuosos of the time, I know a number of stories of Gould imitating the playing of pianists like Horowitz, to the point of making fun. This tempo takes away the temptation to show off and allows him to bring other qualities to the music that had never been heard before. For example Gould shows a lot of Brahms' counterpoint, I suppose you could say that Gould's reading is perhaps an interllectual one as opposed to a virtuosic one.

J.

[Goldberg]

Precisely (and for a much better explanation, I (and I assume JamesS as well) would direct those interested to the interview between Gould and Tim Page on the "A State of Wonder" Goldberg collection. I think Gould does a fantastic job of explaining the tempo correlations in his musical style in layman's terms on the disc).

And I forgot to mention, for as little as it's worth, that for "Romantic" pianists I prefer Cziffra's technique, but I have always been strongly partial to Cziffra (him and Gould, heh). Michelangeli does some incredible things as well, speaking of technique as a vehicle for accurate and effective self-expression. Nobody could play the 4th Rachmaninoff concerto like him! And mechanically speaking, of course he was top-notch, if not on the same level of Cziffra and Gould and...all those other wizards.

Hamelin's technique, on the other hand, comes across as exactly the opposite for me. Mechanically, a better pianist than Hamelin is almost inconceivable. However, viewing his technique as a way of effectively portraying the music and its emotions...well, it's been said before but I admit that I also tend to find it dry and monotonous. I think his technique, as a supremely relaxed way of playing evenly and with the "best" and "perfect" piano tone, greatly limits his variety to the point of occassional boredom, depending on the piece I suppose. Cziffra's technique, on the other hand, enabled him to imbue all of his pieces effectively with adrenaline, subtle coloring (not to mention exquisite pedalling), dynamic variety, tonal variety...etc.

[sevencircles]

I don´t know any performer alive today that have been able to play as many works from different eras as technically convincing as Pollini could when he stood at his peak.

In fact I don´t even think anyone ever been period. Including (Gould,Richter or Ogdon)

If we are talking highest speed with only very few wrong notes I must say the young Josef Hoffman.

Barere for fingerstrenght, highspeed and still taste (not always though).

[thalberg]

Pure technique--I say Argerich.  She does the humanly impossible.  Listen to the third movement of her Rach 3--it's actually awful overall because the orchestra can't nearly keep up with her.  It's twice as fast as anyone else's.  Watch videos of her--she never looks like she's even moving a muscle--her actions are so smooth.  A friend of mine was concertmaster when Argerich was doing a concerto, and said that for the performance, Argerich came out and played the piece so much faster than they had rehearsed that this concertmaster couldn't even find the downbeat.

I also nominate Murray Perahia.  He can do ANYTHING easily.  But the wonderful thing is that he uses his technique in such a way that it never stands out as technique--hence the fact that he hasn't been nominated here yet.  His playing communicates the meaning of the music without drawing any of the listener's attention to the physical aspect of what he is doing.  The contradiction is that to be able to do this is actually a HUGE physical feat.

[orlandopiano]

What is everyone's opinion on the most exceptional pianist with regard to pure technique?

My vote goes straight to Georges Cziffra.

Some of Marc-Andre Hamelin's work brings him up a close second.

Thanks
Theodopolis

I'd rather listen to Cziffra, but Hamelin wins the technique award over anyone. I think Kissin could make a claim, if he only attempted some impressionistic music and some of the stuff Hamelin does (Alkan, Godowsky, etc). I'd be very curious to hear Kissin play some of the Chopin-Godowsky, they are perfect pieces for him.

[presto agitato]

Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein used to say that Art Tatum possessed the best technique ever.

My vote goes to Hamelin

[sevencircles]

but Hamelin wins the technique award over anyone

Right now, yes!

He isn´t up to the technique level Pollini had 25 years ago yet.

I would love to see Hamelin perform the whole Opus Clavicembalisticum in concert. That would put him to the test to say the least.

His repertoire is not very wide in terms of works from different eras and mistakes do come up when he plays live.

 Volodos would be the greatest in every respect If he  started playing 10 years earlier "He did actually not start playing seriously until he was 17" and skipped the drinking.

I do believe that Volodos could have been the greatest ever actually.

[alhimia]

What about Francesco Libetta? I think his  etude en forme d'úne valse (saint-saens), his chopin-godowsky studies and alkan are stunning, I think very few peolpe could play those pieces like him...

[orlandopiano]

He isn´t up to the technique level Pollini had 25 years ago yet.

