Among laymen his name rarely comes up, ("how could a composer be among the greatest pianists!!!!!") but in this recent poll of pianists he wins by a "significant margin".
2nd. Horowitz 3rd. Richter
Personally quite pleased with the results, glad it wasn't something like rubinstein.
Following is an example of him playing other composers. This is his own arrangement. Being a composer of the first order, he interpreted works in ways other pianists found at times heretical. He was an extreme perfectionist and if a recording didn't meet his standards it wasn't released. But enough talking! I hope you can all learn to love Rachmaninov
So this is somewhat of a dissenting opinion, but I much prefer recordings by modern pianists like Argerich or even like...Yundi Li than some of the older classics like Cortot or Michelangeli.
On October 02 2011 11:47 Empyrean wrote: So this is somewhat of a dissenting opinion, but I much prefer recordings by modern pianists like Argerich or even like...Yundi Li than some of the older classics like Cortot or Michelangeli.
The Golden Age pianists all get shafted by bad recording quality in general.
Gilels and Brendel get my vote. Horowitz bores me. I don't think Rachmaninoff really has enough quality recordings extant to accurately name him as the greatest pianist.
Might as well say Beethoven or Liszt was the greatest pianist of all time.
On October 02 2011 11:47 Empyrean wrote: So this is somewhat of a dissenting opinion, but I much prefer recordings by modern pianists like Argerich or even like...Yundi Li than some of the older classics like Cortot or Michelangeli.
oh cmon..
if you are able to see beyond the recording quality, the golden age pianists (and pianists before) offer SO MUCH more than yundi li and the like.
i personally like lev oborin, arthur rubinstein, cortot, and kapell
the list is pretty reasonable i guess
at least it wasnt like 1. kissin 2. yundi 3. yuja wang
On October 02 2011 11:47 Empyrean wrote: So this is somewhat of a dissenting opinion, but I much prefer recordings by modern pianists like Argerich or even like...Yundi Li than some of the older classics like Cortot or Michelangeli.
The Golden Age pianists all get shafted by bad recording quality in general.
Gilels and Brendel get my vote. Horowitz bores me. I don't think Rachmaninoff really has enough quality recordings extant to accurately name him as the greatest pianist.
Might as well say Beethoven or Liszt was the greatest pianist of all time.
It really depresses me that we have no Liszt recordings. Anyone who composes like him must have had such a flashy style.
Just because he had huge hands doesn't make him the best. Joking of course, but I do wonder how helpful that was. Also, I hate him for composing songs that are literally impossible for me to play due to such ridiculous chords D:
Still, I don't know if he deserves to be called the best. It's a shame that we just don't know how good some pianists really were since we lack recordings of them, such as Liszt as mentioned by Rainmaker5.
On October 02 2011 11:47 Empyrean wrote: So this is somewhat of a dissenting opinion, but I much prefer recordings by modern pianists like Argerich or even like...Yundi Li than some of the older classics like Cortot or Michelangeli.
oh cmon..
if you are able to see beyond the recording quality, the golden age pianists (and pianists before) offer SO MUCH more than yundi li and the like.
i personally like lev oborin, arthur rubinstein, cortot, and kapell
the list is pretty reasonable i guess
at least it wasnt like 1. kissin 2. yundi 3. yuja wang
that would have been very sad indeed
I really don't see what people have against people like Kissin or Yundi Li.
how do laymen even argue about pianist abilities? Rachmaninov is pretty well known, and reproductions of his piano rolls are well available.
As for how to approach differences in pianist ability (Mattchew), there's a mix of musicality and technical skill that composes the larger part of a pianist's reputation. After that would be repertoire and academic credentials and such. Don't worry about judging the differences until you can appreciate them.
On October 02 2011 12:55 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
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 12:55 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
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.
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.
but if you think most of these old masters couldn't play "all the notes and play them at consistent speeds" if they wanted to , you are doing them grave injustice
lang lang, EAT this (although his admittedly consummate DJ is probably his biggest life achievement) keep also in mind, the modern pianists' recordings are always made "perfect" through modern editing
On October 02 2011 12:55 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
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.
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.
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 12:55 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
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.
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.
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.
It could just be the preferences of the day; for example, I much prefer Horowitz's later recordings to his earlier recordings.
On October 02 2011 12:55 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
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.
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.
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.
