Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
I want to improve by trying to figure out what makes people fall in love with certain performers and see if I can copy them.
This is not how one improves. Speak with your own voice.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
And it shouldn't be assumed that pianists who have what it takes to be as famous as Horowitz or Argerich would necessarily want that kind of fame. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it may very well be that the more artistic sensitivity a pianist has, the more likely it is that they will not be attracted to fame, per se.
But - and it is a very big qualification - I think that the fame that surrounds some musicians ends up being a sort of feedback loop that enhances their charisma when they perform, and can produce really remarkable events, in terms of how the audience perceives what is taking place. I remember going to hear Argerich do the Prokofiev 3rd concerto, and the audience was so primed with her fame that the instant she arrived on stage, there was something like an electrical charge in the air surrounding her, before she played a note, and as a seasoned creature of the stage, she totally knew how to manage it.
As much as I am fascinated with how she plays, I have to say that kind of thing is not about great musicianship, but about charisma, which all sorts of public figures have.
Or private figures, for that matter. I have been at parties where there is a palpable change in the atmosphere when some particularly charismatic person walks into a room, for example. Although other people have walked through the very same door with no particular effect, it is fascinating how a charismatic person can open the door, and like magic, suddenly everyone there registers that entrance in a special way.
And it shouldn't be assumed that pianists who have what it takes to be as famous as Horowitz or Argerich would necessarily want that kind of fame. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it may very well be that the more artistic sensitivity a pianist has, the more likely it is that they will not be attracted to fame, per se.
But - and it is a very big qualification - I think that the fame that surrounds some musicians ends up being a sort of feedback loop that enhances their charisma when they perform, and can produce really remarkable events, in terms of how the audience perceives what is taking place. I remember going to hear Argerich do the Prokofiev 3rd concerto, and the audience was so primed with her fame that the instant she arrived on stage, there was something like an electrical charge in the air surrounding her, before she played a note, and as a seasoned creature of the stage, she totally knew how to manage it.
As much as I am fascinated with how she plays, I have to say that kind of thing is not about great musicianship, but about charisma, which all sorts of public figures have.
Or private figures, for that matter. I have been at parties where there is a palpable change in the atmosphere when some particularly charismatic person walks into a room, for example. Although other people have walked through the very same door with no particular effect, it is fascinating how a charismatic person can open the door, and like magic, suddenly everyone there registers that entrance in a special way.
Incredible points. I agree with you 100%. We can only make so many at once, though!
II. As in, second best. Only lowercase. So not even that. I teach piano and violin. BM, Violin & Percussion Performance 2009, Piano Pedagogy 2011.
the instant she arrived on stage, there was something like an electrical charge in the air surrounding her, before she played a note, I have to say that kind of thing is not about great musicianship, but about charisma,
You're right that presence has nothing to do with musicianship and your recollection here is, of course, YOUR perception. Certainly with some musicians/public figures at large there is going to be a certain aura surrounding them and it doesn't always have to do with their abilities. Argerich, however, has only to "speak" (and in her case that which she has already said) and it becomes all too obvious why she is considered uniquely a singular voice.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
Now then, you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich (or two you think comparable) and I'll be happy to tell you (as will others, I'm sure) why they're not in the same league.
They don't exactly live in my city lol but I think these two have had/will have the same level of impact on the course of pianistic history as Horowitz and Argerich did.
Now then, you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich (or two you think comparable) and I'll be happy to tell you (as will others, I'm sure) why they're not in the same league.
They don't exactly live in my city lol but I think these two have had/will have the same level of impact on the course of pianistic history as Horowitz and Argerich did.
Ivo, in his younger days was phenomenal. Bozie...eh, I'm not so crazy about, but, he's certainly a fine pianist, no doubt. I was really after pianists still without a "name" as polyphasic (I hope that's close...my apologies if not)suggested there are many (and some in his own hometown). Will either of your two impact the course of pianistic history (I like that haha)? I think that remains to be seen, but, of course Ivo already did make quite an impact with a little help from...Martha.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
So much for respect of artists, to throw Miley Cyrus and Helene Grimaud on the same level is totally uncalled for. Seems one s experience or musical education, and cv is a factor on these forums (to many,a t least) as to how relevant one s opinion is. I wonder how many of the Grimaud detractors could point out what makes them actually so much better than her. Myself, i don tlike her that much, but she s an accomplished concert pianist, that has played with Boulez, Gergiev, etc etc ...I wonder if they re easy to impress too
Pogo changed the way I (and many other pianists) think about Scarlatti forever.
Bozhanov changed the way I think Chopin... the level of artistic freedom in his sound, and his constant and unyielding commitment towards using that artistic freedom to sculpt the sound-and everything always in IMAX-level HD-I mean, Krystian Zimerman is on the same level for instance, pianistically...in terms of cleanliness and constant attention to the ballance and quality of sound... but there is something inflexible about his artistry compared to Bozhanov's, to my ears at least.
It's like Avatar and Inception magically combined into the same awesome movie watched on the biggest IMAX theatre in the world. He has dark powers.