I haven't heard Pollini do anything that would make me believe he was ever better than Hameilin.

[sevencircles]

I haven't heard Pollini do anything that would make me believe he was ever better than Hameilin.

His repertoire was larger and he mastered the hardest pieces of significantly more musical eras then Hamelin has (yet at least). Fewer wrong notes and mistakes live etc.

[orlandopiano]

His repertoire was larger and he mastered the hardest pieces of significantly more musical eras then Hamelin has (yet at least). Fewer wrong notes and mistakes live etc.

How do you know Pollini makes fewer mistakes live? What have you seen him play that Hamelin has also played (for a fair comparison)?  Pollini's live performances that I am familiar with are the standard fare (Beethoven, Chopin etc) and yes those are for the most part mistake-free, but maybe it isn't as easy going for him playing Stockhausen or Boulez, in which case it would be very hard to tell if he is making any mistakes.  (I am assuming you don't know the Boulez 2nd Sonata that closely).

If Pollini peformed Sorabji or Godowsky live, I'd be willing to bet you'd hear about the same number of mistakes.

[pianote]

cziffra!

[pita bread]

Boris Berezovsky has pretty hot technique too.

[Waldszenen]

If we're talking specifically technique and with zero regard to expression, then Hamelin wins, hands down.

Runners-up include Cziffra and Pollini, possibly Richter and Hofmann (I haven't heard enough of the latter two for a sound judgment).

[dveej]

About Hamelin: I have a multi-CD recording of him playing all the Godowsky studies after Chopin's etudes. They are scary, and Hamelin plays them with ease and beauty.
I like Richter a lot, but in his Sofia recital he sacrifices a lot of precision in the Pictures at an Exhibition (listen to The Great Gate of Kiev). but I don't know enough about him to judge him on this -- other stuff I have of Richter is amazingly delicate and precise and beautiful, so....?
Horowitz in my humble opinion had a bigger range of tone and emotion than most pianists and just simply did more with the music, so if technique is defined as the ability to achieve goals of musical expression, then perhaps Horowitz is number one? (I hear the cries of outrage already...)

[Waldszenen]

About Hamelin: I have a multi-CD recording of him playing all the Godowsky studies after Chopin's etudes. They are scary, and Hamelin plays them with ease and beauty.
I like Richter a lot, but in his Sofia recital he sacrifices a lot of precision in the Pictures at an Exhibition (listen to The Great Gate of Kiev). but I don't know enough about him to judge him on this -- other stuff I have of Richter is amazingly delicate and precise and beautiful, so....?
Horowitz in my humble opinion had a bigger range of tone and emotion than most pianists and just simply did more with the music, so if technique is defined as the ability to achieve goals of musical expression, then perhaps Horowitz is number one? (I hear the cries of outrage already...)

I agree; Hamelin's Godowsky etudes are awesome, despite their being amongst the hardest works for piano ever written.


Regarding your comment about Horowitz - if we judge a pianist's skill based on his or her ability to musically express written notes, or rather, incorporate technique and musicality...

Then Horowitz, in my opinion, is the greatest pianist in history.

[sevencircles]

How do you know Pollini makes fewer mistakes live? What have you seen him play that Hamelin has also played (for a fair comparison)?  Pollini's live performances that I am familiar with are the standard fare (Beethoven, Chopin etc) and yes those are for the most part mistake-free, but maybe it isn't as easy going for him playing Stockhausen or Boulez, in which case it would be very hard to tell if he is making any mistakes.  (I am assuming you don't know the Boulez 2nd Sonata that closely).

If Pollini peformed Sorabji or Godowsky live, I'd be willing to bet you'd hear about the same number of mistakes.

Pollini had a larger repertoire of virtuoso pieces perfected (being able to play et high tempos with very few wrong notes) then any other pianist I have ever heard of .

He didn´t play Godowsky´s Chopin variations instead he prefered Webern, Boulez works etc. which obviously are intelectually more challenging compositions and who can blame him for that.

Hamelin seems to select pieces mostly  for their showoff factor. He plays soft and very fluently.   He does more mistakes then most people think but he is very good at hiding them live.

His Iberia is brilliant though.

[gouldfischer]

What about Nelson Freire? I found it weird that some mentioned Argerich and nobody even bothered with Freire. I say so cause they've been gigging together for a while and I often hear more fuss around Freire's name, when they perform, as if he were the main character. Is Argerich that better than him?