For what it's worth, I prefer everyone of those old pianists except Rachmaninoff to Lang Lang and Kissin. Wang Yuja I think has great potential, and I'm excited, but I will withold judgment until I hear more.
I just think it's unfair to immediately discredit people for not having "emotion" and "expressiveness" and "worse virtuosity," whatever that means. Those terms are just so vague and differ for every listener that I think it's pointless to use them as a judge of how "good" a pianist is.
And I do stand by the statement that pure technically, the modern day pianists are better. Perhaps I miscommunicated that I don't think missing a few notes is some grave offense. I just think that technical skill shouldn't be discounted so quickly.
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..
This is so ridiuclously elitist and condescending I don't even know what to say.
I actually meant it in a friendly way, although I see that it could be technically "condescending." I get a sense that you are relatively new (or casual) listener. I think upon being exposed to more recordings, you might change your views on how correct notes take precedence over other factors.. You could be doing a lot worse, since at least unlike 99 percent of other people, you are paying attention to classical piano music.
BTW, "playing with emotion" is the wrong way to describe things imo (referring to writer's post above). 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."
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."
It doesn't matter what you call it, the point remains that these are such vague qualifiers and can vary greatly between people. Some people call Gould's playing making music, others think it's a desecration - it's certainly eccentric for many pieces. Beethoven is my forte, so I'll use examples of Gould's Moonlight and Appasionata (perhaps a bad example since he intended it ironically, but nonetheless it has fans) - unarguably original interpretations, and I can certainly understand why people can not like them. Technically very proficient, but again, the "making music" part is just way too subjective to be a good way to compare the "goodness" of different pianists.
As for new/casual listening - you make it sound like if someone listens for 50 years, they'll automatically change their tastes and preferences to the exact same set of performers. If that's the case, why should new pianists even bother trying? Not to mention that "mature" listeners still have different preferences.
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.
the OP is talking about pianists, not composers. Chopin is definitely one of the greatest composers for the piano ("the only good composer for the piano", according to Horowitz) but no one alive today has heard Chopin play
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.
Performers, not composers. Chopin made no recordings as recordings didn't exist back then, so we don't know how good of a pianist he was beyond hearsay.
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 that of 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." russian, american, french, and whatnot.
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."
LOL that is a website for experienced pianists and music collectors? Why is the language so fucked up -_-
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.
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.
I and most other connoisseurs agree that is complete bosh.
Lol.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
you are really misunderstanding my post there.
my argument is that the 6 year old will never paint anything like guernica, even if it has the technical skills to physically recreate it with a brush.
likewise, lang lang has all the technical facility to play anything and in any way he wants to, but he will never create music like cortot or oborin can.
regarding the website: there are much bigger piano forums online (pianostreet, pianoworld) but the most elite of the pianists and collectors who have an online presence (pretty rare, i must say) have actually mostly migrated to this forum. i'm not sure how i can actually prove this since all of them use handles, but let's just say many of our members have actually participated in competitions like THE chopin competition at warsaw while the same cannot be said for the other much larger forums (they are mostly filled with relative beginners of the instrument, no offense meant). More importantly, the members come from wildly varied backgrounds and different music schools. As far as I know, this is only the forum with such demographic. It is far from a "giant circle jerk of people with similar opinions"
oh and libetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Libetta) is a member of the forum, albeit an infrequent poster.
my argument is that the 6 year old will never paint anything like guernica, even if it has the technical skills to physically recreate it with a brush.
likewise, lang lang has all the technical facility to play anything and in any way he wants to, but he will never create music like cortot or oborin can.
regarding the website: there are much bigger piano forums online (pianostreet, pianoworld) but the most elite of the pianists and collectors who are active online (pretty rare, i must say) have actually mostly migrated to this forum. i'm not sure how i can actually prove this since all of them use handles, but let's just say many of our members have actually participated in competitions like THE chopin competition at warsaw while the same cannot be said for the other much larger forums (they are mostly filled with relative beginners of the instrument, no offense meant). More importantly, the members come from wildly varied backgrounds and different music schools. As far as I know, this is only the forum with such demographic. It is far from a "giant circle jerk of people with similar opinions"
oh and libetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Libetta) is a member of the forum, albeit an infrequent poster.
