PW's 10 Greatest Pianists of 20th Century

I thought it might be fun to have PW's ranking/poll of the 10 greatest pianists of the 20th century just to see how pianoworld differs or is similar to popular conceptions of the best pianists of the 20th century.

So everyone list your top 5-10 favorite/greatest pianists of the 20th century [/b] and we'll then tally them up using a system of inverse points so that a pianist ranked #1 gets 10 points, #2 gets 9 points, and a pianist ranked #10 gets 1 point, etc, so that we can sort them out by highest points so that a pianist who ranks consistently in the top 3 or 5 with many people will then probably have the most points and will be ranked #1 and will be the champion.

Keep in mind this is just for fun and to honor those pianists which we love so let's not bicker!

I will start it off with my list:

1.Sviatoslav Richter
2.Vladimir Horowitz
3.Sergei Rachmaninoff
4.Emil Gilels
5.Artur Schnabel
6.Josef Hoffman
7.Vladimir Ashkenazy
8.Alfred Brendel
9.Arturo Benedetti Michelangelli
10.Glenn Gould

I can't rank 'em... it just doesn't work that way for me... bah... I'm going to rank them in the order I like them best, not necessarily the "greatest"...

1. Sviatoslav Richter
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Arthur Rubinstein
4. Martha Argerich
5. Alfred Brendel
6. Glenn Gould
7. Jorge Bolet
8. Ivan Moravec
9. Emil Gilels
10. Alexis Weissenberg

yea... I really can't rank them from greatest to worst... I like 'em all.

I know nobody else will probably put this name in their top-ten, but he's my favorite, so he gets the top spot.

1. Victor Borge
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Sergei Rachmaninoff
4. Evgeny Kissin*
5. Martha Argerich

The rest all tend to blend together for me...can't really say who's above who. So, I've got a "top five".


*Most of career thus far has been in the 20th (with his international debut in the 80's), and not the 21st century...so I give him this spot...we'll see what he does with it now that we've transitioned to a new century. (My guess is he'll move up the list.)

1. Paderewski
2. Glenn Gould
3. de Pachmann
4. Horowitz
5. Busoni
6. Schnabel
7. Rachmaninoff
8. Josef Hofmann
9. Victor Borge (yeah, I like him too)
10. Moritz Rosenthal

I'm jealous. I've never heard Paderewski play.

Same could be said for de Pachmann and Busoni...though I'd probably consider them 19th century pianists...especially Busoni, who lived most of his life in the 19th century.

Man, you really like your "turn of the 20th century" pianists, of whom there are very very few recordings (and almost none of good quality). But I have heard Rosenthal. Ha, so there. :p


I found this interesting. Averaging the birthdate of your "top ten", you come up with the year: 1880

Only five of the pianists on your list live past 1945, two of whom die by 1953. (The three who "survived" were Gould, Horowitz and Borge, who died in that order.) Borge came closest to seeing the 21st century, having died just a few days prior to the turn.

In order to have seen most of your "top ten" in concert, you would have to have been born prior to 1943. To remember it, you would arguably have to have been born prior to 1938. (Most people can recall memories from when they were five, but not too much younger.) To truly appreciate the memory, you would probably have to have been born prior to 1928, to at least put you in your mid-teens near the performer's death.

That, to me, is disconcerting...not because I think pianists today are "worse" or "better" than [insert pianist's name who was popular prior to 1950], but because the community hasn't seemed to be able to move on. (And then the community wonders why it is dwindling....)


EDIT: My average was 1920, which, at least, put my pianists firmly in the 20th century. I wanted to include Volodos on the list, but he really didn't "step it up" until the 1990's, so his career is kind of a half-n-half in the 20th and 21st centuries. That would've put my average birthdate in 1939, and then only two of my top five would be dead...and all the rest are still performing.


I'm still waiting for someone to say, "Liszt, duh." <---That's my favorite response. It makes my day that much easier to laugh at. Reason: Nobody alive has ever heard Liszt play, or even stood a chance at hearing Liszt play. They'd have to be 119 years old to be born before Liszt died, and almost 150 to hear Liszt while he was still performing.

