# The Best



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

_'There is no such thing as the best: if you say today that Anna Netrebko, who has lots of promotion, is the best opera star in the world, this is not true.'_ - Christa Ludwig


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

The Best is always changing for me. 

Is Ivo Pogorelić the best pianist? Among the best at least.

Is Maria Callas the best opera star? Among the best anyway.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Well, "The best" is only something valid maybe for a personal taste.
I always say: taste is enemy of art.
Most part of people who say "Mr.X or Ms.Y is the best interpreter/instrumentalist" never studied or even read the musical scores.
So they speak about their empathy with someone's act/look/playing and that doesn't mean "Mr.X" is best for what he is actually doing.
I have read several critics mention "great best recordings" which has nothing to do with the original musical idea by the composer (specially in Beethoven, Liszt, and others - the problem presented in my "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics")

For example, I have nothing against Glenn Gould. Sometimes he is quite interesting.
But I'll never rank him as a great Bach interpreter, because he very often did things that go against the musical ideas of Bach.
On the other hand, yes, several recording he made of Bach works I enjoy - anyway I know I'm listening to "Glenn Gould interpretations", not "a Bach's interpreter" 

And we must not forget. marketing is also part of it. Every musician (including myself) in the world have posted in the official website what media or artists says about him/her. There is no news. Some will love you, some will hate you and some will say "I don't care". 
Any "best" can be "worst" and any "worst" can be "best", it only depends on the opinion of who is saying that.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's possible for a given piece or performance of music to be superior to another, and thus the best of a certain group, but only according to specific criteria. Best in what way? That's a useful question; it may inspire analysis and lead to understanding. But looking for "the best" of this or that is usually a childish game which we aren't even smart enough to play. Who's the best composer in history? Forget it. Just enjoy the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As long as there are uniform and agreed-on criteria, there can be a "best."

But if we remove all objective criteria, then "the best" becomes subjective.

So the real question becomes, do you want to get as close as possible to an objective, agreed-on, consensus of history "best," or would you rather wander off into your own subjective realm?

If you choose the subjective, don't bother pushing your opinion in public forums.

On the other hand, a public forum is a good place to see what is agreed-upon, and what has passed the muster of history. For example, we all know that Beethoven was one of the greatest composers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Florestan said:


> The Best is always changing for me.
> 
> Is *Ivo Pogorelić the best pianist? * Among the best at least.
> 
> Is Maria Callas the best opera star? Among the best anyway.


Not in my book,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

cimirro said:


> For example, I have nothing against Glenn Gould. Sometimes he is quite interesting.
> But I'll never rank him as a great Bach interpreter, because he very often did things that go against the musical ideas of Bach.
> On the other hand, yes, several recording he made of Bach works I enjoy - anyway I know I'm listening to "Glenn Gould interpretations", not "a Bach's interpreter"


I see this as a subjective take on an already-established historical fact: that Glenn Gould was one of the great Bach interpreters.

Your subjective preference does not "cancel-out" this already established historical consensus view. Gould's recordings and sales are a constant reminder of this.

So, enjoy your subjective opinion about Glenn Gould; just don't try to convert the already-established consensus opinion.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> As long as there are uniform and agreed-on criteria, there can be a "best."
> 
> But if we remove all objective criteria, then "the best" becomes subjective.
> 
> ...


What I see as a problem is that the "objective criteria" used normally are the market sentences and not the result of a deep study.
While I agree Beethoven was one of the greatest composer after studying his works, I always notice something terrible: hardly one person is able to explain why he is a genius. And we have some terrible problems in the recorded interpretation of his works by the greatest pianists (as mentioned, in last message, in the S.S.I. or M.H.) that I never had an answer from any professional about why it happened.
So, making rules in art with "Vox Populi" or "market" is something terrible...

I prefer to imagine a public forum as a place to exchange information more than read-and-accept what the most part of the public and/or (worst) market wants you to repeat.
If we act like this, in the future we will have less "unknown genius" in musical world than now.
On the other hand, discussing who is the best (because of our personal taste and not accepting other opinions) will make us like fighters in a "stone age" style.

But I is just my opinion 

All the best
Artur


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I see this as a subjective take on an already-established historical fact: that Glenn Gould was one of the great Bach interpreters.


