Are there any really great living pianists?
Nicolas Hodges
handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
Thoughts?
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
: A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
: Thoughts?
Kocsis and Argerich, sure. Also Mustonen, Afanassiev, Sokolov, Kovacevich
and a few others who would doubtless come to mind if I were more awake....
Simon
Simon Roberts
A. Brain
news:8go7an$pgn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Nicolas Hodges (n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
> : handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
> : What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
> : me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>
> : I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
> : Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>
> : Thoughts?
>
> Kocsis and Argerich, sure. Also Mustonen, Afanassiev, Sokolov, Kovacevich
> and a few others who would doubtless come to mind if I were more awake....
>
I find this a curious thread. A pianist (right?) is asked which pianists he
most admires, and he only admires a handful of them, wonders what "really
great" pianists are living. Then he names two decidedly different "types"
(from all reports; I know Pollini from records and two live recitals, but
then I am not a pianist or an expert in musical performance), adds "let's
not discuss them", and inquires about whether there are more.
Simon names a few that I presume are of the "characterful" type (I only know
Kovacevich from records, Pogo from records and one live performance).
So what is the meaning of "really great" here? I doubt that either of these
eminent and prolific posters would let some critic get away with the remark
that "there are only a handful of 'really great' pianists alive today"
without some clarification of what is meant by "really great". Yes, I can
at least surmise that it suggests artists who are unwilling simply to "let
the music speak for itself".
It would at least be a start if either of these posters would identify who
the "really great" but now dead pianists were. I mean, otherwise, it seems
like we are in the Chinese restaurant menu--one from column A, one from
column B. If that what is meant, then the thread is perhaps about who are
the outstanding living exponents of different schools. And I am not even
sure what the schools are.
Or maybe this is like the observation that "there aren't any ____ today like
there used to be", to which the retort is "there never were any _____ like
there used to be."
-
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Nicolas Hodges
A. Brain <abr...@nospam.att.net> writes
>Simon Roberts <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>news:8go7an$pgn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> Nicolas Hodges (n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> : A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
>> : handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>>
>> : What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
>> : me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>>
>> : I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
>> : Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>>
>> : Thoughts?
>>
>> Kocsis and Argerich, sure. Also Mustonen, Afanassiev, Sokolov, Kovacevich
>> and a few others who would doubtless come to mind if I were more awake....
>>
>
>most admires, and he only admires a handful of them, wonders what "really
>great" pianists are living. Then he names two decidedly different "types"
>(from all reports; I know Pollini from records and two live recitals, but
>then I am not a pianist or an expert in musical performance), adds "let's
>not discuss them", and inquires about whether there are more.
>
>Simon names a few that I presume are of the "characterful" type (I only know
>Kovacevich from records, Pogo from records and one live performance).
>
>So what is the meaning of "really great" here? I doubt that either of these
>eminent and prolific posters would let some critic get away with the remark
>that "there are only a handful of 'really great' pianists alive today"
>without some clarification of what is meant by "really great".
Point taken. Poor choice of words perhaps.
>Yes, I can
>at least surmise that it suggests artists who are unwilling simply to "let
>the music speak for itself".
Well yes, that would be a start.
Maybe I should rephrase my question into the catchy: "What pianists are
there alive and working who are truly individual, intelligent and
imaginative, are adding something to what has gone before (through force
of character, intelligence or imagination); or to put it another way,
are not either simply still doing what they were told by their teachers,
or what they are told by tradition, or just what comes 'because'?"
Does that cover it a bit more rigorously?
>It would at least be a start if either of these posters would identify who
>the "really great" but now dead pianists were.
I'm not sure that would be useful.
(By the way, I was not asked this question as a pianist, and I am not
proposing it as a pianist. Though being one perhaps colours my view...)
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
: In article <HZNX4.6671$hL1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
: A. Brain <abr...@nospam.att.net> writes
: >So what is the meaning of "really great" here? I doubt that either of these
: >eminent and prolific posters would let some critic get away with the remark
: >that "there are only a handful of 'really great' pianists alive today"
: >without some clarification of what is meant by "really great".
Probably not, but then I know Nic and thought I knew what he meant. Given
his explanation below, it seems I did.
: Point taken. Poor choice of words perhaps.
: >Yes, I can
: >at least surmise that it suggests artists who are unwilling simply to "let
: >the music speak for itself".
: Well yes, that would be a start.
Not in my case, since I don't think that's possible, unless by ltmsfi you
mean "bland and understated" or some such.
: Maybe I should rephrase my question into the catchy: "What pianists are
: there alive and working who are truly individual, intelligent and
: imaginative, are adding something to what has gone before (through force
: of character, intelligence or imagination); or to put it another way,
: are not either simply still doing what they were told by their teachers,
: or what they are told by tradition, or just what comes 'because'?"
I suppose one might want to include great technique, but if those other
qualities are present that matters less, presumably. The key component
for me is originality, as Nic suggests: playing the music in ways no-one
else has done and which I would never have thought of left to my own
imagination (of course, such performances can be awful....) Needless to
say, all of this is subjective (the definition is too, probably, but
especially applying it).
Simon
Nicolas Hodges
<si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> writes
It's not just that it's subjective. It's that what we're looking for is
difficult or impossible to define and talk about.
The biggest mistake made about such things is the assumption that
because something is impossible to define it therefore does not exist.
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
: It's not just that it's subjective. It's that what we're looking for is
: difficult or impossible to define and talk about.
: The biggest mistake made about such things is the assumption that
: because something is impossible to define it therefore does not exist.
Perhaps; on the other hand, someone might legitimately ask whether the
question wouldn't be better phrased "If you were to draw up a list of
favorite pianists, would any living ones be included?" (It could be
thought that "great" suggests a degree of objectivism (or at least
agreement over criteria of greatness) that might be misplaced.) The same
questions remain, of course: why are these your favorites....
Either way, you can add Ugorski to my list. I'm sure there are others,
but my "off the top of my head" function doesn't seem to be working
today....
Simon
Grant
> Kocsis and Argerich, sure. Also Mustonen, Afanassiev, Sokolov, Kovacevich
> and a few others who would doubtless come to mind if I were more awake....
>
> Simon
I'd add Cliburn to the list. Also I think Grimaud has the potential to be,
but I wish she would record more solo pieces.
Grant
Brian Cantin
> A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
> handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
> What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
> me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>
> I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
> Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Nic
Moravec and Wild immediately come to mind.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Richard Sauer
Nicolas Hodges > A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire,
and only a
> handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
> What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
> me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>
> I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
> Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>
> Thoughts?
