# Greatest pianist?



## Caryatid

Let's keep this simple. Pick one option from the poll above, then (if you like) provide an explanation for your choice. Links to YouTube videos welcome.

(Of course many great pianists are not in the poll. There is an upper limit of 15 options. Nothing I can do about that. Select "Other" if you want to choose someone else.)


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I went for "other" because the one I hope to hear playing as I walk through the Pearly Gates (if I get there at all) is Dinu Lipatti. His very special combination of skill and power and his extraordinary way of giving individual moments their full due while maintaining the overall integrity of a piece have given me more consistent enjoyment than the work of any other pianist, past or present.


----------



## Rogerx

Every decade or so a new one comes along, so the list is not long enough and Abbey Simon is hardly mention on this forum as a great one from the older generation.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

I voted for Alfred Brendel. He was not a prodigy, he could not memorize piano concerti just be looking at them once, nor could he flawlessly sightread everything. But I think he is the best pianist in terms of attention to detail and musicality. Just listen to his recordings of late Schubert to hear what I mean. While other pianists merely interpret what is written, Brendel is always concerned with connecting each measure in the context of the whole form through subtle graduations of dynamic, tone, etc. 
Also, I honestly have no idea why Glenn Gould is on this list. It is a personality cult more than anything. His only recordings which are wholly respectable are those of Schoenberg and some other modernist composers. I also understand why people are attracted to his Bach, but they are full of wild idiosyncrasies and his need for his own personal eccentricities to dominate the recording process, such as his deranged vocalizations and penchant for making singers work with him in a studio that was over 90°F. Some of his voice-leading is just objectively wrong. But the real reason he does not deserve to be on this list are his recordings of Mozart and Beethoven, which are just insane and sound, in my opinion, horrible. He is somebody who wants his own personality to dominate over the composers. He is a bit like the opera producers who have an inferiority complex with the composers who supposedly know nothing about staging the drama, and so they overwhelm the music with all sorts of gaudy effects. I don’t mean to say you shouldn’t listen to him, but I just don’t know why he keeps coming up as one of the greats.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

A very tough poll. My personal favorite (and IMO the most consistent) of those listed is probably Gilels, but I voted Cortot because I find the white-hot poetry and intensity of his playing to be absolutely magnetic, and we are very fortunate to have his brand of pianism captured on record - a performance practice that seems totally alien to modern standards. Personally I think Brendel is the odd man out on this poll, as he is the only one who does not have an immediately distinctive style. Also inclined to agree with Emperor on Gould, though I don’t mind performers’ personalities taking precedence over the composer (whatever that even means) Gould’s personality is not one I prefer. If I were to describe all the pianists on this poll with a single word, it would be thus:

Horowitz - Raw
Richter - Focused/Honest
Gilels - Intrepid
Rubinstein - Eloquent
Schnabel - Spontaneous
Rachmaninoff - Incandescent
Arrau - Opulent
Gould - Razor-sharp
Brendel - Unforced/Nuanced
Fischer - Silky
Hoffmann - Free
Cortot - Poetic
Michelangeli - Probing
Argerich - Dazzling


----------



## Bigbang

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> I voted for Alfred Brendel. He was not a prodigy, he could not memorize piano concerti just be looking at them once, nor could he flawlessly sightread everything. But I think he is the best pianist in terms of attention to detail and musicality. Just listen to his recordings of late Schubert to hear what I mean. While other pianists merely interpret what is written, Brendel is always concerned with connecting each measure in the context of the whole form through subtle graduations of dynamic, tone, etc.
> Also, I honestly have no idea why Glenn Gould is on this list. It is a personality cult more than anything. His only recordings which are wholly respectable are those of Schoenberg and some other modernist composers. I also understand why people are attracted to his Bach, but they are full of wild idiosyncrasies and his need for his own personal eccentricities to dominate the recording process, such as his deranged vocalizations and penchant for making singers work with him in a studio that was over 90°F. Some of his voice-leading is just objectively wrong. But the real reason he does not deserve to be on this list are his recordings of Mozart and Beethoven, which are just insane and sound, in my opinion, horrible. He is somebody who wants his own personality to dominate over the composers. He is a bit like the opera producers who have an inferiority complex with the composers who supposedly know nothing about staging the drama, and so they overwhelm the music with all sorts of gaudy effects. I don't mean to say you shouldn't listen to him, but I just don't know why he keeps coming up as one of the greats.


I like Brendel piano sonatas/piano concertos of Mozart. Brendel's Beethoven Concertos are good, and his sonatas as well. No time to nitpick but I have yet to read anyone in music who goes this far in reviewing him. Nuff said.

Edit: I read post too fast and I thought you were referring to Brendel but now I see it was Gould. My bad. My opinions still stand in regards to Brendel.


----------



## Bigbang

Rogerx said:


> Every decade or so a new one comes along, so the list is not long enough and Abbey Simon is hardly mention on this forum as a great one from the older generation.


Yes, got a few VOX and one is Debussy.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Phillips released the edition _Great Pianists of the 20th Century_ and still didn't avoid compromises and a lot of great pianists are missing in the edition (not to mention the current generation) and should I choose one? You don't say so!


----------



## Bulldog

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Also, I honestly have no idea why Glenn Gould is on this list.


I do. The basic reason is that Caryatid put him on the list, and you would have to ask him for the specific reason. Personally, I don't have a problem with his inclusion. He's famous for his Bach interpretations, deservedly so. Gould also is exceptional with his Handel performances. Yes, he can be quite wayward, but he makes it all work. Gould is one of a kind.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

I think it would be better to poll which pianists do what best. For me, nobody beats Rubinstein’s Chopin Nocturnes; nobody beats 
Arrau’s Debussy (except maybe Michelangeli in certain spots). I think each pianist has their own specialties. Few pianists do the entire repertoire.


----------



## DavidA

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> I think it would be better to poll which pianists do what best. For me, nobody beats Rubinstein's Chopin Nocturnes; nobody beats
> Arrau's Debussy (except maybe Michelangeli in certain spots). I think each pianist has their own specialties. *Few pianists do the entire repertoire*.


If we are talking about an 'all round' pianist with superhuman qualities then it is probably Richter, who covered the repertoire perhaps like no other pianist. I would add that it is Richter at his zenith as his playing declined in later years due to a hearing problem. But for sheer breadth of repertoire (he had 80 recitals memorised apparently) and the ability to make his playing count he perhaps goes to the top. Of course he was never a 'completist' - when Shostakovich asked him why he didn't play all his preludes and fugues he said, "Why should I play those I don't like?" He was the same with concerti.
Horowitz and Michelangeli could amaze you like no-one else. Argerich is perhaps the greatest living pianist. Gould could hold you in amazing concentration with unorthodox playing. A pity RCA never recorded Rachmaninoff in more serious repertoire more often. He wanted to do some Beethoven sonatas but they felt it was not commercial enough, thus depriving posterity.


----------



## Bigbang

Bulldog said:


> I do. The basic reason is that Caryatid put him on the list, and you would have to ask him for the specific reason. Personally, I don't have a problem with his inclusion. He's famous for his Bach interpretations, deservedly so. Gould also is exceptional with his Handel performances. Yes, he can be quite wayward, but he makes it all work. Gould is one of a kind.


Might help also to watch the Glenn Gould documentary for insights. As they say, you had to be there........


----------



## Bigbang

DavidA said:


> If we are talking about an 'all round' pianist with superhuman qualities then it is probably Richter, who covered the repertoire perhaps like no other pianist. I would add that it is Richter at his zenith as his playing declined in later years due to a hearing problem. But for sheer breadth of repertoire (he had 80 recitals memorised apparently) and the ability to make his playing count he perhaps goes to the top. Of course he was never a 'completist' - when Shostakovich asked him why he didn't play all his preludes and fugues he said, "Why should I play those I don't like?" He was the same with concerti.
> Horowitz and Michelangeli could amaze you like no-one else. Argerich is perhaps the greatest living pianist. Gould could hold you in amazing concentration with unorthodox playing. A pity RCA never recorded Rachmaninoff in more serious repertoire more often. He wanted to do some Beethoven sonatas but they felt it was not commercial enough, thus depriving posterity.


I watched a youtube video of old man Richter playing Mozart no. 5 piano concerto, glasses and score in front of him. I got the impression he could have done without it but wanted to sight read so he could also focus on inner details (that is, do two or more things at once in his head whereas if he was remembering while playing it would hinder his efforts...it is quite a performance.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^There was a famous incident where he forgot a huge chunk of music in the Hammerklavier sonata and from then on never played without a score. Richter was an intensely perfectionist musician who valued laser-sharp focus above all else (this is at least what I hear in his performances) and it would make sense why he did this - supreme sightreader that he was, he could focus entirely on his interpretations without worrying about getting any notes wrong. I read too that he realized he had been playing a single note wrong in Bach's Italian Concerto his whole life, and issued an apology with the CD booklet on the recording!


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

I don't have a "greatest." I like different people in different repertoires. There are some that I listen to more than others, but they aren't on the list: Wilhelm Kempff for Beethoven and Schubert, Marc-Andre Hamelin for the really virtuosic stuff, like Alkan, but also really enjoy his Haydn.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I don't care for the term, "greatest", and I wouldn't try to define it either. I will list my favorites in no particular order:

Emil Gilels
Claudio Arrau
Martha Argerich
Byron Janis
Menahem Pressler


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

There is no single "greatest" Pianist.

But if the question is who is the most important pianist since 20th century, I think the answer is quite obvious: Rachmaninov.


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There is no single "greatest" Pianist.
> 
> But if the question is who is the most important pianist since 20th century, I think the answer is quite obvious: Rachmaninov.


I agree, the "greatest" is very flexible and problematic, "most important" can be answered more objectively, the answer Rachmaninoff for me too. On the other hand I think Busoni is also equivalent of Rachmaninoff, but unfortunately the record left by him is not enough.


----------



## flamencosketches

My vote went out to Claudio Arrau. Most of the other pianists listed were his equal or better, but Arrau's serious, thoughtful interpretation and his deep virtuosity just land him a cut above the rest, in my book. As much as I love Richter, I'm a little surprised to see him take such a significant lead—if anything I would say he is one of the more apparently "flawed" choices on the list. (Maybe this has something to do with why people like him so much.)

A little anecdote I once heard about Arrau: once, he met Sergei Rachmaninov backstage at one of his (Arrau's) gigs. The Russian told him he really enjoyed it, but what was that wonderful piece he ended with? It was Beethoven's Eroica Variations, and Arrau was miffed that Rachmaninov didn't know such a core repertoire piece—"the Eroica Variations!" It seems he never thought too highly of Rachmaninov after that.


----------



## tdc

Schiff, de Larrocha, Brendel and Uchida are some that come to mind for me. I don't think there is a greatest.


----------



## DavidA

Bigbang said:


> I watched a youtube video of old man Richter playing Mozart no. 5 piano concerto, glasses and score in front of him. I got the impression he could have done without it but wanted to sight read so he could also focus on inner details (that is, do two or more things at once in his head whereas if he was remembering while playing it would hinder his efforts...it is quite a performance.


Apparently he developed a hearing problem where he heard the music in a different key and this led to problems unless he played from the score.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> My vote went out to Claudio Arrau. Most of the other pianists listed were his equal or better, but Arrau's serious, thoughtful interpretation and his deep virtuosity just land him a cut above the rest, in my book. As much as I love Richter, I'm a little surprised to see him take such a significant lead-if anything I would say he is one of the more apparently "flawed" choices on the list. (Maybe this has something to do with why people like him so much.)


Yes, Richter was of course a titan, but I too am often surprised at how frequently he seems to be seen as _the_ greatest pianist of the century. I love his readings of mostly everything he did, but I have a tough time thinking of any repertoire in which he is not slightly surpassed in my mind by others, except possibly in Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev solo music. Haven't been really able to get into his Schumann, and I find his WTC to be just the slightest bit overhyped though it is of course very good. In everything he did he brought an incredible focus and concentration that eschewed theatrics to get to the heart of the music, and this approach led to great power and poignancy.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I also am not a huge fan of Richter's Bach (but it is good). And I don't know what surpassed would look like for his Schubert. It is unique and very special (to me) but that uniqueness makes it difficult to compare with others. I would also certainly include him in a very select list of the really great Beethoven pianists. And there is a certain feel of intense concentration that he often brought to his music making. No-one else is like him.

And then there is Argerich, a pianist of extremes. I don't think she did anything that I don't prefer others in but I wouldn't be without a selection of her best records. She was special and being special cannot be compared with others.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I also am not a huge fan of Richter's Bach (but it is good). And I don't know what surpassed would look like for his Schubert. It is unique and very special (to me) but that uniqueness makes it difficult to compare with others. I would also certainly include him in a very select list of the really great Beethoven pianists. And there is a certain feel of intense concentration that he often brought to his music making. No-one else is like him.


I do love his Schubert, but sometimes I find it too intentionally "profound" rather than free-flowing and that's where I turn to Kempff, Schnabel, and Uchida who IMO achieve great pathos and magical textures while playing more naturally and in a less forced way.

I think he is probably unsurpassed in Beethoven's Appassionata as well, especially the live 1960 Moscow.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I also am not a huge fan of Richter's Bach (but it is good). And I don't know what surpassed would look like for his Schubert. It is unique and very special (to me) but that uniqueness makes it difficult to compare with others. I would also certainly include him in a very select list of the really great Beethoven pianists. And there is a certain feel of intense concentration that he often brought to his music making. No-one else is like him.
> 
> And then there is Argerich, a pianist of extremes. I don't think she did anything that I don't prefer others in but I wouldn't be without a selection of her best records. She was special and being special cannot be compared with others.


Agree to an extent, but do you know her early Bach recital on DG? I know of no better Bach on the piano on any recording ever.


----------



## mikeh375

Britten would have been on that list if he had recorded the classic works I'm sure.


----------



## Cortot

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yes, Richter was of course a titan, but I too am often surprised at how frequently he seems to be seen as _the_ greatest pianist of the century. I love his readings of mostly everything he did, but I have a tough time thinking of any repertoire in which he is not slightly surpassed in my mind by others, except possibly in Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev solo music. Haven't been really able to get into his Schumann, and I find his WTC to be just the slightest bit overhyped though it is of course very good. In everything he did he brought an incredible focus and concentration that eschewed theatrics to get to the heart of the music, and this approach led to great power and poignancy.


I think Richter's piano tone/timre/coloring is too harsh, rough and rigid for the romantic repertoire. I like his interpretations but the piano approach disturbs for romantics. The interpretation is not problematic, the use of the piano is problematic. For example, Horowitz has all kinds; he has singing tone for Chopin, he also sounds like an orchestral for Liszt, sometimes he pushes the limits for Prokofiev. Like a chameleon! Richter's interpretation depends on the composer but not the piano style. He can play Schumann in Prokofiev touche.