Oh, you're so right. These aren't 20th century pianists. I guess I have been listening too much to those old recordings. I love their performances because they are so alive; their playing sounds like improvisation, and that makes it much more interesting to me.

The average listener today would probably say that these pianists had no technique and that they, because of that, were poor pianists.

I have never liked the playing of modern pianists. The reason is that almost all of them follows the score to such a degree that it kills the music. It becomes like a painting: static.

But I am aware of the fact that this is a totally subjective matter and that most people don't agree with me.

About the Liszt thing I think it's very tempting to mention him. It is true that I've never heard him play, but I have heard his students play and I have read thousands of explanations of his playing, and I think that that would compensate (slightly) for not having heard him. Although he would have made the birth average even lower.

its hard for me to order them. i'll try.

1 Kristian Zimerman
2 Gyorgy Cziffra
3 Sviatoslav Richter
4 Claudio Arrau
5 Arthur Rubinstein
6 Glenn Gould
7 Sergei Rachmaninov
8 Vladimir Horowitz
9 Ivo Pogorelich
10 Leopold Godowsky

I'd say:

1. Horowitz
2. Richter
3. Gould
4. Argerich
5. Brendel
6. Zimmerman
7. Pires
8. Bolet
9. Pollini
10.Giles

If the pianist played for a significant portion of the 20th century, then I feel they should be counted. Like David Ramezani, I feel that Paderewski, Rosenthal, Hofmann, Gabrilowitsch, and others should be in the upper rank. No pianist today has the reputation that Paderewski had in his day. And Novaes is probably the greatest woman pianist of the 20th century along with Myra Hess.

The sterile, pounding performances of today can't equal the musicality of some of the great artists of the first half plus of the 20th century--at least IMHO. Equaling Hofmann's or Rosenthal's technical ability would be difficult for most of today's performers.

Anyway, it all boils down to training and preferences rather than hard and fast classification, or so it would seem to me.

That's what makes artistic areas interesting is the variety of tastes that are prevalent.

In the order I would have liked to hear them in concert (based on their recordings, and some other stuff):

1. Horowitz
2. Arrau
3. Cortot
4. Brendel
5. Gilels
6. Gould
7. Mustonen
8. Richter
9. Michelangeli
10. Rubinstein

Well here's the results in the running so far boys and girls!

1. Horowitz - 57 [/b]
2. Richter - 40[/b]
3. Gould - 33[/b]
4. Rachmaninoff - 24[/b]
5. Brendel - 22[/b]
6. Argerich - 20[/b]
7. Arrau and Gilels - 16[/b]
8. Zimmerman - 15[/b]
9. Borge - 12[/b]
10. Schnabel - 11[/b]


Looks like Horowitz expectedly pulls ahead of the pack! Any surprises so far? Seems like a decent list so far to me but I'm surprised Michelangelli and a few other giants didn't make the running yet!

1. Sviatoslav Richter
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Glen Gould
4. Claudio Arrau
5. Emille Gilels
6. Sergie Rachmaninoff
7. Ivan Moravec
8. Alexander Scriabin
9. Martha Argerich
10. Joesph Hoffmann

1. Richter
2. Gilels
3. Rachmaninoff
4. Weissenberg
5. Horowitz
6. Sokolov
7. Fiorentino
8. Annie Fischer
9. Kapell
10.Wild

where the heck's michelangelli??? No one likes him?