> --
For me Hough is a great pianist. He plays the old razzle-dazzle
(Schubert's 960, Brahms' s concerti etc.) and new music ( I think his New
York Variations CD for Hyperion is wonderful) with real authority.
Murray Perahia- (maybe this nomination will bring Dan Koren back to RMCR)
I thought his Chopin Ballades were dull, but then-surprise of surprises-his
Handel /Scarlatti disc was terrfic. Further investigation of this artist led
to some other ear-opening experiences: The Berg sonata and Tippett sonatas
are big, exciting performances. My impression is that Perahia sounds happier
in these 20th century works than in Beethoven or Chopin. A live Mozart
concerto with the BSO eons ago brought the house down. A curious case
Perahia.
Katsaris- Where is he? Ever since his Beethoven/Liszt symphonies I've
regularly purchased his discs. His Chopin Ballades/Scherzi on Teldec are
not completely successful. The Scherzi -yes. The Ballades-no. He takes
flight in the former, but never gets off the ground in the latter. A great
improviser-or so I'm told.
My out-of-left-field nomination:
Robert Helps: I've spent many hours with his Sessions disc. In this music
Helps pretty much has the field to himself. I don't know anything else by
Helps, but this one disc is proof that he's a great musician.
R.Sauer
Clifford Ando
Kocsis, Mustonen, Afanassiev, Sokolov, and Ugorski.
I'm not sure that I've heard enough of Pogorelich to add him, but the
little that I've heard suggests he might belong in the above comapny.
Other possibilites include Lugansky and Zhukov and Grante and Pletnev and
Kasman and Raekkallio, although I have reservations about naming
each--often slightly different reservations for each, I might add. I
don't know that I've heard enough by Lugansky (I am eager to hear his
Chopin etudes) or Grante (and I don't know that I know his recorded
repertoire well enough to judge); Zhukov has made some quite boring
recordings, but some reveal really tremendous power and sweep (often in
pieces that don't interest me terribly much, I'm afraid).
Kasman and Raekkallio I know best from their sets of Prokofiev's sonatas;
again, I'm not sure that I'm in a position to render judgment. Kasman's
Haydn sonatas are quite excellent. Pletnev's astonishing skills often
seem deployed in the service of interpretations that are less than
startlingly original.
Clifford Ando ca...@usc.edu
Classics Department phone: (213) 740-3683
University of Southern California fax: (213) 740-7360
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0352
ESH Tooter
but seriously...
Dimitri Dover
> difficult or impossible to define and talk about.
>
> The biggest mistake made about such things is the assumption that
> because something is impossible to define it therefore does not exist.
How true (and dk made that crucial point about this very same
topic just before he left).
Dimitri
Bevan Davies
I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts, but I
would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of enormous
stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
Bevan Davies
"Nicolas Hodges" <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1zdkATAR...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk...
> A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
> handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
> What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and for
> me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>
> I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
> Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Nic
Simon Roberts
: Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
: I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts, but I
: would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of enormous
: stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
I recently learned that he's very tall.
Simon
Clifford Ando
> Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
>
> I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts,
> but I would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of
> enormous stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
Don't you mean "living *poets*?" I don't know whose writings please me
more, those of Schiff, Brendel, or Afanassiev. But I do know which one
strikes me as a "great" pianist.
Nicolas Hodges
Clifford Ando <ca...@usc.edu> writes
>On Sat, 27 May 2000, Bevan Davies wrote:
>
>> Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
>>
>> I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts,
>> but I would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of
>> enormous stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
>
>Don't you mean "living *poets*?" I don't know whose writings please me
>more, those of Schiff, Brendel, or Afanassiev. But I do know which one
>strikes me as a "great" pianist.
I didn't know Schiff was a poet too. Could you recite, er, post some?
--
Nic
Matthew B. Tepper
is reputed to have iterated as follows...
>
>Bevan Davies (bevan...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
>
>: I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts, but
>: I would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of
>: enormous stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
>
>
>Simon
And I learned in 1985 that she's rather short. So?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Neil
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
>handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
Sokolov
Clifford Ando
> >Don't you mean "living *poets*?" I don't know whose writings please
> >me more, those of Schiff, Brendel, or Afanassiev. But I do know
> >which one strikes me as a "great" pianist.
>
> I didn't know Schiff was a poet too. Could you recite, er, post some?
Sorry: I was thinking of Schiff's interviews and liner notes.
David A. Fox
Unquestionably Great, alive and active: Argerich, Sokolov,
Kovacevitch
Unquestionably great and alive, but no longer truly active and/or in
prime condition: Cliburn, Janis, DeLarrocha, Fleisher. Hmmmm, maybe
Ashkenazy too, if you only consider his output up until the time he
picked up the baton.
Moments of Greatness, but a notch below the exalted category: Schiff,
Moravec, Lupu. Perhaps Tipo, perhaps (ducking) Uchida.
Questionably great (i.e. highly subjective picks with qualification):
Barenboim: the best late-Beethoven I've ever heard performed live. I
used to hear him every year when he played his annual recital in NY.
Often utilizes a compressed dynamic range, technically competent but
never dazzling, but always completely musical, engaging, and
interesting. I heard him play the Liszt Sonata in a way that made me
rethink the entire piece, and this was a piece I thought I was so
burnt-out on that I contemplating leaving at intermission to save
myself the burden. I find this characteristic to be the most rare
among modern pianists. Many present idiosyncratic interpretations as
a means to provoke or to distinguish themselves in a superficial
sense, but few really seem to be able to communicate a true probing
sense into the music, while at the same time avoiding the temptation
to lecture. Barenboim has the rare ability (at the piano) to convey
musical thought that never strays from the musical. I'm sure few of
you will agree with me, but that's why we're all free to post our own
picks.
Kissin: Moments of absolute greatness, still evolving.
Kempf: Great start, ditto.
Hamelin: Hard to categorize because he avoids much of the standard
rep, but great at what he has chosen to do.
Perhaps great, but not to my taste: Pollini, Perhia, Pogorelich,
Mustonen.
David A. Fox
ESH Tooter
recently. Anyone know why? His Beethoven sonatas (there are 5 or 6 CDs worth)
are among my favorites.
Tooter
Brian Cantin
I heard a recent public performance of Rosen's on the radio. From the
evidence of that one performance, his technique has deteriorated
markedly. Unfortunate in that he has always had excellent musical
ideas.
A. Brain
news:8gou1i$o56$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> For me Hough is a great pianist. He plays the old razzle-dazzle
> (Schubert's 960, Brahms' s concerti etc.) and new music ( I think his New
> York Variations CD for Hyperion is wonderful) with real authority.
