a couple of clips of Heinrich Neuhaus, an incredible musician and likely the greatest teacher of the piano. His students include, among many others, Sviatoslav Richter and Emil' Gilels
the fact that no new Richters, Horowitz's or Gould's seem to have appeared in the last few decades (at least to my knowledge) must be indicative of something, but I'm not sure what it is... The dominance of Lang Lang's, on the other hand, is not entirely surprising
the fact that no new Richters, Horowitz's or Gould's seem to have appeared in the last few decades (at least to my knowledge) must be indicative of something, but I'm not sure what it is... The dominance of Lang Lang's, on the other hand, is not entirely surprising
I think it indicates a triumph of "contemporary" (in the musical criticism sense) taste over Romantic taste in the conservatories. Horowitz and, to a certain extent, Richter (and certianly Arthur Rubinstein) were throwbacks to Romanticism in an age of modernism.
I think someone like Maurizio Pollini has all the technical equipment of any of the great pianists of the past, including Horowitz, and pianists of my generation idolize him as a technical superman. I personally find his recordings quite good, particularly his late Beethoven. His recording of the fugue of the Hammerklavier is the best I've heard.
Overall, though, he doesn't dazzle the way the Romantic virtuousi did. As an example, his recordings of the Brahms piano concerti are technically fabulous, but they just don't deliver the emotional punch of a Rubinstein or Rudolph Serkin.
Ultimately, though, it simply demonstrates why we call the opposite of classical music popular music.
the fact that no new Richters, Horowitz's or Gould's seem to have appeared in the last few decades (at least to my knowledge) must be indicative of something, but I'm not sure what it is...
Get thee to see Yefim Bronfman. And Yuja Wang is destined for greatness. It'll be interesting to see her mature as a musician.
which one is more "romantic"? I find it hard to believe that the change in the taste is all there is to it. In terms of "athletic performance" (i.e. notes per second) no one I know today comes even remotely close to Rachmaninov, Hoffman, Backhaus or Richter. And the reason why we hear fewer wrong notes today is mostly because fewer risks are taken. No one plays the Liszt sonata at this tempo anymore!
Although Horowitz, Rachmaninov or Hoffman are viewed as romantics, to me their playing had the lucidity and the momentum that lack in today's overly sentimental way of playing romantic music (such as the above recording by Kissin)
And the reason why we hear fewer wrong notes today is mostly because fewer risks are taken. No one plays the Liszt sonata at this tempo anymore!
I agree with the thrust of what you say, particularly the lack of risk in modern recordings and concerts. The pursuit of "perfection," usually interpreted as no technical mistakes, has diminished the art of the piano. I don't think that's all, though.
Ironically, my best illustration isn't a romantic piece at all. If you compare the Schnabel recordings of the Hammerklavier with that of Pollini, for example, the two take exactly the same tempi for the fugue (as does Eschenbach in his sensational DGG recording of about 1970). Kempff, in contrast, is a bit slower (quarter = ca. 128 rather than the Beethoven-indicated 144 at which the others play). Kempff and Pollini play equally clearly, but the faster pace of Pollini doesn't seem that fast because it's so perfect.
As an unraveling of the fugue, I have never heard another recording that matches Pollini's. Nonetheless, the emotional effect of Schnabel's reading, particularly when the main subject returns in the chaos of the inverted subject, is overwhelmingly climactic, and the piece seems startling, even to 21st century ears. Rachmaninoff also aimed every piece for what he called "the point." Pollini's playing is so uniformly unerring that it's hard to feel a point.
My personal favorite piece for solo piano, the Beethoven Op. 111 Sonata, is another illustration of what Schnabel had that modern pianists don't. The crescendo and diminuendo in the double trill in the last movement is much greater in Schnabel than in the modern readings, and it creates an effect of such profound tranquility as to seem to suspend time itself. I try to emulate Schnabel when I play (I've played that Sonata for 42 years, and still don't tire of it), but seldom succeed. Schnabel seemed to be able to do that sort of thing naturally.
I think the training of modern pianists makes them lost in romantic, or really any greatly expressive, literature. It's rather like a leader who's only used bolt protection on sport climbs taking on his or her first difficult lead without bolt protection. Placing removable gear is a different skill from doing hard moves, and even though their technical ability to move upward may be superb, the comfort level of needing different protection hampers the fluidity of movement.
Of course, playing is art, not science (despite my collection of piano technique books that try to analyze the science of playing), so even if my analysis were close, I know it's not universally true. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy hearing others play, playing myself, and reading what my fellow ST posters think. Thanks.
now I need to find Pollini's recording of Hammerklavier and compare it with Schanel. I always felt that Pollini's versions of op. 109 and 110 are quite possibly the greatest I've heard..
Let us know!