Although Richter is a really good and deep musician but the piano sound is far behind from names like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Cortot, Gieseking...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Cortot said:


> I think Richter's piano tone/timre/coloring is too harsh, rough and rigid for the romantic repertoire. I like his interpretations but the piano approach disturbs for romantics. The interpretation is not problematic, the use of the piano is problematic. For example, Horowitz has all kinds; he has singing tone for Chopin, he also sounds like an orchestral for Liszt, sometimes he pushes the limits for Prokofiev. Like a chameleon! Richter's interpretation depends on the composer but not the piano style. He can play Schumann in Prokofiev touche.
> 
> Although Richter is a really good and deep musician but the piano sound is far behind from names like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Cortot, Gieseking...


Interesting thoughts, and I'm inclined to agree with most of them. I always thought Richter had quite a craggy, unpolished tone which I think does often work to his advantage and perhaps lend his interpretations a sensation of being more "honest." But sometimes his laser-sharp focus and stoicism can turn into a sort of bogged-down, weighty pressing forward (I think of his Rachmaninoff, Mozart and Brahms concerto recordings) that I can find unattractive. IMO it was in Russian solo repertoire, Beethoven, and Schubert where his gifts found their full potential. For a wider beauty and flexibility of tonal palette, I look to my avatar


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> A very tough poll. My personal favorite (and IMO the most consistent) of those listed is probably Gilels, but I voted Cortot because I find the white-hot poetry and intensity of his playing to be absolutely magnetic, and we are very fortunate to have his brand of pianism captured on record - a performance practice that seems totally alien to modern standards. Personally I think Brendel is the odd man out on this poll, as he is the only one who does not have an immediately distinctive style. Also inclined to agree with Emperor on Gould, though I don't mind performers' personalities taking precedence over the composer (whatever that even means) Gould's personality is not one I prefer. If I were to describe all the pianists on this poll with a single word, it would be thus:
> 
> Horowitz - Raw
> Richter - Focused/Honest
> Gilels - Intrepid
> Rubinstein - Eloquent
> Schnabel - Spontaneous
> Rachmaninoff - Incandescent
> Arrau - Opulent
> Gould - Razor-sharp
> Brendel - Unforced/Nuanced
> Fischer - Silky
> Hoffmann - Free
> Cortot - Poetic
> Michelangeli - Probing
> Argerich - Dazzling


Thought your list quite interesting so sent it to my music-major friend and he responded:



> Interesting! But I would put Paderewski as Raw. (Horowitz was not "raw" at all.). He was controlled They used to describe Rachmaninoff as‎ "The Puritan".


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

SixFootScowl said:


> Thought your list quite interesting so sent it to my music-major friend and he responded:


LOL!:lol: I do not consider myself worthy to be in company with music majors, but thank you for thinking so highly of my thoughts:lol: I honestly couldn't come up with a better word for Horowitz; maybe I should have said "passionate." He was very free and rhapsodic but he could really unleash himself when he wanted to. It's a Russian sensibility that's hard to put a finger on.


----------



## Cortot

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Interesting thoughts, and I'm inclined to agree with most of them. I always thought Richter had quite a craggy, unpolished tone which I think does often work to his advantage and perhaps lend his interpretations a sensation of being more "honest." But sometimes his laser-sharp focus and stoicism can turn into a sort of bogged-down, weighty pressing forward (I think of his Rachmaninoff, Mozart and Brahms concerto recordings) that I can find unattractive. IMO it was in Russian solo repertoire, Beethoven, and Schubert where his gifts found their full potential. For a wider beauty and flexibility of tonal palette, I look to my avatar


I agree, i like too him Russian solo repertoire , Beethoven and Schubert; his tone is not a problem for them, especially his Schubert is great. But IMO it doesn't work in many composers (Debussy, Chopin, Schumann, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ravel, Mozart etc.).


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> LOL!:lol: I do not consider myself worthy to be in company with music majors, but thank you for thinking so highly of my thoughts:lol: I honestly couldn't come up with a better word for Horowitz; maybe I should have said "passionate." He was very free and rhapsodic but he could really unleash himself when he wanted to. It's a Russian sensibility that's hard to put a finger on.


On the bright side, he only disagreed with one of your characterizations so 13/14 says you scored 93%, which is a pretty decent grade.


----------



## Dimace

Here is my world and no difficulties. I have seen some groups of performers: East, West, German etc. Every group or performers has some great and unique characteristics. The East (an example) has the heavy Russian fingers digging the instrument and reach the core of it. The German group the perfect music - score reading, which brings to us the composer him self with every emotion and intention, etc. After I tried to see which of the groups & (or) pianist combine more of these great characteristics / abilities. At the end I was between two giants:* Claudio & Arturo.* I voted from the first, because of his wider repertoire, despite Arturo's technical superiority.

(this polls are good and I enjoy to participate, but for me always drive nowhere. We could easily put 20 more names to the list and have completely different results).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yes, Richter was of course a titan, but I too am often surprised at how frequently he seems to be seen as _the_ greatest pianist of the century. I love his readings of mostly everything he did, but I have a tough time thinking of any repertoire in which he is not slightly surpassed in my mind by others, except possibly in Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev solo music. Haven't been really able to get into his Schumann, and I find his WTC to be just the slightest bit overhyped though it is of course very good. In everything he did he brought an incredible focus and concentration that eschewed theatrics to get to the heart of the music, and this approach led to great power and poignancy.


Schumann has always been Richter's strength (I would argue unsurpassed, especially the masculinity of them). Schumann's piano works are difficult both technically and interpretation wise. They are full of inventive textures and musical ideas and they constantly switch gears. Richter has the technical chop and his phrasing makes the rather obscure music sounds natural. Richter is rare example of combining power, virtuosity with natural, unaffected voicing and phrasing.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Schumann has always been Richter's strength (I would argue unsurpassed, especially the masculinity of them). Schumann's piano works are difficult both technically and interpretation wise. They are full of inventive textures and musical ideas and they constantly switch gears. Richter has the technical chop and his phrasing makes the rather obscure music sounds natural. Richter is rare example of combining power, virtuosity with natural, unaffected voicing and phrasing.


I'm sure you're right! However, I've only recently got into Schumann's piano music after years of not understanding it and so far I've liked the various recordings of Arrau, Pires, Cortot, and Horowitz better. To be fair, I've only heard Richter's Schumann Fantasie and Symphonic Etudes. They just didn't strike me as living up to his usual standards, but I'll make sure to explore further.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> I think Richter's piano tone/timre/coloring is too harsh, rough and rigid for the romantic repertoire. I like his interpretations but the piano approach disturbs for romantics. The interpretation is not problematic, the use of the piano is problematic. For example, Horowitz has all kinds; he has singing tone for Chopin, he also sounds like an orchestral for Liszt, sometimes he pushes the limits for Prokofiev. Like a chameleon! Richter's interpretation depends on the composer but not the piano style. He can play Schumann in Prokofiev touche.
> 
> Although Richter is a really good and deep musician but the piano sound is far behind from names like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Cortot, Gieseking...


This is a great assessment. But I would like to defend Richter's lack colorization and roughness as austere aesthetics (like Wabisabi aesthetic but not taken to an extreme). His style is a bit like Klemperer's monochromatic approach to orchestra in that respect (he play on any piano). Richter is also free of mannerism that often plague Cortot or Horowitz. So I would argue that Richter's style always create a forceful, assured yet natural, honest impression on the listener.

I will not compare him to Rachmaninoff or Hofmann. But Cortot and Horowitz can be too idiosyncratic and too self-indulgent (and I love both). Gieseking is always wonderful but lacks the temperament and masculinity in Richer. People like Michelangeli or Zimmerman are too consumed by the idea of the perfect sound and they always sounds nervous and lack spontaneity. Rubinstein, let's face it, is not terribly exciting (although he can be). Gilels and Arrau I have absolutely no problem with them. So I definietly think Richter deserve more love, he is not the kind of musician that tries to make reference recording, and he does not have a gigantic ego, but he always put music first and is free of extraneous concerns.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^That’s a great comparison, Richter as analogous to Klemperer. Their approaches were very similar - astringent commitment to a unified vision, incredible discipline, always pressing forward with no indulgence but bringing out all sorts of colors and textures. At their best they both produce overwhelming final products that make you think the music could go no other way, but at their least inspired they can come across as stodgy and unyielding. Also agreed to an extent on Michelangeli and Zimerman - I actually like both quite a bit, but their performances always sound planned to the very last degree and thus I miss an element of artistic excitement. The Michelangeli Grieg concerto is absolutely bonkers though; check it out if you haven’t heard it. My jaw literally dropped open several times throughout.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm sure you're right! However, I've only recently got into Schumann's piano music after years of not understanding it and so far I've liked the various recordings of Arrau, Pires, Cortot, and Horowitz better. To be fair, I've only heard Richter's Schumann Fantasie and Symphonic Etudes. They just didn't strike me as living up to his usual standards, but I'll make sure to explore further.


They are all wonderful! And I perfectly understand why his Fantasie and Symphonic etude (Pogorelich made an obscenely good one technically) are not your cup of tea. Richter is similar to Horowitz in that you need to dig into the treasure trove of live recital recording for true gems.


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The Michelangeli Grieg concerto is absolutely bonkers though; check it out if you haven't heard it. My jaw literally dropped open several times throughout.


Which one, on BBC?










Michelangeli is definitely in the select few for me, too. A real "interpreter" kind of pianist.


----------



## Mandryka

Do you think Michelangeli is a bit like Pollini? They’re sometimes bracketed together for being very accurate pianists technically, perfectionists, and sometimes both criticised negatively for aloofness, I’m not sure how much truth there is in all of this, though I do think that not all performances on record by Michelangeli of the same piece are equally enjoyable.


----------



## Mandryka

Cortot said:


> I think Richter's piano tone/timre/coloring is too harsh, rough and rigid for the romantic repertoire. I like his interpretations but the piano approach disturbs for romantics. The interpretation is not problematic, the use of the piano is problematic. For example, Horowitz has all kinds; he has singing tone for Chopin, he also sounds like an orchestral for Liszt, sometimes he pushes the limits for Prokofiev. Like a chameleon! Richter's interpretation depends on the composer but not the piano style. He can play Schumann in Prokofiev touche.
> 
> Although Richter is a really good and deep musician but the piano sound is far behind from names like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Cortot, Gieseking...


I don't know if you're right about Gieseking, and it's not easy to say what Cortot's piano sound was really like on the basis of the recordings. But anyway, I think you're wrong about Richter, and that, for example, just off the top of my head, I could find examples of recordings of solo music by Beethoven, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Liszt and Tchaikovsky, for example, which show a piano style which is entirely in tune with the sensibility of the music. Maybe Brahms and Schumann too.

One thing to say about Richter, is that the approach to piano on Yamaha from the mid 70s was very different from the earlier approach on whatever he played (Steinway I think). I much prefer the later Richer.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Mandryka said:


> Do you think Michelangeli is a bit like Pollini? They're sometimes bracketed together for being very accurate pianists technically, perfectionists, and sometimes both criticised negatively for aloofness, I'm not sure how much truth there is in all of this, though I do think that not all performances on record by Michelangeli of the same piece are equally enjoyable.


Sort of? I don't classify Pollini as a "perfectionist" though, he just seems to be all about technique with little interpretation. ABM was obsessed with deriving just "the right sound" and virtuosity was only a means to get there.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Which one, on BBC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangeli is definitely in the select few for me, too. A real "interpreter" kind of pianist.


Yup! It's really badly recorded (in mono sound for the mid-1960s) but it's really the only performance of that concerto that's done it for me so far.


----------



## Caryatid

I regret including Edwin Fischer instead of Wilhelm Kempff, who I think might have garnered more support. 

In any case, we have had 35 votes and Richter seems to be well in the lead of everyone else: 8 votes to him against only 4 to the second-place contestant, Rachmaninoff. It's a somewhat surprising result. I was expecting Richter to win or to come very close to winning, but I wasn't expecting him to win by a large margin. Of course, the poll is still open - in fact I haven't yet voted myself. Back in the day I'd have voted for Richter too, but these days I find it a harder choice to make. Arrau, for example, has risen in my regard. I appreciate his very unusually full and warm sound. I don't know whether I'll vote at all...


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> Do you think Michelangeli is a bit like Pollini? They're sometimes bracketed together for being very accurate pianists technically, perfectionists, and sometimes both criticised negatively for aloofness, I'm not sure how much truth there is in all of this, though I do think that not all performances on record by Michelangeli of the same piece are equally enjoyable.


not really, michelangeli is all about sound and texture, pollini is a shape pianist. also the obvious point that michelangeli had like 4 pieces in his rep, pollini played everything.

i think i enjoy listening to michelangeli more but i'm surprised to see michelangeli in the poll and pollini not. i consider pollini by far the greater pianist, despite not liking his general approach very much, mostly because of the vastly larger repertoire and excellent recordings he produced.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> not really, michelangeli is all about sound and texture, pollini is a shape pianist. also the obvious point that michelangeli had like 4 pieces in his rep, pollini played everything.
> 
> i think i enjoy listening to michelangeli more but i'm surprised to see michelangeli in the poll and pollini not. i consider pollini by far the greater pianist, despite not liking his general approach very much, mostly because of the vastly larger repertoire and excellent recordings he produced.


The point is that o n his day Michelangeli could electrify in a way that was beyond most pianists. In that he was comparable to Horowitz. Many pianists can produce fine turned music and that is great. But the few can absolutely make your hair stand on end, issuing at our advanced age you have any!


----------



## Machiavel

howlingfantods said:


> not really, michelangeli is all about sound and texture, pollini is a shape pianist. also the obvious point that michelangeli had like 4 pieces in his rep, pollini played everything.
> 
> i think i enjoy listening to michelangeli more but i'm surprised to see michelangeli in the poll and pollini not. i consider pollini by far the greater pianist, despite not liking his general approach very much, mostly because of the vastly larger repertoire and excellent recordings he produced.


He played Rachmaninov concertos, Beethoven, schumann, liszt, mozart, brahms, haydn,grieg, ravel. HE played beethoven sonatas, debussy, ravel, chopin, brahms, scarlatti, clementi,mozart.

That is some really really long 4 pieces. Thanks for clarifying we have to group them together for Micheangeli

Cortot said he was a new LIzt. not too bad from a top pianist. Rubinstein said he was not impress musically by the yound Micheangeli but was already in awe of his technique and the rest would follow


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

howlingfantods said:


> not really, michelangeli is all about sound and texture, pollini is a shape pianist. also the obvious point that michelangeli had like 4 pieces in his rep, pollini played everything.
> 
> i think i enjoy listening to michelangeli more but i'm surprised to see michelangeli in the poll and pollini not. i consider pollini by far the greater pianist, despite not liking his general approach very much, mostly because of the vastly larger repertoire and excellent recordings he produced.