>
Brahms concertos and and late Schubert sonatas are "razzle dazzle"? I guess
this must be a joke. On the other hand, there are a fair number of artists
with relatively limited repertoire. Aren't there some pianists who are
"oriented" toward what I would call real "razzle dazzle", like Liszt,
Rachmaninoff, and other "showy" but arguably "empty" works?
As I recall, Arrau refused to play Rach at least at some point in his life,
or do I have him confused with someone else?
As for the "has beens" mentioned by another poster, it seems that Cliburn's
and to some degree, Fleisher's attempts at comebacks have been not entirely
successful. But Fleisher, surprisingly, is scheduled to play Brahms 1 at
Ravinia this
summer and Brahms 2 next year in Austin.
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
>
> R.Sauer
>
>
>
Simon Roberts
: In article <8gp25u$2a$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, si...@dept.english.upenn.edu
: >
: >Bevan Davies (bevan...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >: Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
: >
: >: I'm not sure what "really great" means after reading all the posts, but
: >: I would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of
: >: enormous stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
: >
: >I recently learned that he's very tall.
: >
: >Simon
: And I learned in 1985 that she's rather short. So?
"Enormous stature." Never mind....
Simon
vladimir
Nicolas Hodges wrote in message
<1zdkATAR...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk>...
>A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
>handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
>me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
>
>I would certainly offer Kocsis (on the basis of his Bartók, Debussy and
>Mozart on record - I've never heard him live).
>
There are no really great living pianists.
- Phil Caron
Baldric
left was Richter who sadly passed away 2 years ago. Of those left
I would hesitantly include
Brendel
Perahia
Argerich (most definitely)
Kovacevich
Pollini
Wild.
On checking my collection of CDs these were the only pianists I
have in my collection who are still alive and are worthy of
inclusion IMHO.
Baldric
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Edwards
>[snip]
> The key component
> for me is originality, as Nic suggests: playing the music in ways no-one
> else has done and which I would never have thought of left to my own
> imagination (of course, such performances can be awful....)
But doesn't this approach tend to valorize idiosyncracy in itself as a _sine
qua non_ of great performances? In other words (and please correct if I
misunderstand), must a performance be noticeably different from earlier
performances of the same work to qualify as "great"? I personally have no
use for Ugorski's _Diabelli_ variations, and find the much more "standard"
approach of Brendel's Vox recording vastly more satisfying. Now, there is
no question that Ugorski "play[s] the music in ways no-one else has done,"
while the same cannot (probably) be said of Brendel--but ought that to be
the determining factor in one's judgment of the relative merits of their
performances?
(Incidentally, my nominations:
Indisputably great--Argerich and Kovacevich.
Great IMO, but controversial--Pogorelich; Schiff; Pollini.
Brendel would be on my list, but he is clearly past his prime, as the recent
Beethoven recordings attest.)
---
John Edwards
jedw...@iag.net
>Needless to
> say, all of this is subjective (the definition is too, probably, but
> especially applying it).
>
> Simon
C. N. Chew
>
> Hmmmm, not a mention of Brendel.
There are many present-day pianists whom I admire, but Brendel is the
one I would go most out of my way to hear. I value the precision with
which he can characterize a passage of music, and his ability to make
one moment grow into the next; I am constantly amazed by how he can
present a piece of music pretty much a you thought you knew it, but with
a myriad of subtle details suddenly snapping into focus in a way that
makes you conscious not of his, Brendel's, but of the work's
originality.
However, I fear these qualities may have led to his disqualification on
the grounds of ltmsfi ...
Naun.
Raymond Hall
Agree. The *deader* they become, the better they become. As for
conductors ;-)
Regards, # RMCR Contributor's WebSites Compilation
# Favourite Conductors, and Doris Day Pages
# Helene Grimaud and wolf information.
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
# http://sites.netscape.net/rayengineeraus/
Ray, Sydney
Rajeev Aloysius
Nicolas Hodges <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A friend recently asked me which pianists I most admire, and only a
> handful of the names which came up were of living pianists.
>
> What really great living pianists are there? Argerich certainly, and
for
> me Pollini (let's not discuss them) - but beyond that?
I heard Yevgeny Kissin live at the Musikverein, and Pollini at the
Philharmonie with Abbado.
Kissin is taking a programme of Brahms: Piano Sonata no 3, Beethoven:
Tempest Sonata and Schumann: Carnaval, all over the world. He is in
London this week, and has already been seen in Vienna and Berlin at
least (Surprisingly the Concergebouw had no plans with him..).
From the programme given, and seven encores, in repertoire, technique,
musicianship and sheer glorious keyboard sound, Kissin is a great
pianist. The Viennese should know - they do get a bit of music. They
gave him a sustained standing ovation for I don't know how long, and he
had to give 7 encores (Liszt, Brahms, Godowsky, Chopin and others)
before they would let him leave...
--
Rajeev Aloysius
raj...@starmail.com
*Please reply to my Email address*
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeremy Dimmick
> conductors ;-)
>
Rajeev Aloysius
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
but I
> : would have to include Brendel in any list of living pianists of
enormous
> : stature, as well as Pollini and Argerich.
>
> I recently learned that he's very tall.
>
> Simon
him backstage in 1996 - very intimidating that height. The flying grey
hair is also something to savour at his concerts. "Brendel in full
flight" comes to mind...
JRsnfld
Helps pretty much has the field to himself.<
Don't say that to Barry David Sallwen, who recorded the same on Koch.
I don't know anything else by
Helps, but this one disc is proof that he's a great musician.<
Helps has also composed a fair amount of music that's been recorded--you should
check it out too.
--Jeff
Bevan Davies
or achievement : high caliber .... SYN quality
Webster's Third International Dictionary, unabridged ed., 1976.
Bevan Davies
"Simon Roberts" <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:8gp25u$2a$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
M-T
Ivan Moravec
Igor Zhukov
Maurizio Pollini
Zoltan Kocsis
Slightly lower:
Martha Argerich
Krystian Zimerman
Richard Goode
Stephen Kovacevich
Peter Serkin
Radu Lupu
It's important to notice the large number of deaths of great pianists in
the past decade: Horowitz, Serkin, Arrau, Fiorentino, Michelangeli,
Kempff, Richter, Horszowski, Annie Fischer, Cziffra and quite a few more
indisputably great performers. This has considerably thinned the ranks
of "the greats" -- for example, it is hard to foresee a replacement for
a Horowitz or a Richter...
There seems to be a dearth of great Beethoven and Chopin players; also,
few great Schumannists have emerged.
I would say that we are not in the greatest pianist age. Still, there
are interesting younger artists in development: Hough, Frith, Hamelin,
Kissin, Grimaud, etc. Maybe in 20 years these will be indisputably
great.
