 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
42 members (busa, clothearednincompo, Doug M., 36251, Davidnewmind, Dfrankjazz, brdwyguy, benkeys, Burkhard, 5 invisible),
1,131
guests, and
256
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,931
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,931 |
Oh--sorry if it sounds like a lecture. I didn't post the quote you have of Liszt and, no, I never heard some of those greats, or you might prefer well-known, pianists mentioned as I was not around then. By that, I mean live performances. I have tried to collect recordings of some of the famous ones--Paderewski, Friedman, Hofmann, etc., and that is what I'm referring to. I hear others on Public Radio or I have some of their recordings. I'm not saying that all of the present day pianists are sterile and pounding but many are. One--23 year old and Juilliard student--did tho and stood up and said he did.
Anyway, I hope this satisfies your curiosity as this is my opinion and in no way am I trying to change yours.
You are a product of your experiences and training as am I of mine. If they differ there's no reason to get upset about it. If you haven't listened to some of the CDs or LPs of these, you might find it enlightening and, I would hope, enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it....
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24 |
How intersting this futile exercise is! People come up with really weird choices (or perhaps I have some learning to do).
Anyway, here's mine:
1. Richter
2. Rubinstein
3. Horowitz
4. Arrau
5. Pollini
6. Gilels
7. Kissin
8. Brendel
9, Schnabel
10. Argerich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,509
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,509 |
how can you forget moravec? or lupu?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
How intersting this futile exercise is! People come up with really weird choices (or perhaps I have some learning to do).
Anyone who doesn't list Victor Borge has a LOT of learning to do! :p  (But seriously, he was a great pianist who chose comedy instead of "serious pianist" as his calling...and he chose comedy after playing as a "serious concert artist" first. )
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 55
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 55 |
1.Friedman
2.Simon Barere
3.Richter
#.Janis
#.Argerich
#.Zimerman
#.Horowitz
#.Cziffra
#.Katsaris
#.Freire
It's really hard to come up with the ultimate 10 names. There are still Sokolov, Weissenberg, Fiorentino, Feinberg, and to name a few that I want to include.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 121
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 121 |
1.) Vladimir Horowitz
2.) Richter
3.) Gilels
Cziffra
Michelangeli
Zimerman
Katsaris
Fiorentino
Freire
Feinberg
Annie Fischer
Kapell
(Actually except the first 3, from 4-12 are pretty much are the same level of greatness, i just run thru my mind and come up with their names in no particular orders.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 121
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 121 |
Originally posted by Derulux:
It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it.... You bring shame to the name and image of Horowitz, take it off your avatar, it's an insult the great artist. By the way, I pity u on another hand, seems like your ears can only 'hear' but not 'listen', let alone 'appreciate'. Sound quality has nothing to with the great artistry as long as it's recognizable, obviously your ears are not 'trained' to listen to old recordings. ANd yea, go listen to your SACD copy of Lang Lang's new album you Comme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,893
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,893 |
Originally posted by SteinwayModelD: Originally posted by Derulux:
[b] It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it....
By the way, I pity u on another hand, seems like your ears can only 'hear' but not 'listen', let alone 'appreciate'. Sound quality has nothing to with the great artistry as long as it's recognizable, obviously your ears are not 'trained' to listen to old recordings.
ANd yea, go listen to your SACD copy of Lang Lang's new album you fuzzy kitten. [/b]Quoted for posterity. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 426
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 426 |
Originally posted by Derulux:
It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it.... So you're an audiophile first, and a music lover second. Some people don't order their priorities the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,380
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,380 |
When I was younger I found intense neurotic playing attractive. As I grow older I tend to shun such playing and I am more and more gravitating towards healthy, honest and joyful playing(no less intense). That is why I would put Rubinstein at the top spot.
Regardless of how skillful they are, neither Horowitz nor Richter give a healthy and joyful impression.
“There are only two important things which I took with me on my way to America, It´s been my wife Natalja and my precious Blüthner.†– Sergei Rachmaninov
1913 Blüthner model 6
1929 Blüthner model 9.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
By the way, I pity u on another hand, seems like your ears can only 'hear' but not 'listen', let alone 'appreciate'. Sound quality has nothing to with the great artistry as long as it's recognizable, obviously your ears are not 'trained' to listen to old recordings.
*laughs uncontrollably* Wait... *starts laughing again* You bring shame to the name and image of Horowitz, take it off your avatar, it's an insult the great artist.Why? Because perhaps his most popular recording of the Rach 3 (argued against the 1978 audio, and not the October video, which was far better) is not an "absolute favorite of mine"? Please... ANd yea, go listen to your SACD copy of Lang Lang's new album you datz rite  . I'll let Lang Lang know you complimented him. (But I'll bet you don't understand that...perhaps I should...no, you know what? I won't...it's funnier this way.) So you're an audiophile first, and a music lover second. Some people don't order their priorities the same. No, actually. Any recording where the sound is balanced and not distorted will do nicely. (My favorite Horowitz Rach 3 is between the 1930 and 1941 recordings...can't really decide. What cracks me up is the 1941 is better balanced and was a RADIO broadcast never meant for mass production....) And I prefer Rachmaninoff's own recording to Horowitz's 1951. In fact, I prefer nearly every recording of the Rach 3 to Horowitz's 1951 (except Horowitz's 1978 audio recording, which I consider a disaster...but, because it's Horowitz, it's "beautiful").