I don't understand why many don't like Pollini and think his approach cold. He is the Apollonian pianist who treats music very seriously and his sound is always robust and masculine.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Machiavel said:


> He played Rachmaninov concertos, Beethoven, schumann, liszt, mozart, brahms, haydn,grieg, ravel. HE played beethoven sonatas, debussy, ravel, chopin, brahms, scarlatti, clementi,mozart.
> 
> That is some really really long 4 pieces. Thanks for clarifying we have to group them together for Micheangeli
> 
> Cortot said he was a new LIzt. not too bad from a top pianist. Rubinstein said he was not impress musically by the yound Micheangeli but was already in awe of his technique and the rest would follow


Michelangeli also has a perverse sense of interpretation. His Chopin is an acquired taste and very strange. For all the amazing qualities he possessed, he has too much control (touch and rhythm) and that's very different from Horowitz. In addition to the French repertoire he was famous for, his Scarlatti is pristine.


----------



## howlingfantods

Machiavel said:


> He played Rachmaninov concertos, Beethoven, schumann, liszt, mozart, brahms, haydn,grieg, ravel. HE played beethoven sonatas, debussy, ravel, chopin, brahms, scarlatti, clementi,mozart.


Oh he played the rachmaninov concertoS did he? i can't wait to listen to his renditions of the second and third, the two that most people want to listen to the most. ah and i'll listen to his very extensive recordings of all the chopin major works like all four of the ballades, or perhaps all six of the major polonaises or either set of etudes or the preludes. or perhaps i'll listen to his brahms concertos or late piano pieces, the piano rep that most people want to listen to for brahms? shall i put on his full set of beethoven's late sonatas or just the popular named middle period sonatas? hm, you didn't mention them but surely he's played prokofiev or bartok or scriabin or tchaikovsky?


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> The point is that o n his day Michelangeli could electrify in a way that was beyond most pianists. In that he was comparable to Horowitz. Many pianists can produce fine turned music and that is great. But the few can absolutely make your hair stand on end, issuing at our advanced age you have any!


yeah, there's a point to saying that quality matters more than quantity--two of my favorite pianists are pogorelich and sokolov, and neither have extensive discographies.

but i wouldn't put them into consideration for greatest pianist all time, either--to me, the only qualifiers for the competition are those who have extensive and broad discographies and public performances--richter, brendel, horowitz, rubinstein, arrau, serkin, pollini, ashkenazy, etc--even though if i made a list of favorite pianists, most of those wouldn't be anywhere near that list.


----------



## Mandryka

Caryatid said:


> I regret including Edwin Fischer instead of Wilhelm Kempff, who I think might have garnered more support. e


Zoltan Kocsis is Edwin Fischer reincarnated.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> The point is that o n his day Michelangeli could electrify <snip a bit I don't agree with>. Many pianists can produce fine turned music and that is great. But the few can absolutely make your hair stand on end, issuing at our advanced age you have any!


Yes, this is this something I think is true. I've seen Pollini many times and electrify isn't quite the word.


----------



## Mandryka

howlingfantods said:


> not really, michelangeli is all about sound and texture, pollini is a shape pianis


Yes I can see that.


----------



## Mandryka

howlingfantods said:


> yeah, there's a point to saying that quality matters more than quantity--two of my favorite pianists are pogorelich and sokolov, and neither have extensive discographies.
> 
> but i wouldn't put them into consideration for greatest pianist all time, either--to me, the only qualifiers for the competition are those who have extensive and broad discographies and public performances--richter, brendel, horowitz, rubinstein, arrau, serkin, pollini, ashkenazy, etc--even though if i made a list of favorite pianists, most of those wouldn't be anywhere near that list.


What about Aimard? Could Aimard be the greatest pianist of all time? (Like Arditti is at least the greatest living violinist.) I don't think you can claim to be the greatest pianist of all time if you just cut yourself off from the music of your own time - being a reactionary is a disqualifying handicap for greatness.

Or, better idea than Aimard maybe - David Tudor.


----------



## Caryatid

Mandryka said:


> Zoltan Kocsis is Edwin Fischer reincarnated.


That strikes me as a strange statement, but I have to admit I don't know either of them very well.

If you were to say Stephen Kovacevich is Wilhelm Backhaus reincarnated, on the other hand...


----------



## Mandryka

Caryatid said:


> That strikes me as a strange statement, but I have to admit I don't know either of them very well.
> 
> ...


Ha! It's true, I'm sure of it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ Zoltan Kocsis is extremely underrated. His rachmaninoff, good lord, are so great. His Liszt and Debussy are consistently great. A low key, erudite virtuoso genius that understand the music in and out.


----------



## Quartetfore

I am not sure if you can rate one on the list greater than another based on their recordings.Recordings are in most cases to be perfect. No finger slips, and more retakes if the artist calls for.
I had the pleasure during my High School days to hear both Richter and Rubenstein in concert/ and to say one was "greater" than other is for me not possible.


----------



## Bulldog

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ^ Zoltan Kocsis is extremely underrated. His rachmaninoff, good lord, are so great. His Liszt and Debussy are consistently great. A low key, erudite virtuoso genius that understand the music in and out.


He's also excellent in Haydn piano sonatas. My most treasured Kocsis performance is his Rach. 3rd.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Bulldog said:


> He's also excellent in Haydn piano sonatas. My most treasured Kocsis performance is his Rach. 3rd.


His Rach 3 is unbelievably good, the speed (yes I am that vulgar), the momentum, the consistency, the articulation are incredible.


----------



## Mandryka

The thing about Kocsis is that he is fast, he makes the music move forward with extraordinary intense energy. That was Edwin Fischer’s trademark too.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Mandryka said:


> The thing about Kocsis is that he is fast, he makes the music move forward with extraordinary intense energy. That was Edwin Fischer's trademark too.


Impressive! *Rachmaninoff Concerto #3. Zoltan Kocsis*, Budapest Festival Orchestra, Ivan Fischer


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a great assessment. But I would like to defend Richter's lack colorization and roughness as austere aesthetics (like Wabisabi aesthetic but not taken to an extreme). His style is a bit like Klemperer's monochromatic approach to orchestra in that respect (he play on any piano). Richter is also free of mannerism that often plague Cortot or Horowitz. So I would argue that Richter's style always create a forceful, assured yet natural, honest impression on the listener.
> 
> I will not compare him to Rachmaninoff or Hofmann. But Cortot and Horowitz can be too idiosyncratic and too self-indulgent (and I love both). Gieseking is always wonderful but lacks the temperament and masculinity in Richer. People like Michelangeli or Zimmerman are too consumed by the idea of the perfect sound and they always sounds nervous and lack spontaneity. Rubinstein, let's face it, is not terribly exciting (although he can be). Gilels and Arrau I have absolutely no problem with them. So I definietly think Richter deserve more love, he is not the kind of musician that tries to make reference recording, and he does not have a gigantic ego, but he always put music first and is free of extraneous concerns.


Your argument is logical and plausible, thank you, I love it! Even though the lack of color still bothers me, I must admit that this gives a natural and honest impression on the listeners. It is something special to give such an effect in slow tempo without the beauty of sound, although sometimes I think it doesn't work but I always respect it, this is unique. Zimmerman, sometimes Rubinstein and Michelangeli bore me too, I always prefer Richter to them. My comparison was just color oriented. Therefore not my cup of tea (except for some composers), nevertheless he was great

I see that you do not have personal problems, maybe you don't mean that and this is an open-ended discussion yet I disagree with argument that Horowitz and Cortot made " ego" interpretations or this interpretations are too unfaithful or self-indulgent...

Cortot's piano approach and interpretation characterization very similar to Debussy and Chopin (Rubato, pedalling, touch, phrasing, timbre or vitality, variability, originality, flexibility interpretion etc.), at some point he is very composer focused, satisfied what Chopin and Debussy wanted. Cortot worked with one of Chopin's pupil and became Debussy's close friend. He also tried to understand composers in every sense: He even wrote biography books, studied the orginal manuscripts and emphasized on the programs of the works. For example, he met Liszt's daughter Cosima because he wanted took Liszt's personal notes before playing Liszt's Sonata. Chopin says you can't play the piano without knowing how to sing, Cortot and Horowitz knew the 19th century Bel Canto tradition, but what about other modern pianists? Cortot one of the most original pianists but also consistent and loyal to the composer in a romantic tradition. Who fulfilled the composers wish? Who really depends on the composers? It's a dilemma. But most major old romantic composers would prefer Cortot and Horowitz.

They want music should be 'interpreted', the expectation of the romantics was that his works come to life. They didn't even write most details on the score and criticized the pianists who played the written only score, there was a limit to this but Cortot and Horowitz did not exceed. Of course Ravel or maybe Saint-Saens wouldn't want it, they wanted pure loyalty for scores, but seems like Debussy, Brahms, Scriabin, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Chopin wanted creativity, rhythmic vitality, rich tone palettes, individuality and ornament, even many composers wanted interpreters, they said the notes were not enough. This is a thin line... Glenn Gould's approach is possibly exaggerated but Horowitz and Cortot's interpretation is within certain limits for Romantics, it is legal and normal. I think interpretations of Rachmaninoff sometimes it can be more contrary to Cortot and Horowitz. Rachmaninoff's Schumann Carnaval and Chopin Second Piano Sonata is one of the peaks of piano art however they also have a lot of individual additions, it has Rachmaninoff's texture. It's not just Chopin that we hear, it is now Rachmaninoff/Chopin or Rachmaninoff/Schumann! Cortot wouldn't have made so many changes or additions; when Horowitz did it, he would say "arrangement".

Debussy was quoted as saying that Ricardo Viñes playing was "too dry", Vines was faithful to score (He was one of Ravel's favorite) but Debussy didn't like this, because he was expecting more. On the other hand Eugène Ysaye, one of the most idiosyncratic violinists of all time, was one of Debussy's favorites; many composers (including Debussy) dedicated works to him.
One of Mahler's favorite conductors was Mengelberg, another idiosyncratic artist. Examples can be reproduced...

In the past, Cortot-like musicians would not be perceived as today. In short I claim that Horowitz and Cortot did not deviate from what the composer gave. On the contrary, they are closer to the romantic composer's wishes. It wasn't the big ego or individual opinions, just the romantic tradition. So that's why I do not remove them from the greatest list and why i disagree with you

Thank you again for this beautiful and rich discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> What about Aimard? Could Aimard be the greatest pianist of all time? (Like Arditti is at least the greatest living violinist.) I don't think you can claim to be the greatest pianist of all time if you just cut yourself off from the music of your own time - being a reactionary is a disqualifying handicap for greatness.
> 
> Or, better idea than Aimard maybe - David Tudor.


Aimard is certainly one of the best living pianists and so one of the best ever. I can't really get why he is not a lot more popular.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> The thing about Kocsis is that he is fast, he makes the music move forward with extraordinary intense energy. That was Edwin Fischer's trademark too.


And on top of it all he was the best conductor of Bartok that we have ever had!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I am not very familiar with Kocsis outside of his quite electric set of Chopin waltzes, will have to explore further. I have his various albums of Bartok piano music queued up since that’s a blind spot of the repertoire for me.

Aimard is arguably the greatest living exponent of modern piano music (Ives Concord sonata, Messiaen’s Vingt Regards, Ligeti’s etudes are all sensational in his hands) but among the greatest of all time is a lofty claim. I occasionally enjoy his WTC for a very straightforward approach but it is quite clinical sounding, as if Boulez was a pianist. He does have a version of the album where he speaks briefly about each prelude and fugue before playing, which is quite interesting.


----------



## howlingfantods

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I am not very familiar with Kocsis outside of his quite electric set of Chopin waltzes, will have to explore further. I have his various albums of Bartok piano music queued up since that's a blind spot of the repertoire for me.


His Rach concerto set is one of the strongest overall, it's a pickem between Kocsis, Hough, Andsnes and Wild for full sets. His set includes the Pag, and he also has another disc with Rach's second sonata and a few selected preludes that is one of my favorite versions of that sonata.

His Bach concertos are excellent too, if you're not too HIP for piano versions of the concertos. He and Andras Schiff trade off lead piano for the two hand ones, and the cds include the less frequently recorded concertos for 3 and 4 keyboards. Extremely fun and lively. And of course, his Bartok piano performances are practically authoritative.

I actually think that Chopin waltzes disc is probably my least favorite thing I've listened to from him. It's good but it's not competitive with the best for me. I think he's more of a etudes/polonaises pianist than a mazurkas/waltzes one, it's a shame he never got to record them.


----------



## Mandryka

Commercial Kocsis recordings I remember liking, where he plays piano:


Mozart concertos and solo sonatas -- here you hear the ghost of Edwin Fischer. 
Schubert sonatas and klavierstucke
Brahms sonata/trio -- he has to be good if he can make me like the Brahms sonata. 
Beethoven sonatas -- esp. the DVD with op 111. 
Debussy

I can't recall the Haydn that Bulldog mentioned, not so keen on the Art of Fugue from memory but I can't remember the details. The Chopin waltzes are too speedy for me really, but there certainly worth hearing. I can't recall his Bartok well, except for the feeling that it's excellent -- Bartok's piano music is a bit peripheral for me. I certainly remember years ago listening to him do Bk 4 and 5 of Microcosmos and being impressed (but slightly thinking that Ranki was even more interesting, who knows what I'd say now? )

As I'm typing this I'm listening to him do Mozart PC 19, for the first time in years. It's fabulous! The drive! The momentum!


----------



## SixFootScowl

howlingfantods said:


> His Rach concerto set is one of the strongest overall, it's a pickem between Kocsis, Hough, Andsnes and Wild for full sets.


I have Wild, so don't see a compelling reason to pick up the Kocsis set, but will keep it in mind if ever spotted in a bargain bin.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I am not very familiar with Kocsis outside of his quite electric set of Chopin waltzes, will have to explore further. I have his various albums of Bartok piano music queued up since that's a blind spot of the repertoire for me.
> 
> Aimard is arguably the greatest living exponent of modern piano music (Ives Concord sonata, Messiaen's Vingt Regards, Ligeti's etudes are all sensational in his hands) but among the greatest of all time is a lofty claim. I occasionally enjoy his WTC for a very straightforward approach but it is quite clinical sounding, as if Boulez was a pianist. He does have a version of the album where he speaks briefly about each prelude and fugue before playing, which is quite interesting.


Aimard's musicianship is undisputed, but it's hard to be excited about his playing, as you have put it perfectly - clinical sounding (and the Boulez comparison is apt). His Liszt album is very interesting, which shows how forward looking Liszt's late composition was by juxtaposing them with Scriabin and Berg.

Kocsis is the complete package, the champion of Bartok's music. His Rachmaninoff is brilliant, exciting, and cerebral, his Debussy imaginative. Try his Rachmanioff Sonata No.2.


----------



## Mandryka

The thing which made me convinced that Aimard is the greatest living pianist was seeing him play Stockhausen's klavierestucke 1-10 in London a couple of years ago. Michael Finnissy was page turner, which probably helped. 