Regards,
mt
Simon Roberts
: But doesn't this approach tend to valorize idiosyncracy in itself as a _sine
: qua non_ of great performances?
I wonder if the criteria for great performer are necessarily the same as
for great performance. Great performers don't necessarily give great
performances (not all the time, that is, an not in all repertoire), while
I don't think I would call "great" a performer who turned out a great
performance by doing what others have already done, more-or-less.
In other words (and please correct if I
: misunderstand), must a performance be noticeably different from earlier
: performances of the same work to qualify as "great"?
No, I don't think so.
I personally have no
: use for Ugorski's _Diabelli_ variations, and find the much more "standard"
: approach of Brendel's Vox recording vastly more satisfying. Now, there is
: no question that Ugorski "play[s] the music in ways no-one else has done,"
: while the same cannot (probably) be said of Brendel--but ought that to be
: the determining factor in one's judgment of the relative merits of their
: performances?
No. But ignoring the distinction I made above between great performances
and great performers, I would note that (1) I wasn't trying to give a
definition that everyone (or even anyone else) would agree with; (2) a
performer isn't great merely because he's different -- the differences
have to be persuasive, which is of course a subjective matter; and (3) the
differences needn't be as obvious as those dished up by Afanassiev and
Ugorski.
I would also say, and should have said so up front, that I'm not that
interested in this question. I'm more interested in particular
performances of particular works; I care more whether A's performance of x
is imaginative etc. rather than whether A overall is interesting etc. A
musician who turns out only a couple of wonderful performances, or who is
wonderful in only a certain narrow repertoire, interests me at least as
much as one who is good across a wider range and, thus, probably more
likely to be considered "great."
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
iterated as follows...
>
>also, few great Schumannists have emerged.
Keep an eye (and ear) on Freddy Kempf.
Jan Winter
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What really great living pianists are there?
I won't refute any of the nominations made so far. Some of them I
agree with, some of them I didn't hear enough from to agree or
disagree at this moment, and some of them I have not heard at all,
yet.
I'd like to add three:
-Elisso Wirssaladze, as evidenced by a lot of recordings;
-Viktoria Postnikova, not so much on the ground of recorded evidence
as well based upon a terrific all-Russian sonatas recital I had the
pleasure to attend; and
-Nikolai Fefilov, based upon the admittedly scant evidence of 1 -one-
cd.
--
Regards, Jan Winter, Amsterdam
(j.wi...@xs4all.nl)
Bob Lombard
>I would also say, and should have said so up front, that I'm not that
>interested in this question. I'm more interested in particular
>performances of particular works; I care more whether A's performance of x
>is imaginative etc. rather than whether A overall is interesting etc. A
>musician who turns out only a couple of wonderful performances, or who is
>wonderful in only a certain narrow repertoire, interests me at least as
>much as one who is good across a wider range and, thus, probably more
>likely to be considered "great."
>
>Simon
>
Aha. This may explain how you can extol Koroliov. You persuaded me to hear
him play, and I ordered his recording of the WTC Book 1 from MDT. It's
taking a while to arrive, and in the meantime I ordered and received Tacet
46 from Tower, containing Schubert's D 960 (and the Moments Musicaux D 780).
Koroliov must have employed some sort of 'emotion filter' here. The D 960 is
good listening, but that's more because it's great music than from
Koroliov's playing.
I haven't given up hope for the WTC, because it benefits from an
other-than-Romantic approach.
bl
John Gavin
I agree with Dan Koren that a great pianist possesses versatility, and
these two have it in abundance. They also do something that used to be
a requisite for a great pianist - they compose and arrange.
ESH Tooter
evidence of that one performance, his technique has deteriorated
markedly. Unfortunate in that he has always had excellent musical
ideas. >>
That's too bad. What was he playing?
Tooter
Alan Cooper
> I would also say, and should have said so up front, that I'm not that
> interested in this question. I'm more interested in particular
> performances of particular works; I care more whether A's performance of x
> is imaginative etc. rather than whether A overall is interesting etc. A
> musician who turns out only a couple of wonderful performances, or who is
> wonderful in only a certain narrow repertoire, interests me at least as
> much as one who is good across a wider range and, thus, probably more
> likely to be considered "great."
This makes a lot of sense to me. As a collector, however, I tend to define
"really great" artists (admittedly idiosyncratically) as those whose
recordings of *anything* I would buy confidently without trying to audition
them first. (This obviously wouldn't work for Simon, who appears to buy the
Compleat Everything as a matter of course.) Living pianists in that
category for me are Bashkirov, Koroliov, and Sokolov. Fortunately, they
haven't recorded that much ;-)
AC
Matthew B. Tepper
Typophone and elsewhere) were the first to deify him; they were also the
first to turn on him in his last years.
In article <lqb2jscrkphi4j18l...@4ax.com>, e...@no-spam.net is
reputed to have iterated as follows...
>
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 10:33:07 +1000, Raymond Hall
><hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Agree. The *deader* they become, the better they become. As for
>>conductors ;-)
>>
>I guess von Karajan has not been dead long enough then, given the
>large numer of Karajan-bashers, and that I must be aging rapidly as I
>can't remember whether I've posted the same text already a while ago.
>;-)
>
>Eltjo Meijer
>(emeijer#stad.dsl.nl, replace #)
Clifford Ando
> Aha. This may explain how you can extol Koroliov. You persuaded me to
> hear him play, and I ordered his recording of the WTC Book 1 from MDT.
> It's taking a while to arrive, and in the meantime I ordered and
> received Tacet 46 from Tower, containing Schubert's D 960 (and the
> Moments Musicaux D 780). Koroliov must have employed some sort of
> 'emotion filter' here. The D 960 is good listening, but that's more
> because it's great music than from Koroliov's playing.
I agree about Koroliov: I have his Schubert 960 and the WTC 1, and I have
ordered his Art of the Fugue, but I don't expect much. As an interpreter
he seems little interested in aggression or joy, but rather in a sort of
homogeneous seriousness (or serious homogeneity?). What it produces in
960 is a lack of emotion, of tension and release, which are necessary to
make sense of the rather large structures of 960/i, whether one aims at
bleakness like Afanassiev or a more variegated palette, like Rubinstein or
others.
ESH Tooter
misunderstand), must a performance be noticeably different from earlier
performances of the same work to qualify as "great"? >>
You prefer to have lots of performances and recordings that are NOT noticeably
different from each other? I guess you don't hold with Gould's remark that the
only reason to record a work twice was to record it differently.
BTW, if Gould were alive, would he qualify? Just thought I'd toss fuel on the
fire.
