Pianists Name Rachmaninov Greatest Pianist - Page 2

On October 02 2011 13:17 phosphorylation wrote:

if you are talkign about playing every note correctly, sure i agree (although Michelangeli really would own the modern pianists in that aspect too) but that's not something the old masters sought anyway. if we are talking about sheer virtuosity, speed, and fury (which is what matters way more imo), cziffra, barere, hofman, and richter would shame lang lang, kissin, and yuja wang.

On October 02 2011 14:25 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:


That's just objectively untrue. Modern day pianists are simply technically better, both in playing all the notes and playing them at consistent speeds.

As for the subjective portion, expression, feeling, and virtuosity should, IMO, always follow on the basis of all the notes being correct first. Only when you play everything correctly do you get the right to actually express your individual views on the piece. I wouldn't go as far to say that the modern technical virtuosos shame any of the old pianists, but overall, they just are simply better, and I think they bring just as unique offerings and insights to the music.

On October 02 2011 14:47 writer22816 wrote:


I'm sorry but if this is the case then you have your priorities thoroughly mixed up. To play a few wrong notes is forgivable, and in many concert pieces is unavoidable without studio editing. What is more important is playing with emotion.

Also what exactly is your definition of a 'modern day pianist'? No one is arguing that the pianists of the 20th-21th century are, as a whole, leagues better than the ones in say Beethoven's time. However you seem to be implying that today's pianists have better virtuosity than 20th century pianists like Richter, Gilels, Arrau, Horowitz, Rachmaninoff...if that's the case then I would suggest listening to some recordings. I'm not saying that pianists like Lang Lang, Yundi Li, and Kissin have bad technique. They don't. But they are in no way superior technique-wise to the pianists back then.

On October 02 2011 14:47 writer22816 wrote:


I'm sorry but if this is the case then you have your priorities thoroughly mixed up. To play a few wrong notes is forgivable, and in many concert pieces is unavoidable without studio editing. What is more important is playing with emotion.

Also what exactly is your definition of a 'modern day pianist'? No one is arguing that the pianists of the 20th-21th century are, as a whole, leagues better than the ones in say Beethoven's time. However you seem to be implying that today's pianists have better virtuosity than 20th century pianists like Richter, Gilels, Arrau, Horowitz, Rachmaninoff...if that's the case then I would suggest listening to some recordings. I'm not saying that pianists like Lang Lang, Yundi Li, and Kissin have bad technique. They don't. But they are in no way superior technique-wise to the pianists back then.

On October 02 2011 14:52 phosphorylation wrote:
I get a feeling that you just need to listen more and mature as a music listener. You are on the right track; I mean you could be doing a lot worse..

On October 02 2011 14:57 phosphorylation wrote:

BTW, "playing with emotion" is the wrong way to describe things imo. Playing with great understanding of music, playing with original, strong interpretation, etc are what I am looking for in pianists. I guess you can sum these things as "making music."

On October 02 2011 15:13 viletomato wrote:
Um wouldn't Chopin be up there in that list? I'm a noob at this music thing so forgive me if I am missing something here.

On October 02 2011 15:13 viletomato wrote:
Um wouldn't Chopin be up there in that list? I'm a noob at this music thing so forgive me if I am missing something here.

On October 02 2011 15:17 phosphorylation wrote:
In fact, the website I linked to (dasdc.net) is one such community (consisting mostly of very experienced pianists and music collectors) that seem to largely share similar philosophies in piano playing and music-making. This is despite the members being from all over the world, and hence, having learnt piano under different "schools."

On October 02 2011 15:17 phosphorylation wrote:
Of course, there always will be controversial performances even by the greats. But essentially what you are arguing is that if you strip away the sheer technical aspect of pianism, everyone is going to have different opinions and you can't really say who is better than whom.

That is akin to saying, if a 6-year old were equipped with technical painting skills as picasso, the kid's work would be just as good, objectively speaking. To further the analogy, that is like saying if a random guy off the street was given the same camera equipments as Ansel Adams and was taught all the technical skills (which isn't that hard to master), Adams could not be called a better photographer objectively.

I and most other connoisseurs agree that is complete bosh.

Referring to your second paragraph, I truly believe that if someone with at least average intelligence and a well-rounded exposure to the humanities put some effort to listening and studying music and pianism consistently for even 10 years, these people will generally share similar opinions about pianists eventually. That is, they will generally cherish the playing of the golden age pianists more than the modern technicians. Of course, even among these people, they are going to have favorites and whatnot, but they are going to be mostly in agreement about what constitutes good music-making.

In fact, the website I linked to (dasdc.net) is one such community (consisting mostly of very experienced pianists and music collectors) that seem to largely share similar philosophies in piano playing and music-making. This is despite the members being from all over the world, and hence, having learnt piano under different "schools."

On October 02 2011 15:25 phosphorylation wrote:
well it is sort of a guise

basically, it is to weed out people not in the right "wavelength", who take things too seriously and are bit full of themselves.

On October 02 2011 15:24 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:


Depends on how you want to think about it. If a random 6 year old painted Guernica, how would you judge it? Do you discredit it because the 6 year old painted it? If so, are you really attaching value to the art or to the artist? I don't care who the performer is, if you really are objectively evaluating it, if something is identical to a masterpiece created by a recognized great, then it is also great. Doesn't matter who is behind the art, it's the art itself that matters. If your random guy off the street took the exact same picture that Adams would've taken, then yes, Adams could not be called a better photographer.



Lol.



Or your website is simply a giant circle jerk of people with similar opinions, and people with dissenting opinions either turn themselves away, or just find no point trying to talk to a group of people who already have firmly established beliefs. If someone who thought WC3 > SC/SC2 came on TL, he would either be driven away or would just not find interest on this forum at all. It's just a biased sample.