Commercial recordings by Aimard of music pre 1950 which I like

Mozart concertos -- esp 27
Beethoven op 110
Debussy etudes


I haven't heard his Schumann, or the WTC. A can't remember the Messaien.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> The thing which made me convinced that Aimard is the greatest living pianist *was seeing him play Stockhausen's klavierestucke 1-10* in London a couple of years ago. Michael Finnissy was page turner, which probably helped.
> 
> Commercial recordings by Aimard of music pre 1950 which I like
> 
> Mozart concertos -- esp 27
> Beethoven op 110
> Debussy etudes
> 
> I haven't heard his Schumann, or the WTC. A can't remember the Messaien.


Playing that would certainly relegate him on my list to undesirable pianists!


----------



## Caryatid

I recently listened to Aimard's recording of Schumann's Symphonic Etudes and Carnaval. I wasn't listening very closely, but my impression was that the Carnaval was excellent but the Symphonic Etudes were too restrained.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> I haven't heard his Schumann, or the WTC. A can't remember the Messaien.


Aimard's WTC is quite interesting. I haven't heard it in a couple of years, but I remember him putting in quite a few jazz-type phrases.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Mandryka said:


> The thing which made me convinced that Aimard is the greatest living pianist was seeing him play Stockhausen's klavierestucke 1-10 in London a couple of years ago. Michael Finnissy was page turner, which probably helped.
> 
> Commercial recordings by Aimard of music pre 1950 which I like
> 
> Mozart concertos -- esp 27
> Beethoven op 110
> Debussy etudes
> 
> I haven't heard his Schumann, or the WTC. A can't remember the Messaien.


Have to say, I'm struggling with the idea of having a page-turner for a performance of Stockhausen.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> In the past, Cortot-like musicians would not be perceived as today. In short I claim that Horowitz and Cortot did not deviate from what the composer gave. On the contrary, they are closer to the romantic composer's wishes. It wasn't the big ego or individual opinions, just the romantic tradition. So that's why I do not remove them from the greatest list and why i disagree with you
> 
> Thank you again for this beautiful and rich discussion.


Your essay is rich and beautiful and thank you!

I love Horowitz and Cortot both and listen extensively (pretty much everything I can find) of their recordings. I do think Horowitz has a greater ego than Cortot, you hear this in all his live recordings, he wanted the audience to love him. You also see this in numerous documentary about him, especially the one with Guilini.

Cortot on the other hand is the superior musician I would argue. Having gone through all the Cortot editions of Chopin, I have come to the conclusion that he was the greatest interpreter of Chopin. His exercises for the Etudes and Preludes, they just work like magic, his understanding of the piano is unparalleled in his way. If you delve into his 20s recordings, you will be amazed by his incredible virtuosity and the beautiful, scintillating jeu perle techniques of the French school. His Saint-Saëns etudes, oh my god, out of this world! Yet people accuse him of insufficient techniques in his later recordings. No wonder he doesn't care about wrong notes and always try conjure up magic in his performance of Chopin and Schumann. I have included the link in case you haven't seen it.


----------



## Dimace

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your essay is rich and beautiful and thank you!
> 
> I love Horowitz and Cortot both and listen extensively (pretty much everything I can find) of their recordings. I do think Horowitz has a greater ego than Cortot, you hear this in all his live recordings, he wanted the audience to love him. You also see this in numerous documentary about him, especially the one with Guilini.
> 
> Cortot on the other hand is the superior musician I would argue. Having gone through all the Cortot editions of Chopin, I have come to the conclusion that he was the greatest interpreter of Chopin. His exercises for the Etudes and Preludes, they just work like magic, his understanding of the piano is unparalleled in his way. If you delve into his 20s recordings, you will be amazed by his incredible virtuosity and the beautiful, scintillating jeu perle techniques of the French school. His Saint-Saëns etudes, oh my god, out of this world! Yet people accuse him of insufficient techniques in his later recordings. No wonder he doesn't care about wrong notes and always try conjure up magic in his performance of Chopin and Schumann. I have included the link in case you haven't seen it.


Chopin's battle between Alfred, Samson and Arthur, isn't yet to be decided. The differences of 0,1 to 1% here and there (in this super human level of performance we are arguing actually about ''the big nothing'', as I have written in this community) aren't enough to have a winner. And, if we add to the game, other super major players (Earl, Cyprien, Garrick, Jan etc) we are driven to nowhere. (no conclusions) I'm not expert in Saint-Saens and I will agree with you. Very nice post. Thanks.


----------



## Enthusiast

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Aimard's musicianship is undisputed, but it's hard to be excited about his playing, as you have put it perfectly - clinical sounding (and the Boulez comparison is apt). His Liszt album is very interesting, which shows how forward looking Liszt's late composition was by juxtaposing them with Scriabin and Berg.
> 
> Kocsis is the complete package, the champion of Bartok's music. His Rachmaninoff is brilliant, exciting, and cerebral, his Debussy imaginative. Try his Rachmanioff Sonata No.2.


I disagree. But then I often like Boulez as a conductor and am amazed at how his approach is caricatured as sterile when quite the opposite is what I and many other listeners hear. Aimard's Beethoven piano concertos with Harnoncourt are one of the strongest sets and demonstrated (as had Solomon before him!) that you don't need to play to the gallery in those works.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Dimace said:


> Chopin's battle between Alfred, Samson and Arthur, isn't yet to be decided. The differences of 0,1 to 1% here and there (in this super human level of performance we are arguing actually about ''the big nothing'', as I have written in this community) aren't enough to have a winner. And, if we add to the game, other super major players (Earl, Cyprien, Garrick, Jan etc) we are driven to nowhere. (no conclusions) I'm not expert in Saint-Saens and I will agree with you. Very nice post. Thanks.


Of course not. To "decide" such a thing is absurd because Chopin is meant to be interpreted in many different ways (the modern winners of the esteem competition are also marvelous in their own ways) Alfred Cortot's best disciples, Samson Francois (for a short period), Dinu Lipatti, Clara Haskil are living proof of his understanding of Chopin and the art of the French school. What sets Cortot apart is the fact that we can read in details (and apply) his method to approach each of Chopin's pieces.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Looks like this thread has become the home base for us crazy dedicated pianophiles

I think Cortot probably brings us closer to the playing style of Chopin himself than anyone else who recorded prolifically. There is a remarkable sense of poetic spontaneity about everything he did, even when he didn’t always play all the right notes. Even those late Schumann recordings are just gorgeous if you can ignore the handfuls of mistakes. I voted for him in this poll because he wasn’t just a supremely skilled musician, he was an interpreter of a kind we are unlikely to see again. My other favorite “vintage” Chopinists are Lipatti, who is more “refined” and aristocratic, and Ignaz Friedman, whose idiosyncrasies may sound extreme to us today but I would say that everyone needs to hear him at least once. I’m sorry, but I just don’t get the adoration for Rubinstein in Chopin!

Yesterday I listened to Radu Lupu’s Schumann concerto and Mozart 21 with Previn/LSO. He’s someone who I think has a legitimate claim to be one of the greatest pianists of the latter half of the 20th/early 21st century despite his relative lack of recordings. His silky tone is incomparable. I’ve heard some criticism that he just “produces beautiful sounds” but I think his talent is pretty incredible. His Schubert and Brahms are absolutely breathtaking.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Enthusiast said:


> I disagree. But then I often like Boulez as a conductor and am amazed at how his approach is caricatured as sterile when quite the opposite is what I and many other listeners hear. Aimard's Beethoven piano concertos with Harnoncourt are one of the strongest sets and demonstrated (as had Solomon before him!) that you don't need to play to the gallery in those works.


"Clinical sounding" is fair but "sterile" is unfair. I don't think you can play Ligetti's Etudes or Stockhausen's Klavierstucke without aiming for clinical sounding. The internal logic of these works is so dense that any extra colorization and rhymic instability run the risk of distracting the listener and ruin the intended effect.

His Beethoven piano concertos with Harnoncourt are fresh and great but this is a field of extreme fierce competition. I have a dozen of equally strong sets that has warmer tone and more singing phrases than Aimard (for example, Fleisher's classic recording with Szell). For me, clinical sounding is feature, not a bug, for both Aimard and Boulez.


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your essay is rich and beautiful and thank you!
> 
> I love Horowitz and Cortot both and listen extensively (pretty much everything I can find) of their recordings. I do think Horowitz has a greater ego than Cortot, you hear this in all his live recordings, he wanted the audience to love him. You also see this in numerous documentary about him, especially the one with Guilini.
> 
> Cortot on the other hand is the superior musician I would argue. Having gone through all the Cortot editions of Chopin, I have come to the conclusion that he was the greatest interpreter of Chopin. His exercises for the Etudes and Preludes, they just work like magic, his understanding of the piano is unparalleled in his way. If you delve into his 20s recordings, you will be amazed by his incredible virtuosity and the beautiful, scintillating jeu perle techniques of the French school. His Saint-Saëns etudes, oh my god, out of this world! Yet people accuse him of insufficient techniques in his later recordings. No wonder he doesn't care about wrong notes and always try conjure up magic in his performance of Chopin and Schumann. I have included the link in case you haven't seen it.


I agree with Horowitz and Cortot comparison, Horowitz has a greater ego than Cortot for me too.

Definitely! Cortot's technique in the early 1920s is incredible (even Rachmaninoff praised), I also give this recording to those who call Cortot's technique bad When Horowitz listened to this Cortot's record (Saint-Saens's Etude), he was amazed, he didn't understand how he did it and asked to teach but Cortot didn't tell  I think Cortot's playing stlye here is similar to Saint-Saens own recordings. Other great examples of Cortot's wonderful technique are Verdi/Liszt "Rigoletto" (1926) Paraphrase, Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No. 11 (1925), Albeniz (1919) and some Chopin etudes (1923). Today's "technical" pianists cannot play them like this, he taking a lot of risk and he had a great technique.

Why the technique has changed? Maybe only due to old age, weak memories and fingers... He was 42 years old in his first solo recordings in 1919, not too young even there but most of his popular recordings after the age of 60. I can present two different arguments: According to Cortot's friends from the conservatory period, Cortot wasn't a great technique at the beginning, but he is a hard worker and he was better than anyone after working hard. But you know... Probably he didn't continue the technical exercises, because he wasn't like typical professional pianists. He was the founder, manager and teacher of the Ecole Normale de Musique de Paris (Would be one of the most important conservatories of its time). He also served as ministry of art for a while. He was very busy man, too many books writing, competition juries and so on. Harold C. Schonberg points to this, he did not have time to practice.

Perhaps this is a conscious choice? So the technique has regressed but he turned to a much fresher, poetic, lively, colorful, intense approach. Some pianists (Chopin, Beethoven, Anton Rubinstein -not Arthur-, Josef Hofmann, Walter Gieseking and so on) thought that practicing killed the spirit of music. Cortot might have changed his perspective when he technically reached one of the top, he was ultimately satisfied. So he may have stopped practicing and he thought the character was important, not the mistakes.


----------



## Mandryka

I don't hear the later recordings as being _consistently_ fresher, more poetic, lively, colorful or intense. On the contrary in a way (compare the first davidsbundlertanze with the second, the first Debussy preludes with the second, think of the early Liszt sonata . . .) On the whole I see Cortot as a really consistent pianist, without major differences in approach throughout his career. I could be wrong about all of this, it's a while since I've listened attentively to any c19 piano music, let alone Cortot doing it!

I think the big deal about the late recordings, the ones from the 1950s, is the sound, you can hear for the first time what sort of tone he made. That makes them very special (eg Symphonic Etudes)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> Perhaps this is a conscious choice? So the technique has regressed but he turned to a much fresher, poetic, lively, colorful, intense approach. Some pianists (Chopin, Beethoven, Anton Rubinstein -not Arthur-, Josef Hofmann, Walter Gieseking and so on) thought that practicing killed the spirit of music. Cortot might have changed his perspective when he technically reached one of the top, he was ultimately satisfied. So he may have stopped practicing and he thought the character was important, not the mistakes.


Thanks for this wonderful analysis!


----------



## Mandryka

Looking at the list in the opening post, the one it really should have is Sofronitsky. I’d probably take him over all the others in that list!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Mandryka said:


> I don't hear the later recordings as being _consistently_ fresher, more poetic, lively, colorful or intense. On the contrary in a way (compare the first davidsbundlertanze with the second, the first Debussy preludes with the second, think of the early Liszt sonata . . .) On the whole I see Cortot as a really consistent pianist, without major differences in approach throughout his career. I could be wrong about all of this, it's a while since I've listened attentively to any c19 piano music, let alone Cortot doing it!
> 
> I think the big deal about the late recordings, the ones from the 1950s, is the sound, you can hear for the first time what sort of tone he made. That makes them very special (eg Symphonic Etudes)


I agree with this. His recordings in the 40s are often too sloppy.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Mandryka said:


> Looking at the list in the opening post, the one it really should have is Sofronitsky. I'd probably take him over all the others in that list!


Sofronitsky suffers from a small discography. Those Urania recordings are nonetheless marvelous.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Mandryka said:


> Looking at the list in the opening post, the one it really should have is Sofronitsky. I'd probably take him over all the others in that list!


He gave us some excellent Chopin and he has been the only pianist who has convinced me that Scriabin has the potential to be great music (he seems possessed in some of those live Scriabin recordings). But yes, his small discography is a barrier.


----------



## Mandryka

Allegro Con Brio said:


> his small discography .


The same could be said of Artur Rubinstein
Artur Schnabel
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Edwin Fischer
Josef Hofmann
Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli
Martha Argerich



Allegro Con Brio said:


> is a barrier.


A barrier to what?


----------



## Bwv 1080

If I had to pick one pianist to listen to, it would be Pollini - no one is as consistently good across a wider range of repertoire, from Beethoven to Chopin to Boulez


----------



## Neo Romanza

Greatest living pianist: Vladimir Ashkenazy
Greatest dead pianist: Franz Liszt

Although, in all honesty, I don’t like using the term ‘greatest’ as it implies that the talent is unmatched and beyond this world, which we all know is untrue.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Mandryka said:


> The same could be said of Artur Rubinstein
> Artur Schnabel
> Sergei Rachmaninoff
> Edwin Fischer
> Josef Hofmann
> Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli
> Martha Argerich


That's not true for Rubinstein and Argerich. I have RCA's comprehensive Arthur Rubinstein collection, his discography and repertoire are huge.

Edwin Fischer has a reference recording for WTC, Schnabel has a reference recording for Beethoven's sonatas. Both are essential for any pianist and enthusiast. I don't think Sofronitsky's Scriabin is of the same importance.

There are so many legends written about Hoffman and Rachmaninoff that the comparison with Sofronitsky is not appropriate.

Michelangelic also has far more presence than Sofronitsky in terms of discography. Many of his classics (Debussy, Ravel, Beethoven Concertos) are well recorded. There are even several recital DVDs.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> He gave us some excellent Chopin and he has been the only pianist who has convinced me that Scriabin has the potential to be great music (he seems possessed in some of those live Scriabin recordings). But yes, his small discography is a barrier.