Tooter
Nicolas Hodges
<esht...@aol.com> writes
Oh undoubtedly. In some ways (not all) the archetypal great pianist.
--
Nic
ESH Tooter
"ov"?
Nicolas Hodges
<esht...@aol.com> writes
>Is it a requirement that great painist's names end in
>"ov"?
What, like Argerichov and Polliniov and Pogorelichov and Ugorskiov and
Houghov (to mention some names which have been proposed)?
--
Nic
Andrys D Basten
In response to another note's question, yes, Nicolas is a
pianist. London residents, please note the following from
The Times, London (Sunday edition)
From 'The Critical List' column for the week's events
- Kissin's solo recital Wednesday is also listed,
though it comes after Nic's Thursday listing.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/05/28/sticulcla02003.html
=======
Nicolas Hodges
The pianist's programme includes music by Justin Connolly,
Busoni, Ives and Book 5 of Michael Finnissy's immense History of
Photography in Sound. Free talk with Connolly and Finnissy at
6.15pm.
Purcell Room, SE1, Thu
=======
In article <GeN2aSA2...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk>,
Nicolas Hodges <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Maybe I should rephrase my question into the catchy: "What pianists are
>there alive and working who are truly individual, intelligent and
>imaginative, are adding something to what has gone before (through force
>of character, intelligence or imagination); or to put it another way,
>are not either simply still doing what they were told by their teachers,
>or what they are told by tradition, or just what comes 'because'?"
Catchy if you have a huge mitt, yah ;-) With this new
description, I'd say Freddy Kempf is well on his way, especially
with the new Rachmaninov CD (beautiful playing that differs from
his concert versions for reasons he gives in an Amazon-UK
interview -- see below) and the very large repertoire he's worked
up in a short time for the various recital venues. Even if I
might take issue with this or that (in Chopin, let's say) it may
only go to the point that he is not sticking with tradition
expectations ;)
>(By the way, I was not asked this question as a pianist, and I am not
>proposing it as a pianist. Though being one perhaps colours my view...)
I imagine so, though your tastes are nicely far-ranging as
someone else mentioned.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - 40% off at vstore thru' 5/31
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
John H
>Is it a requirement that great painist's names end in
>"ov"?
Only if you're Dan Koren
John Harkness
Simon Roberts
: What, like Argerichov and Polliniov and Pogorelichov and Ugorskiov and
: Houghov (to mention some names which have been proposed)?
I like "Houghov"; it's close to what I feel like saying when his playing
gets recommended.
Simon
Andrys D Basten
Andrys D Basten <and...@netcom.com> wrote:
>with the new Rachmaninov CD (beautiful playing that differs from
>his concert versions for reasons he gives in an Amazon-UK
>interview -- see below)
I forgot that part. (Etudes-tableaux Op. 39)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/42985//026-9321009-0809062
===
Amazon.co.uk: You've characterized each of the "Etudes" very
differently. Was this important to you?
Kempf: I played them quite differently in concert before the
recording, but I wanted to put down a version that would stand
repeated listening. And they are etudes, after all--each one exploits
a different aspect of piano technique. The first is all arpeggios,
for example. The third is the one I find most difficult, with its
double notes
===
I thought it was interesting that he'd consciously play them
differently in the studio with the idea of repeated listening in mind
(rather than note-perfect renditions). It's a somewhat more internal
reading than in concert versions I've heard.
John Edwards
"ESH Tooter" <esht...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000528183139...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> << In other words (and please correct if I
> misunderstand), must a performance be noticeably different from earlier
> performances of the same work to qualify as "great"? >>
>
> You prefer to have lots of performances and recordings that are NOT
noticeably
> different from each other? I guess you don't hold with Gould's remark
that the
> only reason to record a work twice was to record it differently.
Pianist A records a certain work on June 14. It is a great performance.
Pianist B records the same work on June 15. His interpretation is similar
(not derivative or imitative; just similar because he has found similar
things in the music). Is the second performance automatically _not_ a great
performance?
This was my question, which, as far as I can see, has little to do with
whether I would want to own lots of such performances. I was trying to
express my discomfort at tying the concept of "greatness" too necessarily to
idiosyncracy or eccentricity or "difference" for its own sake.
>
> BTW, if Gould were alive, would he qualify? Just thought I'd toss fuel on
the
> fire.
>
I would not hesitate to add him to the list, were he still among the living.
---
John Edwards
jedw...@iag.net
vladimir
- Phil Caron
Bob Lombard
vladimir wrote in message ...
>No.
>
>- Phil Caron
>
I suppose that's true, if you also specify that there were only 4 great
pianists in the 20th century, and (with no direct knowledge) only 5 or 6 in
the 19th century. I think you are sifting too fine, Phil.
bl
Mark Jordan
David A. Fox <chabelo@NO_SPAMgte.net> wrote in message
> Barenboim: the best late-Beethoven I've ever heard performed live. I
> used to hear him every year when he played his annual recital in NY.
> Often utilizes a compressed dynamic range, technically competent but
> never dazzling, but always completely musical, engaging, and
> interesting. I heard him play the Liszt Sonata in a way that made me
> rethink the entire piece, and this was a piece I thought I was so
> burnt-out on that I contemplating leaving at intermission to save
> myself the burden. I find this characteristic to be the most rare
> among modern pianists. Many present idiosyncratic interpretations as
> a means to provoke or to distinguish themselves in a superficial
> sense, but few really seem to be able to communicate a true probing
> sense into the music, while at the same time avoiding the temptation
> to lecture. Barenboim has the rare ability (at the piano) to convey
> musical thought that never strays from the musical. I'm sure few of
> you will agree with me, but that's why we're all free to post our own
> picks.
>
Barenboim is fine at the keyboard. And, boy, do I wish he'd stay there.
Mark
Mark Jordan
vladimir <vlad...@vermontel.com> wrote in message
news:sj3i7b...@corp.supernews.com...
> No.
>
> - Phil Caron
>
>
>
Greatness is a thing only seen through the lens of hindsight.
Mark
Simon Roberts
: Pianist A records a certain work on June 14. It is a great performance.
: Pianist B records the same work on June 15. His interpretation is similar
: (not derivative or imitative; just similar because he has found similar
: things in the music). Is the second performance automatically _not_ a great
: performance?
: This was my question, which, as far as I can see, has little to do with
: whether I would want to own lots of such performances. I was trying to
: express my discomfort at tying the concept of "greatness" too necessarily to
: idiosyncracy or eccentricity or "difference" for its own sake.
Fair enough. In the example you give, both are great performances. But
that doesn't necessarily make them both great pianists (though they may
be). But what are the chances that your example would ever occur?
