Top Ten 20th Century Pianists
Kevin Hamner
I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?) "Top Ten"
list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
I will only submit 8 names this time: Please feel free to add/delete/change:
In no particular order:
1. Sergei Rachmaninov
2. Artur Rubinstein
3. Vladimir Horowitz
4. Josef Hoffman
5. Emil Gilels
6. S. Richter
7. Earl Wild
8. Josef Lehvinne
9. ???
10. ???
Mario Taboada
>In no particular order:
Good as he is, I don't think Wild belongs in this list. But
Schnabel, Cortot, Ignaz Friedman,Horszowski, Dinu Lipatti, Arturo Michelangeli,
and Walter Gieseking absolutely do. There should be room also for
Edwin Fischer, Yves Nat, Rudolf Serkin, and Wilhelm Backhaus. Also,
Glenn Gould has been enormously influential, so I don't see how one
can avoid including him in a list of greats. And Harold Bauer and Clifford
Curzon? They were VERY fine pianists.
Two comments: The first is that such a list is a futile exercise (but we
are suckers for this sort of thing). The second is that there are many
criteria that one could apply. Some of those are:
1. Technical proficiency
2. All-around musicianship
3. Width of repertoire
4. Ability as a chamber player
5. Rank as a Beethoven player
6. Rank as a Chopin player
7. Rank as a Mozart player
8. Rank as a player of concertos
9. Rank as a player of salon pieces
I don't find the inclusion of Volodya Horowitz troublesome, although many
have felt that he wasn't strong in (2), (3), (4), (5). For me, his playing
of Schumann and Scarlatti is enough to rank him very high. And of course,
he was king in (9).
I suspect this will be a very long thread....
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Allan Burns
>1. Sergei Rachmaninov
>2. Artur Rubinstein
>3. Vladimir Horowitz
>4. Josef Hoffman
>5. Emil Gilels
>6. S. Richter
>7. Earl Wild
>8. Josef Lhevinne
>9. ???
>10. ???
I'd take Wild off the list & add Lipatti. For the other two spots,
don't forget about Busoni & Godowsky--unless this particular
ranking game is based strictly on recorded evidence.
Two other possible frontrunners: Sofronitsky & Michelangeli.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
joseph louis rizzo
--
=> J.L.Rizzo (jl...@ellis.uchicago.edu)
"men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest"
-Thucydides
James C Liu
>Two comments: The first is that such a list is a futile exercise (but we
>are suckers for this sort of thing). The second is that there are many
>criteria that one could apply. Some of those are:
>1. Technical proficiency
>2. All-around musicianship
>3. Width of repertoire
>4. Ability as a chamber player
>5. Rank as a Beethoven player
>6. Rank as a Chopin player
>7. Rank as a Mozart player
>8. Rank as a player of concertos
>9. Rank as a player of salon pieces
You forgot "10. Approval by UTGE Laboratories." ;-)
>I suspect this will be a very long thread....
One I hope to make no further contributions to ...
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "I went to a general store, but they
jl...@world.std.com wouldn't let me buy anything specific."
Department of Medicine
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- Steve Wright
Richard F. Smith
Dan Koren
>Bartok placed second to Clifford Curzon in a major competition. Leeds?
The Leeds competition was started in 1963: Bartok had been dead for 18
years; Curzon was 56 and hardly needed to compete.
In the 1905 Rubinstein competition in Paris, Bartok placed second to
Wilhelm Backhaus.
dk
H. Jurjus
> Kevin Hamner writes:
>
> >1. Sergei Rachmaninov
> >2. Artur Rubinstein
> >3. Vladimir Horowitz
> >4. Josef Hoffman
> >5. Emil Gilels
> >6. S. Richter
> >7. Earl Wild
> >8. Josef Lhevinne
I don't think Gilels and Rubinstein should be on the list,
but maybe Friedrich Gulda ?
H.Jurjus
Dop
Ever thought of Glenn Gould, Maurizio Pollini, Alfred Cortot, Krysztian Zimerman?
Dop
Yoshiyuki Mukudai
v...@dlep1.itg.ti.com writes:
>> I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?)
>> "Top Ten" list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
I feel that to choose top xxx or the best xxx in this kind of extent is
impossible, unfruitful, and not constructive.
I've heard some Hoffman's CDs and was impressed with none of them. This,
however, cannot be the proof that Hoffman was not a good pianist. This
simply means that his recordings are, at least to me, not good. When we
think Cortot's Chopin is great, the reason is, probably, simply he was
great and he could succeed to prove it in his recordings. But when record-
ings of someone in the past are worthless or meaningless for most of us,
this is never the reason that he or she was a bad musician. The fact is
that they are not good performances -- Neither more nor less. We can
never make it sure whether he/she was a bad musician or not for simply
we have no means for it. Besides, their specialties are often different
from one another. This makes it even more impossible.
Isn't it about time for us to stop making such lists?
Mukudai Yoshiyuki
P.S. We can possibly choose great recordings for individual works.
Alain DAGHER
: I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?) "Top Ten"
: list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
: I will only submit 8 names this time: Please feel free to add/delete/change:
[list of names deleted]
You left off Northern Dancer, perhaps the greatest of all time, and
certainly the best of the century.
--
Best wishes,
Alain Dagher
E-Mail: al...@pet.mni.mcgill.ca
Daniel Barolsky
Claudio Arrau over Rubinstein and Gilels!?!?!?!?!? Are sensitivity, touch,
musicality, and passion not on your list of positive qualifications? The
only two things i'll praise Arrau for are his scholarly approach (not that
i really care much for it) and his ability to completely ruin Brahms
Concerto No.1
Despite scepticism over this type of listing of the ten greatest (or
favorite) pianists, I actually find it very interesting which people are
left off the list (i.e. Horszowski) and which people are credited despite
limited styles of playing (i.e. gould). I'm also glad that the number has
been extended to 10 since last semester's discussion over the top 6
pianists. To contribute my one post to this subject, here is my own list
of the top ten in no particular order . For this list i have basically
taken into consideration all of those characteristics that i earlier
acknowledged Arrau lacked. :-) oh, technical ability somewhat important
as well but i figure at this level it doesn't really matter as much.
1) Artur Rubinstein
2) Josef Lhevinne
3) Sergei Rachmaninov
4) Josef Hoffmann
5) Emil Gilels
6) Mieczyslaw Horszowski
7) Dinu Lipatti
8) Vladimir Horowitz
9) S. Richter
10) Schnabel/Novaes???
dgb
Daniel G Barolsky
Swarthmore College
dbar...@cc.swarthmore.edu
Roger Langen
>Kevin Hamner writes:
>>1. Sergei Rachmaninov
>>2. Artur Rubinstein
>>3. Vladimir Horowitz
>>4. Josef Hoffman
>>5. Emil Gilels
>>6. S. Richter
>>7. Earl Wild
>>8. Josef Lhevinne
>>9. ???
>>10. ???
