Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is the new crop better than the old???

Gizzer issue: I still like Rubinstein, Richter, Gilels, Horowitz, Feinberg, Barenboim?, et. al. better than the modern WIZ KIDS.... (Lang Lang, Yuja Wang, Angela Hewitt, etc., etc... make your own list!!)

I'm not even sure the modern technique is any better than what Richter or Art Tatum, for that matter, could manage. And I'm not even getting to the issue of interpretive or "aesthetic" sensibilities.

Am I missing something????

In terms of technique......

The only aspect where modern technique (and not just piano) is superior to the old guys is precision. As one example, if you compare Yuja Wang to Cziffra playing his own composition (flight of the bumblebee), she plays it more precisely, but with less power.

I'm not sure if this is a result of pianists listening to their own recordings, or because of piano competitions, or what. If you look at historical accounts, it seems to be even moreso. Clara Schumann for example was noted to be somewhat uneven in her playing.....but only compared to newer pianists.

And Lang Lang is an anachronism here.....out to prove that not all modern pianists play mor precisely.

I'm a Luddite (I bought my first computer last year, and have never owned a cell phone - and don't intend ever to), but almost all my current listening is to the 'younger' generation of pianists - from not-so-young like Pletnev, Zimerman and Matsuev, to the really young like Grosvenor, Trifonov and Lisiecki.

The only Rubinstein CD I downloaded into my laptop was 'The Last Recital for Israel', but I've since deleted it - once my fascination with his daredevil playing (so refreshingly different from the rather careful playing on his commercial stereo recordings) passed, I became all too aware of his technical problems and numerous infelicities. Richter, Horowitz, Ogdon and Koczalski are the only deceased pianists that I still listen to regularly.

BTW, I find Tatum really boring now - again, after a short period of initial admiration. Once you've heard one of his RH runs, you've heard them all.....

I find it strange that you would classify Angela Hewitt as a WIZ KID. She is closer in age to Murray Perahia and Emmanuel Ax than she is to Lang Lang or Yuja Wang. In any event, all of these pianists had/have their strengths and weaknesses and it could be that your taste in music favors the ones that you mention. I prefer Hewitt's Bach to all the others except, perhaps, Gilels; but then I can still see her play in person.

You make a good point, but I never get tired of his command of accent.

I hesitated with "Hewitt" classification. A taxonomy issue for sure. I think of her Bach (which I don't understand or appreciate for that matter, and I've heard her do the 48 live in Toronto) as being somewhat "old-fashioned."

He's not a classical pianist. But worthy of mention, nonetheless, for obvious reasons.

I can relate to the "been-there-done-that" feeling about him. But as a fool-around but advanced pianist myself, I can ..... what is the apt wording "totally respect" the technical prowess!!!

I'm not sure Richter or Hamelin's octave-playing in Brahms 2 is any more stupendous than what I THINK I'm hearing on my 21-year-old daughter's Tatum albums.

I respectfully leave it at that!!!

You've anticipated me.....

Heck! (Can we use that word on the internet?)

Sandor is right (I think) the word "technique" (heck, the CONCEPT too) is really impossible to separate or even distinguish from the word/concept??? "art".

So I'm inclined to think. Hanon is useful if played "with feeling."

Or words to that effect.

The technique of contemporary pianists is absolutely superior to those of the past.

It's silly and ignorant to believe otherwise.

And I never get tired of his tiny subtle harmonic twists, or his sense of rhythm.

The RH runs are impressive at first, then they just become basic words in his vocabulary. At that point, other things become even more impressive.

-J

Please, give examples.

I won't give specific examples because poorly read fools will try to make a case for outdated talents, but certain names of contemporary pianists should find there way to you with ease.

I really do mean that only a fool would think that pianistic skill is not rising with time, in the same way that every other form of skill rises to more elite levels over generations (Olympic and general athleticism, mathematical and scientific methods and techniques, etc.); piano is no different and contemporary pianists play circles around their dead heroes.

“I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my friends will call it.”
-- Edgar Allan Poe

"I have to use silly, illogical, opinionated quotations from others because I cannot communicate my own ideas well." - Vid

Technique getting better over time is an illusion caused by the obsession of note accuracy. They are not the same thing.

If you believe what you say, show us some examples. Compare the best of both eras and make a case.

Your thinking that the increase in technical facility is an illusion is a delusion.

The idea that outdated talents are superior to the virtuosity seen today is a hopeless romantic plea; it's obviously not true and very often an appeal to "romantic or pedagogical authority".

No, it's not. In fact, you're the deluded one. Your assertions are hilariously wrong. Do you even know the old pianists?

Okay, by quoting Poe I may be guilty of not contributing much to the OP. It was meant as a counter to Artys' standard snarky tone where he likes to refer to people with opposing viewpoints as 'fools'.

As for him attributing a quote to me such as this at what point does this become a personal attack? I'm getting tired of the nasty tone that has token over this forum.

I would claim that 'note accuracy' is one aspect of technique.

Other than that, I can't think of any aspect of piano technique now that has improved over the previous generation (if someone has examples, I would be interested in seeing them).

In other words I think we agree, but are using different words to say them.