What don't you like about him? Have you seen his classical stuff? His chamber music? It's all just so disgustingly superb. The intensity of flavour is too much sometimes-he puts my senses into overdrive. And the biggest mistakes he ever makes are microscopic compared to those that most pianists make...
He makes colours every day that most pianists don't even have in their deepest and darkest dreams.
For me, Pogo's Gaspard is the gold standard. After Pogo's, even Argerich, Gieseking, and Perlemuter's don't sound so good to me. I saw Pogo live recently and he shattered my world. I mean, he was so broken in many ways, but the logic the binds the broken pieces together reveals unimaginable dark powers. And the sheer VOLUME which he gave to accents and sfz in the Tchaik concerto was frightening.
That sound that piano tuners get when the bang the living heck out of a note in order to set the pins.... that's the sound he was able to produce with tiny movements while keeping other voices quiet.
Granted, it's an ugly sound, but he was playing above a 110 piece orchestra in a 3000 seat hall, and that's the sound he decided to use.
No.... every so often pianists come around these days in the grand tradition of Martha and da HO. But I agree that it often seems that the higher the general conservatory standard gets, the fewer the true giants there are that emerge.
It may simply be because it becomes harder and harder to notice the true giants as the standard of mediocrity grows ever higher.
But I mean... some of the stuff Andrew Tyson dared to do at the Chopin competition-his Barcarolle, his E minor Etude, heck, almost everything he played.... to have the balls to play with in such a totally new way in front of that jury.... that's the stuff of legend.
He's still young-he will mature over time.... but his technique, his clarity, his precision, and his cantabile are already so good it's absolutely scary.
I hear certain things in some of these youngsters' playing that I do not hear in Martha's at that age. Granted, the fire and conviction that she showed as a teenager remains awe inspiring to every pianist...but certain aspects of her artistry were not as refined IMO at that age as that of some people today.
As for the level of Zhang's Chopin etudes at age 11... even Pollini didn't play them that well until he was a bit older than that.
Last edited by JustAnotherPianist; 03/14/1109:39 AM.
I also would love to hear a sound critique of what people think is lacking in Bozhanov's playing. To my ears, it is magnificent, colorful, inspiring and all the above. I believe there is some bias against him, may be because of his mannerisms. In my limited experience, some of the best pianists and educators cannot always disengage from their biases even when they have been judges and teachers for a long time, especially the latter. I have finally managed to get my teacher to listen to Argerich and it took over a year, but he finally admitted that she is a superb pianist, well above the fray. But I simply could not get him to acknowledge Bozhanov. "should not be allowed" is all he would say , mostly targeting the body language and excessive facial movements. Anecdotal of course, but it makes you wonder.
Now then, you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich (or two you think comparable) and I'll be happy to tell you (as will others, I'm sure) why they're not in the same league.
Since you asked so politley.
If you want a second video then you can analyse the girl playing the Tchaikovsky concerto above. Frankly, I am fed up with your tactless remarks and refuse to waste anymore of my time conversing with you.
Argerich and Horowitz are remarkable pianists, but I think if you make the effort you will see that remarkable pianists can exist without the remarkable fame.
I wouldn't argue that point, and I have certainly encountered some 'remarkable' pianists who are not well known to the general public, or perhaps even critics. I recently discovered Alexander Gavrylyuk. Seems to me he should have a major career: all the ingredients are there in spades. (Full disclosure, I've only so far heard him in a transcription, but the playing was world class.)
But I think you need to consider the longevity of pianists such as Horowitz, Rubinstein, Argerich, Richter, etc. They were very early on recognised as outstanding pianists, and as their careers matured, they went from strength to strength. Many pianists came and went -some no doubt extremely talented- but Horowitz, et al were never knocked off their pedestal.
Horowitz obviously still sells CDs, and one of DG's biggest cash cow is the early recordings of Argerich, particularly the Chopin Preludes. If there had been so many remarkable recordings of the Preludes since then, well why is anyone still buying Argerich? Clearly she still has something pertinent to say to new buyers.
They don't exactly live in my city lol but I think these two have had/will have the same level of impact on the course of pianistic history as Horowitz and Argerich did.
I like the second one =) It's unfortunate what happened to him in the 90s, he could have been a legend. Well, for some people he will be. Actually as for pianistic "history" alone, he is already a legend!
"The eyes can mislead, the smile can lie, but the shoes always tell the truth."
For me, it's range. The pianist in your video has 15 uploads on YouTube. All but two are standard fast/loud virtuoso literature.
So from the start, that tells me that this pianist is primarily interested in showing off, not sharing. Where's a Mozart sonata? Where's a slow Scarlatti? In the literature he plays, what about his tone and phrasing is unique? Does he have a strong point of view as an artist, or are his interpretations still being coached by a teacher?
Then what are his professional credentials? Can he play anything written after 1920? Can he play chamber music? What has he been doing since 2008? Can he learn repertoire quickly? Is he reliable and fun to work with?
My favorite definition of genius is this:
"Talent hits targets no one else can hit. Genius hits targets no one else can see."
The pianist in your video hits targets no one else can hit. His Islamey really is impressive.