>I'd take Wild off the list & add Lipatti. For the other two spots,
>don't forget about Busoni & Godowsky--unless this particular
>ranking game is based strictly on recorded evidence.
>Two other possible frontrunners: Sofronitsky & Michelangeli.
What about Gould?
David Mark Das
David
Kurt Olsen
: I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?) "Top Ten"
: In no particular order:
:] I am not by any means an expert on pianists, but I find it odd that Van
:] Cliburn wasn't mentioned at all. What about Leonard Bernstein? I realise
:] that he didn't really record much (any?) as a pianist, but I've seen broad-
:] casts where he plays brilliantly. Also, I don't know how his solo playing
:] was, but Gerald Moore was one of the best accompanists I've heard..
F.H. Chong
> >I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?) "Top Ten"
> >list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
> >4. Josef Hoffman
> >5. Emil Gilels
> >6. S. Richter
> >7. Earl Wild
> >8. Josef Lehvinne
> >9. ???
> >10. ???
7. Claudio Arrau
9. A-B Micheangeli
10. Martha Argerich / Evgeny Kissin
The rest are fine .Keep them in the list . How about that !!!
F.H.Chong
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
around 1900 (1901?). Maybe I'm wrong - it's been a while since I read that.
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
pianists. Most (if not all) of who was mentioned in most people's lists
are dead. I have a few guesses as to who the contenders are, but I'll not
bias anyone by saying whom. :-)
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
NE...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Friedman, who was certainly a close competitor to Rachmaninoff and Josef
Hofmann when all three of these were at their best. Now, are we talking about
greatness as pianistic interpreters, or about technical wizardry ? Certainly,
for pure technical ability, Gyorgyi Cziffra could outplay any pianist
mentioned so far, but he might not be remembered as a great interpreter. I
cannot see Earl Wild, who is certainly a terrific pianist, being listed among
the all-time greats, for much the same reason. The young Van Cliburn could
play the Romantic repertory with tremendous technique and emotional flair, but
lacked something that the really "great" pianists had -depth of understanding.
Someone like Moriz Rosenthal, with his academic background in Philosophy and
overall comprehensive cultural background, could give something in musical
expression, and just incidentally was able to outplay his teacher Liszt in
certain aspects of technique. There are others active between 1900-1940 who
deserve mention. Neil McKelvie NE...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Jonathan Buckheit
cho...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (F.H. Chong) wrote:
How about Alicia de Larrocha, easily near the top of the list.
I couldn't see putting Kissin in, but agree that Arrau should be
on there, as well as Serkin.
Glenn Spiegel
How about Schnabel?
Erica N. Schulman
OK, I'll leap right in here.
Ivo Pogorelich
Shura Cherkassky
Marc-Andre Hamelin
Radu Lupu
Martha Argerich
in no particular order. Comments?
Allan Burns
(Roger Langen) says:
>
>What about Gould?
Hey, this is top ten, not top three hundred. ;-)
A bit more seriously: it's my feeling Gould had the fingers of
a great pianist, but not the heart. With Schnabel, it was
perhaps the reverse. For any list I'd propose of the very
very very best I'd want each pianist to have--like Rubinstein
& Gilels had--both.
P. S. I'm answering a question posed to me. I'm certainly not
attempting to kick off Gould War LXIV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
George Brown
K. Ohsumi) writes:
Alicia de Laroccha
Emmanuel Ax
Sviatoslav Richter (retired, and, I understand, senile unfortunately)
Fleisher
Symphony
> > Kevin Hamner <v...@dlep1.itg.ti.com> writes:
> > >I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?)
JB> "Top Ten"
> > >list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
> > >3. Vladimir Horowitz
> > >4. Josef Hoffman
> > >5. Emil Gilels
> > >6. S. Richter
> > >7. Earl Wild
> > >8. Josef Lehvinne
> > >9. ???
> > >10. ???
Rubinstein, Solti, Serkin, Barenboim, Kissin,
Pierre-Laurent Aimard...
Leo
... Documentation - The worst part of programming.
---
ş Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ş
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: symp...@isoqbbs.com (Symphony)
This message was processed by PCBuucp by Merlin Systems Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Asta
objective post.
Top Ten (please pardone the spelling): Vladimir Horowitz
Artur Rubinstein
Jorge Bolet
Michelangeli
Ashkenazy
Gilels
Emmanuel Ax
Barry Douglas
Claudio Arrau
Maurizio Pollini
Oscar Levant (this man had a lot
of style... a much deserved 11th)
P.S. Notice I didn't put Cliburn or Baremborim on my list........ The all
time worst has to be Ruth Laredo.
--
-----Antonio 'Loverboy' Asta
Allan Burns
>Top Ten (please pardone the spelling):
Ouch!
>Vladimir Horowitz
>Artur Rubinstein
>Jorge Bolet
>Michelangeli
>Ashkenazy
>Gilels
>Emmanuel Ax
>Barry Douglas
>Claudio Arrau
>Maurizio Pollini
One small problem here: exactly half these fellows (Horowitz,
Rubinstein, Bolet, Gilels, Arrau) are dead. Hadn't you heard?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
Allan Burns
<EN...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>OK, I'll leap right in here.
>
> Ivo Pogorelich
> Shura Cherkassky
> Marc-Andre Hamelin
> Radu Lupu
> Martha Argerich
>
>in no particular order. Comments?
1) I assume you're taking 'living' to mean currently at the
height of their powers rather than something like 'career
value' (& thus no Richter or Michelangeli)
2) If so, nice list
3) Maurizio Pollini?
4) What Cherkassky recordings do you recommend?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
Mario Taboada
<<My greatest complaint about the classical music scene is that it has become
museum-like, glorifying a few greats of yester-year while ignoring those who
are currently trying to gain exposure to an increasingly aloof public. If
it looks as though I'm simply championing my own cause, perhaps I am, but I
know I speak for many others who are fighting this canonical approach to
classical music and trying to breathe some life into it. We are certainly
entitled to express our opinions here, but to pass that off as fact
jeopardizes the ability of people to make up their own minds. Why not leave
the "great pianists" for the historians to quibble over, and present our own
unfettered opinions instead?>>
Hear, hear. This glorification of the past is a bad symptom -
nostalgia at its worst. For the artist performing or composing today,
it must be quite depressing to hear reviews saying things like "He
plays Beethoven with finesse but does not erase memories of Schnabel".
Not to mention the terrible reviews that contemporary composers get
regularly, more often than not without any analysis or even a careful
description of the work.
A pianist does not have to be "as good" as Schnabel to play Beethoven
well or "as good" as Cortot or Rubinstein to play Chopin. Incidentally,
I got flamed by private mail for praising Ursula Oppens' recent recording
of Beethoven sonatas. I will not mention the person's name, but the gist
of the message was that "I was insulting good piano playing by mentioning
this pianist's name in the company of Gilels". Needless to say, I had
just given my opinion as listener, with no investment in who is better.
Cults are a lot worse than bad pianists....
regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Allan Burns
(Yoshiyuki Mukudai) says:
>
>I feel that to choose top xxx or the best xxx in this kind of extent is
>impossible, unfruitful, and not constructive.
