|
|
|
16938 Posts
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.
|
|
|
Baa?21242 Posts
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
that would have been very sad indeed
|
On October 02 2011 11:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 02 2011 11:52 Duke wrote:
your links are broken!
Fixed 
|
As someone who knows nothing about piano and playing at a high level, how does one judge someone being better at piano than another?
|
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 11:41 forelmashi wrote:
3rd. Richter
Yep.
On October 02 2011 11:54 phosphorylation wrote:
kapell
Yep.
Everything looks to be in order here. Carry on.
:p
|
16938 Posts
On October 02 2011 11:54 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
nothing against personally, they just aren't very good ... pianists
good technicians, sure, but then, many of these older pianists were no slouches in these regard either.
|
16938 Posts
I'd argue that technical skill nowadays is higher than it was back then.
|
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.
|
I would put Richter above Horowitz, but Rachmaninoff #1 sounds fair to me, even though no one here would have actually seen him play.
|
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.
|
Four of the top five pianists in the list are Russians. All but Canadian pianist Glenn Gould are continental Europeans.
1. Rachmaninoff
2. Horowitz
3. Richter
Gilels is probably 4th or 5th, leaving the last one to be...Argerich? Moravec? Arrau?
edit: if all but Gould are continental Europeans then that would exclude Argerich and Arrau... ><
|
you seem bit confused there.
it's probably
1. rach
2. ho
3. richter
4, 5 gilels and gould
Not completely sure about gilels but seems to be the most logical choice.
|
On October 02 2011 11:54 phosphorylation wrote:
at least it wasnt like 1. kissin 2. yundi 3. yuja wang
that would have been very sad indeed
lmao
+1 for Gilels though. Personally I don't like Argerich that much...have a soft spot for Berman instead.
And Gould....lols ehhhh......?
|
My father saw Rachmaninoff live. He said he played with great authority.
Schiff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