1. Horowitz
2. Rubenstein
2. Gould
4. Rachmaninoff
5. Richter
6. Gilels
7. Hofmann
8 .Michelangeli
9. Serkin
10. Ashkenazy

Sophia (not on the list )

1. Horowitz - 82
2. Richter - 67
3. Rachmaninoff - 45
4. Gould - 41
5. Gilels - 36
8. Rubinstein - 25
6. Arrau - 23
7. Argerich, Brendel - 22
9. Zimmerman - 15
10. Hoffman - 13
[/b]

Updated

1. Sviatoslav Richter
2. Grigory Sokolov
3. Glenn Gould
4. Vladimir Horowitz
5. Georges Cziffra
6. Horatio Gutierrez
7. Byron Janis
8. Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli
9. Rudolf Serkin
10. Emil Gilels

Very difficult. I've stuck to the ones I find myself listening to most, rather than try to ascribe "greatness":

1. Feinberg
2. Richter
3. Fiorentino
4. Sokolov
5. Korolev
6. Egorov
7. Vieru
8. Solomon
9. Sofronitsky
10. Meyer

1. Richter
2. Gilels
3. Sokolov
4. Gould
5. Horowitz
6. Michelangeli
7. Zimerman
8. Solomon
9. Argerich
10. Ashkenazy/Brendel (I can't decide!...)

Hehe, should be interesting to see how this Richter vs. Horowitz plays out.

GODOWSKY (because of his "chopin" from carnaval !)
arrau
backhaus
rachmaninoff
fischer
kempf
richter
cziffra
lhevinne, j.
serkin

edit: whoo, i forgot horovitz... hmm, between richter and cziffra

1. Horowitz - 95 [/b]
2. Richter - 92[/b]
3. Gould - 64[/b]
4. Gilels - 46[/b]
5. Rachmaninoff - 44[/b]
6. Sokolov - 29[/b]
7. Argerich, Rubinstein - 24[/b]
8. Arrau, Brendel- 23 [/b]
9. Zimmerman - 19[/b]
10. Michelangelli, Cziffra - 15[/b]


Updated! Many neck and neck! The giants are starting to pull away!

Interesting to note so far Gilels and Richter both top 4, both students of Heinrich Neuhaus who was student of Godowsky and possibly Arrau or Cortot I've heard..I forget.. maybe I am wrong though.

Richter and Horowitz neck and neck though!

This is an imposible task, but here we go...

1. Gilels
2. Michelangeli
3. Lipatti
4. Kapell
5. Sokolov
6. Rubinstein
7. Cortot
8. Argerich
9. Moravec
10. Tureck

About the Liszt thing I think it's very tempting to mention him. It is true that I've never heard him play[/b]
How can you mention someone you never heard play and say that he's "your favorite"?

No pianist today has the reputation that Paderewski had in his day.[/b]
I would argue that there are two reasons for this. The first is that the community clings to a past it can never recover, constantly professing the quality of [those who are dead] and refusing to hail [those who are alive]. The second is that the community has dwindled to a great degree (at least partly due to the first reason). So, it would be impossible to garner that kind of fame today, even if someone were a better pianist than "Paderewski" (to use your example).

The sterile, pounding performances of today can't equal the musicality of some of the great artists of the first half plus of the 20th century--at least IMHO. Equaling Hofmann's or Rosenthal's technical ability would be difficult for most of today's performers.
[/b]
Varcon, when were you born? I won't say what I want to say until after you tell me...just in case you are over 65.

The giants are starting to pull away![/b]
Not really...in his day, Rachmaninoff was every bit a giant as Horowitz, and he's not "pulling away" from anything.

At least Victor Borge made the list for a time. "[Laughter,] that's my only reward. The rest goes to the government." --Borge

1. Horowitz - 98 [/b]
2. Richter - 96[/b]
3. Gould - 64[/b]
4. Gilels - 56[/b]
5. Rachmaninoff - 51[/b]
6. Sokolov - 35[/b]
7. Arrau - 32[/b]
8. Rubinstein - 29[/b]
9. Argerich - 27[/b]
10. Michelangelli - 24[/b]



Updated! Wow, Brendel's been kicked out

There ar ea few that are stil in the running that could come back with another vote or two such as Borge, Fiorentino, Zimmerman, Moravec, Paderewski, Cortot, Hoffman, Schnabel, Godowsky, etc most of them all have over 10 points and with a few votes can make it into the bottom somewhere, Borge and Hoffman actually lead those under achievers.