Certainly it's not impossible--we have plenty of examples to
prove the contrary. ;-) And I don't think it's entirely
"not constructive" either. If the lists get someone
interested in hearing recordings by Lhevinne or Lipatti
or whomever, then they serve a purpose, it seems to me.
>I've heard some Hoffman's CDs and was impressed with none of them.
Everyone on this thread keeps writing "Hoffman." Isn't it
"Hofmann"?
>This, however, cannot be the proof that Hoffman was not a good pianist.
Hey, Rachmaninov said Hofmann was the greatest pianist of the
day. That's good enough for me.
>But when record-
>ings of someone in the past are worthless or meaningless for most of us,
>this is never the reason that he or she was a bad musician. The fact is
>that they are not good performances -- Neither more nor less. We can
>never make it sure whether he/she was a bad musician or not for simply
>we have no means for it.
I think we can be pretty sure in many instances where
professional testimony is in accord. That's why I mentioned
Busoni & Godowsky--two not likely to be picked just on the
basis of recordings.
>Besides, their specialties are often different
>from one another. This makes it even more impossible.
It makes it difficult, but estimates of overall achievement
are still possible, even if always crude. Um, degrees of
impossibility?
>Isn't it about time for us to stop making such lists?
They can be tedious, sure--and even oppressive if too
frequently compiled. But that instinct to compare & judge
should be indulged now & then. Baseball fans
inevitably discuss who the best shortstops were; poetry
readers often find themselves disputing who are the
greatest talents of an era; so why a moratorium on disussions
of the greatest pianists? No reason to take these thing too
seriously: it's just an exchange of opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
F.H. Chong
> Sviatoslav Richter (retired, and, I understand, senile unfortunately)
> Fleisher
>
My list :
5 Living greats : Pollini, Kissin , Richter , Argerich , Micheangeli ?
2nd five : Zimerman , Brendel , Moravec ? , Cherkassky , Pletnev
3rd five : Baremboim , Ashkenazy , Perahia , Lupu , Gavrilov
Others : Uchida , Kovacevich , Donohoe , Cliburn ??, de Larrocha , Berman ? , Ax , Schiff
F.H Chong
ljs
L. Schoenberg
--
ljs
John
How about Zimerman?
John
T.K. Conrad
>>Isn't it about time for us to stop making such lists?
>They can be tedious, sure--and even oppressive if too
>frequently compiled. But that instinct to compare & judge
>should be indulged now & then. Baseball fans
>inevitably discuss who the best shortstops were; poetry
>readers often find themselves disputing who are the
>greatest talents of an era; so why a moratorium on disussions
>of the greatest pianists? No reason to take these thing too
>seriously: it's just an exchange of opinion.
I think there is a reason to take this seriously. As a pianist, I find this
need to compare artists against eachother both ridiculous and damaging to the
integrity of the art of making music. I would have no problem with this
thread had the title been "Top ten favorite pianists", but as "Top Ten 20th
Century Pianists", it implies that this list is objective, which it is not.
Opinions should be presented as just that, nothing more. Certainly, the same
names tend to come up again and again on lists such as these, but can this be
attributed to an objective truth, or the presence of a pianist's canon which
those of us who are "in the know" can recite when we want to look cultured?
The real problem with lists such as these is that the general public begins to
believe that these are not just the greatest pianists; as far as they're
concerned, they're the ONLY pianists. Who has time to listen and find out for
yourself if someone has already compiled a list for you? And what's more,
almost everyone on these lists is deceased. The belief that nearly all
the greatest pianists are dead certainly does not help box office receipts for
today's concert pianists. I personally would not put an Ivo Pogorelich
ahead of an Artur Rubenstein on my list, but you can still hear Mr. Pogorelich
live today, while Rubenstein is unfortunately confined to recordings and our
fond memories.
My greatest complaint about the classical music scene is that it has become
museum-like, glorifying a few greats of yester-year while ignoring those who
are currently trying to gain exposure to an increasingly aloof public. If
it looks as though I'm simply championing my own cause, perhaps I am, but I
know I speak for many others who are fighting this canonical approach to
classical music and trying to breathe some life into it. We are certainly
entitled to express our opinions here, but to pass that off as fact
jeopardizes the ability of people to make up their own minds. Why not leave
the "great pianists" for the historians to quibble over, and present our own
unfettered opinions instead?
T.K. Conrad
Houston, TX
MARTIN LACHANCE
>>
>>in no particular order. Comments?
I've heard Cherkassky live last summer, and I was VERY disappointed. There
were too many wrong notes (especially in his Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2).
Very bad.
Martin
e...@chem.psu.edu
>>In article <94320.18...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Erica N. Schulman
>><EN...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>>>
>>> Shura Cherkassky
> I've heard Cherkassky live last summer, and I was VERY disappointed. There
>were too many wrong notes (especially in his Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2).
>Very bad.
Well, he is definitely getting old at this point. The consistency may be
not be as good...
Josh Klein
> 1) I assume you're taking 'living' to mean currently at the
> height of their powers rather than something like 'career
> value' (& thus no Richter or Michelangeli)
What about Yefim Bronfman? I haven't had a chance to hear much from
him yet, but what I have heard has been very impressive.
-Josh
--
Josh Klein
Amherst College
Dan Koren
The very best Emperor I ever heard live was by Cherkassky.
dk
Alain DAGHER
: In article <39vbt6...@news.rz.uni-passau.de>, lan...@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de
: (Roger Langen) says:
: >
: >What about Gould?
: Hey, this is top ten, not top three hundred. ;-)
: A bit more seriously: it's my feeling Gould had the fingers of
: a great pianist, but not the heart.
He had the head of a great artist.
: P. S. I'm answering a question posed to me. I'm certainly not
: attempting to kick off Gould War LXIV.
I certainly don't want to start off another war, but here are a few
thoughts:
A great artist has the ability to look at the same thing as everybody
else, but see something different, and is then able to convey this to
others. This goes for painters, writers, film-makers.
Gould looked at the music scores, and saw in them something different
than everybody before him. And that is how he played. Thus his 1955
Goldbergs were a revelation. (The word was used by Stravinsky to
describe Gould's second record: the last three Beethoven sonatas).
Sometimes he looked at the scores and saw nothing interesting, and so
he didn't play a lot of the so-called standard repertory (Chopin,
Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, etc...).
Perhaps this is why so many people detest his playing: because he had
the presumption of being an artist (in the creative sense), rather
than a mere interpreter.
--
Best wishes,
Alain Dagher
E-Mail: al...@pet.mni.mcgill.ca
e...@chem.psu.edu
I'll agree that he doesn't seem to play that period of music convincingly
(I haven't heard any Mozart, just one Haydn sonata which I didn't like) but
the vast majority of his repertoire is neglected Romantic composers and modern
works. Judging by the Mozart is probably not the best standard in this case.
