Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner How good do you think Chopin's technique was?

There are a lot more than two or three aspects to technique. That's why trying to rank pianists in terms of their "technique"(even if one could rank the individual aspect of their technique precisely...which one can't)is IMO fruitless. I think the best one can try to do is have some broad ranking categories for great technician.

Same thing for composers. Most would put Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and some others in the highest category. But why try and decide if Mozart comes before Beethoven or vice versa?

I suspect she would agree with that. As you say, it is an 'intellectual exercise', and nothing more, eh?

The point is that Argerich -like an experienced cook- has put all the ingredients together in a sumptuous recipe, and if certain pianists exceed her in double notes, scales, or octaves, what of it? That does not diminish her stature. I have no problem rating Argerich over Hofmann, Hamelin, Friedman, Lhévinne, or even Pollini. I have heard recordings of all of those pianists, but IMO they don't bring quite as much to the table as Argerich.

Charles Rosen -a student of Hofmann- claimed that he had the most effortless technique (speaking of Chopin Op 10/1), but he does not comment on Hofmann's interpretations of the masterworks. Hofmann was a pianist of his time, but unlike Rachmaninov, I don't think his recordings are more than a curiosity today.

How could I forget?

But sorry to rain (or reign) on the parade, but IMO those pianists -particularly François- have left recordings which are far greater than anything I've heard from Cortot. I guess (a) you had to have been there or (b) had to appreciate how 'musical' he was.

Cortot's pedagogical stature is not in any way questioned.

why so green Jason?

Everytime I see the title of this thread, my brain responds with
"he had a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad technique. There!".
I personally fail to see the relevance of these comparisons. People sound like they are discussing breeding racehorses or NASCAR drivers for fastest, recklessest and so on.

I don't get it. 'Green' to me is everything that George Will and Bill Kristol oppose.

I don't either, though I'll 'play' along. But I do wonder if Argerich's octaves were the equal of Horowitz and Rachmaninov, would she be a greater pianist?

Well, that 1919 recording impressed Horowitz and me, and it suggested to me at the height of his powers, he must have been an extraordinary pianist.

Leopold Godowsky was another pianist with extremely outstanding technique, but I could not tell this from a number of recordings we had of him today. But that does not make him a lesser pianist in my view.

I think since Chopin etc.. were all dead with no recordings, there is little point to speculate how good their technique was, it is much more productive to work on our technique instead.

Not his recording of the Chopin E major Scherzo? I think that is magnificent, unmatched in my experience. I have never been a big fan of Rubinstein, generally preferring Ashkenazy in this repertoire, but Godowsky was really something else.

I fail to see why you are so upset that some of us may not rate Cortot as highly as you do. It is certainly not a personal attack.

Lighten up my mate.

Referring to your avatar darling. Or whatever the little green or yellow heads next to user names are called. The green one you are sporting (unknowingly?) is decidedly sickly, dengue or ebola or something of the sort.

Bill kristol? why waste your time?

Oh. I see what you mean, not terribly appetizing. Since returning from Paris last May I have lost a lot of weight, does PW track this?

Better we leave Kristol alone... what an evil warmonger, but I digress.

Obviously, there are a lot more than three aspects of technique. Perhaps the most reliable method of assessment would be to list as many technical aspects as possible and to determine which pianist(s) excel in the greatest number of aspects. In some cases, it will be obvious that one pianist- in practically every conceivable way- is a better technician than another. I think that we can all agree that Argerich and Horowitz are/were much better technicians than Brendel is.

However, even when assessing supervirtuosi, sometimes we can conclude that one person (at least in certain aspects) is superior to another. For example, in Rachmaninov's biography, it describes an octave contest between the composer and Lhévinne. They were trying to see who could play the fastest octaves, and Rachmaninov won. That suggests that Rachmaninov had better octaves than Lhévinne did. In addition, Rachmaninov declared that Horowitz had the fastest and loudest octaves, which suggests that Horowitz had better octaves than either Rachmaninov or Lhévinne.