[MattL]

Horowitz is an excellent pianist, but only on certain composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, Rach, and sometimes Prokofiev, but as i compare him to rachmaninoff i tend to believe that rachmaninoff had the most superb technique of the 20th century, and he utilized his technique to create true music. He could play any music from any period and that is why I vote for him.

[Waldszenen]

Horowitz is an excellent pianist, but only on certain composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, Rach, and sometimes Prokofiev, but as i compare him to rachmaninoff i tend to believe that rachmaninoff had the most superb technique of the 20th century, and he utilized his technique to create true music. He could play any music from any period and that is why I vote for him.

Don't forget Horowitz's affinity for Scarlatti; few pianists have played Scarlatti better.

[shenting]

Pure technique--I say Argerich.  She does the humanly impossible.  Listen to the third movement of her Rach 3--it's actually awful overall because the orchestra can't nearly keep up with her.  It's twice as fast as anyone else's.  Watch videos of her--she never looks like she's even moving a muscle--her actions are so smooth.  A friend of mine was concertmaster when Argerich was doing a concerto, and said that for the performance, Argerich came out and played the piece so much faster than they had rehearsed that this concertmaster couldn't even find the downbeat.

I believe Zoltan Kocsis has a faster recording of Rach 3 than Argerich.

[mandel]

have anyone heard Sergei Rachmaninoff play Liszt, Chopin etc etc...
Can't Imagine any pianist playing with such perfection, an still he has his own uniqe sound and soul in pianoplaying!
(I realise I sounded like a salesman, hehe)

[Waldszenen]

I believe Zoltan Kocsis has a faster recording of Rach 3 than Argerich.

Apparently, the fastest Rach 3 ever is Horowitz's first one, made in 1930.

[orlandopiano]

I love Horowitz as much as the next guy, and in terms of speed, massive dynamic range, independence from pedals etc, it is hard to top him.  But Horowitz's playing is very very different from Hamelin, Kissin, Kocsis, etc.  Totally different schools of piano playing and different eras.  He wasn't as concerned with hitting every single solitary note, at the precise nanosecond, like the other three I mentioned. Not as refined and technically perfect as those three so thus he wouldn't compete on the "accuracy scale" with them. 

Now with that said, of the three, only Kocsis can move me like Horowitz.

[Waldszenen]

I love Horowitz as much as the next guy, and in terms of speed, massive dynamic range, independence from pedals etc, it is hard to top him.  But Horowitz's playing is very very different from Hamelin, Kissin, Kocsis, etc.  Totally different schools of piano playing and different eras.  He wasn't as concerned with hitting every single solitary note, at the precise nanosecond, like the other three I mentioned. Not as refined and technically perfect as those three so thus he wouldn't compete on the "accuracy scale" with them. 

Now with that said, of the three, only Kocsis can move me like Horowitz.

Horowitz is important for his uniqueness in his playing - it's hard to get any recording that sounds like he does. Compared with today's pianists, like Yundi Li, Perahia, etc, they all sound pretty much the same.

The only one who does sound unique is Lang Lang and it's all for the wrong reasons. His uniqueness is that he's crap.

[bernhard]

What about Nelson Freire? I found it weird that some mentioned Argerich and nobody even bothered with Freire. I say so cause they've been gigging together for a while and I often hear more fuss around Freire's name, when they perform, as if he were the main character. Is Argerich that better than him?

Nelson Freire is a superlative pianist (his Schumann in particular is peerless) .  However, I rarely think of him as a “technician”. It is the same with Arrau (possibly my favourite pianist). Both were prodigies, both have/had cartloads of technique, but technique always takes second place when they play/played.

I have recently seen a wonderful documentary on DVD about him (“Nelson Freire” directed by José Sales) and the impression one gets is of a very modest, painfully shy individual, who refuses to join the media circus and the celebrity/gossip circuit, and who is supremely happy just playing. This may explain to a great extent why he is not better known.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[musicsdarkangel]

Pollini had a larger repertoire of virtuoso pieces perfected (being able to play et high tempos with very few wrong notes) then any other pianist I have ever heard of .

Ashkenazy's pretty much done everything.

[jeremyjchilds]

For bach, you can't beat gould

[sevencircles]

Ashkenazy's pretty much done everything.

He usually can´t match the technique Pollini had. Has he performed the modern stuff like the very demanding sonatas by Boulez?

[bernhard]

For bach, you can't beat gould

Sure you can: Rosalyn Tureck.

[Waldszenen]

Ashkenazy's pretty much done everything.

Quality is better than quantity.