Simon
Nicolas Hodges
Edwards <jedw...@iag.net> writes
>
>"ESH Tooter" <esht...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000528183139...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>> << In other words (and please correct if I
>> misunderstand), must a performance be noticeably different from earlier
>> performances of the same work to qualify as "great"? >>
>>
>> You prefer to have lots of performances and recordings that are NOT
>noticeably
>> different from each other? I guess you don't hold with Gould's remark
>that the
>> only reason to record a work twice was to record it differently.
>
>Pianist B records the same work on June 15. His interpretation is similar
>(not derivative or imitative; just similar because he has found similar
>things in the music). Is the second performance automatically _not_ a great
>performance?
First find two performances that are identical, then your question can
be answered. No two performances are ever the same, or ever even
significantly similar. There is no mystique about this, there are just
too many variables.
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
: Aha. This may explain how you can extol Koroliov. You persuaded me to hear
: him play, and I ordered his recording of the WTC Book 1 from MDT. It's
: taking a while to arrive, and in the meantime I ordered and received Tacet
: 46 from Tower, containing Schubert's D 960 (and the Moments Musicaux D 780).
: Koroliov must have employed some sort of 'emotion filter' here. The D 960 is
: good listening, but that's more because it's great music than from
: Koroliov's playing.
: I haven't given up hope for the WTC, because it benefits from an
: other-than-Romantic approach.
Hmmm. I don't agree re the Schubert; sorry you don't find more in it.
I've not heard the WTC or Art of Fugue, but his Goldbergs and new disc
containing the Italian Concerto, both Haenssler, are wonderfully vibrant
if not exactly romantic.
Simon
ESH Tooter
express my discomfort at tying the concept of "greatness" too necessarily to
idiosyncracy or eccentricity or "difference" for its own sake. >>
My view is that great performers, like great composers are very rare. They are
great because they have their own vision which transforms all they play. It is
not a question idiosyncracy, eccentricity, or difference, but of artistic
vision. Great music-making is more than technical mastery and panache.
Tooter
Simon Roberts
: << I was trying to
Right. One of the comments that irritate me re certain performers is that
they seek difference "for its own sake", the implication being that
they're playing that way not because that's how they genuinely feel the
music should (or at least, could, at that point) go but because they're
just trying to be different.
I dare say there are some musicians who do that, and have no other
motivation, but I would note that in certain instances the two are not
separable. The great performances of baroque and earlier music of recent
years succeed in part (but of course not only because) because they
deliberately reject previous style (Samir, avert your eyes); compare,
say, what the better HIP Italian groups are doing with Vivaldi with what
Scimone and I Musici did in the 1960s (and cf Harnoncourt, who claims to
have gotten interested in period performance because he couldn't believe
baroque music was meant to sound so boring).
I also think that the comment (i.e., the different for the sake of it bit)
often reflects mere schoolmarmishness, critical irritation that some
upstart or foreigner has the nerve to play the music in a way other than
that which is "natural," i.e., in ways other than how the critic is used
to hearing it. Instead of questioning his own (lack of) imagination, the
critic instead attacks the interpreter's motives, sincerity etc.,
complains that he "imposes his personality between the composer and the
listener" etc., etc.
Simon
krazy kat
> Right. One of the comments that irritate me re certain performers is that
> they seek difference "for its own sake", the implication being that
> they're playing that way not because that's how they genuinely feel the
> music should (or at least, could, at that point) go but because they're
> just trying to be different.
>
> I dare say there are some musicians who do that, and have no other
> motivation, but I would note that in certain instances the two are not
> separable.
I totally agree. I would even say that *it does not matter*. The
*motivation* of the player is not important. Heck, suppose the *only*
reason he does play a certain note a certain way is because he wants to
impress that buxom brunette in the first row of the audience, or he
plays the last movement very fast because he needs to take a crap -- it
doesn't matter. What matters is not *why* he plays the note he does in
terms of his private, personal motivation. All that matters is whether
the note, played in that way, makes any *musical* sense in that
particular place.
Of course you could argue that if people *say*: "he *only* does it to
sound different", that's just an implicit way of saying: "I can't hear
how this is justified *musically*." But then your second remark still
stands: that this is a rather schoolmarmish way of putting it. Or as you
put it:
> I also think that the comment (i.e., the different for the sake of it bit)
> often reflects mere schoolmarmishness, critical irritation that some
> upstart or foreigner has the nerve to play the music in a way other than
> that which is "natural," i.e., in ways other than how the critic is used
> to hearing it. Instead of questioning his own (lack of) imagination, the
> critic instead attacks the interpreter's motives, sincerity etc.,
> complains that he "imposes his personality between the composer and the
> listener" etc., etc.
>
Hear, hear.
I guess that now I'll have to duck. <ducks>
--
Frank Lekens
operamail.com is where it's really @
vladimir
>
>vladimir wrote in message ...
>>No.
>>
>pianists in the 20th century, and (with no direct knowledge) only 5 or 6 in
>the 19th century. I think you are sifting too fine, Phil.
>
post I would myself skip. I take the word "really" as a superlative to
"great". Probably that represents a tautology, but to use "really" as a
synonym for "honestly" or "truly" is to question one's own words.
I think there are indeed great pianists living today, and all have been
named in this thread. Based on recordings, I can put in a higher category
only three pianists, and they are unfortunately dead.
- Phil Caron
Dimitri Dover
>
> ESH Tooter (esht...@aol.com) wrote:
> : << I was trying to
> : express my discomfort at tying the concept of "greatness" too necessarily to
> : idiosyncracy or eccentricity or "difference" for its own sake. >>
>
> : My view is that great performers, like great composers are very rare. They are
> : great because they have their own vision which transforms all they play. It is
> : not a question idiosyncracy, eccentricity, or difference, but of artistic
> : vision. Great music-making is more than technical mastery and panache.
>
> they seek difference "for its own sake", the implication being that
> they're playing that way not because that's how they genuinely feel the
> music should (or at least, could, at that point) go but because they're
> just trying to be different.
Though some (Gould and Gavrilov are the only ones I can recall
right now) have admitted that themselves.
Dimitri
Simon Roberts
: There's no doubt this does happen, and every major interpreter who has
: an element of idiosyncracy in his or her style will have been accused of
: it at some time. Nevertheless, the question of the performer's sincerity
: *does* come into our reactions to performances of music. In fact it's
: absolutely fundamental. Why else is it that so many people cannot
: stomach the work of so accomplished an artist as, for example, Elisabeth
: Schwarzkopf?
Well, I usually can't stand her, but it has never occurred to me to
question her sincerity.