OK, so now you admit Lang Lang or whoever else you want to substitute here has the technical facility. That's all I care about. Whether you like his music making or not is completely your choice and discretion. I just don't understand why people feel the need to try to discredit people if they don't play it the exact same way the old masters did. Every new style/innovation/performer should be given a fair chance, and to expect them to be completely amazing at their debuts at 20 years old is ridiculous. Give them a fair chance and don't brush them off as "technical machines" or whatever, because strong technicality is the basis for later development.
I don't even listen to Lang Lang or Kissin regularly and not over any of the old masters, but the attitude of immediately discrediting new performers is just asking for stagnation. Piano is not my preferred classical realm, but to draw a parallel, I will listen to every single new Beethoven symphony cycle that comes out. Just because I have Wand, Karajan, Furtwangler, [insert whoever else you think recorded a landmark Beethoven cycle] doesn't mean i stop looking for new performances. Take 21st century releases - I listened to Abbado Rome, Immerseel, Barenboim, Haitink, Vanska, and more. I liked some and not others, but I still gave them all a chance. I didn't listen to one movement of the first symphony, say, "Karajan did this much more artisically" or "Wand had much more fury and expression" and just immediately toss it out as different, and therefore bad. Ultimately, all these new cycles perform Beethoven at a very competent level. Just because I don't like Vanska's sterile and standard treatment doesn't mean I can't see why some people prefer it. I don't call their tastes immature or discredit them as casual listeners.
You yourself admitted to the website trying to "weed out" people. If that's not a circle jerk I don't know what is.
"I just don't understand why people feel the need to try to discredit people if they don't play it the exact same way the old masters did. "
Well, let's be precise here. The masters almost always played with originality (that often entails a certain uniqueness from others) and artistic authenticity (unlike many modern counterparts) so it is impossible to play "the exact same way" since there is not such one way.
"Every new style/innovation/performer should be given a fair chance"
I did. In fact, I have been for last 15 years or so. So have many other pianists and listeners.
"and to expect them to be completely amazing at their debuts at 20 years old is ridiculous. "
Well, then, perhaps they are not cut out to be world's best. I mean horowitz recorded this (one of the best recordings of all time) when he was only 28.
"because strong technicality is the basis for later development. "
Um yea. Except when I listen to pianists, I don't want to hear any development. I want to hear music and artistry. If I want to hear a developing pianist, I will find any random kid from julliard or play myself.
"but the attitude of immediately discrediting new performers is just asking for stagnation."
Again, this was never the case. Bad assumption there.
There ARE a few modern pianists who do show potential to develop as masters (or are already masters in their right). Roger Muraro, Volodos, and Neuberger come to mind.
But we were talking about the general trend. And the most celebrated pianists happen not to be these ones.
Well, then, perhaps they are not cut out to be world's best. I mean horowitz recorded this (one of the best recordings of all time) when he was only 28. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKg81QJ1zLY
I actually think Wang Yuja's recording of the same piece on her [first?] album is better. And at 20 or however old she is, she has better technical skill than Horowitz ever did. Her notes, especially runs, are cleaner and she can emphasize notes and phrases in fast passages better than Horowitz.
Whether you like what she does with the piece is, again, your personal choice. But she just is technically better, and that's not without merit.
Yuja Wang's technique is no better than that of Horowitz... That is almost offensive.
The clarity you hear is probably result of better recording quality (we are comparing a recording from 1932 and 2009 here). I've also noticed wang really likes to emphasize her fingerwork a lot, by curving fingers and minimiznig pedals on fast runs. Again, that doesn't really mean her technique is better. It sounds cleaner and flashier; that is all..
I don't think you are ever going to see eye to eye on musicality, so I give up on that...
On October 02 2011 16:23 phosphorylation wrote: Yuja Wang's technique is no better than that of Horowitz... That is almost offensive.
The clarity you hear is probably result of better recording quality (we are comparing a recording from 1932 and 2009 here). I've also noticed wang really likes to emphasize her fingerwork a lot, by curving fingers and minimiznig pedals on fast runs. Again, that doesn't really mean her technique is better. It sounds flashier; that is all..
You make it sound like if it sounds better it's irrelevant, except we're talking about recorded/performed music, where sound is literally everything. If it -sounds- better, it -is- better.
I'm not penalizing Horowitz for recording quality of course that would be silly.
I don't even know what you are trying to say any more. You say you are not penalizing horowitz for recording quality (btw, you have that the other way around) and yet you talk about how sound is literally everything.