Gilels also recorded some great Scriabin. Horowitz was personally connected at young age with Scriabin so he also championed his work pretty well. His preludes and sonatas are grossly overlooked in my opinion (I play some of his preludes). His use of harmony is cooler and more distant sounding than Chopin but still dreamy and magical. I find him to be a better Chopin "imitator" than say Faure.


----------



## DavidA

Neo Romanza said:


> Greatest living pianist: Vladimir Ashkenazy
> Greatest dead pianist: Franz Liszt
> 
> Although, in all honesty, I don't like using the term 'greatest' as it implies that the talent is unmatched and beyond this world, which we all know is untrue.


Two problems here:

Ashkenazy is retired
We have no idea how Liszt actually played although he must have been phenomenal


----------



## Mandryka

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's not true for Rubinstein and Argerich.


Not convinced for solo music, especially for Argerich



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Edwin Fischer has a reference recording for WTC, Schnabel has a reference recording for Beethoven's sonatas. Both are essential for any pianist and enthusiast. I don't think Sofronitsky's Scriabin is of the same importance.
> .


Your confusing _first_ (Fact) and _reference_ (Value).



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are so many legends written about Hoffman and Rachmaninoff that the comparison with Sofronitsky is not appropriate.


There are many legends about Sofronitsky, for example, that he was inspired by heroin, or that he had a special relation with Scriabin. The only thing that makes Hoffman legendary is that he founded the Curtis.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Michelangeli also has far more presence than Sofronitsky in terms of discography.


Not convinced for solo material. I can send you a Sofronitsky discography by PM If you want, it's enormous.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Many of his classics (Debussy, Ravel, Beethoven Concertos) are well recorded.


Many of Sofronitsky's classics are well enough recorded.


----------



## philoctetes

I've enjoyed Garrick Ohlsson's Scriabin a lot lately, and given his wide repertory it's possible he may be overlooked...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Mandryka said:


> A barrier to what?


To people appreciating him, because he's known mostly for the somewhat niche repertoire of Scriabin. No problem with having a small repertoire or recorded legacy at all.


----------



## Mandryka

Allegro Con Brio said:


> To people appreciating him, because he's known mostly for the somewhat niche repertoire of Scriabin. No problem with having a small repertoire or recorded legacy at all.


Well I never listen to his Scriabin because I'm not interested in the music, I know him for his Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Schumann. I think he's got a reputation as a scriabinist because he was related to the composer by marriage - I'm not sure how well he knew Scriabin in fact.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Mandryka said:


> Not convinced for solo music, especially for Argerich
> 
> Your confusing _first_ (Fact) and _reference_ (Value).
> 
> There are many legends about Sofronitsky, for example, that he was inspired by heroin, or that he had a special relation with Scriabin. The only thing that makes Hoffman legendary is that he founded the Curtis.
> 
> Not convinced for solo material. I can send you a Sofronitsky discography by PM If you want, it's enormous.
> 
> Many of Sofronitsky's classics are well enough recorded.


Thanks for pointing out my ignorance of Sofronitsky and I am swayed by your conviction.

I have not confused about fact and value because a small discography (a fact that I recognize) of Schnable or Edwin Fischer is a much smaller barrier than say that of Sofronitsky. I am pointing out that your use of analogy is not appropriate because the value of these reference recordings is significantly higher, at least for most of us.

Martha does have a somewhat restricted solo repertoire but she is also live and performing all the time. She has an enormous presence. It is implicitly assumed and obvious that Sofronitzsky was hardly present in the non-Russian concert scene and no longer with us post-war, so by not conditioning on this and bringing Martha as an analogy as a counter-argument for "small discography is a barrier" you have brought a confounding factor. It is precisely because Sofronitzsky has so little presence that his small discography and limited repertoire becomes a further barrier.

Sofronitsky's classics are not as well recorded as Michelangeli and that's a simple fact. The difference is quite large. For music lovers who are not into "historical recordings", they will have a barrier to access Sofronitsky's art but no difficulty buying those DG stereo recordings of Michelangeli's Debussy albums.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> To people appreciating him, because he's known mostly for the somewhat niche repertoire of Scriabin. No problem with having a small repertoire or recorded legacy at all.


His Chopin is very good to my ears. And his Scriabin is excellent, there is no doubt about that.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

philoctetes said:


> I've enjoyed Garrick Ohlsson's Scriabin a lot lately, and given his wide repertory it's possible he may be overlooked...


Yes indeed. Ohlsson is very overlooked.


----------



## Neo Romanza

DavidA said:


> Two problems here:
> 
> Ashkenazy is retired
> We have no idea how Liszt actually played although he must have been phenomenal


Which is why I said greatest _living_ pianist and whether they continue to perform or not is irrelevant. As for Liszt, we don't know how Bruckner played organ either, but he made jaws drop and dazzled people whoever got the chance to hear him doing one of his long improvisations from the various accounts that have been written about him.


----------



## flamencosketches

This thread is really revealing a lot of ignorance re: Sofronitsky. It seems people are not aware that he really _is_ in the upper echelon with any other pianist you could possibly name. He is not "just" the quintessential interpreter of Scriabin but indeed an elite virtuoso and interpreter absolutely no lesser than his successors Richter or Gilels. If you don't believe me, listen to any of the many CDs dedicated to his legacy on the Vista Vera or Denon labels. Seriously.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

flamencosketches said:


> This thread is really revealing a lot of ignorance re: Sofronitsky. It seems people are not aware that he really _is_ in the upper echelon with any other pianist you could possibly name. He is not "just" the quintessential interpreter of Scriabin but indeed an elite virtuoso and interpreter absolutely no lesser than his successors Richter or Gilels. If you don't believe me, listen to any of the many CDs dedicated to his legacy on the Vista Vera or Denon labels. Seriously.


True, and understandably. It's just difficult to get hold of his recordings and explore all there is to him.


----------



## Cortot

Mandryka said:


> I don't hear the later recordings as being _consistently_ fresher, more poetic, lively, colorful or intense. On the contrary in a way (compare the first davidsbundlertanze with the second, the first Debussy preludes with the second, think of the early Liszt sonata . . .) On the whole I see Cortot as a really consistent pianist, without major differences in approach throughout his career. I could be wrong about all of this, it's a while since I've listened attentively to any c19 piano music, let alone Cortot doing it!
> 
> I think the big deal about the late recordings, the ones from the 1950s, is the sound, you can hear for the first time what sort of tone he made. That makes them very special (eg Symphonic Etudes)


The records you said between 1929-1930 (Liszt sonata, Debussy preludes), technical problems started in those years, not too much but there were some mistakes. I think like this because of these comparisons:

Debussy Children's Corner: 1923 versus 1928
Debussy La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin: 1919 versus 1931
Chopin Preludes: 1926 versus 1933
Schumann Carnaval: 1923 versus 1928
Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody Eleven: 1925 versus 1926

Initial records are flawless technically but much drier. Cortot's later recordings (after 1925) are more colorful, intense and poetic; I argue that you are, I did not compare the 1950s and the 1930s, Change begins like 1925-1926 . The brilliant technique of Cortot before 1926, it is very difficult to find a mistake, moreover these are live recordings, no cutting just like today's studio recording. But there are serious differences with other records.


----------



## Dimace

flamencosketches said:


> This thread is really revealing a lot of ignorance re: Sofronitsky. It seems people are not aware that he really _is_ in the upper echelon with any other pianist you could possibly name. He is not "just" the quintessential interpreter of Scriabin but indeed an elite virtuoso and interpreter absolutely no lesser than his successors Richter or Gilels. If you don't believe me, listen to any of the many CDs dedicated to his legacy on the Vista Vera or Denon labels. Seriously.


For this reason, as I have said, these comparisons are futile. What we CAN compare and discuss is who is the best, or one of the best, to a specific composer. And, indeed, Wladimir Wladimirovitsch was (with Ruth Laredo and Neuhaus) the BEST with 
the Alexander the Great.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> The records you said between 1929-1930 (Liszt sonata, Debussy preludes), technical problems started in those years, not too much but there were some mistakes. I think like this because of these comparisons:
> 
> Debussy Children's Corner: 1923 versus 1928
> Debussy La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin: 1919 versus 1931
> Chopin Preludes: 1926 versus 1933
> Schumann Carnaval: 1923 versus 1928
> Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody Eleven: 1925 versus 1926
> 
> Initial records are flawless technically but much drier. Cortot's later recordings (after 1925) are more colorful, intense and poetic; I argue that you are, I did not compare the 1950s and the 1930s, Change begins like 1925-1926 . The brilliant technique of Cortot before 1926, it is very difficult to find a mistake, moreover these are live recordings, no cutting just like today's studio recording. But there are serious differences with other records.


You definitely know your Cortot! His 30s recordings are the "perfect" middle ground for me.


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You definitely know your Cortot! His 30s recordings are the "perfect" middle ground for me.


Thank you . Late 20s and 30s recordings are "perfect" middle ground for me too, its absolutly peak period. Alfred Brendel says for Cortot's Brandenburg Concerto 5 Cadence 1932 recording: "This is the most beautiful piano playing I've ever heard!"


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> Thank you . Late 20s and 30s recordings are "perfect" middle ground for me too, its absolutly peak period. Alfred Brendel says for Cortot's Brandenburg Concerto 5 Cadence 1932 recording: "This is the most beautiful piano playing I've ever heard!"


Without a doubt, this is absolutely divine. The warmth and beauty of the tone are unbelievable.


----------



## Mandryka

Cortot said:


> The records you said between 1929-1930 (Liszt sonata, Debussy preludes), technical problems started in those years, not too much but there were some mistakes. I think like this because of these comparisons:
> 
> Debussy Children's Corner: 1923 versus 1928
> Debussy La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin: 1919 versus 1931
> Chopin Preludes: 1926 versus 1933
> Schumann Carnaval: 1923 versus 1928
> Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody Eleven: 1925 versus 1926
> 
> Initial records are flawless technically but much drier. Cortot's later recordings (after 1925) are more colorful, intense and poetic; I argue that you are, I did not compare the 1950s and the 1930s, Change begins like 1925-1926 . The brilliant technique of Cortot before 1926, it is very difficult to find a mistake, moreover these are live recordings, no cutting just like today's studio recording. But there are serious differences with other records.


Ah yes, it's true that I hardly recall those very early recordings.


----------



## Enthusiast

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> His Beethoven piano concertos with Harnoncourt are fresh and great but this is a field of extreme fierce competition. I have a dozen of equally strong sets that has warmer tone and more singing phrases than Aimard (for example, Fleisher's classic recording with Szell). For me, clinical sounding is feature, not a bug, for both Aimard and Boulez.


With works as great and as frequently recorded as the Beethoven concertos, it is unlikely that I will have one favourite. I think there are many routes to a transcendent experience with such works. I don't have a preferred way of doing them - although in different moods I prefer different approaches - and have never really understood when critics tell us that X has to be played in a certain way and that Y does that best. What I really like about Aimard in that set is that he doesn't barnstorm or show off: his accounts are very musical and bring lots of new insights. It apparently took Harnoncourt some time to persuade him to do them as he felt he might have nothing to add to what had gone before him. He changed his mind because he came to believe he did have something to say, after all. I know Fleisher's records and like them a lot but certainly wouldn't choose them over Aimard's. And for the record I do not hear them as clinical or sterile but they might seem understated by some who mainly listen to the big names of the past. I mentioned Solomon because, of the greats of the past, he seemed to also appear understated but nevertheless to deliver the whole works in all their glory.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Richter is one of the greatest. I don't judge a pianist's greatness by facility, speed, or flash; I judge by overall output, and consistency. Richter is certainly one of the most prolifically recorded pianists, with a long history of concert tours. Surely this must count for something!

Read Shonberg's "The Great Pianists" and you will get sick of all the "string of pearls" metaphors.









​


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I listened to Richter's infamously slow 1972 Prague account of Schubert D959 the other day. At first it really does seem ridiculously, illogical slow. I'm not at all convinced that the sonata should be played that way (I'm working on learning it myself right now). But somehow it just casts a spell. No one besides Richter could probably make it work the way he did. Everything about his playing is hypnotizing, almost addictive. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is, but he possessed this unique ability of fierce concentration, mixed with stunning technique, that I haven't heard from any other pianist. At first I didn't understand why he is so revered, but he definitely rewards repeated listening.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ It's funny but several decades ago I tended not to listen to solo piano music. It was Richter who changed that. I got a box of several CDs (lot's of Beethoven, some Schubert, the old classic Pictures at an Exhibition etc) in an HMV Shop sale and that mesmerising concentration - it seems always to be there in his performances - had me hooked from the first. It was a while before I was ready to listen to anyone else, though.


----------



## Cortot

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I listened to Richter's infamously slow 1972 Prague account of Schubert D959 the other day. At first it really does seem ridiculously, illogical slow. I'm not at all convinced that the sonata should be played that way (I'm working on learning it myself right now). But somehow it just casts a spell. No one besides Richter could probably make it work the way he did. Everything about his playing is hypnotizing, almost addictive. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is, but he possessed this unique ability of fierce concentration, mixed with stunning technique, that I haven't heard from any other pianist. At first I didn't understand why he is so revered, but he definitely rewards repeated listening.


Maybe you know this story, Glenn Gould had the same experience you had  When he went to Richter's concert in 1957, the program opened with this sonata of Schubert. Gould didn't like Schubert (unnecessary too many repetitions) and he wasn't happy that this was one of the longest sonata, on top of that when he heard Richter playing very slowly, he was scared to be bored, this should normally be. But when the sonata was over, he was in a state to like "hypnotic trance".


----------



## Bwv 1080

Also Aimard should be on the list


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I'm listening to this album of piano rolls from Cortot right now. What a treat to hear his playing in what sounds like perfect stereo sound from the piano rolls! The combination of technique and interpretation is unearthly. Not sure what year these were salvaged from, but I would guess still early '20's or earlier because of the relative lack of mistakes.


----------



## Dimace

And, after all, we forgot to mention Godowsky (the Einstein von Klavier) and the John (Ogdon) is not here, either the divine Earl and the Van... And Americans & Britons are writing here and these pianists are the MUST of the MUST, of the MUST etc... There are many great pianist, but the greatest is the immortal music. Every Richter must have one Beethoven to show us his art, every Cortot his Chopin and every Arrau his Liszt.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

And then there is Gyorgy Cziffra, whose absence from this poll could simply be another victim of lack of extensive discography but my jaw drops open almost every time I hear him. His complete set of Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies is unearthly in its virtuosity, and these Chopin Etudes are uniquely special if over the top:


----------



## Mandryka

All the Hungaroton recordings made in Paris are worth hearing, I'm quite keen on his Beethoven (Appassionata) and Brahms (Paganini Variations.) This is an outstanding one from Cziffra I think, and normally it's not my sort of music


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I listened to Richter's infamously slow 1972 Prague account of Schubert D959 the other day. At first it really does seem ridiculously, illogical slow. I'm not at all convinced that the sonata should be played that way (I'm working on learning it myself right now). But somehow it just casts a spell. No one besides Richter could probably make it work the way he did. Everything about his playing is hypnotizing, almost addictive. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is, but he possessed this unique ability of fierce concentration, mixed with stunning technique, that I haven't heard from any other pianist. At first I didn't understand why he is so revered, but he definitely rewards repeated listening.


