Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Virtuosos becoming a dime a dozen - NY Times

When I hear a student play a recital or audition program, I would prefer not to hear polish or dazzling displays of technical "perfection:"

I want to hear their nervous system.

I'm definitely in the minority, though.

Beautifully expressed!

Sorry, but if you say "I prefer my sloppy slow version of Gnossienne 1 over anyone elses," it sounds the same as "It doesn't matter what I produce as long as *I* like it, so I can just play whatever I want." And, to me, that's pretty bad.

But maybe I misunderstood what you meant. If so, I apologize.

So if given the choice, you'd rather hear a community orchestra do a Tchaikovsky 6th symphony than someone like the Mariinsky?

Point of clarification - Rubinstein recorded "some" but not "all" of the Chopin etudes. Even a quick search on YouTube finds videos/recordings of Rubinstein playing at least nine etudes from Opus 10 and 25.

He performed or recorded about 2/3 of the Etudes. If he really said that quote, than that was quite arrogant even for a great pianist.

He performed or recorded about 2/3 of the Etudes. If he really said that quote, than that was quite arrogant even for a great pianist.

He not only said it, he pretty much hit the nail on the head in reference to this discussion. A great musician has to have that aura of awesomeness and greatness. He had it; the current crop of "great virtuosi" runs short.
No?

Yes, thank you Carey and pianoloverus. I was speaking about the sets, but didn't clarify.

Exactly my philosophy, suits me down to the ground.

I'm playing for myself, no one else. If someone else happens to like it, that's just a bonus. Save the occasional love letter I've played for people dear to me.

Whether he was right or not is not the point. It was how he described other pianists...very arrogant.

There are plenty of extremely great pianists playing before the public today.(Not particularly meaning the ones in the NY Times article.)They may not be at the Rubinstein level but they're in no way "running short". They are absolutely sensational technically and musically.

So what? It's the blunt truth, and he was willing to speak it. The harsh reality doesn't care whose feelings get hurt.

That description was far too extreme to be accurate. There were plenty of great young pianists whenever Rubinstein said that because there have always been great young pianists. The statement was arrogant and false. But even if for the sake of argument it was true, it's unnecessary and really only an indication of Rubinstein's inflated ego. The huge majority of professional pianists don't say that kind of thing about their fellow professionals.

I have no idea if anyone's feelings were hurt. I assume that's not the case since no specific pianists were mentioned. But if feelings were hurt and you think that's not important than that's a problem. The statement didn't accomplish anything so if it hurt anyone's feelings then that would be appropriate enough reason not to say it. It was just a gratuitous insult.

Ha! Not especially - though there is a certain charm (for lack of a better word) to many of the community orchestra performances I've heard.

I have heard performances by student orchestras that have blown performances of the same pieces by major orchestras out of the water. I have heard performances by undergrads that blow away performances of the same works by their heavily degreed professors (including yours truly - though I'm not as heavily degreed as most).

And yes, some of those performances can be a little (technically) ragged, and the sense of scholarship is understandably low, but the sense of spirit and communication is quite high. And that is what sets them apart to me.

Some of the best performances of great works (Stravinsky's Firebird and Le sacre du printemps, Mahler symphonies etc) I've heard are by youth orchestras - but they've been well rehearsed, well-practised, and the youngsters are extremely talented. In other words, they are talented young people with a fully professional attitude to their music-making, but they also bring a youthful vitality and sense of discovery to their playing rather than the jaded just-another-performance-of-an-old-warhorse attitude of some professional orchestras. The National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain (whose members' ages are from 10 to 19) is one such. However, I can't say the same for many amateur adult orchestras, where it seems to me the principal reason for their existence is to give the opportunity for people to get together to play orchestral music. Nothing wrong with that; after all many amateur musicians like to play music with others and perform for audiences. How else would string players not employed in orchestras get to play orchestral music? It's just that their standards in my experience are very often not very high.

As for Artur Rubinstein's pronouncement on young pianists, I'd take that with a pinch of salt: he praised the young Pollini to the heavens when he heard him in the Chopin Competition, and many others when he heard them play.

No, they leave that to amateurs.

I think it's probably always been true that there are pianists with more technique than artistry. Certainly I've read complaints along those lines going way back, e.g., Mozart's assessment of Clementi (which, BTW, I don't take at face value).

But I think the reverse has also probably been true, as well - that there always been pianists with more artistry than technical ability. And Rubinstein himself started his career in this category, and found that he had to take some serious remedial steps.

To me, the current question is more about if the technique/artistry divide has become more pronounced along with the advances in technical ability. I think it has, but probably not as a result of the advances in technical ability - it seems more of a parallel development. I think it is more because the world in which classical music finds itself has changed.

Didn't somebody post a quote not long ago from some teacher who was unhappy that piano students these days were no longer interesting people leading interesting lives, at least not in the way they used to be? I think there's something to that - many of the kind of interesting people who used to play classical piano don't gravitate to it anymore, at least not in the way they used to. Part of that, I'm sure, is simply because the percentage of homes that have an acoustic instrument that can fascinate the toddler/virtuoso-to-be has dwindled sharply. So musically inclined kids find different avenues than piano for their talent.

I think one can safely say that the days when one could be a concert pianist and Prime Minister (Ignaz Jan Paderewski) or play chess at world championship level (Mark Taimanov) or just play chess well and compose (Prokofiev) are long gone...

Though I believe Valentina Lisitsa did start off with WGM (Woman Grandmaster) ambitions as a chess player....

It isn't hard to understand why. The young Pollini had the grace of Rubinstein and the technique of Hoffmann. Then he spent a decade studying under Michelangeli, which transformed him into a steely, cold performer with an extraordinary level of accuracy and precision.

Rubinstein esteemed those he found worthwhile. Like Pollini. I mean, how the heck can you dis on Pollini?! But he was right in his general assessment. "Hurt feelings" aside, he nailed the problem -- most virtuosi lack the charisma and ability to emotionally draw the listener in. And it's MUCH worse now than 20 years or so ago when Rubinstein made that quote.

As an aside, I believe Prokofiev beat Capablanca. Not too shabby a chess player. There must, as one wag said, have been a woman in the room...

I strongly disagree with your assessment of today's greatest pianists. In fact, I find your statement unbelievable. I think there are today and always have been a tremendous number of exciting, accomplished, and charismatic performers.