I hate to direct the discussion this way (since it reminds me of those godawful sc2 threads) but I am curious what your experience is with piano-playing and music.
On October 02 2011 16:32 phosphorylation wrote: I don't even know what you are trying to say any more. You say you are not penalizing horowitz for recording quality (btw, you have that the other way around) and yet you talk about how sound is literally everything.
I hate to direct the discussion this way (since it reminds me of those godawful sc2 threads) but I am curious what your experience is with piano-playing and music.
The distinction between played sound and sound due to recording quality...?
I ask the question since if you played piano long enough with enough commitment, it would not be hard to discern that Yuja is not a better technician than the young horowitz, in any sense.
To aid your understanding, yuja plays with a very curved fingers, and on fast runs, she minimizes pedal usage and uses light, fleeting touch (something very popular with the young pianists nowadays). All of these result in very crisp, flashy sound, which you seem to directly equate to technique, but that is simply not true. These things are able to be achieved by horowitz and many others (and they do on occasion) but it is simply not fitting for most of the classical repertoire. For example, I've really never heard yuja play with full-sounding tone in a rapid passage, marked forte or higher. That requires even higher level of technique.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Here is pollini in comparison.
Or try berman.
Your "modern" ear might be conditioned to prefer the crisper version by Yuja, but I, as a fairly experienced pianist, KNOW that it is much harder to achieve what these pianists do, despite the slower tempo.
This is not even getting to the (much more important) interpretation part. Yuja sounds totally clueless in comparison to these pianists', especially rhythmically.
On October 02 2011 16:40 phosphorylation wrote: I ask the question since if you played piano long enough with enough commitment, it would not be hard to discern that Yuja is not a better technician than the young horowitz, in any sense.
You're just resorting to making false, unsourced, unprovable blanket statements now. What is there left to say at this point?
To aid your understanding, yuja plays with a very curved fingers, and on fast runs, she minimizes pedal usage and uses light, fleeting touch (something very popular with the young pianists nowadays). All of these result in very crisp, flashy sound, which you seem to directly equate to technique, but that is simply not true. These things are able to be achieved by horowitz and many others (and they do on occasion) but it is simply not fitting for most of the classical repertoire. For example, I've really never heard yuja play with full-sounding tone in a rapid passage, marked forte or higher. That requires even higher level of technique.
Haha, there are definitely things you can criticize Wang Yuja for, but full sounding tone is definitely NOT one of them. If you haven't heard her play with that, well, I can only say you haven't heard her play enough.
Your "modern" ear might be conditioned to prefer the crisper version by Yuja, but I, as a fairly experienced pianist, KNOW that it is much harder to achieve what weissenberg does, despite the slower tempo.
This is not even getting to the (much more important) interpretation part. Yuja sounds totally clueless in comparison to these pianists', especially rhythmically.
Pollini notably falters at 0:11 and 0:17, he simply doesn't enunciate every single note in the glissandos, nor the followup, as well as Wang Yuja. Overall I like Pollini's version better though, probably, as you said, because of the better rhythmic understanding. But Yuja's technique is there to deny that is just silly.
I didn't give the Berman performance a super careful listening, but in the fortissimo passages, notable around ~:37 he doesn't seem as controlled or as refined, with the result that it sounds chaotic and frantic rather than impressive in the context of the Petrushka story. This might be an interpretive stance, but it happens against 3:11 where it was a clear lack of control that prevents full enunciation of the notes.
To add, I've never heard Yuja Wang really tackle a very difficult piece and impress. Most of the warhorses she play are actually not that difficult; they are just flashy. The prime example is this:
Yes, a somewhat difficult piece, and she handles it well. But this is exactly the type of piece that complements her fleeting, light touch really well. That is just one facet of technique, one that is easily matched by many older pianists.
Like this..
Honestly, you are better off making your argument with Lang Lang, who does have fantastic equipment and do tackle very difficult pieces and impress (Don Juan, even not considering its length, is much more difficult than the cziffra bumble bee).
Too bad, he is completely clueless about music. I would concede that Lang Lang could possibly qualify as one of the best technicians ever, although he would also be matched by many from the past.
