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

In my view, technique is the ability to execute your interpretation of a piece of music. As such it is comprised of so many different aspects that a general ranking of technique is meaningless. Modern pianists like the Lang Lang excel at very fast and accurate scales, arpeggios and dense chords. However, I have not heard the same level of voicing and pedal technique from them that Horowitz and Rubinstein had. I have also not heard any of them approach the technique of Glenn Gould when playing Bach.

But we're talking about technique, not pianism.

Aside from that, I never really found much of the "old crop" that much more convincing, music-wise, and especially not the people who make lots of mistakes. Some of the young people need more time to develop and more time to think their repertoire through, but they have many decades ahead of them to do that.

Often times the young guys just pound out a note-perfect but crappy performance, but my absolute favorite recordings are usually from the newer guys, because some of them do make good music and the modern emphasis on clean, even, etc. adds a nice touch.

Are they separable? Technique to me includes much more, the ability to create a special sound with touch and pedalling and the ability to give a controlled but rhytmically interesting performance. Interpretation comes from technique.

Some young pianists can make a special piano sound as well but they are not necessarily famous. Tastes must have changed.

Over the past decade I've heard quite a few performances by younger pianists on the competition circuit, (or heading there), who demonstrated mind boggling speed, huge volume, crystal clear notes and excellent accuracy. I wanted to walk out.

When I listened to the comments of the non-musicians around me, they said they were dazzled. I thought the performance showed little dynamic range; there was loud and louder. There were two speeds: fast and faster. They was no understanding of the music at all. For example, imagine hearing Gershwin in which every note is there, fast and accurate but there is no beat, no swing. Imagine a Bach gigue played so fast it loses its charm and sounds like a blur of notes. This type of playing is all about technique not about making music. On one occasion, I did walk out.

I know a very talented young man whose fire has been trained out of him. When he was a young boy, you could hear his individuality and his excitement as he played. Now, he sounds like white bread - there is no urgency, no imagination and he takes no risks. I suppose this makes him more palatable to the competition judges but I was very saddened and I no longer enjoyed listening to him.

For me, it's not enough that a pianist is technically gifted, they must be musical as well. I want the music to touch my heart not just blast my ears and dazzle my eyes. I am hopeful that maturity will cause these tightly closed buds to bloom.

I don't agree. The OP asks, 'Is the new crop better than the old?' He didn't specifically refer to technique. I think the issue is worth debating.

One of the difficulties of the comparison of "old" vs. "new" and one that makes such comparisons a little unfair, is the fact that we are comparing seasoned artists with a lifetime of musical and extra-musical experience with still wet-behind-the-ears newcomers just out of the conservatories.

If we could compare a newer generation with an older one with somewhat the same life experience, then perhaps the comparisons would be more valid. Or, similarly, we should try to compare the new pianists with their counterparts of a few generations ago when they were at the same age as the newcomers are now.

It will be interesting to hear this new crop of virtuosi in twenty or thirty years; then we could compare them to their similar age groups of several generations ago. I would not want to dismiss the brilliant, young "executioners" of today for their lack of depth without giving them some chance to show their mettle when they will have matured.

Regards,

OP here. Well, yes, I didn't refer specifically to technique. I didn't want to beg all the usual questions: what is "technique," what counts as a "beautiful" interpretation, etc. We always presuppose a concept, or at the very least, an attitude or general approach to these concepts when we express "reasons" for holding a position. (Yup. I think "reasons" can be given for preferences in pianists, even if preference is something entirely subjective.)

I try to use the word "technique" in the narrow sense that refers to evenness of scales, trills, speed, accuracy, etc. But the poster who said or implied that you can't actually separate the technique from the art is right. Conceptually, you can distinguish between the craft and the art of playing an instrument, but in practice they are inseparable. True in my own experience, anyway.

But that way of thinking (that the craft and the art are inseparable) introduces (possibly) a different, broader use of the word "technique".

I think we may be going through a transitional period where pianists are being forced to compete in quite vast markets, relative to the past, for example: Valentina Lisitsa whose aim appears to be to conquer the classical piano YouTube market, and perhaps not necessarily to create beautiful interpretations.

She's no technician, of course, but the point is that pianists can't make a living these days without cutting a lot of aesthetic corners. It's an easier, or quicker route to the top, or to some kind of financial security, to razzle-dazzle the listener.

And, again, that "listener" isn't principally the folks that hang out here, but the "great-unwashed" of the internet, most of whom will happily admit to knowing nothing about the classical piano repertoire.

That marketplace is VERY DIFFERENT from the marketplace that produced the "great pianists" of the past.

Which just means that sifting through the huge numbers of technically advanced pianists on the market these days to find one that actually wants, or can afford, to make MUSIC may be just a whole lot harder than it used to be.

Since nothing else can be said for this thread, at least it has good entertainment value.

As a start you can 'say' your opinion on whether modern pianists have better technique than the older guys. If you're not going to add to the conversation, what is even the point of posting here?

You seem to be under the impression that I have made a grammatical error. You will find, if you read more carefully, that what I said was correct idiomatic usage. As for the thread, I can already see, from what has gone down so far, that the addition of my opinion will not have a positive effect.

Not at all. I'm under the impression that your post is useless, and that you are smart and could write something more interesting.