Heh, don't mean to be picky, but the numbers are a little off. I think some of the updates by other members might have been off a little if you've been refering to them for the count.

(and yes I'm too lazy to go count them all myself ..sorry )

This is probably going to be a very controversial list of favourites but here we go.

Vladimir Horowitz
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Valentina Lisitsa
Evgeny Kissin
Sviatoslav Richter
Vladimir Askenazy
Grigory Sokolov
Alexander Scriabin
Claudio Arrau
Glen Gould

nonono they are all right

I meticulously checked and double checked them, someone posted an update before that had one or two slightly off calculations that you might be referring to but I didn't use their update after having realized that.
Plus a few updates back I miscounted Rubinstein and so one update didn't have him on the list then the next update he magically appeared but like I said I corrected that so the rest should be perfect.

1. Ivo Pogorelich
2. Mikhail Pletnev
3. Zoltan Kocsis
4. Evgeny Kissin
5. Sviatoslav Richter
6. Martha Argerich
7. Simon Trpceski
8. Michelangeli
9. Alexei Volodin
10. Nikolai Lugansky

;) I'll take your word for it then. I found where I miscounted Horowitz, someone added him in in a note at the bottom of their list.

1. Gilels
2. Richter
3. Rachmaninoff
4. Horowitz
5. Kapell
6. Rubinstein
7. Sokolov
8. Lipatti
9. Zimerman
10. Argerich

Derelux: My point is that someone mentioned these pianists belonged to the 19th century and not the 20th. Paderewski died in 1941, Rachmaninoff in 1943, Hofmann in 1957, etc. That means that Paderewski was in the century for 41%, Rachmaninoff 43%, and Hofmann 57%. Some, like Horowitz, covered most of the century, and some were 'middle' and some of the latest ones cover maybe less that 30%.

The post asks for opinions of the 10 for the entire century--not just the latest or the last half. I listen to many and I have recordings of Friedman (yet to be mentioned), and the others. It is easy to compare and determine a personal preference. I think that is what the post is about. I was just seconding David Ramezani's preferences. So, if you think I'm mentioning them out of deference to their age--nope--their musicality. It's easy for recordings of today to be 'doctored' in the studio and correct a mistake electronically. In the days when those artists mentioned recorded it was often a 'one-time shot' with no altering. Now they have many 'takes' and the fiddling with the controls is continual. And I've heard some fine pianists live as well and some pretty awful ones.

Anyway, if you've only listened to pianists of the present era, then you need to give the others a chance as well.

i can't beleive michelangeli hasn't figured near the top, anyway here is my favourites:

1. michelangeli
2. gould(for bach)
3. argerich
4. pollini
5. pletnev


i find it difficult compare poorer quality recordings with later ones

here are some of my faves

lipatti
cortot
gilels
friedman
perahia
goode
agerich
moiseiwich
casadesus
kempf

Oh damn I forgot good old Freddie Kempf. Squeese him in between Arrau and Gould.

I am not particularly surprised that he is not on anyone else's list, but I would put on any list, on the basis of his importance, his recorded output, and his work to advance his craft, Gerald Moore.

1. Gilels
2. Richter
3. Horowitz
4. Arrau
5. Michelangeli
6. Zimmerman
7. Rubinstein
8. Cziffra
9. Kempff
10. Rachmaninoff

Thanks for avoiding my question and trying to lecture me instead.... :rolleyes:

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.

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....

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

how can you forget moravec? or lupu?

How intersting this futile exercise is! People come up with really weird choices (or perhaps I have some learning to do).
[/b]
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. )

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.

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.)

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.

Quoted for posterity.

So you're an audiophile first, and a music lover second. Some people don't order their priorities the same.

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.

*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.[/b]
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 . [/b]
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. [/b]
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").

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

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?

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)

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.

Correction, the reproduction is being played on a Bosie 290 SE.

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.

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...)

1--10 -- Maurizio...

Now you've got something to argue about; Pollini just received 55 points.

What about Emmanuel Ax? Does anyone like him?