But his berceuse? A berceuse is a lullaby. Lee's sounds intense, his crescendos and diminuendos are somewhat extreme - I can't really describe the effect as dreamy.
Whereas these guys obviously had access to a dictionary, looked up what berceuse meant, and found a way of communicating that to an audience:
Now then, you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich (or two you think comparable) and I'll be happy to tell you (as will others, I'm sure) why they're not in the same league.
Since you asked so politley.
If you want a second video then you can analyse the girl playing the Tchaikovsky concerto above. Frankly, I am fed up with your tactless remarks and refuse to waste anymore of my time conversing with you.
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
i agree with kreisler. the berceuse... some of the pauses and what-nots reminds me some of the bad things lang lang does. not quite as exaggerated but shades of it.
his islamey performance in public isn't all that great. the one he did at home sounded very good, but probably out of many many takes.
youtube is full of these people. i don't know how well known Hyun-Jung Lim is, but some call her the asian martha argerich. she's got quite a following on youtube--and on facebook for whatever that's worth.
tremendous, tremendous virtuoso. technically, several notches above Jeffrey Lee, without a doubt. perhaps even even Argerich, in fact. but listen to her scarlatti... too much "lang lang" again (haha, it's becoming my stock criticism).
she might be virtuosic enough to live off of it alone, but she's not gonna go too far without developing the more subtle things.
but in this day of youtube, the only way to stand out is not via musicianship, but showmanship. she's gotta plenty of it. it's too bad, but it just means all the more likely we'll miss the next rubinstein or haskil.
For me, it's range. The pianist in your video has 15 uploads on YouTube. All but two are standard fast/loud virtuoso literature.
So from the start, that tells me that this pianist is primarily interested in showing off, not sharing. Where's a Mozart sonata? Where's a slow Scarlatti? In the literature he plays, what about his tone and phrasing is unique? Does he have a strong point of view as an artist, or are his interpretations still being coached by a teacher?
Then what are his professional credentials? Can he play anything written after 1920? Can he play chamber music? What has he been doing since 2008? Can he learn repertoire quickly? Is he reliable and fun to work with?
My favorite definition of genius is this:
"Talent hits targets no one else can hit. Genius hits targets no one else can see."
The pianist in your video hits targets no one else can hit. His Islamey really is impressive.
But his berceuse? A berceuse is a lullaby. Lee's sounds intense, his crescendos and diminuendos are somewhat extreme - I can't really describe the effect as dreamy.
Whereas these guys obviously had access to a dictionary, looked up what berceuse meant, and found a way of communicating that to an audience:
I am not too sure what your argument is. I can make similar comments about Rubenstein or Michelangeli: Why don't they play any Schoenberg or Hindemith? I am not particularly fond of Rubenstein's Chopin. I much prefer Argerich's. Why don't don't they play any renaissance repertoire? Why is Michelangeli's range of repertoire so small?
Also, what does it matter if Lee's Chopin is not as good as others. Glenn Gould's Chopin was not particularly good. Does that make him any less a great pianist? (listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0wErcLg1Pg )
And so what if Lee likes the virtuosic literature. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, it's YouTube, not the Deutsche Grammophon catalogue, he can't be expected to record everything. The point was simply to show that excellent pianists can exist outside of your Royal Albert Hall type venues.
Horowitz obviously still sells CDs, and one of DG's biggest cash cow is the early recordings of Argerich, particularly the Chopin Preludes. If there had been so many remarkable recordings of the Preludes since then, well why is anyone still buying Argerich? Clearly she still has something pertinent to say to new buyers.
This is going to sound a rather pessimistic view, but perhaps one of the reasons Argerich's early recordings are still at the top of the classical charts is because people want a sure thing. Her status has been cemented so critically that when people buy her albums (or Richter's or Horowitz's, etc.) they know their is little chance they will be let down, and even if they are let down, the loss is not a big one since they are still left with a acclaimed recording. For example, I have some recordings of Rubinstein that either bore me to tears or make me sea sick with all that rubato, and I will probably never listen to them ever again. But am I going to get rid of the albums, of course not, it's Rubinstein.
And so what if Lee likes the virtuosic literature. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, it's YouTube, not the Deutsche Grammophon catalogue, he can't be expected to record everything. The point was simply to show that excellent pianists can exist outside of your Royal Albert Hall type venues.
This is... getting away from OP. Youtube is a different animal.
If you're happy with youtube performances, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just that it becomes "How to make your piano performance stand out on Youtube" as opposed to "What makes a good pianist stand out". There is difference in psychology between sitting through a few minutes of a performance and 2 hours of it.
Anyway, I agree with your original point that there are hidden gems, but I agree with Kreisler that you could have picked a better example, since that one seems kind of typical.
The point was simply to show that excellent pianists can exist outside of your Royal Albert Hall type venues.
Those of us in professional circles are well aware that excellent pianists exist outside of the Royal Albert Hall. I can name at least half dozen professionals and a handful of students of that caliber here in Iowa. (And I don't include myself in that list. I'm decent, but not on the level of a regular recitalist.)
But your video was in response to "you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich," so I was simply saying why I don't think he's the likes of those two.
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/Smilies_Angry_Sneaky.gif)