Please explain why it is an historical fact and not just opinions of some critics who are paid to say that.



millionrainbows said:


> Your subjective preference does not "cancel-out" this already established historical consensus view. Gould's recordings and sales are a constant reminder of this.


If sales are a reminder, must I remind you that pop music is far better composed than any Bach's work? Sounds not right to me...



millionrainbows said:


> So, enjoy your subjective opinion about Glenn Gould; just don't try to convert the already-established consensus opinion.


This way I suppose you are the only one who can try to convert something here?

I know you don't like my opinions, and that is ok, next time, before attacking, get some more information about what I'm saying (SSI or MH), so your attack can be more fruitful. Now you are just in defense of the market repeating what they teach you to repeat.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

cimirro said:


> What I see as a problem is that the "objective criteria" used normally are the market sentences and not the result of a deep study.


Don't forget history, and the passage of time. The cream rises to the top.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't forget history, and the passage of time. The cream rises to the top.


In this case every forgotten genius is not really a genius... It doesn't sound right to me...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

cimirro said:


> Please explain why it is an historical fact and not just opinions of some critics who are paid to say that.


History is never "fact," but history has a way of calcifying these things into icons.



> ...next time...get some more information...you are just in defense of the market repeating what they teach you to repeat.


I think I'm perceiving a commonly-expressed consensus opinion. It already existed independently of me, and will continue after I am gone. Glenn Gould has already been enshrined in history. I'm just stating the obvious.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

cimirro said:


> In this case every forgotten genius is not really a genius... It doesn't sound right to me...


So what does sound right? Your subjective opinion? That seems self-evident.

History is bigger than any one individual.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> So what does sound right? Your subjective opinion? That seems self-evident.
> 
> History is bigger than any one individual.


and who makes the history? the individuals? or the market?
If there are letters, books, scores, and several historical things that can be accessed and people/public don't know it, then...?
Who is deciding the music history? Sony?

History has a way of calcifying these things into icons?
only for the ones who study the history... and I do it, and I say there are much more than just the same composers always called genius.
The ones who have interest can research and see what i'm talking about.
The ones who don't want can just keep listening Gould and calling him the best saying Amen, because the Sony CDs booklet says that...

That's all
Artur


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

I trust my personal experience in listening to various performances of particular works. The opinions of others are merely their own experiences. They may be guides, but in the end it is my own experience that counts, for me.

So Glenn Gould is indeed one of the premier interpreters of Bach. And definitely NOT Perahia!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> But if we remove all objective criteria, then "the best" becomes subjective.....
> 
> If you choose the subjective, don't bother pushing your opinion in public forums.


I follow your advice, and never push my opinion in public forums.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't forget history, and the passage of time. The cream rises to the top.


.

When panning for gold, doesn't the gold sink to the bottom?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> History is never "fact," but history has a way of *calcifying these things into icons.
> *
> I think I'm perceiving a commonly-expressed consensus opinion. It already existed independently of me, and will continue after I am gone. Glenn Gould has already been *enshrined* in history. I'm just stating *the* *obvious*.


Calcified icons and shrines - and what's "obvious" to their devotees - make my blood run cold.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

"The best" is for sports where there's a score and a winner.
A dominant opinion that's consistent through time is far from anything "objective" and while it does say something significant, it can be just as easily ignored by an individual since in the end music is a highly personal/subjective experience. 
I prefer to form my own musical identity independent from anything and anyone as much as possible. Other opinions may be interesting to take note of, but only after getting to know the music and forming my own opinion. That's the great thing about art. You can let your inner self speak, not bound by laws of logic and reason and completely oblivious to outside opinion... and still get away with it.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

merlinus said:


> So Glenn Gould is indeed one of the premier interpreters of Bach. And definitely NOT Perahia!


Does that make Perahia a pariah?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I think Christa Ludwig had it right. Trying to define "best" is like trying to define "greatness." Can't be done other than generically. i.e. A "great" composer/performer/composition/performance is one that "contains much greatness." That's pretty much the best you do.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Calcified icons and shrines - and what's "obvious" to their devotees - make my blood run cold.