D960, you mean. I've been looking in vain for a Richter recording of D959-did he ever play it?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Sorry got my numbers mixed up. And no, unfortunately (and surprisingly) there is no recording of Richter doing 959 - I’ve checked and as far as I know it’s just inexplicably one of those works he wasn’t interested in. 

On a somewhat unrelated note, a few weeks ago I mentioned in a thread on D960 that I thought it was somewhat overrated. Having listened to it quite extensively since then and doing some casual sightreading of the score, I now conclude that it is a masterpiece. The first movement seems like a repository of bottomless pathos, and the last few bars of the Andante are just breathtaking in their poignancy. The finale’s a ton of fun too.


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Sorry got my numbers mixed up. And no, unfortunately (and surprisingly) there is no recording of Richter doing 959 - I've checked and as far as I know it's just inexplicably one of those works he wasn't interested in.
> 
> On a somewhat unrelated note, a few weeks ago I mentioned in a thread on D960 that I thought it was somewhat overrated. Having listened to it quite extensively since then and doing some casual sightreading of the score, I now conclude that it is a masterpiece. The first movement seems like a repository of bottomless pathos, and the last few bars of the Andante are just breathtaking in their poignancy. The finale's a ton of fun too.


Glad you've seen the light. If anything, D960 is underrated.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

flamencosketches said:


> Glad you've seen the light. If anything, D960 is underrated.


The B-flat minor is generally considered the greatest work of Schubert's sonatas. It's the string quintet of Schubert's chamber work and it is profound. Richter's famous rendition is truly extraordinary, a transformative experience.

My only gripe with this piece is that the last movement is a bit light and does not match up with the immensity of the first two movements.



flamencosketches said:


> All the Hungaroton recordings made in Paris are worth hearing, I'm quite keen on his Beethoven (Appassionata) and Brahms (Paganini Variations.) This is an outstanding one from Cziffra I think, and normally it's not my sort of music.


Cziffra is a tremendous virtuoso, no doubt. But one always goes back to Arrau's Liszt after the excitements and spectacles die down. In my humble opinion, Bolet is a much better musician than Cziffra, both of them are Titans of piano techniques.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Cziffra is a tremendous virtuoso, no doubt. But one always goes back to Arrau's Liszt after the excitements and spectacles die down. In my humble opinion, Bolet is a much better musician than Cziffra, both of them are Titans of piano techniques.


It definitely depends on whether you see Liszt as just trashy, empty virtuosity (which is definitely how some people see him) or whether it has profound musical value. Cziffra gives us boatloads of pyrotechnic thrills but I do agree that Bolet and Arrau ultimately find more poetry nestled within the sheer virtuosity, and would be more likely to convince Liszt skeptics that it is great music. Bolet's Decca set of Liszt is certainly one of my desert island piano albums.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It definitely depends on whether you see Liszt as just trashy, empty virtuosity (which is definitely how some people see him) or whether it has profound musical value. Cziffra gives us boatloads of pyrotechnic thrills but I do agree that Bolet and Arrau ultimately find more poetry nestled within the sheer virtuosity, and would be more likely to convince Liszt skeptics that it is great music. Bolet's Decca set of Liszt is certainly one of my desert island piano albums.


Another great Liszt player (French school) that flys under the radar is Jean Doyen, his La leggierezza is pristine, elegant, silky, and exquisite. You just don't hear this type of jeu perle playing anymore. The Russian school has became dominant to take advantage of huge sonority produced by the grand concert piano.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Another great Liszt player (French school) that flys under the radar is Jean Doyen, his La leggierezza is pristine, elegant, silky, and exquisite. You just don't hear this type of jeu perle playing anymore. The Russian school has became dominant to take advantage of huge sonority produced by the grand concert piano.


Never heard of him; will have to check him out. Thanks!


----------



## flamencosketches

Any love for Aldo Ciccolini's Liszt? One of many things he did that might put him in this conversation...


----------



## Dimace

Allegro Con Brio said:


> And then there is Gyorgy Cziffra, whose absence from this poll could simply be another victim of lack of extensive discography but my jaw drops open almost every time I hear him. His complete set of Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies is unearthly in its virtuosity, and these Chopin Etudes are uniquely special if over the top:


We could make a list with 100 names, and no one could tell us with evidences who is really the best pianist. Do you know someone who played the Hungarian Dances better then Gyorgy? Nope! (and the Etüdes are from other planet) Do you know someone who played better Liszt than Jorge and Aldo? Nope! And what about the Nocturnes with Engerer and Smeterling? Is better Ravel out there, but Arturo? And who has better touch and is more prolific than Jorge Luis Prats? And what about Roberto (Czidon)? Is he with Wladimir Wladimirovicz the best with Scriabin? Yes they are! And the devine Earl, who demolished with his dexterity every concert hall in his carrier? Isn't the most prolific interpreter of the western world? Yes, together with the mythos Cliburn, who put USA in the pianistic map! And don't forget the best Beethoven interperter, the GREAT Daniel, who is playing ALONE with the Greatest, the GIANT Paul Badura-Skoda, who made the modern Austrian piano school, the Bach legend Andras, the UNIQUE Chopin Master, Cyprien, and the Polish Piano machine, the gigantic Zimerman. AAAA! Where is the Sokolov? etc,etc,... Let us forget about greatness... ALL are GREAT! (under my Master, the one and only Ferenc Liszt).


----------



## Bulldog

Where is Andras Schiff a Bach legend?


----------



## 89Koechel

(Cziffra) - Excellent post and EXPOSITION of this man's talents - thanks! Well, you also mentioned the "best Beethoven interpreter", and is this (no doubt) Daniel Barenboim? ... Well, I've already put my vote in ... and it's the ONLY one (that I've seen in the poll results) for a man of the past - Schnabel. If you'd ever want to argue/debate that Barenboim is "better" than Schnabel, well, you'll find a rebuttal, from me.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Dimace said:


> We could make a list with 100 names, and no one could tell us with evidences who is really the best pianist. Do you know someone who played the Hungarian Dances better then Gyorgy? Nope! (and the Etüdes are from other planet) Do you know someone who played better Liszt than Jorge and Aldo? Nope! And what about the Nocturnes with Engerer and Smeterling? Is better Ravel out there, but Arturo? And who has better touch and is more prolific than Jorge Luis Prats? And what about Roberto (Czidon)? Is he with Wladimir Wladimirovicz the best with Scriabin? Yes they are! And the devine Earl, who demolished with his dexterity every concert hall in his carrier? Isn't the most prolific interpreter of the western world? Yes, together with the mythos Cliburn, who put USA in the pianistic map! And don't forget the best Beethoven interperter, the GREAT Daniel, who is playing ALONE with the Greatest, the GIANT Paul Badura-Skoda, who made the modern Austrian piano school, the Bach legend Andras, the UNIQUE Chopin Master, Cyprien, and the Polish Piano machine, the gigantic Zimerman. AAAA! Where is the Sokolov? etc,etc,... Let us forget about greatness... ALL are GREAT! (under my Master, the one and only Ferenc Liszt).


Cziffra's approach Chopin etudes is turning them into Hungarian rhapsody. But you can't fault him for his vulgarity because his virtuosity is too extraordinary. I still think it's best not to apply such monstrous virtuosity to such delicate work (he is not producing great sound in many of these etudes).


----------



## JUSTO

Not pretending of course to reply the original question -I find it impossible to mention only one name without taking into account different eras, recording techniques, (especially) repertoires, etc- I would like to add two IMHO absolutely outstanding pianists not yet mentioned in this thread: JUANA ZAYAS and IVAN MORAVEC. Great masters, and both have the added bonus of modern recording technique, that allow us to listen all the nuances in their playing. Also I find them very consistent (even if Zayas recorded output maybe a bit thin). Sorry for my poor English writing….


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Another great Liszt player (French school) that flys under the radar is Jean Doyen, his La leggierezza is pristine, elegant, silky, and exquisite. You just don't hear this type of jeu perle playing anymore. The Russian school has became dominant to take advantage of huge sonority produced by the grand concert piano.


I agree Doyen is a really good pianist, his Faure and Chopin recordings are also successful. He was actually a teacher, maybe that's why it's not known much. There are very good pianists and teacher from the French school that are not spoken today: Edouard Risler, Marguerite Long, Marcel Ciampi, Yvonne Lefebure, Lazare-Levy, Thierry de Brunhoff etc...

Especially Risler is one of the biggest but few and poor quality record legacy. At the same time, he was Cortot's favorite and inspired pianist. Marguerite Long was very close to names like Ravel, Faure and Debussy. She was the most important piano teacher with Cortot in France. Her Ravel, Debussy, Chopin, Faure and Mozart recordings are wonderful, Ravel concerto recording dedicated to her should be especially listened to. Jean Doyen is also her student.


----------



## Mandryka

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Another great Liszt player (French school) that flys under the radar is Jean Doyen, his La leggierezza is pristine, elegant, silky, and exquisite. You just don't hear this type of jeu perle playing anymore. The Russian school has became dominant to take advantage of huge sonority produced by the grand concert piano.


Cortot did a fabulous job with La leggierezza. Not jeu perlé of course. Paderewski too.


----------



## Cortot

What do you think of Josef Lhevinne? Left hand control is incredible, Scrabin injured his hand trying to play like him. Very refined, nuanced and controlled but also enthusiastic and grand style, especially live recordings volcanic! I think the best recordings of virtuosic Chopin etudies belong to him, also Horowitz thinks this way. And the wonderful Schumann, not only a technical or powerful pianist, Schumann records show his rich tone, interpretation and emotion side. He was one of Rachmaninoff's serious rivals, they were in the same class, Lhevinne won the gold medal at the conservatory for piano, Rachmaninoff came second.


----------



## Dimace

Cortot said:


> What do you think of Josef Lhevinne? Left hand control is incredible, Scrabin injured his hand trying to play like him. Very refined, nuanced and controlled but also enthusiastic and grand style, especially live recordings volcanic! I think the best recordings of virtuosic Chopin etudies belong to him, also Horowitz thinks this way. And the wonderful Schumann, not only a technical or powerful pianist, Schumann records show his rich tone, interpretation and emotion side. He was one of Rachmaninoff's serious rivals, they were in the same class, Lhevinne won the gold medal at the conservatory for piano, Rachmaninoff came second.


Congratulations for the BIG JO! And don't forget his wife! MYTHICAL Duett in life, on stage, (and solo she) everywhere. (No end to our list. No end... Yesterday I have forgotten Alexis! Shame on me. The Bulgarian / French was THE pianist with every composer, and maybe the best ever played Rachmaninoff)


----------



## Cortot

Dimace said:


> Congratulations for the BIG JO! And don't forget his wife! MYTHICAL Duett in life, on stage, (and solo she) everywhere. (No end to our list. No end... Yesterday I have forgotten Alexis! Same on me. The Bulgarian / French was THE pianist with every composer, and maybe the best ever played Rachmaninoff)


You're right, his wife Rosina also very important, she should not be forgotten. The duets are amazing! Debussy Fêtes and Mozart Two Piano Sonata one of my favorites duet recording. I also admire the piano duett of Ossip Gabrilowitsch and Harold Bauer, how sweet and beautiful Arensky's waltz is in their hands.


----------



## Mandryka

I just found this, I didn't know it existed before


----------



## Cortot

Mandryka said:


> I just found this, I didn't know it existed before
> 
> View attachment 139933


Interesting, we have very few Lhevinne records but I hadn't seen it before too, It seems that overlooked. Thank you!


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> Where is Andras Schiff a Bach legend?


Yes Schiff should be there but it appears most contributors to these kinds of conversations just prefer old pianists, the ones that are retired or no longer alive. Even guys like Liszt and Rachmaninov get mentioned despite little to no recorded legacy.


----------



## flamencosketches

tdc said:


> Yes Schiff should be there but it appears most contributors to these kinds of conversations just prefer old pianists, the ones that are retired or no longer alive. Even guys like Liszt and Rachmaninov get mentioned despite little to no recorded legacy.


In the case of Liszt, of course, you're right, but Rachmaninov left behind a substantial recorded legacy, especially with regard to his own works. Is it a legacy worthy of placing him in this conversation? Who's to say, but it wouldn't be wrong to claim that he is on record as the most important and revelatory interpreter of his own work.


----------



## Josquin13

Rachmaninov also recorded some of the most characterful versions I've ever heard of Debussy's Golliwogg's Cakewalk & Doctor Gradus ad Parnassum from the Children's Corner, & an excellent Schumann Carnaval:

--Rachmaninov plays Debussy:
Golliwogg's Cakewalk: 



Docter Gradus ad Parnassum: 




It's interesting to compare Rachmaninov's performances to the piano roll by Debussy himself: 



.

--Schumann Carnaval, Op. 9: 




The idea of a single "greatest" pianist is spurious, in my view. It implies or supposes that there is one pianist that plays a huge repertory of piano music better than everyone else, which isn't the case with any pianist. They all have composers & works that they specialize in and play well, even arguably better than others, and composers & works that they don't play quite as well (or not at all), & vice versa. A more interesting question, in my view, would be ask which 5 or 6 pianists play the piano music of specific composer better than others, or a specific work by that composer.

However, if I were to play along, the closest I can get to such a pianist would be those that did in fact play a gigantic repertory and played it all very well--such as Sviatoslav Richter and maybe Emil Gilels. But even then, the question doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Agamenon

Allegro Con Brio said:


> A very tough poll. My personal favorite (and IMO the most consistent) of those listed is probably Gilels, but I voted Cortot because I find the white-hot poetry and intensity of his playing to be absolutely magnetic, and we are very fortunate to have his brand of pianism captured on record - a performance practice that seems totally alien to modern standards. Personally I think Brendel is the odd man out on this poll, as he is the only one who does not have an immediately distinctive style. Also inclined to agree with Emperor on Gould, though I don't mind performers' personalities taking precedence over the composer (whatever that even means) Gould's personality is not one I prefer. If I were to describe all the pianists on this poll with a single word, it would be thus:
> 
> Horowitz - Raw
> Richter - Focused/Honest
> Gilels - Intrepid
> Rubinstein - Eloquent
> Schnabel - Spontaneous
> Rachmaninoff - Incandescent
> Arrau - Opulent
> Gould - Razor-sharp
> Brendel - Unforced/Nuanced
> Fischer - Silky
> Hoffmann - Free
> Cortot - Poetic
> Michelangeli - Probing
> Argerich - Dazzling


WONDERFUL! I agree with you.


----------



## Caryatid

tdc said:


> Yes Schiff should be there but it appears most contributors to these kinds of conversations just prefer old pianists, the ones that are retired or no longer alive. Even guys like Liszt and Rachmaninov get mentioned despite little to no recorded legacy.