: Charges of insincerity are more often levelled against idiosyncratic
: performances not only because of the conservatism of critics but also
: because a performer who really is just trying to show off is unlikely to
: do so by giving as unexaggerated a performance as possible.
I don't agree. What better way to receive wide-ranging critical acclaim
and win competitions?
: So yes, critics should try to be broad-minded, but if they (sincerely!)
: suspect a performer's motives, then it's important for them to point
: that out. Sometimes they may even be right.
Indeed.
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
WHO ARE YOUR THREE, please?
ESH Tooter
suspect a performer's motives, then it's important for them to point
that out. Sometimes they may even be right. >>
Except, all great artistic experience begins with trust. In the case of
classical music recordings this is particularly important since we all find
approaches that seem right to us, and every new performance must cope with
those built-in expectations.
There is no way to look into the artist's mind and know if he/she is sincere;
all we can do is sit back, take it in, and wait to be swept away. The issue of
sincerity will take care of itself as we live with recordings and find them
continuing to offer satisfaction or merely yielding up the same old tricks on
relistening.
Tooter
vladimir
samir ghiocel golescu wrote in message ...
>
>
>WHO ARE YOUR THREE, please?
>
- p.
Bob Lombard
message news:sj5v9t...@corp.supernews.com...
Phil, but I'm going to save my choices for our
next klatch. Nothing like a good argument that has
no chance of turning into rage. It's nice not to
have to go out back and touch off the 12 ga. to
let off steam.
bl
C. N. Chew
> I also think that the comment (i.e., the different for the sake of it bit)
> often reflects mere schoolmarmishness, critical irritation that some
> upstart or foreigner has the nerve to play the music in a way other than
> that which is "natural," i.e., in ways other than how the critic is used
> to hearing it. Instead of questioning his own (lack of) imagination, the
> critic instead attacks the interpreter's motives, sincerity etc.,
> complains that he "imposes his personality between the composer and the
> listener" etc., etc.
There's no doubt this does happen, and every major interpreter who has
an element of idiosyncracy in his or her style will have been accused of
it at some time. Nevertheless, the question of the performer's sincerity
*does* come into our reactions to performances of music. In fact it's
absolutely fundamental. Why else is it that so many people cannot
stomach the work of so accomplished an artist as, for example, Elisabeth
Schwarzkopf?
Charges of insincerity are more often levelled against idiosyncratic
performances not only because of the conservatism of critics but also
because a performer who really is just trying to show off is unlikely to
do so by giving as unexaggerated a performance as possible.
So yes, critics should try to be broad-minded, but if they (sincerely!)
suspect a performer's motives, then it's important for them to point
that out. Sometimes they may even be right.
Naun.
Richard Schultz
: In article <20000528183850...@ng-md1.aol.com>, ESH Tooter
: <esht...@aol.com> writes
: >Is it a requirement that great painist's names end in
: >"ov"?
: What, like Argerichov and Polliniov and Pogorelichov and Ugorskiov and
: Houghov (to mention some names which have been proposed)?
Wouldn't that be "Argerichovna"?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
C. N. Chew
> : Charges of insincerity are more often levelled against idiosyncratic
> : performances not only because of the conservatism of critics but also
> : because a performer who really is just trying to show off is unlikely to
> : do so by giving as unexaggerated a performance as possible.
>
> and win competitions?
So who wants to win competitions these days? The thing to do is be
outrageous and come second, or better still, get disqualified.
Naun.
Peter Charlton
esht...@aol.com (ESH Tooter) wrote:
> Is it a requirement that great painist's names end in
> "ov"?
It seems more likely that a painist's name would end in "ow"
P.
Nassib Nassar
<gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>WHO ARE YOUR THREE, please?
Radu Lupu, Eugene Istomin, and Leon Fleischer.
Nassib
Bob Lombard
message
news:slrn8jiqs1...@bach.etymon.com...
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 17:45:25 -0500, samir
ghiocel golescu
> <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >WHO ARE YOUR THREE, please?
>
> Radu Lupu, Eugene Istomin, and Leon Fleischer.
>
> Nassib
>
heard enough Lupu to venture an opinion about him,
but the other two guys are/were excellent within
their specialties. Istomin especially, as a
collaborator, or partner, or whatever term is
proper to describe a role as pianist in a
performance of chamber music (or as the pianist in
the "Triple Concerto") has recordings out there
that are as good as anybody's.
bl
ESH Tooter
>
> Nassib
>
Y'know, those are interesting choices. I haven't
heard enough Lupu to venture an opinion about him,
but the other two guys are/were excellent within
their specialties. >>
I have enjoyed a number of Lupu's Schubert recordings, especially.
Tooter
RPeggio135
Mark Jordan
I don't know that I'd call him flat-out great, but I heard Lupu in a Mozart
concerto in Cleveland this year which had some truly magical moments.
Mark
John Harkness
Lupu gave a performance of the Schubert D.958 in Toronto that even
silenced the coughers. An extraordinary artist.
John Harkness
John Grabowski
John
--
I see so many musicians asking all the time, "Please, how do you play
this?" or "Do you think this is right?" They all do that. They all
live in cliques now, and play for each other. That's something I can't
understand at all. It's dangerous to yield to the taste of a group of
people. -Claudio Arrau
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
John Grabowski
> I suppose one might want to include great technique, but if those other
> qualities are present that matters less, presumably. The key component
> for me is originality, as Nic suggests: playing the music in ways no-one
> else has done and which I would never have thought of left to my own
> imagination (of course, such performances can be awful....) Needless to
> say, all of this is subjective (the definition is too, probably, but
> especially applying it).
>
> Simon
Is Ugorski still alive?
Simon Roberts
: Is Ugorski still alive?
I don't know, but he recorded some Chopin early polonaises last year for
the DG Chopin edition.
Simon
Mark Jordan
Simon Roberts <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:8himag$fb9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
What would you recommend? I've not heard anything (except the controversy).
I find myself agreeing with you frequently, so I think I'd like him.
Mark
Simon Roberts
: What would you recommend? I've not heard anything (except the controversy).
: I find myself agreeing with you frequently, so I think I'd like him.
Unless you're willing to order from abroad, or frequent used CD stores,
recommending anything is probably futile, since the only recordings of his
I know are available are his contributions to the DG Chopin edition, which
are limited to such relatively minor works as early polonaises, where his
talents are of course appreciated but.... I like all the discs of his
(all DG) that I've heard, but would probably single out his Schumann
Davidsbündlertänze and Beethoven Diabelli Variations as places to start.
If you want to try him at his most controversial, he takes longer over the
second movement of Beethoven op. 111 than just about anyone else takes
over the whole sonata....
