Suppose, for the sake of argument, a pianist came about who is every bit the equal of, or perhaps better than, the great masters of the piano who are worshipped today, i.e. pianists like Horowtiz, Richter, Rubinstein, Arrau, etc.

Do you think that this hypothetical pianist's greatness could ever be recognized as equal to or better than "the greats," as it were? Or do you think that the mythos of piansts like Horowitz, Arrau, etc., would serve as an obstacle to this pianist getting the critical acclaim rightly deserved?

I think it would be impossible to match the legacy of these players. The legend is too great and they are from that golden age of classical music performance that will never come again. You can't compete with an old memory (not that these players aren't deserving of their mighty reputation).

Theoretically, it is possible to play better than Horowitz. No artist, not even Horowitz, is perfect. No matter how good you are, there are going to be certain aspects of your playing that could be improved upon. If you closely scrutinize the technique of any great pianist, you are bound to find at least one area that is comparatively weak. For example, although Horowitz could play scales much more clearly and evenly than most other pianists, his scales were never as fluent as those of Josef Hofmann. In Hofmann's case, he never had octaves that could compete with the likes of Horowitz, Rachmaninov, Lhevinne, Argerich, or Hamelin. Rachmaninov could never play runs as well as Hofmann did.

There are also going to be areas of musical interpretation that could be improved upon, as no great pianist is capable of giving an ideal performance of every musical composition. Most people seem to agree that Horowitz could play Rachmaninov, Liszt, Scriabin and Prokofiev better than anyone else, but many people feel that he could have problems with certain Beethoven sonatas. Brendel excels in the Classical repertoire, but many people feel that his Liszt isn't brilliant enough.

What I'm saying is that it is possible for someone to come along who displays all of Horowitz's strengths, but not all of the Maestro's weaknesses. Is it likely that such an individual will ever emerge? Maybe not, as it would be very difficult to equal- let alone surpass- Horowitz.

If a pianist truly did play better than Horowitz, then it is possible that the public and the critics would recognize the pianist as such. After all, when Horowitz emerged, some people were quick to acknowledge him as even greater than the giants of the Golden Age.

It's an interesting question, and mythos is a nice word. The mythos of the so-called great pianists you mention seems dictated by their being deceased, yet recently enough that they have produced many high-fidelity recordings. So in a sense they marked a first generation of famous artists on disc.
The ones you mention are also all men....

I think our society has shifted such that we don't have room at the top for as many artists as we once accommodated. That's about perception, not about artistry. Classical music is simply less important than it was 50-75 years ago.

So in theory Radu Lupu might be on a younger list. Murray Perahia might be on a younger list. Idil Biret or Maria Pires might be on a younger list. But I don't think they will be, because the list isn't growing as it should be.

Great question, and it could be translated into many different fields, not just music.

I think part of the problem of overcoming the greatness factor is the amount of time that has passed since that golden age. All of those mentioned happened to be around at a time when they could make quality recordings, so we have so much material from them to judge against. However, I think the nostalgia factor overrides most people's ability to compare today's pianists with the greats of old.

It's the same as in any sport really. Many people hold on to the fact that someone like Babe Ruth was the be all and end all of baseball. Have there been better players? Probably. And some are playing in 2012. But the "mythos" has been so built up that every year that passes it becomes a harder and harder feat to come close to their greatness.

Another problem is that these legendary pianists were the first exposure many of us had to piano literature, so we will compare everything against it. I had a thread a while back describing myself as the type of person that snaps very quickly to a judgement on a piece based on the first performance I hear. Most of my favorite interpretations are the ones that I first heard. Very rarely to I "switch." It's my fault completely, but I force myself to try to expand my tastes.

Everyone's taste is different, and some of us aren't as crazy about Horowitz as others (I actually prefer Arrau and Rubinstein), but he is without question one of the legends of all time.

I feel sometimes when we compare performances we almost get confused between the composer and the performer. Any time there's a new up-and-comer, inevitably one of their performances is compared against the Legends, as if these older performances were the last word, and the voice of the actual composer. But that's just not the case. Sometimes a fresh approach is needed, and we need to accept an unorthodox interpretation, and not say "well he or she obviously doesn't get it; if he did he would play it like [insert legendary pianist of old]."

I didn't really answer your question, but personally I like to find new talent that can compare.

It doesn't work that way, because if it did, there would never have been any pianists recognized as great after Liszt, because his legend would have prevented the rise of any others.

Okay, but last time I checked, it wasn't possible to actually listen to a person's legend. If Liszt had left us any recordings then maybe your argument would make sense, but unfortunately he lived in the 1800s.

I don't think wr was referring to recordings; but rather that there were many great pianists after Liszt who were/are recognized as great.

Not to mention that the OP didn't mention recordings, either, just "mythos".

Three things:

First, its true there are people who have been recognized as great since the time of Liszt, but have they been recognized to be greater than Liszt himself?

Second of all, it is telling that many people today believe Liszt to be the greatest of all pianists, even though no currently living person has actually ever heard him play. It is quite possible that Liszt's virtuosity would have been diminished if a virtuoso like Horowitz had lived during Liszt's day. We simply have no idea.