I have nothing against Schiff, but to be honest I just don't agree that he should be on a list with the likes of Richter and Gilels.


----------



## Cortot

Do you know the pianists' favorite pianists? I think it will be useful, I'm saying what I know now, I wonder if you have additions that you know. I was surprised to see that most of them matches my taste.

*Claude Debussy*: Franz Liszt and his piano teacher Antoinette-Flore Mauté, She was a student of Chopin (There are other pianists that he speaks positively, but these two are the biggest for him).

*Camille Saint-Saens*: Franz Liszt

*Sergei Rachmaninoff*: For the 19th century Anton Rubinstein. For his own period Josef Hofmann and himself . Following Vladimir Horowitz. Also some names that he speaks with high respect: Ignaz Friedmann, Benno Moiseiwitsch, Simon Barere.

*Vladimir Horowitz*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ferruccio Busoni, Alfred Cortot, Walter Gieseking, Ignaz Friedman. Other names that he highly respects: Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Emil von Sauer, Wilhelm Backhaus, Simon Barere, Josef Lhevinne, Sviatoslav Richter. Actually the first pianist he was most impressed by was Josef Hofmann but looks seems he doesn't like Hofmann's character, 
maybe jealous because of Rachmaninoff's comparison with himself and Hofmann.

*Claudio Arrau*: Ferruccio Busoni, Teresa Carreno, Camille Saint-Saens, Alfred Cortot, Vladimir Horowitz, Edwin Fischer, Artur Schanbel, Eugen D'Albert.

*Sviatoslav Richter*: It must be Vladimir Sofronitsky and Maria Yudina. Also some names that he speaks with high respect: Heinrich Neuhaus, Emil Gilels, Josef Hofmann, Dinu Lipatti.

*Heinrich Neuhaus*: Alfred Cortot (According to Horowitz: He talked about pianists like Busoni, Rachmaninoff, Rosenthal, Friedman, Hofmann but his favorite was Cortot)

*Jorge Bolet*: Josef Hofmann and Sergei Rachmaninoff.

*Vlado Perlemuter*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ferruccio Busoni and Alfred Cortot big trio for him. After them Wilhelm Backhaus, Artur Schnabel, Dinu Lipatti.

*Alfred Brendel*: Edwin Fischer, Alfred Cortot, Ferruccio Busoni, Wilhelm Kempff, Arthur Rubinstein, Artur Schanbel, Walter Gieseking

*Martha Argerich*: Vladimir Horowitz, Alfred Cortot, Walter Gieseking (I read this somewhere and was surprised, I wouldn't expect Cortot and Gieseking when I think of her style)

*Alicia de Larrocha*: Arthur Rubinstein and Alfred Cortot.

*Stephen Hough*: Alfred Cortot and Sergei Rachmaninoff his two big favorites. Following Ignaz Friedman, Artur Schnabel and Ignancy Jan Paderewski.

*Garrick Ohlsson*: Claudio Arrau, Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels, Arthur Rubinstein

*Víkingur Ólafsson*: Emil Giels, Dinu Lipatti, Maurizio Pollini, Arturo Benedetti Michelengeli, Martha Argerich, Clara Haskil, and old romantic pianitsts (Alfred Cortot, Sergei Rachmaninov, Josef Hofmann, Benno Moiseiwitsch, Ignaz Friedman).

The Guardian's article about leading pianists choose their favourite performer of all time:

*Vladimir Askenazy*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Emil Gilels, Rudolf Serkin, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Glenn Gould, Van Cliburn, Evgeny Kissin.
*Leif Ove Andsnes*: Dinu Lipatti
*Angela Hewitt*: Alfred Cortot
*Freddy Kempf*: Vladimir Horowitz
*Pierre-Laurent Aimard*: Aloys Kontarsky (Interesting choice)
*Jean-Yves Thibaudet*: Arthur Rubinstein


----------



## PeterF

Greatest does not work for me. My preference is to focus on favorite or favorites.

I was highly surprised to find that my favorite - Rudolf Serkin - was not mentioned by anyone.
Serkin is wonderful in :
Beethoven piano Sonatas and Piano Concertos
Mozart’s Piano Concertos
Schubert piano sonatas
Brahms piano concertos and piano quintet
Schumann’s piano concerto and piano quintet

Some other pianists that I am currently enjoying a lot are in random order:
Buchbinder
Rubinstein
Kempff
Gulda
Moravec
Freire
Argerich
Klien
Brendel


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> Do you know the pianists' favorite pianists? I think it will be useful, I'm saying what I know now, I wonder if you have additions that you know. I was surprised to see that most of them matches my taste....


Amazing post! Very informative!


----------



## Luchesi

Bigbang said:


> I watched a youtube video of old man Richter playing Mozart no. 5 piano concerto, glasses and score in front of him. I got the impression he could have done without it but wanted to sight read so he could also focus on inner details (that is, do two or more things at once in his head whereas if he was remembering while playing it would hinder his efforts...it is quite a performance.


 I think I remember him saying in a video interview - that he didn't need sheet music for the notes, but he needed it to remind him of the dynamics and the slurs - for expressive purposes.

He felt that his memory had been a lifelong curse, because he could never forget the music AND the people he met and all their names!, and many other specifics that most people easily forget. A curse more so when he got older and depression got worse..


----------



## Cortot

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Amazing post! Very informative!


Thank you, you are welcome . Other names came to my mind.

I read that Schanbel liked Brahms and Busoni's piano playing. Similarly, when Wilhelm Backhaus was a child, he heard Brahms play and was impressed. One of Josef Hofmann's most influenced names was Moriz Rosenthal, Hofmann also praised names such as Leopold Godowsky, Emil von Sauer and Alfred Grünfeld. I read Dinu Lipatti wrote in a Romanian magazine in 1938, Dinu Lipatti praised Emil von Sauer too, I think Sauer is underrated, I think he's a great pianist. Dinu Lipatti praises names such as Alfred Cortot, Wilhem Backhaus, Wilhelm Kempff, Edwin Fischer (Just for Bach and Beethoven) in this same magazine.

Another name that great praises Busoni is Arthur Rubinstein. Arthur Rubistein often criticized the pianists, but there were also names he loved: Eduard Risler, Ossip Gabrilowitsch, Josef Lhevinne, Eugen D'Albert, Artur Schnabel, Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels (as far as i know). Arthur Rubinstein criticized Cortot's Chopin (Tuberculosis Chopin), but according to Horowitz this was due to Cortot's Nazi cooperation, Rubistein was angry even if he liked Cortot's art. Eduard Risler was clearly Cortot's idol. While Cortot will actually be the conductor, Risler opened his eyes and and and he went back to piano. There is also a Debussy for Cortot. He said he learned a lot from Debussy, like using a pedal, probably Cortot's Wagner love changed after his friendship with Debussy (Debussy didn't like Wagner). When Cortot was a student, he listened to George Mathias, a pupil of Chopin. He is one of Cortot's Chopin inspiration.

One of Gieseking's students said that Cortot was one of Walter Gieseking's favorite. Rachmaninoff loved Gieseking, I forgot in the previous post. Rachmaninoff and Cortot were actually close, Rachmaninoff referenced Cortot's Liszt Sonata record and Cortot played his third piano concerto, but after the years Rachmaninoff criticized old Cortot's technique.


----------



## Mandryka

It would be interesting to know what Horowitz thought of Cortot's Liszt sonata recording.

Busoni was a very creative piano player, I think this is extraordinary really, whatever you may think of the music (I'm not a fan!)


----------



## Cortot

Mandryka said:


> Busoni was a very creative piano player, I think this is extraordinary really, whatever you may think of the music (I'm not a fan!)


Absolutely! This is one of the best Liszt plays I have seen. Liszt himself praised Busoni as a child. It's sad to have very few records, Chopin records are also very creative. Voice-controlled, interpretation, fluency, rhythmic fluctuation at the highest level. Every pianist who heard him gave great praise. These few records are probably not enough to fully understand his art, I wish he had records like the Lisz sonata or Beethoven hammerklavier.


----------



## Mandryka

Here's Corotot's 1925 Chopin C minor Waltz






And here's Risler's from eight years earlier


----------



## Cortot

I think the obvious Cortot inspired by Risler, especially Cortot's very early recordings. The number 11 Hungarian Rhapsody records are similar too. But after 1926, Cortot created more of his own style.


----------



## Cortot

Also, Cortot has accompanying records from 1902. Cortot is only 25 years old, orchestra conductor period. I guess he's not under the influence of Debussy and Risler here, It looks like closer to the approach Anton R. and Liszt/Wagner school here, what do you think? When Cortot was a child Anton came to the conservatory and Cortot was impressed him.


----------



## Cortot

The companion records of Debussy are also very impressive. The piano partition are full nuanced, colorful and lively. Every note is accentuated, he playing very very clean, piano tone is very light and organic. I wish he had recorded his solos in acoustic, not on the piano roll.


----------



## Luchesi

Gould is my favorite because he surprises me, usually pleasantly, with every listen. This is what's important in the arts, with every expressive piece.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Luchesi said:


> Gould is my favorite because he surprises me, usually pleasantly, with every listen. This is what's important in the arts, with every expressive piece.


That means a lot coming from a professional pianist (I assume).


----------



## EdwardBast

Cortot said:


> I agree, the "greatest" is very flexible and problematic, "most important" can be answered more objectively, *the answer Rachmaninoff for me too*. On the other hand I think Busoni is also equivalent of Rachmaninoff, but unfortunately the record left by him is not enough.


Rachmaninoff would disagree. He thought Josef Hofmann was better and said so. I personally don't think it's a meaningful question.


----------



## Dimace

Cortot said:


> Do you know the pianists' favorite pianists? I think it will be useful, I'm saying what I know now, I wonder if you have additions that you know. I was surprised to see that most of them matches my taste.
> 
> *Claude Debussy*: Franz Liszt and his piano teacher Antoinette-Flore Mauté, She was a student of Chopin (There are other pianists that he speaks positively, but these two are the biggest for him).
> 
> *Camille Saint-Saens*: Franz Liszt
> 
> *Sergei Rachmaninoff*: For the 19th century Anton Rubinstein. For his own period Josef Hofmann and himself . Following Vladimir Horowitz. Also some names that he speaks with high respect: Ignaz Friedmann, *Benno Moiseiwitsch*, Simon Barere.
> 
> *Vladimir Horowitz*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ferruccio Busoni, Alfred Cortot, Walter Gieseking, Ignaz Friedman. Other names that he highly respects:* Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Emil von Sauer, Wilhelm Backhaus*, Simon Barere, *Josef Lhevinne,* Sviatoslav Richter. Actually the first pianist he was most impressed by was Josef Hofmann but looks seems he doesn't like Hofmann's character,
> maybe jealous because of Rachmaninoff's comparison with himself and Hofmann.
> 
> *Claudio Arrau*: *Ferruccio Busoni,* Teresa Carreno, Camille Saint-Saens, Alfred Cortot, Vladimir Horowitz, Edwin Fischer, Artur Schanbel, Eugen D'Albert.
> 
> *Sviatoslav Richter*: It must be Vladimir Sofronitsky and *Maria Yudina*. Also some names that he speaks with high respect:* Heinrich Neuhaus,** Emil Gilels,* Josef Hofmann,* Dinu Lipatti*.
> 
> *Heinrich Neuhaus*: Alfred Cortot (According to Horowitz: He talked about pianists like Busoni, Rachmaninoff, Rosenthal, Friedman, Hofmann but his favorite was Cortot)
> 
> *Jorge Bolet*: Josef Hofmann and Sergei Rachmaninoff.
> 
> *Vlado Perlemuter*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ferruccio Busoni and Alfred Cortot big trio for him. After them Wilhelm Backhaus, Artur Schnabel, Dinu Lipatti.
> 
> *Alfred Brendel*: Edwin Fischer, Alfred Cortot, Ferruccio Busoni, Wilhelm Kempff, Arthur Rubinstein, Artur Schanbel, Walter Gieseking
> 
> *Martha Argerich*: Vladimir Horowitz, Alfred Cortot, Walter Gieseking (I read this somewhere and was surprised, I wouldn't expect Cortot and Gieseking when I think of her style)
> 
> *Alicia de Larrocha*: Arthur Rubinstein and Alfred Cortot.
> 
> *Stephen Hough*: Alfred Cortot and Sergei Rachmaninoff his two big favorites. Following* Ignaz Friedman,* Artur Schnabel and Ignancy Jan Paderewski.
> 
> *Garrick Ohlsson*: Claudio Arrau, Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels, Arthur Rubinstein
> 
> *Víkingur Ólafsson*: Emil Giels, Dinu Lipatti, Maurizio Pollini, Arturo Benedetti Michelengeli, Martha Argerich,* Clara Haskil, *and old romantic pianitsts (Alfred Cortot, Sergei Rachmaninov, Josef Hofmann, Benno Moiseiwitsch, Ignaz Friedman).
> 
> The Guardian's article about leading pianists choose their favourite performer of all time:
> 
> *Vladimir Askenazy*: Sergei Rachmaninoff, Emil Gilels, *Rudolf Serkin,* Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Glenn Gould, Van Cliburn, Evgeny Kissin.
> *Leif Ove Andsnes*: Dinu Lipatti
> *Angela Hewitt*: Alfred Cortot
> *Freddy Kempf*: Vladimir Horowitz
> *Pierre-Laurent Aimard*: Aloys Kontarsky (Interesting choice)
> *Jean-Yves Thibaudet*: Arthur Rubinstein


Yes Sir! All the bolds I made mean that these guys could be also the top of the top. Real ocean this topic.


----------



## Luchesi

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That means a lot coming from a professional pianist (I assume).


Well, I'm the pianist in a local ensemble. We give a recital once a week and most of the proceeds go to our young singer. She wants to try to make a living in music.
We have a talk back afterwards for folks who want to learn about music. I'm a research meteorologist in a government lab.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

EdwardBast said:


> Rachmaninoff would disagree. He thought Josef Hofmann was better and said so. I personally don't think it's a meaningful question.


Josef Hofman had a small pair of hands, if I remember correctly, he never played Rach 3 that was dedicated to him.

I think he was being modest as a Russian aristocrat.


----------



## Cortot

Josef Hofmann's recital and studio performance is very different. The concerts are very spontaneous, overly enthusiastic, very creative and his best parts. Rachmaninoff and others was amazed at Hofmann's concerts but the problem is that Hofmann's concert recordings are not in his best period, from the end of the concert career and when there are alcohol/psychological problems. Unfortunately we couldn't hear Hofmann's prime time in concert. We should evaluate with the records we have. He was probably better than Rachmaninoff in before the 1930s, but we couldn't hear the best period (in recital), looking at the records we have. Rachmaninoff is more striking in the records we have. 

Hofmann's capacity at the old concerts is very intriguing. Rachmaninoff didn't play Chopin's Third Piano sonata because he listened and admired from Hofmann in recital, he compared with Anton. Jorge Bolet never played the Opus 111 because he had listened to Hofmann and was overly impressed, he was the supreme piano player he ever heard in his life.