Also, we could compare Horowitz to Volodos (an extraordinary technician in his own right). Volodos recorded Horowitz's transcription of the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody #2, and- for the most part- Volodos' technique doesn't compare to that of the Maestro. Horowitz plays the runs more evenly and easily than Volodos does, and the Maestro's octaves are much more sonorous and exciting than Volodos' octaves. There is one repeated note passage that Volodos plays more cleanly than Horowitz does, but overall, Horowitz displays better technique. My point is that even when comparing virtuosi of extremely high calibers, we may find solid evidence that one is better than the other.


I definitely agree that Argerich is an extraordinary pianist. She is a particular favorite of mine, and I definitely like her playing better than Pollini's. Few people can generate as much visceral excitement as Argerich does in virtuoso repertoire, but she is also surprisingly good in Bach.

yes of course muscle memory is necessary but a technique which is based on endless repetition, perhaps while reading a book, is not in the same league as a technique developed with absolute concentration (which is far more energy-consuming mentally)

This is why Chopin got very angry if his students studied more than a couple of hours a day, and perhaps why he suggested that students take rests every once in a while to regenerate their mental energies

Jazz players have to concentrate fully on their playing because they are constantly improvising, so that influences the WAY they study.. this is what I meant

Actually I am not upset at all, I am actually not a big fan of Alfred Cortot myself, but I do have a lot of respect for him as a pianist and as a teacher. I just felt some comments relating to Cortot were unjustified, hence my comments etc...

That recording of Chopin E major Scherzo was very well played, with brilliant technique and I have never heard of this recording until just now.

It seems strange we have one (?) brilliant recording of Godowsky and not so great recordings elsewhere, and similarly for Cortot, but then Cortot is regarded as a "bad" pianist...

I reckon if I had a fraction of Godowksy or Cortot's talent, I can die happy.

Your reply seems to have little to do with my comments. Who said anything about reading a book or not concentrating? All I said was that the athletic part of piano playing is an important one.

Some very great pianists did practice technique while reading a book and it worked for them although it may not be a good idea for most. As long as one's technique allows one to do whatever one wants, I don't think it matters how it's achieved.

I read many biographies on Freddy in my youth, and history indicates that he was the complete package. His volume range, particularly ppp was unmatched. Before he contracted TB, he concertised extensively. Also, he supposedly took Liszt to task often for adding fireworks to Chopin's compositions.

Well said!
Although, I'm not sure about the "extensive" concertizing. It depends what we mean by concerts. I imagine he played dozens or maybe hundreds of "salons," "soirees" etc., but I recall reading that he probably didn't play more than about a couple dozen what we'd now call concerts. (Not sure I'm right about this, but I think that's what I saw.)


edit: I checked it out a little and this appears to be so.

"Freddy"? Really?

I would like to know where you get this information. It has been documented in the biographies that I have read that Chopin gave relatively few concerts in his adult years. In some of which he did give, he was criticized for having a weak tone that did not project well.

Regards,

In those days, opera was the primary entertainment for the masses, so I imagine any critic would have been expecting the operatic approach to projection. Chopin's music is unusually intimate and gentle, and he played with a very wide tonal palette, so it's easy to imagine that the comment about a "weak tone" is based on the tastes of the day. It only takes a read through one of his Preludes compared to Liszt's to understand how far ahead of the curve he was. That's not to say he wasn't frail, but it has never taken a lot of physical effort to play loudly, certainly not on pianos of the day.

Not according to what I've read.

Any biographies or articles I'm familiar with make a point of how few concerts he gave in his life. And many of them, while praising his playing to the skies and commenting on his control at very soft levels, talk about his very soft overall playing which would imply a lack of dynamic range in his playing. This second aspect of his playing we can't ever be sure about because "dynamic range" can depend on the standards of a particular time or the personal definition of those who commented on Chopin's playing.

Although the subject of Chopin's technique is very interesting to me, it's a shame we will never know for sure. I'm just glad he wrote his stuff down.

Where exactly did you read that Chopin concertized regularly before catching TB? I've never heard that.

I said before he contracted TB, which, if memory serves, was in his early twenties. I believe he was in his late teens when he toured Europe, then spent most of his time in Paris. What's wrong with 'Freddy?'. He wasn't a God; he was a great composer.