NE...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
remember the tastes of various fine wines. Solomon's style was indeed cool and
clean. I would not put him in my personal Top Ten list, but I heard him give
some truly magnificent performances. I was a young teenager at the time, so my
memories nearly 50 years later may be exaggerations, but many other people
consider him a great pianist.
It is difficult to compare pianists who were active up to, say, 1930 , and
who left few and/or unsatisfactory recordings, with pianists who are active
today and producing CD's with modern recording techniques. I mentioned Ignaz
Friedman and Moriz Rosenthal. There are people alive today who heard these and
others play. Both were considered close to Rachmaninoff and Hofmann in quality
We can hear Friedman on records. If you have not, the sound is often so-so, but
the quality comes through.
.No one has had anything to say about them. Leopold Godowsky is a similar
case. I think that there should be a Top Ten (or more...) list for currently
active pianists, and another list for the early 20th-century group. Of course
there is Artur Rubinstein, whose long life bridges both groups, and Vladimir
Horowitz.
blah
LACHANCE) wrote:
Idiot ! All you care is wrong notes ? I think I much prefer hearing
Cherkassy's wrong notes than Ashkenazy's boring right notes. What do you
think, dk ?
Bill
Nhat-Viet Phi
: OK, I'll leap right in here.
: Ivo Pogorelich
: Shura Cherkassky
: Marc-Andre Hamelin
: Radu Lupu
: Martha Argerich
: in no particular order. Comments?
Marc-Andre Hamelin's Mozart absolutely sucks tar. Gimme those tomatoes...
On a separate note, I like Dang Thai Son's playing quite a lot; his
Chopin and Debussy have lots of color, delicateness where appropriate and
plenty of power. I'm not sure I could recommend Pogorelich over DTS.
Nhat-Viet Phi
nhat...@nucleus.com
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Ernest Smart
>From: j...@playfair.stanford.edu (Jonathan Buckheit)
>Subject: Re: Top Ten 20th Century Pianists
>Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 00:45:04 -0800
>In article <3a202c$2...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>,
Why does no-one mention Solomon. He had a wider range than any of the pianists
cited, being able to play Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Weber,
Scubert and Schumann as well as many 20th century composers to the highest
level. IMHO noone has even approached his playing of much of Chopin, nor his
Brahms Handel Variations.
Ernie Smart
Ernest Smart
>From: tab...@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada)
>Subject: Re: Top Ten 20th Century Pianists
>Two comments: The first is that such a list is a futile exercise (but we
>are suckers for this sort of thing). The second is that there are many
>criteria that one could apply. Some of those are:
>1. Technical proficiency
>2. All-around musicianship
>3. Width of repertoire
>4. Ability as a chamber player
>5. Rank as a Beethoven player
>6. Rank as a Chopin player
>7. Rank as a Mozart player
>8. Rank as a player of concertos
>9. Rank as a player of salon pieces
>I don't find the inclusion of Volodya Horowitz troublesome, although many
>have felt that he wasn't strong in (2), (3), (4), (5). For me, his playing
>of Schumann and Scarlatti is enough to rank him very high. And of course,
>he was king in (9).
>I suspect this will be a very long thread....
>Regards,
>Mario Taboada
>Los Angeles
Hear! Hear! Far too many so-called 'great pianists' were in fact far too
specialised. Where was Schnabel's Chopin? Or Rubinstein's Schubert? And for
that matter Rachmaninov made appaling messes of Chopin's Bflat minor scherzo
and Aflat ballade. I know I've said this in other words before, but IHMO
Solomon was the greatest generalist of the century, and of living pianists
Pletnev runs him close
Ernie Smart.
Dan Koren
>In article <jon-141194...@tip-mp1-ncs-11.stanford.edu> j...@playfair.stanford.edu (Jonathan Buckheit) writes:
>>From: j...@playfair.stanford.edu (Jonathan Buckheit)
>>Subject: Re: Top Ten 20th Century Pianists
>>Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 00:45:04 -0800
>
>>In article <3a202c$2...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>,
>
>Why does no-one mention Solomon.
Probably because his interpretations show very little discernible personality.
Do you remember the taste of water?
>He had a wider range than any of the pianists cited, being able to play Bach,
>Brahms, Haydn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Weber, Scubert and Schumann as well as
>many 20th century composers to the highest level.
Your statement is patently incorrect. Gilels, Richter and Sofronitzky had much
broader repertoires. Richter for instance played pretty much everything written
for the keyboard from Bach and Haendel to Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, and
Hindemith. I see no evidence that Solomon had comparable breadth.
>IMHO noone has even approached his playing of much of Chopin,
Solomon's Chopin was very clean, but I can think of at least half a dozen
people who played Chopin in much more *interesting* ways. Solomon also did
not play, or at least did not record, much Chopin. Are you expecting us to
annoint him the greatest Chopin performer without a recording of the two
Sonatas or the Preludes or the Mazurkas? And for every piece he recorded,
I can point you to an embarassingly superior performance by someone else.
>nor his Brahms Handel Variations.
Oh, let's be serious here. Have you heard Bolet? His Brahms Haendel Variations
completely blow all the competition out of the water. Solomon doesn't even
come close.
> Ernie Smart
dk
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
> > > Kevin Hamner <v...@dlep1.itg.ti.com> writes:
> > > >I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?)
> JB> "Top Ten"
> > > >list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
> > > >3. Vladimir Horowitz
> > > >4. Josef Hoffman
> > > >5. Emil Gilels
> > > >6. S. Richter
> > > >7. Earl Wild
> > > >8. Josef Lehvinne
> > > >9. ???
> > > >10. ???
Just choosing one of the posts about this at random. I can't resist
offering opinions, I also can't bear to number pianists. In any order:
Benno Moiseiwitsch, Artur Schnabel, Dmitri Shostakovich, Solomon, Alfred
Cortot, Vladimir Horowitz, Myra Hess, Rudolf Serkin, Sviatoslav Richter,
Dinu Lipatti.
I believe that my favourite is usually Moiseiwitsch, though I have heard
so few recordings of him playing repertoire that I really like. Has
anyone come across recordings of the Beethoven sonatas which aren't still
on 78 and haven't been given the digital treatment?
Liz B. B.
Gabriel Benjamin-Fernandez
> > >I would like to propose the following names as part of a concenus(?)
JB> "Top Ten"
> > >list of the best classical pianists of the 20th century.
> > >3. Vladimir Horowitz
> > >4. Josef Hoffman
> > >5. Emil Gilels
> > >6. S. Richter
> > >7. Earl Wild
> > >8. Josef Lehvinne
> > >9. ???
> > >10. ???
>Rubinstein, Solti, Serkin, Barenboim, Kissin,
>Pierre-Laurent Aimard...
I would add sergei Rachmananoff, Leon Fleisher, Ignaz Friedman and for
someone more current, who I haven't seen mentioned, Ivo Pogorelich. and how
about Kieth Jarret (despite his heavy breathing!)
Erica N. Schulman
says:
>In article <94320.18...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Erica N. Schulman
><EN...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>>
>>OK, I'll leap right in here.