Yes, I believe this is pretty much it. It's why I defend so sternly a new approach to classical music. I already expressed my opinion on this thoroughly on another thread, but to put it shortly, people today don't treat "classical music" as music. The "unwashed mass", as someone said here, doesn't go to a concert to actually enjoy the music as they would do with jazz, rock, pop, but rather they go to get dazzled by those mysteriously gifted prodigies that seem so distant from our world.
I don't know if I'm being clear... but I believe Novaes, Cortot, etc, are products of their time. The music they made was quite approachable and enjoyable for the average listener. The singing line, the phrasing, the music was important because people were interested by it. Nowadays, it's not about the music anymore...
And I don't really know what caused this. Some say the digital era, but I think this is oversimplifying things.

Here's a video to illustrate this approachable music of which I talked about.

I've already made it clear that I don't wish to stir the pot any further.

By posting, you did exactly that.

If you truly didn't want to stir the pot, you would not have posted.

you bought your first computer last year but you've had an account on here for four years?

No, I didn't stir the pot. I appear to have stirred your pot, though, so I suggest you go and let it settle down.

Back to the OP and some of the discussion that has occurred. It was the advent of recording that brought on the prevalence of note perfect recordings. Whether it was a 78 (remember them?), LP, CD, DVD or MP3 you didn't want to hear wrong notes in something you paid for, especially since you'd be hearing them over and over. So over time more attention was paid to note correctness. In time it evolved to what we have now of recordings being cobbled together from numerous takes. My point is what you hear on a recording may not be indicative of the level of musicianship a given performer is actually capable of. So if we're judging from recordings I'd say you may not be using the correct medium.

Still we know Argerich and Hamelin are incredibly capable pianists, but are they better than Godowsky or Richter or Horowitz? The Godowsky La Campanella on Youtube sounded pretty darn good. Perhaps it could be played faster, but would that be music? It could also be louder, but there may have been limitations in the recording equipment of the time that necessitated playing softer. I don't think the evidence exists to come to any obvious conclusion.

However, in some sports it's obvious that players get better over time. American baseball has a long history of keeping statistics and preserving games on film. Babe Ruth's Home Run record fell a long time ago and then that record was eclipsed. We know more now about sports training and the body's capabilities. At some point a limit is reached. There may be small incremental improvements based on natural ability and training (or performance enhancing drugs). We went through that phase in baseball and the Tour de France, but it seems no one can beat those records without pharmaceutical help.

So how does that relate to playing piano and piano technique? Playing the modern piano is over a century old. Stereo recordings have existed for over half a century. These are mature technologies. Are the great pianists of the mid 20th century as good or better than the best of today? I don't hear a huge difference. I'm sure there were plenty of conservatory students who could play fast and loud then just as now. Sadly, there was no Youtube then to preserve them for posterity. I'm inclined to believe that the current crop of pianists are very good, but not significantly better than 50 years ago.

However, in the early 20th century there was a more forgiving attitude toward rhythm and even wrong notes. The culture of playing was different. If the Godowski La Campanella is any indication then the best pianists of the past were about as capable as the best pianists today.

Yes .

I've had to use a computer at work for the past 10 years or so, but didn't have an e-mail address until around 2006. I was using a Sony Walkman cassette tape player and a film camera until mid-2013, when I joined the digital age (well, sort of). And that was only because my Walkman conked out, and I couldn't easily buy transparency (slide) film anymore.

Until January 2013, when I acquired a MacBook, the only way I could access or post in PW was when I was at work, or at the gym. Which is why my 'postage rate' suddenly shot up after that....

Anyway, back to the fray.
I'd say that the overall technical standard of piano playing now is higher than it's ever been at any time in history. The greats of yesteryear match, but don't exceed, the best of today's standard among virtuosi.

But it's among the 'rank-and-file' pianists - the ones who don't win competitions, and cannot get engagements at Carnegie Hall - where one finds the greatest differences compared to 100, or even 50 years ago. All of them can easily play Scarbo, Islamey and Rach 3 with great accuracy and flair. Whereas the numbers who could do that in the 1950s were few.

As for musical values, of course that depends on your taste. Cortot's, Koczalski's and Rachmaninov's freedom and rhythmic liberties, or today's Urtext-obsessed and strict-adherance-to-the-score pianists? (Though of course, there are a few younger pianists who buck this trend).

Anyone who believe that today's best pianists don't take the risks that the older generation used to take haven't been attending, or listening to, the right concerts. The main difference is that in the past, there was a lot of hit-and-miss stuff from the likes of Cortot, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter, Gilels et al, whereas today, pianists take risks and still play all the right notes.......

In an article in International Piano magazine Alexander Braginsky said(and none of the other panelists disagreed) that the general level of technique today is far beyond that of 50 or 100 years ago.

That is not the same thing as saying, for example, that the top 10 technicians from the first half of the 19th century were technically inferior to the top 10 young pianists of today.

It's somewhat similar in chess. Even taking into account rating inflation, the number of players reaching grandmaster level today is far greater than 50 years ago. That is not the same thing as saying the 10 best players today are better than the 10 best players of say 1950(as long as the 1950 players would be given a chance to study what has been learned about chess in the last 60 years).

Leaving questions of technique for a moment, what about sound, character, an individual voice?

My teacher sometimes tells a student, "try playing this like Rubinstein would." Or Richter, or Perahia. It's an interesting exercise, but what's particularly interesting here is that the student *always knows just what she means*. Like great composers and authors, these pianists had individual voices.

I like a lot of the next generational talent, but do these pianists have their own voices? In 50 years, if a teacher says "How would Trifonov play this", will the student know what the teacher is getting at? Do we just not see it now because we lack historical perspective? Is this even a fair criterion?


-J