On October 02 2011 17:03 phosphorylation wrote: To add, I've never heard Yuja Wang really tackle a very difficult piece and impress. Most of the warhorses she play are actually not that difficult; they are just flashy. The prime example is this:
Yes, a somewhat difficult piece, and she handles it well. But this is exactly the type of piece that complements her fleeting, light touch really well. That is just one facet of technique, one that is easily matched by many older pianists.
Too bad, he is completely clueless about music. I would concede that Lang Lang could possibly qualify as one of the best technicians ever, although he would also be matched by many from the past.
Using Youtube videos to understand a performer leads to a very skewed picture. both the Petrushka and the Flight of the Bumblebee were made, exactly as you say, meant to be flashy and to impress. It's for marketing and it's for flash. It's not an accurate limit on her limits. Her two CDs aren't bad, but yes, they benefit from being studio recorded. Her live recordings, however, still show considerable ability. Just linking Petrushka and Bumblebee is not a good way to illustrate anything about Wang Yuja.
Lang Lang is good technically, he just tackles every piece the exact same way. A few times it works, often it doesn't. "Completely clueless about music" is needlessly harsh and exaggerated, but yes, I understand the sentiment.
Also I browsed around your forum a bit. You guys really take the typIn lik diz to weed da heazenz zing zeriouzly don't you?
You are the guy who wanted to compare technique by itself instead of "understand(ing) a performer," which I agree should not be done with using youtube videos of flashy pieces.
"Pollini notably falters at 0:11 and 0:17, he simply doesn't enunciate every single note in the glissandos"
lol, have you ever considered that he might be not CHOOSING to do it. Glissandos (esp. simple white note ascending ones like these) rank pretty low on difficulty. Given that he can rip through the 3rd movement of petrushka (which is much harder than the 1st), you are really doubting him too much. Berman's live recording is obviously not as clean as Yuja's but the raw technique is more impressive.
Again you seem to be equating technique purely by the number of correct notes and "crispness"/"flashiness" of sound. That's far from the truth and any consummate pianist knows this.
"Haha, there are definitely things you can criticize Wang Yuja for, but full sounding tone is definitely NOT one of them. If you haven't heard her play with that, well, I can only say you haven't heard her play enough"
Again, you miss my point. Of course it is very possible to play with full-tone when things slow down.But yuja almost always plays with a unsatisfying, fleeting touch whenever there are rapid runs, which makes things much easier to cope and can create superficially dazzling sounds.
I was surfing more videos by yuja and it only confirmed that her tech is actually quite overhyped. Lang lang is by far the better technician.
I know this piece like the back of my hand since I played it for many concerts. At 4:30-40, where it is marked forte, she is simply gliding over the notes (except for some erratic accents), not to mention it sounds much more muddled -- less clean and accurate -- than other more popular recordings of her on youtube. It is hard to verbalize in words, but it definitely gives me the impression that her technique is actually quite far from perfect. Then at 4:50, where things get much easier, she bangs out few notes, providing us with a reference that highlights how lacking the tone was before (although now she is playing with a very harsh, ugly tone). Again at 6:12, a clear weakness in technique is apparent, almost puzzling so. This is arguably the most difficult part of the piece (esp the left hand) and she slows down for no good reason, again along with less than perfect tone.
To be fair, I do think she probably plays prokofiev best, perhaps because a lot of prok just requires the pianist to be cold and technical.
On October 02 2011 17:16 phosphorylation wrote: "Pollini notably falters at 0:11 and 0:17, he simply doesn't enunciate every single note in the glissandos"
lol, have you ever considered that he might be not CHOOSING to do it. Glissandos (esp. simple white note ascending ones like these) rank pretty low on difficulty. Given that he can rip through the 3rd movement of petrushka (which is much harder than the 1st), you are really doubting him too much.
Perhaps, but it's hard for me to understand why you wouldn't want to play the full glissando when it's clearly and unambiguously marked in the score. I'm genuinely curious on this point, any thoughts?
Again you seem to be equating technique purely by the number of correct notes and "crispness"/"flashiness" of sound. That's far from the truth and any consummate pianist knows this.
I'm really not you're just applying your pre-conceived notions and fitting that to whatever comes out of other people's posts.
Again, you miss my point. Of course it is very possible to play with full-tone when things slow down.But yuja almost always plays with a unsatisfying, fleeting touch whenever there are rapid runs, which makes things much easier to cope and can create superficially dazzling sounds.
And my point is Wang Yuja's playing has consistently proved the contrary. Her rapid passages have perfectly good full-tones.