SteinwayModelD,

I've reported your post to the moderators of Pianist Corner for them to edit out the profanity in your post.

Please do not use profanity when posting in PW.

Annnywayss... what's the count at?

I can't get any sort of order among my personal favourites, so I've ranked the ten who I think are the greatest in the sense of the influence they have had on 20th century piano playing and repertoire.

1.Horowitz
2.Schnabel
3.Rubinstein
4.Richter
5.E.Fischer
6.Gould
7.Cortot
8.Pollini
9.Gerald Moore
10.Menachem Pressler

I don't understand. Is it really so much easier to listen to the fifteenth track of this recording

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000003...v=glance&n=5174

than the ninth track of this

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000I...v=glance&n=5174

?

Maybe I have learned to listen to old recordings by having done that very much. I can even listen to recordings like the third track of

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005P...v=glance&n=5174

But I must admit that some of the music "is gone" in the last recording. Some of the pedalling effects cannot be heard. But the second recording mention I think is just as acceptable as the first.

1.Josef Lhevinne
2.Josef Hofmann
3.Sergei Rachmaninoff
4.Abbey Simon
5.Gina Bachauer
6.Vladimir Horowitz
7.Alfred Cortot
8.Jose Iturbi
9.Cutner Solomon
10.Artur Rubinstein

Hey where's the update? Are we losing track? At least I'm really confused but it seems like Richter has beaten Horowitz ....

Both of you two are right...Bassio and Mr. Hamus...concerning my "views". Bassio, you hit the surface, that people are deceiving themselves based on a "name", but Mr. Hamus goes much deeper into it to really get to some meat and potatoes. I think, after those two posts of yours, I'll say nothing else.

I think we need a few more people to vote, though...Borge fell off the list...and that shouldn't be allowed.

Here's my starting lineup:

1. Rachmaninoff
2. Gilels
3. Richter
4. Kapell
5. Sokolov
6. Rubinstein
7. Lipati
8. Argerich
9. Zimerman
10. Volodos

This was really hard, but here goes. There is probably some degree of arbitrariness.

1. Richter
2. Rachmaninoff
3. Horowitz
4. Prokofiev (don't have a lot to judge on for this one , but I love his third concerto recording)
5. Kapell

Other candidates: Andsnes, Brendel, Pletnev, Volodos, Zimerman

1. Vladimir Horowitz
2. Grigory Sokolov
3. Cyprien Katsaris
4. Ivan Moravec
5. Martha Argerich
6. Santiago Rodriguez
7. Mikhail Pletnev
8. Vladimir Sofronistky
9. Denis Matsuev
10. Boris Berezovsky - a little below par, but his recent Rachmaninoff preludes were a full blown orgasm

10. Boris Berezovsky - a little below par, but his recent Rachmaninoff preludes were a full blown orgasm:

opus,

if this was the case, shouldn't it have been your number one choice? lol

Curry,
I love Abbey Simon's playing as well. His Rachmaninoff is superb!!!!

I did not listen to many pianists but here are some pianists i like and listen to most

1- Rachmaninoff
2- Horowitz
3- Cortot
4- Gould
5- Brendel
6- Rubinstein
7- Cziffra
8- Richter
9- Arrau
10- Tureck

Others i did not listen to much but i heard that they are great:
Hofmann, Godowsky, Gilels, Michelangeli


Anyway, how's richter versus horowitz?

Liberace

Seriously, one more vote for Lipatti

1. Martha Argerich
2. Sviatoslav Richter
3. Emil Gilels
4. Leif Ove Andsnes
5. Evgeny Kissin
6. Cyprian Katsairs
7. Georges Cziffra
8. Glenn Gould
9. Maurizio Pollini
10. Myra Hess

Such a difficult question. While I readily acknowledge the greatness of folks like Richter, Pollini, and Pletniev, among so many other steely-fingered types, I find that I love what they do less often than others who are less perfect technicians. Respect and love are not the same. If the point of the question is to list the ones who can play louder and faster than anyone with the fewest mistakes (not meaning that they always do play louder and faster), then put me down for the guys above plus Michaelangeli, Horowitz, Sokolov, Rachmaninoff, Lhevinne, Rubinstein (for the sheer force of his musicality) et al. But if you're asking who I'm on most intimate terms with, who I love and hate as though they were family members, then it's Cortot and Gieseking. I feel that I'm an active participant in their music making. They never cease to amaze and awe and infuriate me, sometimes in the same phrase.