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 16 |
1.Rachmaninoff - Rachmaninoff and everything he played
2.Richter - everything
3.Horowitz - everything , Scarlatti
4.Gilels - Brahms and Grieg , Concertos
5.Micheangeli - everything he recorded
6.Argerich - Concertos
7.Lipatti - Chopin
8.Arrau - Beethoven,Liszt
9.Rubinstein - Chopin mainly
10.Rudolf Serkin - Beethoven,Mozart
Younger generation but not great yet !! - Perahia,Kissin,Hough,Zimmerman
Did not hear enough of Paderewski or Hoffman but their recordings are of old era
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,480
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,480 |
Originally posted by Derulux:
It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it.... Derulux, you know i always respect your views .. but sorry there must be a misunderstanding here .. or you are very angry or ... whatever Your talking makes no sense here, first you put rachmaninoff and horowitz as your top 2 (my top 2 also by the way ) .. then here you attack them and anyone who chooses them .. then again you say that your fav. rec. of the rach3 is rach's and horowitz FROM THE THIRTIES!! I mean your favorites here must have the oldest and least audio quality of all rach3 recordings!! so why are you surprised that varcon here likes old recordings? So, please explain why you like them yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,480
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,480 |
Hey derulux, this is not a rach3 thread by the way! But i now get your point  , you mean that some people choose some pianists because of only their names, right? If this is your point, then explain why do you like rachmaninoff and horowitz as your favorites? You are right, i don't judge the recording by the artist's name .. but by the recording itself? Yes .. horowitz's 78 is a bad recording which just gets the name Just as Rachmaninoff's chopin's waltz no.10 is a bad recording And Mrcool here generalizes that he likes everything Rachmaninoff played .. maybe its his taste .. but maybe if he could explain to me why? and which recordings did he hear? and if everythinng rachmaninoff played is his top favorites of these pieces? (by the way mrcool, rachmaninoff is one of my best pianists too .. but i would like to know why you like him .. and derulux's reason too)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,983
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,983 |
An insight into Rachmanninoff's true playing quality/ability can be gleaned from the "A Window in Time" recording, where works he played on a reproducing piano, in the 1920's, I believe, are meticulously digitized and replayed on an Estonia Concert Grand. This is a fascinating project the man who produced this album undertook, and probably the best representation we have today of what Rachmaninoff might have sounded like in person.
Piano Technician/Tuner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,983
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,983 |
Correction, the reproduction is being played on a Bosie 290 SE.
Piano Technician/Tuner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 72
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 72 |
1.Rosalyn Tureck
2.Claudio Arrau
3.Glenn Gould
4.Cyprien Katsaris
Other very likely painists to fill the list (have not heard enough of their works to conclude):
Horowitz,Rubinstein,Rachmaninov,Serkin,Gilels,Haskil,Radu Lupu,Fou T'song
So surprised Tureck wasn't even mentioned.
Truthfulness,Benevolence,Forbearance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,230
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,230 |
Originally posted by Bassio: Originally posted by Derulux:
[b] It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.
I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.
The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it....
Your talking makes no sense here, first you put rachmaninoff and horowitz as your top 2 (my top 2 also by the way ) .. then here you attack them and anyone who chooses them .. then again you say that your fav. rec. of the rach3 is rach's and horowitz FROM THE THIRTIES!!
I mean your favorites here must have the oldest and least audio quality of all rach3 recordings!! so why are you surprised that varcon here likes old recordings?
So, please explain why you like them yourself? [/b]Read more carefully... I also would list Horowitz near the top, based on his recordings (and I think I more or less did), but I still don't pretend that what I'm hearing, when I'm listening to some recording of his, is what he *really* sounded like. And, generally, the older the recordings are the less faithfully they reproduce what the music really sounded like. It's true that there is more to a performance than sound, but it's also undeniable that sound has its tentacles in every other aspect of a performance (determining the tempo and phrasing, or how they work, for example), and so, when the sound is as badly reproduced as it tends to be in many mono recordings, for example, then the reproduction can only be distorted in a more or less significant way. Often the playing (or what you can hear through the hiss) in such (mono) recordings sounds so different from what it really sounded like that you would have to use a *lot* of imagination and some self-deception to believe that you're hearing better playing when listening to such recordings than you are when listening to some well-made and well-played modern recording. I've heard many times even about Brendel, for example, (who's made many *modern* recordings) that recordings don't do him justice, that he has to be heard live, to appreciate his greatness, etc.... (Although there are definitely styles that suit studio better than other styles... Gould's playing fits the studio quite well . . . but this is getting a bit outside the subject, even if that might not seem so...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,276
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,276 |
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,385
Posts3,349,185
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/forumpicts/Grand_Obsession_sm.jpg)