Simon
GM Recordings
I know that Russell Sherman's Beethoven Sonatas have been discussed on
this newsgroup before. Where do people here feel like Sherman rates
among the great living pianists?
--
With optimism for the future,
Scott Menhinick
Promotion & Marketing Coordinator
Gunther Schuller's GM Recordings
Independent Jazz and Classical Since 1981
www.gmrecordings.com
Ria Provoost
last month in Brussels. He played there the Beethoven 4th pianoconcerto.
John.
krazy kat
ria.pr...@planetinternet.be says...
> Sure Anatol Ugorski is still alive. I attended a fabulous concert of his
> last month in Brussels. He played there the Beethoven 4th pianoconcerto.
>
reviewers were quite surprised by his attitude towards the music. He
played a Brahms concerto. If I remember correctly, he rehearsed the
whole thing with the orchestra once, but warned them that he'd play it
totally differently during the actual performance, that he didn't want
to have the performance sound "rehearsed" but wanted it "spontaneous",
played just as his whimsy took him -- and thus he did. With mixed
results, I gathered from the reviewer, who nonetheless admired his
courage and his approach. (I don't remember if he called it a curate's
egg, but I doubt it because the review was in Dutch.)
vladimir
who is. Over the last several days I've reviewed several pianists and
recordings mentioned in this thread, on the theory that I must be missing
something. Jesus.
Does anyone have dk's e-mail address?
- Phil Caron
Roberto Maria Avanzi Mocenigo
David A. Fox <chabelo@NO_SPAMgte.net> wrote:
> My votes:
>
> Unquestionably Great, alive and active: Argerich, Sokolov,
> Kovacevitch
Agreed on Argerich.
I would add Pollini (and the son might play even better than the
father, but I do not know about profoundity).
> Unquestionably great and alive, but no longer truly active and/or in
> prime condition: Cliburn, Janis, DeLarrocha, Fleisher. Hmmmm, maybe
> Ashkenazy too, if you only consider his output up until the time he
> picked up the baton.
>
> Hamelin: Hard to categorize because he avoids much of the standard
> rep, but great at what he has chosen to do.
He's chosen the repertoire where he can cheat best. Compare to Carlo
Grante in the intersection of their repertoires and Hamelin will
vanish in a puff of smoke.
Roberto
--
/_/ Roberto Maria Avanzi
_/ Institut für Experimentelle Mathematik / Universität Essen
/ Ellernstraße 29 / 45326 Essen / Germany
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roberto Maria Avanzi Mocenigo
(ok, let's not discuss them :=) and Kocsis. I would also add
Brendel (at least some days) and Carlo Grante (which is sadly
still underrepresented on records).
Paul C. Yarish
>> rep, but great at what he has chosen to do.
>
>He's chosen the repertoire where he can cheat best. Compare to Carlo
>Grante in the intersection of their repertoires and Hamelin will
>vanish in a puff of smoke.
>
>Roberto
That's a ridiculous statement. I waited a long time for Hamelin's set of the
Chopin/Godowsky Etudes to be released so I could do an in-depth back to back
comparison with Grante set of each etude with the score in hand. I have held
the Grante set as a very high standard for several years now, and regard him as
a fine pianist, but after comparing etude by etudes each performer, I'm afraid
Grante's set will be collecting dust from now on, unless, of course, I sell it.
There is simply no comparison.
Your contention that once Hamelin and Grante record the same repertoire that
Hamelin will disappear in a puff of smoke gave me a little chuckle, because
once I did my comparison between their Chopin/Godowsky set, I felt the exact
opposite was true. But I never would have foisted such an absurd notion on this
newsgroup as you did.
Paul
John Gavin
Grante - Chopin / Godowsky Studies as long as they were the available
set, but I'm afraid Hamelin's version puts my Grante set into storage.
The implication seems to be that Hamelin somehow cheats in order to
bring these scores to life. Admittedly, these studies can be
harrowingly difficult to bring off - one hand must often juggle 2 lines
- one sustained and one rapid filigree passagework.
Perhaps Grante is more literally correct, but the result (especially in
the left hand studies) is a degree of clumsiness that must be
transcended.
IMO Hamelin is generally superior because of a greater musical
imagination. He characterizes each study more distinctly, and his
seeming effortlessness allows for a sort of creative freedom that allows
him to find far more humor and playfulness than Grante.
Hamelin's performances never fail to take flight, whereas much of
Grante's remain earthbound.
Regarding Grante's current Godowsky series on Music and Arts - the sound
is too dead and dry. This music depends on tonal gradations and
colorings. Hyperion does a far better job for Hamelin, and Pro Piano
also did an excellent job for Esther Budjiardo's Java Suite (Godowsky).
Paul C. Yarish
>bring these scores to life.
That may have been the implication, but I thought the implication was that
Hamelin chooses to record a steady diet of non-standard literature because he
is a fraud who dare not compete in standard literature.
Either way, a needlessly meanspirited and unflattering comment for a pianist of
his abilities. I never cease to marvel at how many people seem to delight in
trashing this man. He may not be to everyone's taste, but some of the things I
read reflect outright hosility. I see Carlo Grante, Stephen Hough, and
Marc-Andre Hamelin as largely being champions of the same cause, and of those
three, I consistenly find Hamelin the most satisfying in every way. I also find
more Hamelin bashing in this n.g. than of just about any other living pianist.
Could it boil down to something as simple as envy?
Paul
JP Piano
> rep, but great at what he has chosen to do.
He's chosen the repertoire where he can cheat best. Compare to Carlo
Grante in the intersection of their repertoires and Hamelin will
vanish in a puff of smoke. >>
Exactly what repetoire are you referring to with that idiotic comment?
Joe P.
Joe P.
John H
wrote:
Plus, if you see him play a concerto live, you are likely to hear him
play Brahms or Mozart -- and I've not noticed any deficiencies in his
playing of these composers.
John Harkness
Brian Cantin
> Plus, if you see him play a concerto live, you are likely to hear him
> play Brahms or Mozart -- and I've not noticed any deficiencies in his
> playing of these composers.
>
> John Harkness
Perhaps Hamelin feels that the catalog is already suffering a sufeit
of Brahms and Mozart recordings. Without taking sides one way of
another over Hamelin's capabilities as a pianist, if he wants to play
something different, more power to him.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Simon Roberts
: Perhaps Hamelin feels that the catalog is already suffering a sufeit
: of Brahms and Mozart recordings. Without taking sides one way of
: another over Hamelin's capabilities as a pianist, if he wants to play
: something different, more power to him.
I have been led to understand that he would like to record more mainstream
music, including Schubert sonatas; the decision isn't entirely his, it
seems.
Simon