>>
>> Ivo Pogorelich
>> Shura Cherkassky
>> Marc-Andre Hamelin
>> Radu Lupu
>> Martha Argerich
>>
>>in no particular order. Comments?
>1) I assume you're taking 'living' to mean currently at the
> height of their powers rather than something like 'career
> value' (& thus no Richter or Michelangeli)
Yes, I think that makes this thread more interesting.
>2) If so, nice list
Thanks! I have gotten a few flames already. ;)
>3) Maurizio Pollini?
Don't know his output well enough. However, I will listen to more (any
suggestions here?).
>4) What Cherkassky recordings do you recommend?
The best one readily available is the London recording of his 80th birthday
celebration at Carnegie Hall.
Ernest Smart
>From: d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren)
>Subject: Re: Top Ten 20th Century Pianists
>In article <Ernest.Smart...@ncl.ac.uk> Ernest Smart <Ernest...@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
Part deleted
>>Why does no-one mention Solomon.
>Probably because his interpretations show very little discernible personality.
>Do you remember the taste of water?
Yes, and when you are thirsty, there is nothing better. I wnt to hear
Beethoven, Chopin etc, or as near as can be achieved, not just pianist x,y,or
z. Subordinating ones personality to the music is a virtue.
>>He had a wider range than any of the pianists cited, being able
to play Bach, >>Brahms, Haydn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Weber, Scubert and
Schumann as well as >>many 20th century composers to the highest level.
>Your statement is patently incorrect. Gilels, Richter and Sofronitzky had much
>broader repertoires. Richter for instance played pretty much everything written
>for the keyboard from Bach and Haendel to Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, and
>Hindemith. I see no evidence that Solomon had comparable breadth.
Sofronitsky I don't know. I am well aware of Gilels' virtues- his performance
of the Liszt Tarantelle I think unmatched. I know that Gilels referred to
Richter as ' the policeman of the piano' and I agree with him. I haven't heard
either of them play Weber, though I suppose they both did the 'Invitation to
the Waltz at some stage. Solomon certainly played some Prokofiev and
Hindemith . I heard him in an army canteen during the war.
>>IMHO noone has even approached his playing of much of Chopin,
>Solomon's Chopin was very clean, but I can think of at least half a dozen
>people who played Chopin in much more *interesting* ways. Solomon also did
>not play, or at least did not record, much Chopin. Are you expecting us to
>annoint him the greatest Chopin performer without a recording of the two
>Sonatas or the Preludes or the Mazurkas? And for every piece he recorded,
>I can point you to an embarassingly superior performance by someone else.
I do not expect anyone to anoint Solomon as anything. As for lack of
recordings they are not so sparse as you seem to think and more are coming
out. I suggest you read the new biography issued by APR this year.
>>nor his Brahms Handel Variations.
>Oh, let's be serious here. Have you heard Bolet? His Brahms Haendel Variations
>completely blow all the competition out of the water. Solomon doesn't even
>come close.
Yes, I have heard the Bolet. I do not gree.
I have been following this news group only for a few weeks, and it has become
apparent that your contributions are limited to assertions that you know
better than everyone else. Perhaps you do but your writings do not show it. My
own views are based on 60 years of specialisation in 19th cebtury romantic
piano and possession of recordings some dating back to Kochalski, which I
think gives me a reasonable basis for comparison. But I would not dare make
such statements as 'for every piece he recorded I can point you to
embaraasingly superior perfomances'. Were Schnabel and Rubinstein, not to
mention many of the more serious German critics all so wrong in regarding
Solomon as one of the great pianists of the century. Please do not reply until
you have some arguments.
>> Ernie Smart
>dk
Mario Taboada
>>> Ernie Smart
>>dk
In my opinion, based on hearing Solomon's Mozart, Beethoven, and
Chopin (not bad music to judge a pianist by...), he was a pianist of the very
first rank in all three, which leads me to conclude that he was a great
pianist, period.
It took me a while to get into his Beethoven late sonatas, probably
because his powers of organization and his technique were so impeccable that
the music sounds almost easy. In Solomon I hear a cross between the
technical wizardry of Wilhelm Backhaus and the intimate and perfectly
proportioned pianism of Clifford Curzon. The combination works.
I am a little puzzled by Koren's comment on Solomon's "lack of personality".
In my book, there is room for *many* different types of personalities -
even those that seem transparent, like clear water. I don't see how
one can rank a pianist less high because he/she is an Apollonian interpreter.
Farhan Malik
d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
>>>Why does no-one mention Solomon.
Solomon is often mentioned on this group. In particular his late
Beethoven Sonatas set has often been praised.
>>>He had a wider range than any of the pianists cited, being able
>to play Bach, >>Brahms, Haydn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Weber, Scubert and
>Schumann as well as >>many 20th century composers to the highest level.
>>Your statement is patently incorrect. Gilels, Richter and Sofronitzky had much
>>broader repertoires.
Your statement is patently incorrect. Solomon's repertoire was
quite broad. He made recordings of Bach, Beethoven, Bliss, Brahms,
Chopin, Couperin, Daquin, Debussy, Franck, Grieg, Haydn, Liszt, Martini,
Mozart, Scarlatti, Schubert, Schumann, Scriabin, Severac, and Tchaikovsky.
The majority of Sofronitsky's repertoire consists of Russian and Romantic
composers. By no stretch of the imagination can it be considered as broad
as Solomon's. Gilels repertoire does not look noticeably broader than
Solomon's to me.
>>Richter for instance played pretty much everything written
>>for the keyboard from Bach and Haendel to Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, and
>>Hindemith.
Even Richter had holes. Not a single work of Scarlatti. He
refused to play transcriptions. No American composers. No Faure.
Richter's repertoire is huge but "pretty much everthing written" is over
stating it.
Farhan
Dan Koren
>Ernest Smart <Ernest...@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
>
>d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
>
>>>>Why does no-one mention Solomon.
>
> Solomon is often mentioned on this group. In particular his late
>Beethoven Sonatas set has often been praised.
>
>>>>He had a wider range than any of the pianists cited, being able
>>to play Bach, >>Brahms, Haydn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Weber, Scubert and
>>Schumann as well as >>many 20th century composers to the highest level.
>
>>>Your statement is patently incorrect. Gilels, Richter and Sofronitzky had much
>>>broader repertoires.
>
> Your statement is patently incorrect. Solomon's repertoire was
>quite broad. He made recordings of Bach, Beethoven, Bliss, Brahms,
>Chopin, Couperin, Daquin, Debussy, Franck, Grieg, Haydn, Liszt, Martini,
>Mozart, Scarlatti, Schubert, Schumann, Scriabin, Severac, and Tchaikovsky.
Where are Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Mussorgsky, Albeniz, Ravel, Szymanowski,
Shostakovich, Bartok, Hindemith, Berg, Dvorak, Britten?
More important, where are the cornerstone pieces of the piano repertoire?