You mean colder.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)




----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Michelangeli, Horowitz and Richter I agree, and I add some of the "old school" which are far my favorites

4 of my favorites here with Liszt (Rosenthal, Siloti, Friedheim & Sauer)










Sirota & Ginzburg
















and another one, not "so old" - Cziffra


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

and the great Ruth Laredo! one of the best female players I ever heard.

as you see, it is all about taste...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> The Best is always changing for me.
> 
> Is Ivo Pogorelić the best pianist? Among the best at least.
> 
> _Is Maria Callas the best opera star? _ Among the best anyway.


"They" say she is, not in my top 50


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Whenever I read someone saying that a particular performance is "the best," in my head I translate that to "my favorite." I tend to respect people more who use the latter term to begin with.

Having said that, if a significant percentage of people select a particular performance as the best or their favorite, I will want to check it out. My interest will be further piqued if these people explain why they prefer it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

cimirro said:


> While I agree Beethoven was one of the greatest composer after studying his works, I always notice something terrible: hardly one person is able to explain why he is a genius. And we have some terrible problems in the recorded interpretation of his works by the greatest pianists (as mentioned, in last message, in the S.S.I. or M.H.) that I never had an answer from any professional about why it happened.


I had to re-read this to make sure I was reading it correctly. In all my years listening to Beethoven and reading everything written about him and everything said about him, I have never found that people were at a loss to explain why he is a genius. Heaven knows many on this forum have fallen all over themselves gushing with explanations.

Also, I have dozens upon dozens of CDs of his piano works, for instance 18 alone for the Hammerklavier sonata, and it has never remotely occurred to me that there was a general problem of interpretation. The thing about Beethoven is that there are endless interpretation possibilities. Btw, there is no evidence that Beethoven would have insisted on only one interpretation of his works.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

The 'Best' is highly subjective. Objectivity is only a reference point.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I had to re-read this to make sure I was reading it correctly. In all my years listening to Beethoven and reading everything written about him and everything said about him, I have never found that people were at a loss to explain why he is a genius. Heaven knows many on this forum have fallen all over themselves gushing with explanations.
> 
> Also, I have dozens upon dozens of CDs of his piano works, for instance 18 alone for the Hammerklavier sonata, and it has never remotely occurred to me that there was a general problem of interpretation. The thing about Beethoven is that there are endless interpretation possibilities. Btw, there is no evidence that Beethoven would have insisted on only one interpretation of his works.


I agree there are endless interpretation possibilities - specially when you play and read it right - the problem is basic reading.

But I would like to point one big problem which no interpreter in the world have ever mentioned anywhere, and it is only one single example of the problem I mention in the Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics:

First, let me ask you to do something...
Do you have a copy of Beethoven's Sonata Op.13 (Pathetique)? if not, IMSLP have some... http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.8,_Op.13_(Beethoven,_Ludwig_van)

But please do NOT open the score yet. Sing the opening melodic notes as you remember it, right now!

Now, only after singing, please open the score. 
Read the first measure and the second one too.
Now, forget the recordings and your singing, and tell me, where is the melody?
(Remembering basic music theory... no special study required)

Now play the right melody (in your left hand) and tell me how much different is the melody you sang and the melody Beethoven wrote, and then tell me which pianist played this melody as "theme"?

If you still insist that the chords are the melody, I ask you to explain where are the motive writings of these "chord-theme" during the structure of the second and third movement of this Sonata, because I can show you the "left hand theme" inside each movement.

You will notice, if you read scores at all, only the "other theme" is used... 
Can you explain why? well, you are invited to do so.
This is one single example of what I mean in Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics.

With patience I would sit down here and write one "detail" like this for each one of his Sonatas and none are related to my opinion on interpretation, they will be related to the lack of attention (to the score marks given by Beethoven) over the last century because of the tradition of the so called "great recordings".

With a problem like this, you don't want me to believe that people claiming to be an expert in Beethoven know pretty well what they are playing/writing, do you?

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

The best is yet to come.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I have some recordings I come back to, that are extra special for me, but these days I try to hear things that are new to me. As for composers and musicians, I think they always try to be the best they can


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

pcnog11 said:


> The best is yet to come.


I sincerely hope that there is always something better to look forward to. For the most part I have yet to be disappointed.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

pcnog11 said:


> The best is yet to come.


Always, if you just move on. :cheers:


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Great last few posts. When I think of "the best," I often feel myself tempted toward "the definitive; look no further; rest in peace." What a terrible way to go! Everybody that you may think of as "the best," at one time _wasn't_; and someone "better" will, very likely, come along.


----------