But we didn't hear them Nevertheless, recital recordings are great even if it is not the best time, the widest piano sound I've ever seen. His live performance is always unique and epic, or Rachmaninoff said, "Titanic". For example Chopin Fourth Balad, a recital record. His Musical interpretation is controversial, but the way he used the piano was unmatched. Richness from PPP to FFF, polyphonic approach, singing tone, freedom in plays are very special.


----------



## millionrainbows

I just listened to Sofronitsky, and I was not thrilled. He was playing Schumann, and he "Beethoven-ized" it with too many abrupt entrances and exaggerated dynamics. This is when a pianist's ego begins to overshadow the music.

Emil Gilels is another overrated "great." I noticed that when he gets excited, during a crescendo, he tends to flub notes (hits extra ones) where it sounds like he's "banging" the piano.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I just listened to Sofronitsky, and I was not thrilled. He was playing Schumann, and he "Beethoven-ized" it with too many abrupt entrances and exaggerated dynamics. This is when a pianist's ego begins to overshadow the music.
> 
> Emil Gilels is another overrated "great." I noticed that when he gets excited, during a crescendo, he tends to flub notes (hits extra ones) where it sounds like he's "banging" the piano.


Even you must like his op 18 arabesque!

In my opinion you can't have too many abrupt entrances in Schumann. Where I think Sofronitsky is outstanding is in the op 11 sonata. I listened to it recently, after exploring Wolfgang Rihm's _Fremde Szene II_. The Fantasy is quite a Beethoven inspired work. Sofronitsky is interesting in the second movement. Sofronitsky's Kreisleriana is a bit too tough for me. Gilels in Schumann is interesting in the Nachtstucke, maybe it's on YouTube.


----------



## Vahe Sahakian

Since Robert Schumann is one of my favorites I will list some of the better performances of his piano works by various pianists;

Gilels – Nachtstucke
Murray Perahia – Carnival Jest from Vienna
Murray Perahia – Fantasie
Jean Yves Thibaudet – Symphonic Etudes including appendix
Radu Lupu – Humoreske
Radu Lupu – Kreisleriana
Radu Lupu – Kinderszenen
Antonin Kubalek – Carnaval

And two more pianists that I admire;

Maria Joao Pires – Chopin Nocturnes complete
Alicia De larrocha – Granados Goyescas


----------



## jcazador

Sofronisky never met Scriabin. He did marry Scriabin's daughter.


----------



## jcazador

It is impossible to discuss Cortot without mentioning the million dollar trio, with Thibaud and Casals.


----------



## DavidA

jcazador said:


> It is impossible to discuss Cortot without mentioning the million dollar trio, with Thibaud and Casals.


Actually I thought the 'million dollar trio' was Heifetz / Feuermann / Rubinstein


----------



## jcazador

OK, I stand corrected.
Feuermann quit and Piatigorski replaced him. I saw them in SF in early 60's.
The million dollar quartet was Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins, recorded in a jam session.


----------



## DavidA

jcazador said:


> OK, I stand corrected.
> Feuermann quit and Piatigorski replaced him. I saw them in SF in early 60's.
> The million dollar quartet was Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins, recorded in a jam session.


Feuermann died after a botched operation in 1942. They reckon Heifetz never forgave him for leaving him.


----------



## amfortas

jcazador said:


> The million dollar quartet was Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins, recorded in a jam session.


Not to be confused with the 1910-14 Philadelphia Athletics' $100,000 infield of Stuffy McInnis, Eddie Collins, Jack Barry, and Frank "Home Run" Baker.

I can do this all day.


----------



## Musicaterina

My favourite pianist is still alive, namely Maurizio Pollini.


----------



## Luchesi

Gould seemed to understand music from his own inner world, and he lived it. But on top of that his technique and approach to playing is unique in my opinion. It was eccentric and sometimes shocking, but that's where we are as consumers of piano recitals after all these centuries.

Rubinstein, Richter and all the rest came to an understanding of working out the music during their long lives, but that wasn't what Gould did. He saw a score as a starting point. He didn't play the same thing twice unless he wanted to express something else with it. Isn't this better??


----------



## lextune

When Richter was at his best I've heard no one so magical.

And in such huge range of repertoire. Who besides Richter can be said to "known for" his Debussy, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Bach, Brahms, Haydn, on and on.

His tone production. His placement of voices/ideas/themes into different planes of timbre. His tonal differentiation. Attempt to explain it anyway you can. It was unique. 

This gradation of layers of sound/timbres would often produce rhythmic magic too. He could sound out a whole note in one timbre, grand and bell-like, and have it strongly sustain through a flurry of 8ths or 16ths by granting the slightest diminuendo to the quicker notes, (Beethoven's Tempest jumps to minds as an example; one of many). This is, of course, the goal of piano playing, the art of piano playing, and not some great revelation, but Richter achieved this slight-of-hand so naturally, so regularly, and he was recorded so very very much, (although often badly), that he has long struck me as the greatest recorded pianist there has been.

All that praise aside, Richter could sometimes sound like he needed a good dose of practice time, but then you hear him commit acts of pure technical wizardry (Scriabin's 5th, Prokofiev's 6th, and 8th sonatas, and 5th Concerto jump to mind, but again, there are so many examples).

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I (obviously) voted for Richter, and was not surprised to see the poll results.


----------



## lextune

flamencosketches said:


> D960, you mean. I've been looking in vain for a Richter recording of D959-did he ever play it?


He did not.

He is the, crazy, list of all of Richter's known recordings. D959 does not appear.

http://www.doremi.com/sr.html


----------



## lextune

Luchesi said:


> I think I remember him saying in a video interview - that he didn't need sheet music for the notes, but he needed it to remind him of the dynamics and the slurs - for expressive purposes.
> 
> He felt that his memory had been a lifelong curse, because he could never forget the music AND the people he met and all their names!, and many other specifics that most people easily forget. A curse more so when he got older and depression got worse..


Richter switched to using the score and a page turner after his "perfect-pitch" started to "drift". He wrote in detail about it in his notebooks. He cites two recitals specifically that prompted him to make the change.

"Following an absolutely frightful concert that I gave at the Fetes
Musicales de Touraine, when I played eight of Liszt's Transcendental
Studies, and a recital in Japan, where I took fright even before launching
into Beethoven's Op. 106 Sonata, I made up my mind never again to play
without a score.

It any case, what's the point of cluttering up your brain when there are far
better things to do? It's bad for your health, and it also smacks of vanity.
True, it's not as easy to retain the same degree of freedom with a score
open in front of you - it doesn't work straight away and requires a lot of
practice - but now that I've got used to it, I find that it has lots of
advantages. In the first place, I've never made any distinction between
chamber music and music written for a solo performer. But one always plays
chamber music with a score; why should one have to perform without one as a
soloist? In the second place, it's easy enough to memorize a Haydn sonata,
but I prefer to play twenty while reading the music, rather than limiting
myself to two performed from memory. As for contemporary music, there are
only a few exceptional artists who are able to memorize a piece by Webern,
or Hindemith's Ludus tonalis, but it's a waste of time and effort. It's not
*practical*. Moreover, even if the element of danger and risk aren't totally
foreign to music, you feel more secure and can concentrate better if you've
got the score in front of you. Finally, and above all, it's more honest to
play like this: you've got how it has to be in front of you and you play
exactly what's written. The interpreter is a mirror, and performing music
doesn't mean contaminating the piece with your own personality, it consists
in performing *all* the music, nothing more and nothing less. Who could ever
remember *all* the performance markings indicated by the composer? Failing
that, performers start to 'interpret', and it's that that I'm against.

By freeing the brain of the useless task of memorizing the music, you can
also stop inflicting the same endlessly repeated programmes on audiences -
and on yourself."

(from Bruno Monsaingeon, Sviatoslav Richter: Notebooks and Conversations)


----------



## joen_cph

On page 6 to 7 and onwards, there was some mentioning of the *Sofronitzky *discography being modest. There are many preserved live recordings, and we are talking probably around at least 40 or 50 hours of recorded legacy that has been released. Melodiya planned at least 12 LP box sets comprising apparently up to 6 LPs each, but not all the sets were actually released. In recent years, box sets of Brilliant 7CDs, Membran 10CDs, Vista Vera 31CDs and Scribendum 34CDs have popularized a lot of the Sofronitzky material. And the range of composers and music is big too

https://www.scribendumrecordings.co...cd---vladimir-sofronitsky-the-art-of/11414200

BTW, Argerich and especially Rubinstein has large discographies, not small. RCAs complete Rubinstein albums collection is 144 CDs, for a start, and there is more than those
https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-Rubinstein-Complete-Album-Collection/dp/B005G0ETV0

.........

Also, the style of pianists can change a real lot through the years. Very obvious examples are Arrau, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Backhaus, and Richter. Overall, they often tend to be more outwardly temperamental in their youth. Some pianists had widely different recordings of the same piece. Besides those already mentioned, it applies for example to Yudina and Tagliaferro as well.


----------



## JohnP

Since "greatest" is subjective, I'll mention three pianists who have had the greatest influence on my musical tastes.

1) William Kapell (Tune up the way-back machine.)
2) Ivan Moravec
3) Sergei Babayan (Not quite there, yet, but gaining ground. Gave my single most thrilling evening in a recital.)

I heard Richter. He literally tore up the piano playing the Prokofiev Sonata No. 7. It took 3.5 hours to repair it at intermission. And this was a guy who would stop his car on a whim and play for kids on a schoolhouse upright. I guess American Steinway's aren't built like industrial-grade school pianos in Russia.


----------



## lextune

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There is no single "greatest" Pianist.
> 
> But if the question is who is the most important pianist since 20th century, I think the answer is quite obvious: Rachmaninov.


You are obviously correct that there is no "greatest pianist".

As for most important, it is not Rachmaninov in my opinion. Rachmaninov really only took up the job/life of being a concert pianist for a short while, later in life, in 1919, after careers as both conductor and composer. And he was dead by '43. For me, Rachmaninov is actually closer to being the "greatest" pianist, he certainly was one of them, than he is to being the most important.

One of the worst stories in the history of recorded music is that Rachmaninov suggested to Victor that they record some of his big repertoire, including the Liszt Sonata, op.111, and the Chopin Preludes, and they turned him down. What an absolute travesty.

That said, to me, the most important pianist of the 20th Century has to be either Horowitz or Rubinstein. Probably Rubinstein just by virtue of how many more concerts he gave.


----------



## Mandryka

lextune said:


> That said, to me, the most important pianist of the 20th Century has to be either Horowitz or Rubinstein. Probably Rubinstein just by virtue of how many more concerts he gave.


You can be the most important if you haven't recorded all the Beethoven sonatas. Those two never even played all the sonatas in concert!


----------



## Dimace

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Cziffra's approach Chopin etudes is turning them into Hungarian rhapsody. But you can't fault him for his vulgarity because his virtuosity is too extraordinary. I still think it's best not to apply such monstrous virtuosity to such delicate work (he is not producing great sound in many of these etudes).


Today I have red your post and I admit you are correct. Cziffie and Chopin Etüde is something peculiar. If you have him live, play them in front of you eyes, is a miracle. Awesome dexterity! If you just listen them on your HIFI aren't so enjoyable. Not very clean outcome.


----------



## Mandryka

The problem I have with the Cziffra is just the sound, and occasionally some rubato which I don’t find very natural, but that’s a matter of taste I think.


----------



## JohnP

Animal the Drummer said:


> I went for "other" because the one I hope to hear playing as I walk through the Pearly Gates (if I get there at all) is Dinu Lipatti. His very special combination of skill and power and his extraordinary way of giving individual moments their full due while maintaining the overall integrity of a piece have given me more consistent enjoyment than the work of any other pianist, past or present.


I'm happy to read this for several reasons. Lipatti was one of the two pianists, the other being William Kapell, who influenced me most when I was first falling in love with classical music. I'd add that nobody has matched his poetry.

You're right about Lipatti's ability to reveal moments that others pass over. There's a wonderful example of that in the last movement of his Schumann Concerto.

But it was Kapell who most riveted my imagination. His fire, honesty, almost obsessive dedication, and dazzling mastery of the instrument produced some of the most irreplaceable recordings ever made. IMO, his Rachmaninoff Rhapsody, Chopin 3rd Sonata, Prokofiev 3rd Concerto, and Liszt Mephisto Waltz No. 1 are only a few of his finest efforts. Long after his death--nearly a half century--radio recordings of some of his live performances have added luster to his reputation. There are astounding Pictures at an Exhibition and Rachmaninoff 3rd Concerto.

Thankfully, Lipatti's limited output has been in constant publication. Inexplicably, RCA buried Kapell's recordings until they released a box of every recording they had in 1998. Shortly after his death, they released an LP titled The Unforgettable William Kapell; then, they promptly withdrew it and went silent until '98.

How the history of piano playing in the 2nd half of the 20th century would have been altered had these two geniuses not died so young is incalculable.


----------



## Mandryka

Interesting to be reminded of Kapell, who I haven't heard for a long long time. A friend of mine used to call him the greatest pianist America has ever had, and that despite his early tragic death.

A lot of his recordings is of music I'm not interested in, but I recall liking the Chopin sonata 3 very much. On the other hand I remember liking the Bach partita 4 much less. It'll be interesting to see if I still feel the same way now.

I've just started to play his Chopin mazurkas, which is full of rubato, done organically enough though and the effect is poetic, introspective. I think the way he's using dynamics is interesting, and it seems a great shame that the recording quality is not better, and I get the feeling he was a good colourist and had a refined touch - though the sound makes it hard to hear. He has certainly caught my attention. This is, I sense, the sort of performance which people will either love (for the poetry, and the extended tempos) or loathe (because of the poetry, and the extended tempos.)

Absolutely amazing op59/1 !

(I vaguely remember there's a story about these mazurkas, that he spent a huge amount of time preparing, that he was nervous about performing them, that it was maybe his last recording. It could be a false memory though!)

He played with Casals at Prades, and I have recordings of some chamber music there. However I just noticed this, which is tempting

http://78experience.com/welcome.php?mod=disque&disque_id=1413

Thanks for mentioning him, it'll be fun to go back to the performances.


----------



## hawgdriver

I had no idea we were legion... 

Why put Richter above the rest?

Easy. I listen to such music for one thing, really. Same thing you do.

When I listen to him, it's more often than anyone else that he evokes within me something otherworldly.

A handful of moments: his early Schumann recording of Op. 76/2, the march in G minor. One of the most impressive musical performances I've ever heard. I ended up trying to learn that piece. I brought it to Richter's tempo but was far from his musicality. Far, far from it.

His Polonaise Fantasie. Dude just *gets it*. Just about anyone other than him or Chopin plays it, no thanks. His 3d Ballade is also without peer.

Sofia recital, the fury that comes across after his early flubs.

His Debussy. His Prokofiev. His Haydn. But most of all, his D960.


----------