E.g. the Liszt and Chopin Sonatas, Schumann's Fantasy, Pictures, Schubert's
D960 and the Wanderer? And where is the WTC?
>The majority of Sofronitsky's repertoire consists of Russian and Romantic
>composers. By no stretch of the imagination can it be considered as broad
Sofronitzky played a lot more stuff than he recorded.
>as Solomon's. Gilels repertoire does not look noticeably broader than
>Solomon's to me.
Then I suppose Prokofiev, Rachmaninov and Shostakovich count for nothing?
>>>Richter for instance played pretty much everything written
>>>for the keyboard from Bach and Haendel to Prokofiev, Bartok and
>>>Hindemith.
>
> Even Richter had holes.
Everybody does.
>Not a single work of Scarlatti.
So what? The Haendel Suites more than make up for that ;-)
>He refused to play transcriptions.
So what? By the same token, Solomon refused to play *major* works by
*major* composers.
>No American composers.
How did you come to that conclusion? Ever heard Richter playing the
Gershwin F-major concerto?
And what music by American composers did Solomon play?
>No Faure.
If that's the matter, then I suppose 80% of pianists would be disqualified...
>Richter's repertoire is huge but "pretty much everthing written" is over
>stating it.
Richter's repertoire is way broader and deeper than anyone else's, holes
or not. More important, he plays every one of the composers he does in
totally idiomatic fashion. Compare that to Solomon's proper British accent.
dk
Mario Taboada
<<More important, where are the cornerstone pieces of the piano repertoire?
E.g. the Liszt and Chopin Sonatas, Schumann's Fantasy, Pictures, Schubert's
D960 and the Wanderer? And where is the WTC?>>
No pianist can be judged on what he DIDN'T play or record. You
seem to have picked several pieces and labelled them "the cornerstones".
One could just as well say that Beethoven and Mozart are the cornerstones
(but one doesn't because it is plain nonsense). How about getting off the
high horse and saying that YOU personally like pianists who play those
particular pieces well?
Schnabel didn't play the "Pictures"; neither did Serkin, Rubinstein,
Backhaus, Friedman, Cortot, Moiseiewitsch, Lhevinne, Kempff, Curzon,
Rosenthal, Hofmann, Bauer, Hess, Arrau, Lipatti,Horszowski. So what?
[Farhan dixit]
>The majority of Sofronitsky's repertoire consists of Russian and Romantic
>composers. By no stretch of the imagination can it be considered as broad
>as Solomon's. Gilels repertoire does not look noticeably broader than
>Solomon's to me.
[Dan dixit]
<<Then I suppose Prokofiev, Rachmaninov and Shostakovich count for nothing?>>
They count as three composers, no more nor less than that. Or
are you just saying that you like them, therefore they should be made a
universal yardstick?
This thread has gotten pretty derivative: why should Solomon
have to satisfy a Koren test in order to be considered a great pianist?
What is the point in comparing him to Richter, or Gilels, or Safronitsky if
we are not talking about the same repertoire?
If at least we were comparing Solomon's Beethoven, say, with Richter's
or Gilels', we could maybe achieve some constructive discussion.
I am puzzled by Dan's extreme assertions on matters in which not all
of us have "plugs in our ears".
Let's drop these arcane, narrow, and petty discussions which are
not educational either to the "plugged" or "unplugged" music
enthusiasts. Sometimes they are not even amusing.
Best regards, anyway
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles (land of noise and "Noise")
Gerard Henri Rene Milmeister
Even if the playing is otherwise rather inspired, too much wrong notes
can indeed spoil the pleasure.
I have never heard Cherkassy, neither live nor on record. Might it
be possible that this pianist, even of that fame, has the years
of great technical ability and even great artistry behind him.
I don't mind wrong notes, I don't mind recording quality that is not
up to today's standard, I don't even mind Glenn Gould humming, as
long as the effect of a great interpretation comes through.
--
Gerard Milmeister | "Some men are born mediocre, some men
<ghmi...@iiic.ethz.ch> | achieve mediocrity, and some men have
Tannenrauchstr. 35 | mediocrity thrust upon them."
CH-8038 Zuerich Switzerland | Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
Allan Burns
<Ernest...@ncl.ac.uk> says:
>
>I know that Gilels referred to
>Richter as ' the policeman of the piano' and I agree with him.
What does this mean, exactly?
P. S. Rubinstein did play Schubert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
Kellyx2
<EN...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>3) Maurizio Pollini?
>Don't know his output well enough. However, I will listen to more (any
>suggestions here?).
Pollini may be slightly past the peak of his powers, as witnessed by the
recent Debussy etudes, but he is unsurpassed in terms of technique and
sense of structure; some might feel he is lacking in terms of
expressiveness. His recording of the Chopin etudes is perfect for showing
all of these sides. His Schumann fantasy is also worth listening to.
Many have written highly of his set of late Beethoven sonatas.
The single best Pollini disc, INHO, is his collection of 20th Century
pieces: Boulez 2nd sonata, Prokofiev 7th, Stravinsky's Petruchka - these
are all incredible performances (although the Boulez is a little tough to
listen to for my tastes).
Kelly
Jim Clow
>In article <OHSUMIT.94...@berra.cs.rpi.edu>, ohs...@cs.rpi.edu (Toshiro
>K. Ohsumi) says:
>>I think there may be more concensus on who are, say, the five top living
>>pianists. Most (if not all) of who was mentioned in most people's lists
>>are dead. I have a few guesses as to who the contenders are, but I'll not
>>bias anyone by saying whom. :-)
>
>OK, I'll leap right in here.
>
> Ivo Pogorelich
> Shura Cherkassky
I believe he left us recently.
> Marc-Andre Hamelin
> Radu Lupu
> Martha Argerich
>
>in no particular order. Comments?
Jim Clow
I'm a Stanford student
> Schnabel didn't play the "Pictures"; neither did Serkin, Rubinstein,
> Backhaus, Friedman, Cortot, Moiseiewitsch, Lhevinne, Kempff, Curzon,
> Rosenthal, Hofmann, Bauer, Hess, Arrau, Lipatti,Horszowski. So what?
>
> [Farhan dixit]
>
There is a wonderful recording of Benno's Pictures out recently on CD.
James C Liu
>There is no need to be RUDE!
>Even if the playing is otherwise rather inspired, too much wrong notes
>can indeed spoil the pleasure.
>I have never heard Cherkassy, neither live nor on record. Might it
>be possible that this pianist, even of that fame, has the years
>of great technical ability and even great artistry behind him.
>I don't mind wrong notes, I don't mind recording quality that is not
>up to today's standard, I don't even mind Glenn Gould humming, as
>long as the effect of a great interpretation comes through.
Try the first London CD of 80th birthday concerts, or the Nimbus CD's
if execrable piano recording doesn't turn you off. Are his best days
behind him, technically speaking? I suspect so. Even so, his playing is
so compelling, with such a masterful control of sonority and color that
it even (almost) overcomes the wishy-washy Nimbus acoustic.
I'm hoping to catch him live, next time he's in Boston, myself!