It's a pity when great playing is ignored because of the recording limitations of the time. One needs to filter out the hiss, and cracks and pay attention to the ARTISTRY. (If one has the capacity to do that - is another issue.) I'd take the worst sounding recording of Friedman playing a Mazurka than ANY state of the art recording of one. Thank God it was put to vinyl - it's an inspiration.

1. Sergei Rachmoninoff
2. Vladimir Horowitz
3. Victor Borge
4. Martha Argerich
5. Evgeny Kissin

Rock! Another vote for Borge!

Sorry guys been away for past few days but finally....


THE BIG UPDATE!

DRUM ROLL PLEASE............


1. Sviatoslav Richter - 201[/b]
2. Vladimir Horowitz - 194[/b]
3. Sergei Rachmaninoff - 126[/b]
4. Emil Gilels - 113[/b]
5. Glenn Gould - 97[/b]
6. Martha Argerich - 79[/b]
7. Arthur Rubinstein - 68[/b]
8. Claudio Arrau - 62[/b]
9. Grigory Sokolov - 58[/b]
10. Arturo Benedetti Michelangelli - 54[/b]

I'll make a list of top runners up as well that are close to edging the list if they have some more votes:

Kristian Zimmerman - 38[/b]
Georgy Cziffra - 38[/b]
Evgeny Kissin - 37[/b]
Alfred Brendel - 32[/b]
Maurizio Pollini - 30[/b]
Alfred Cortot, William Kapell - 28[/b]
Cyprian Katsaris - 26[/b]
Artur Schnabel, Josef Hoffmann - 22[/b]
Victor Borge - 20 (for derlux)[/b]


Anyhow, top 10 seems like a good and accurate list to me, in fact the top 4 or 5 are identical to how I had my top!

I Got 6/10 in top ten (Richter and Horowitz in top 2 as well)

and 2 in the close edging list.

Very happy with the list, wouldn't be able to create such a great list myself (I couldn't think of any more people who were good as well, but I see you could!).

Richter congratulations!

Did he die in 1997? One of my CD's says he died in 1982 in Munich, the other says he is alive, but Decca says he died in 1997 .

He's still alive.


(deluded Richter fan)
I can dream can't I? :rolleyes:

Haha, you are not alone.

He died in August 1997.

This is really hard. There's just so many different things to like in different pianists that its really quite impossible to give a hard ranking. But here's a try anyway.

1. Horowitz
2. Richter
3. Sofronitzky
4. Pletnev
5. Sokolov
6. Ivan Moravec
7. Michelangeli
8. Esteban Sanchez
9. Argerich
10.Gilels

And there're so many others I love and respect: Feinberg, Rachmaninoff, Nelson Friere, Zimmerman, Cortot, Cziffra, Arrau, Cherkassky, Nikolayeva...the list is endless!

Victor Borge - 20 (for derlux) [/b]
*laughs* Thank you.

1. Tea Kalandadze
2. Dubravka Tomsic

I'm suprised that no one heard of these two great pianists.

3.Cyprien Katsaris
4. Martha Argerich
5.Krystian Zimerman
6.Evgeny Kissin
7.Alexis Weissenberg
8.Glenn Gould
9.Alfred Brendel
10. LangLang?

To Derulux:
You are a real man! I don't care what you said right or wrong, but whatever who attacks you, you are always smile and respond with humour. That's really good. We don't like some messages contain irrational arguements or to blame others, do we?