Third, as I said, people cannot content themselves with just "the legend." The generation of people who lived after Liszt's time are not going to content themselves with hearing second hand accounts about how marvellously Liszt is supposed to have played. This is why WR's argument makes no sense. If Liszt had left recordings which prevent the rise of other pianist's acclaim then he would have a point. But given that you can't listen to a person's legend, of course new "greats" are going to pop up. A person who has never heard Liszt perform can attend a recital and say "sure, he is an excellent pianist, but he is no Franz Liszt." That would be stupid.

I think that technology has '*ahem* up' any possibility of that happening. With MIDI (remember recent threads?) and audio editing it's impossible to live up to the mythos (nice Greek word there... ) of any older generation composer, who apparently leaved things unchanged.

How can you claim you are true, when everyone knows you have the ability to edit every single note of your playing? How can you claim that you are better than Horowitz (or Liszt) when they did NOT have computers next to them? How will you ever dare to do that?

But the myth of any pianist/composer has to do with the perception of the public. And THAT cannot be taken away from the public, even for the most established pianist/musician in the world!

Still...

I'd think that classical = nostalgia for a lot of people and as such the dead will always have an advantage over the living ones!

Good point, I withdraw my previous comment.

Then, of course, there are the "living dead".......but that's another matter.

Time to turn in......

Yes and his name is Evgeny Kissin

Wow. Had I not bothered to open the thread I would have sworn it was the product of our resident queen of the night. Ridiculous topic and the answer is quite obviously yes, of course, it's possible.

As piano playing is an art there will be those admired and those denigrated. As a youth I wanted so much to be as good if not better than Horowitz. With education and exposure I just wanted to be able to play with confidence and ability those things I liked. While I still admire the ability of Horowitz, there are qualities in other pianists that equal or exceed his abilities. The 'Golden Age' left their legacy and individuality. Their teaching bestowed on their students the 'stamp' of their influences. The many positive qualities and weaknesses make for the listener the enjoyment of the playing for the various pianists. Some tout the greatness of Rachmaninoff as a pianist--exceeding all others it seems. Hofmann certainly is in the upper echelon of pianistic perfection. Gabrilowitsch could hold his own with any of them. Friedman had as stupendous a technique as any but was very individualistic to the admiration of many and the distress of others.

Surely, Horowitz could be equaled as each age has someone with ability to do just that--perhaps Kissin--or someone else.

stores.. you could be sweet sometimes.

I really would have loved to have seen Lizst play.

The question is not well formed since we have no objective way of ascertaining what is "better". We could possibly measure technical accuracy but that is probably not what you mean. Otherwise, the only thing you could do would be to take a vote. And then the winner of the vote will surely be recognized, or she wouldn't have won.

This wasn't multiple choice, you actually have to justify yourself Stores. By what criteria would you use to assess this hypothetical pianist's greatness and why should anyone accept the criteria you choose?

Yeah, I was fully aware of the vagueness inherent in the question, and that is one of the reasons I think it is so interesting. I find it interesting because, in spite of the vagueness that being "better" implies, it still does not seem to stop a lot of people on these forums from "knowing," with almost mathematical certitude, that one pianist is better than another.

Glenn Gould.
My favorite,
And in my opinion the best on record.
Upcoming pianists at the same level,doubtfull.

Gould might be the most unique on record. The best? Probably not.

I heard Horowitz back in the 1970s. He was good, but he was no Horowitz!

Yeah but didn't he edit the heck out of his recordings in hopes of creating the 'ultimate' recording? If so is it the pianist we're talking about or the technician behind the editing? Or both (cause I have to respect Goulds' ideas)...

Each opinion, for me Glenn Gould is the most interesting and open-minded pianist. I hate when people are narrow about which tempo a piece should be played in. It's rubbish most of it. I like to have a freedom over my playing. And Glenn Gould showed us many diffrent ways to perform a piece which i really enjoy. But i think Vladimir is the best performer of Romantic music. I love how he plays Schumann - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-p8YKfSD4
It's really good!
Robert Schumann is my favorite Romantic composer,
he's music is very piano-like.

Depends on who is doing the recognizing, I think. I know that some people have thought that Busoni was "greater" than Liszt, whatever that means.



Well, we do have some idea - it is just that the idea is not based on immediate evidence.



You are contradicting yourself, since you already said that many people today think that Liszt was the greatest pianist ever. Which means, whether they say it or not, that they think that any living pianist they hear is not as great as Liszt.

But, of course, opinion is all over the map. At any rate, I mistook your question to be something about whether the reputation of earlier pianists as "great" prevented current pianists from attaining that kind of reputation. Now it appears to be about something else, although what that something else might be refuses to come into focus for me.

I wouldn't say he was always open-minded. He was very scathing of some pieces and performed them terribly to make his point. Appassionata springs to mind there... I'm not sure where open-minded stops and individual quirkiness begins. Maybe for him, that's the way music should sound. In that case, it's nothing to do with open-mindedness - it's just his vision of the piece. We all have ideas on the way pieces should be played.

"Is it possible to be better than Horowitz?"

It depends on what is meant by "better". But, in general context of piano playing, the answer is quiet obvious:

Of course. Why not?

But, those who you mention are all individuals who have very different and unique characteristics that can only be attributed to them.
It is like, asking, "Is it possible to be better than Elvis?".
Is it?

regards,