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "I went to a general store, but they
jl...@world.std.com wouldn't let me buy anything specific."
Department of Medicine
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- Steve Wright
John Corrigan
Gieseking is not on this list.
-- John
Anthony Asta (aa...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: For some strange reason, I feel compelled to reply to this highly
: objective post.
: Top Ten (please pardone the spelling): Vladimir Horowitz
: Artur Rubinstein
: Jorge Bolet
: Michelangeli
: Ashkenazy
: Gilels
: Emmanuel Ax
: Barry Douglas
: Claudio Arrau
: Maurizio Pollini
: Oscar Levant (this man had a lot
: of style... a much deserved 11th)
: P.S. Notice I didn't put Cliburn or Baremborim on my list........ The all
: time worst has to be Ruth Laredo.
: --
: -----Antonio 'Loverboy' Asta
Farhan Malik
> Try the first London CD of 80th birthday concerts
The first London CD is the one I would recommend also but it is
not a part of his 80th brithday concerts. The 3rd CD (Encores) also has
some good playing. The one to avoid is the 80th birthday recital (volume
2 of the London series). It sounds like a man struggling with the piano
and losing the battle.
Farhan
Dan Koren
>Anthony, I didn't see the original post, but surprised that Walter
>Gieseking is not on this list.
He's been dead for almost 40 years...
dk
Anthony Asta
Sorry,
Somehow my post crossed over from the Top Ten (living or dead) 20th
Century Pianists. In response to John Corrigan..... I probably should
have added Walter Gieseking to the list (momentary laps of memory), even
though few of his recordings are on the current market.
--
-----Antonio 'Loverboy' Asta
John Corrigan
> Somehow my post crossed over from the Top Ten (living or dead) 20th
> Century Pianists. In response to John Corrigan..... I probably should
> have added Walter Gieseking to the list (momentary laps of memory), even
> though few of his recordings are on the current market.
I've only heard one, a performance of Beethoven's Emporer Concerto, made
in 1946. I like it very much, and it *IS* in stereo, though the tape
noise is a bit annoying. A very good performance, if not a bit slow.
By the way, it is on Music & Arts.
-- john
James Richard Gourlay
pianists. I believe he won the Tchaikovsky piano competition
four years d ago, and has done several recitals in Britain. Any thoughts?
Also Kissin surely has to be considered although I dare say many
would retort that he has not reached maturity!!
fd96
and among those living, Duchable.
At least, this is my own private and definitive opinion.
I believe Schumann's only justification to his Piano concerto was that the cadenza could be played by Lipatti in his recording with Karajan.
Flame me if you disagree, I'm not going to change my mind on it!
lyd...@delphi.com
Martha Argerich. His Chopin is unsurpassed and his late Beethoven is
wonderful. I agree that his 20th Century disc is one of his best. I
hear him every year in Carnegie Hall--wouldn't miss it!
Argerich was here in August playing the Beethoven 2nd concerto at Lincoln
Center. Her tone is always full of meat and her interpretations are always
full of ideas.
Francis Cox
> IMHO Maurizio Pollini is the greatest living pianist, followed closely by
> Martha Argerich. His Chopin is unsurpassed and his late Beethoven is
> wonderful. I agree that his 20th Century disc is one of his best. I
> hear him every year in Carnegie Hall--wouldn't miss it!
I've heard him live in Stravinsky's Trois Mouvements de Petrouchka - amazing
performance of a nightmare score to play. Also in Chopin and Debussy,
exquisite...
> Argerich was here in August playing the Beethoven 2nd concerto at Lincoln
> Center. Her tone is always full of meat and her interpretations are always
> full of ideas.
Have heard her live in Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto. Not impressed, sorry.
The pianist I really rate is Mikhail Pletnev. His Liszt Sonata and
Transcriptions from 'The Nutcracker' are stunning, and I think he is a
pianist of the most colossal technique joined with a profound musical
imagination. He is currently developing a parallel career as conductor and
musical director of the recently-founded Russian National Orchestra based in
Moscow. He claims to want to pursue both paths of performer and conductor,
presumably a la Ashkenazy, Barenboim etc. Hmmm...
--
Francis Cox ............. fc...@octave.demon.co.uk
Dan Koren
>
>The pianist I really rate is Mikhail Pletnev. His Liszt Sonata and
>Transcriptions from 'The Nutcracker' are stunning, and I think he is a
That's interesting. I bought Pletnev's Liszt Sonata as a result of
reading the Fanfare review, and threw it away upon first hearing...
De gustibus I suppose.
dk
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
dislike) Pletnev's Liszt Sonata. As Liszt said, it is easy to have opinions,
but difficult to have musical reasons for the opinions. In some posters'
case, I must admit that while I find the poster's posts very passionate, I
do not know _specific_ _reasons_ for the, say dislike, of certain recordings
or pianists. Because of that, it makes it very difficult to understand how
one should interpret said poster's strong opinions. Not that I am against
strong opinions, mind you, but I'd like to know what motivates them to get
a better picture of what tastes they hold. [By the way, I am considering
buying Pletnev's Liszt Sonata, but before I go through the trouble of
ordering, etc., I'd like to know what I'm getting myself in to. :-)] Many
thanks,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Dan Koren
I found Pletnev's Liszt Sonata very fussy and bombastic. Sounds too
constructed and contrived for my tase.
dk
Neil Tingley
96fra...@gsb.stanford.edu "fd96" writes:
1. Rachmaninov (you can't play his 1st concerto like him and not be #1)
(Kissin - I've always dreamed that someone whould play Listz's Hungarian
Rhapsody as he does)
2. Glenn Gould (a constant inspiration and much missed demi-god)
3. Sofronitsky (hallucinogentic pianism)
4. Horowitz (& maybe Simon Barere)
4. Michelangeli (perfection & that sound & those chords)
5. Solomon
6. Pletnev (extraordinary)
7. Gavrilov (stunned by his virtuosity too many times)
8. Murray Perahia (his Mozart....)
9. Gilels (should be higher up: GREAT Beethoven & virtuoso)
10 Pollini
This is a snapshot rather than an all embracing statement of my artistic tastes
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Tingley
ne...@music.demon.co.uk
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Tingley
fc...@octave.demon.co.uk "Francis Cox" writes:
> The pianist I really rate is Mikhail Pletnev. His Liszt Sonata and
> Transcriptions from 'The Nutcracker' are stunning, and I think he is a
> pianist of the most colossal technique joined with a profound musical
> imagination. He is currently developing a parallel career as conductor and
> musical director of the recently-founded Russian National Orchestra based in
> Moscow. He claims to want to pursue both paths of performer and conductor,
> presumably a la Ashkenazy, Barenboim etc. Hmmm...
>
The Sleeping Beauty transcription is also extraordinary. Colossal technique
etc. (Live at Wigmore Hall C/o BBC) BTW he can equal Horowitz in sound. As a
conductor he has established himself as the forefront surely.