If you hear Rachmaninov's bass notes in any version of bumblebee he plays, those, it greatly exceeds what I just heard out of Yuja Wang, Kissin, etc.
He has confidence coupled the ability to strive for perfection.
I just went and listened to as many of the people I heard named here play that one piece, and I stopped after that one. I just judged it on how the dancing bass in the background made me feel/pleased me.
Whenever people talk about pianists it ends up like a conversation about race horses. I think there is a reason why older pianists don't participate in competitions: they have perfected their art, to compare them is missing the point in some way.
Anyway, my favorite pianists are.... Angela Hewitt: canadian, very well known for playing Bach. Glenn Gould: the Bobby Fischer of the piano. Martha Argerich: She is incredible. I love her. A truly interesting romantic pianist - without ever being annoying. Alfred Brendel: This is, I think, my favorite pianist of all times. What is incredible about him is that it is all about the music when he plays. He doesn't impose his personality. His play is simple and clean and still very humane (I can't find a better word..).
I think it is strange that people like romantic pianists as much as they do (Horowitz, Rachmaninoff etc).
phosphorylation: I don't think you'll ever get anywhere arguing about the fullness of notes in certain passages. There isn't much point at picking at such details. Does it sound worse? Maybe, but a more valid discussion is why modern pianists sound the way they do. Don't take this to mean I think you are making bad points.
My collection primarily consists of recordings from the old masters, and I took a bunch of time to do comparisons between performers of the pieces I listen to regularly. I have little doubt that modern pianists have better technique than the old masters, especially after doing much listening on the subject. Just because a performer does not play something how you would like it does not mean they are not capable of it. In any case, the level of technique achieved by these performers is such that only genius interpretation is something to be truly admired. Are the tempos simply going to become so fast that every piece is now Continuum? It isn't possible that every piece can be improved by increase the tempo, even if the performer's technique is superfluous.
It seems to me that the sometimes extreme codification of classical music has pressured the modern performers into some sort of box. The main thing that offends me about the recordings (linked and this thread and elsewhere) of Lang Lang and Wang Yuja is their innocuousness! Especially watching Yuja, I can't help but think that someone taught a robot how to read music and put it in front of a piano. I've never found Prokofiev boring before listening to the recording a few posts up.
The piano is an amazing instrument, and capable of so much. However, if we consider the level of abstraction in playing it, it is quite high. The voice is direct, wind instruments once abstracted (they still maintain the human breath), as with the strings (you apply pressure directly to the strings). The piano is another level of abstraction, for although you can control the amount of force applied, and use the pedals for various effects, the hammer will always strike the instrument in the same way. It follows that if someone wanted to play like a robot, they would choose the piano. That is basically what I hear when I listen to modern pianists. Technique only goes so far; I want records which push the interpretation in new and genius ways. If they can't come up with that, then I will stick with the interpretations of the old masters.
lang lang might have his faults but no one has ever played the liebestraum like him
frankly usually people who hate lang lang hate the freedom he takes, this is the first time I've seen him accused of being merely a technician. at least everyone agrees his technique is superb :D
Fontong: I essentially agree with what you wrote and as I mentioned before in the thread, good technique really is meaningless if you are not creating music. Since carnivorous sheep wanted to discuss techniques of modern and old pianists in particular, I focused on that subject.
On October 02 2011 18:11 Elroi wrote: Whenever people talk about pianists it ends up like a conversation about race horses. I think there is a reason why older pianists don't participate in competitions: they have perfected their art, to compare them is missing the point in some way.
Anyway, my favorite pianists are.... Angela Hewitt: canadian, very well known for playing Bach. Glenn Gould: the Bobby Fischer of the piano. Martha Argerich: She is incredible. I love her. A truly interesting romantic pianist - without ever being annoying. Alfred Brendel: This is, I think, my favorite pianist of all times. What is incredible about him is that it is all about the music when he plays. He doesn't impose his personality. His play is simple and clean and still very humane (I can't find a better word..).
I think it is strange that people like romantic pianists as much as they do (Horowitz, Rachmaninoff etc).
I find it interesting how you can like Gould and Brendel at the same time Personally I can't stand Brendel especially in the Beethoven sonatas; he makes some of the greatest, most passionate, moving music in the repertoire sound completely lifeless. His Mozart concertos are better. Each to his own though
EPT