To Derulux:
You are a real man! I don't care what you said right or wrong, but whatever who attacks you, you are always smile and respond with humour. That's really good. We don't like some messages contain irrational arguements or to blame others, do we?[/b]
Thank you for the kind words. I do try to maintain my sense of humor at all times. It is the only thing that keeps me sane. And I always try to maintain my perspective on life: my time here is severely limited, so why not use it for the benefit of others, instead of demoralizing everyone I come across? And if I can make people smile or laugh in the process, then, as Victor Borge would say, "That is my only reward. The rest goes to the government."

Now, do me a favor and vote for Victor! "V for Victor!" :p

Never seen a thread go downhill so quickly

It would almost be excusable if Richter and Horowitz were actually AHEAD of Lang Lang on the list...but to suggeset Lang Lang is greater than them.............................................

It's only his opinion, Heretic.

Maybe he hasn't heard Richter or Horowitz. Maybe he has, and he doesn't personally connect with their styles.

This is true, but would Lang Lang even be considered 20th century pianist??? More like 21st century..

Well, I'd say he's late 20th and early 21st.

I'm not sure I would consider him one of the "best" of the 20th century, but he might very well become one of the "best" of the 21st. Who knows? He's still very young (23? 24?)

Well his (in)famous "breakthrough" occurred in 1999 when he substituted for andre watts so I suppose that puts him in the last year of 20th century but he didn't accomplish anything in 20th century...


on a side note though..I just read something interesting about him. People have been marvelling lately at those child prodigies that played some single Chopin etude at 14 or whatnot. It says here Lang Lang performed all 24 Chopin Etudes at age 13!

Where is 'here'? (just out of curiosity, because I might read it if it's on the web)

I'd believe that. He's certainly got chops.

wikipedia

Well, I think if you like piano, you should heard of Richter or Horowitz. They were not in my list, that because I've got their CDs, but the quality of record is not very clear, so I might put them in 11 and 12. And Lang Lang might not belong to 20th, but he is really great in his age, I think we should judge by their skill or talent, not age. By the way, I am female.

I think he is great. Sonata can have her own opinion . Although I won't put him in my list, I can understand why people are putting him in the list. He is not THAT bad, come on...

I also understand why people dislike him, but he is so critisesed, he just doesn't deserve it. Keep in mind that he is still young and I think in the future he might ever grow up , no matter how many centuries it's going to take .

Why are people so harsh on a 23 (24?) year old who still has to develop his "true" musicality?

*scoffs* What threw me was that someone put Lang Lang above Victor Borge. That just shouldn't be allowed.

1-Hofmann
2-Rachmaninoff
3-Busoni
4-Horowitz
5-Godowsky
6-Richter
7-Rosenthal
8-Friedman
9-Serkin
10-Cortot
10-D'Albert
10-Paderewski

If you are ranking those who had the greatest influence on 20th century piano playing, I am very surprised that you do not mention Josef Hofmann. Artur Rubinstein, Horowitz and Gould were enormously influenced by Hofmann's playing - each heard him as a child. I am sure you read that Gould decided to become a concert pianist after coming home from Hofmann's last Toronto recital in 1938.

I gave strong consideration to Hofmann (and many others). As you say, he was revered by many great pianists, including Rachmaninoff and both Josef and Rosina Lhevinne, who were in turn influential as performers and teachers. As the teacher of Cherkassky, Hofmann can be said to have passed down a certain nineteenth-century style of piano playing with a degree of freedom, personal idiosyncrasy and beautiful sound production well into the late twentieth-century. But when I was making my list I tried to think of who made twentieth century piano playing in terms of both repertoire and style. If you go to almost any recital today I think you could trace at least some of the programming and interpretation to the influence of one of the top 8. (Moore and Pressler are there, obviously, for the status they have given to the role of collaborative pianists.) With Hofmann, I'm not so sure this is the case. Maybe if a salon piece by Moszkowski or Weber or some such is played as an encore, you could point to Hofmann, but equally Horowitz, Bolet and others could be named. I guess this is all pretty academic but it is interesting nonetheless. It shows that even when you try to use an objective criterion (these are by no means my 10 favourite pianists) it is impossible really to agree.