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
the previous poster, made Pletnev's Sonata sound fussy and bombastic. If it
was bombastic, I'd assume that there was some note attacks that may of been
exaggerated, in the previous poster's opinion. Could he enlighten me on where
these passages occured, or if these exaggerations [if they were indeed that]
destroyed the musical structure (where? in the octave passageworks? in the
second melody?)? If it was bombastic, then I am confused as to why it should
sound too constructed. Does that not mean that the structure was overly
emphasised, which bombastic would not be? Any information would be most
appreciated. Many thanks,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Gerard Henri Rene Milmeister
Francis Cox <fc...@octave.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <BWx12qb...@delphi.com> lyd...@delphi.com writes:
>
>> IMHO Maurizio Pollini is the greatest living pianist, followed closely by
That's also MHO. Some people that expect a more emotional approach to
romantic repertoire may not like his highly intellectual approach, but
I do really like it (especially his Chopin Etudes,Preludes and his
Liszt sonata).
To add my two cents:
After Pollini:
* Krystian Zimerman: he is on the more emotional side, complementary to Pollini
but as perfect technically
* Daniel Barenboim: yes, i know this newsgroup users are not particularly
favourable to this pianist. but his Mozart concertos and sonatas are superb,
and his Beethoven sonatas are excellent (I rate them among the best), youthful
and spontaneous as I ever heard. In other repertoire he doesn't seem to stand
up this high standard
* Glenn Gould: I like best the Goldbergvariations, Toccatas and the
Hindemithsonatas
A honorable mention goes to Lazar Berman, if only for his fantastic performance
of the Annees de pelerinage
Dan Koren
>the previous poster, made Pletnev's Sonata sound fussy and bombastic. If it
>was bombastic, I'd assume that there was some note attacks that may of been
You are assuming wrong. How we experience music is not easily described in
words. What I call bombastic and the reasons for it may be quite different
from what you'd call bombastic and the reasons for it.
>exaggerated, in the previous poster's opinion. Could he enlighten me on where
>these passages occured, or if these exaggerations [if they were indeed that]
>destroyed the musical structure (where? in the octave passageworks? in the
You are again assuming I meant something specific, even though I did not
state anything of the kind. You are reading too much between the lines.
>second melody?)? If it was bombastic, then I am confused as to why it should
>sound too constructed. Does that not mean that the structure was overly
>emphasised, which bombastic would not be? Any information would be most
>appreciated. Many thanks,
I am sorry, but I am not inclined to go into a detailed note by note
analysis of Pletnev's performance. I stated my reasons for not liking it,
and they are based on my taste, and on the way I listen to, and experience
music. These are subjective impressions, and there is no point in arguing
about them or defending them. Your ears may agree or disagree with them,
and that's about all.
dk
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
justify their opinions. It disturbs me that often one may say, "XXX plays
YYY badly since he/she play it too ZZZ." Unfortunately, this does not give
the reader a good idea of why one should trust the poster's opinion or even
what the poster's tastes are like. While one does not necessarily have to
go in to detailed note by note analysis, some ideas (or highlights) of why
one thinks thus should be noted. Otherwise, it seems like the opinion is
superficial (though it may actually be based on some more deeper thought). I
wouldn't ordinarily post something like this except that when one gives strong
opinions to a performance (especially a negative one), it seems cosmically
unjust to the performer (or to the memory of the performer) to leave out some
rational thoughts on why it is so. Perhaps all one may need to do is to
compare performances and note examples in the piece where one performer does
something, say objectionable, compared to another. Just my own thoughts, mind
you,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Dan Koren
>As I said, it is often difficult for those with [strong] musical opinions to
>justify their opinions. It disturbs me that often one may say, "XXX plays
>YYY badly since he/she play it too ZZZ." Unfortunately, this does not give
>the reader a good idea of why one should trust the poster's opinion or even
I do not think any of the more frequent posters on r.m.c. have suggested that
one should trust their opinions, or offered their suggestions based on such
an assumption. You seem to be spending a lot of energy reading between the
lines. Let me make this clear: at least from my point of view, there is
*absolutely* *nothing* between my lines. I am not proselytizing, and I am
not trying to convince anyone that I'm right or that they're left. I am
simply sharing my impressions with others.
>what the poster's tastes are like. While one does not necessarily have to
You can only get a notion of that after listening a lot to the same stuff
and comparing their impressions with yours. I'm afraid written language
is not very good at conveying musical impressions.
>go in to detailed note by note analysis, some ideas (or highlights) of why
>one thinks thus should be noted. Otherwise, it seems like the opinion is
>superficial (though it may actually be based on some more deeper thought). I
>wouldn't ordinarily post something like this except that when one gives strong
>opinions to a performance (especially a negative one), it seems cosmically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You seem to be rather biased against negative opinions. Why?
>unjust to the performer (or to the memory of the performer) to leave out some
>rational thoughts on why it is so. Perhaps all one may need to do is to
>compare performances and note examples in the piece where one performer does
>something, say objectionable, compared to another. Just my own thoughts, mind
>you,
Seems you are not following your own advice very well. In spite of the
above verbiage, you have offered no such explanation of why *you* like
Pletnev's Liszt Sonata (this is where the discussion started, right?)
Why don't you give us an example of how to justify one's opinions of
musical performance, rather than just a sermon? Otherwise, all you've
managed to do is return to the often heard thread that one should not
post negative opinions, but only positive ones.
dk
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
mention if I ever liked or disliked Pletnev's Liszt Sonata. In fact, I was
trying to find out why people either liked to disliked this particular
recording.
As for why I am more reluctant to accept negative reviews, it is simply
because I feel one should never try to say anything negative about something
one feels one can't do better. Of course, this should particularly true of
both the previous poster and myself, both of whom are pianists. While I'm
not against negative reviews, those seem to me to be in more need of justifi-
cation.
Just my opinions on the matter,
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
post a negative review of something. If one wishes an elaboration of what I
have already posted, feel free to email me.
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Dan Koren
>Actually, if the previous poster will read the previous thread, indeed I never
>mention if I ever liked or disliked Pletnev's Liszt Sonata. In fact, I was
And I did not state anything like that.Please reread my post.
>trying to find out why people either liked to disliked this particular
>recording.
And I offered as much of an explanation as I thought was reasonable to
do across the wire.
>As for why I am more reluctant to accept negative reviews, it is simply
^^^^^^
>because I feel one should never try to say anything negative about something
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>one feels one can't do better. Of course, this should particularly true of
>both the previous poster and myself, both of whom are pianists. While I'm
If that were the case, music and record reviewing should be banned, right?
>not against negative reviews, those seem to me to be in more need of justifi-
>cation.
>
>Just my opinions on the matter,
And offered, if I may point out, without any justification other than "simply
because I feel that..."
Boy, do you have double standards! Opinions should be justified more if they're
positive rather than negative, especially if they happen to come from others
with whose opinions you don't agree! I've invited you to a serious discussion
of your statements and the assumptions behind them, and all we're hearing back
in response is "simply because I feel that".
dk