# Most versatile pianist



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Which I define as “superlative in the largest number of different composers”. (Jenő Jandó has recorded probably every composer in the Grove Dictionary but I don’t gather that he’s considered preemiment in any of them.)

I’m nominating Murray Perahia.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Sviatoslav Richter


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pierre-Laurent Aimard
Friedrich Gulda


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

It's better to master some composers fully than to be a jack of all trades but a master of none.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

ribonucleic said:


> (Jenő Jandó has recorded probably every composer in the Grove Dictionary but I don't gather that he's considered preemiment in any of them.


I find his Beethoven and Bartok excellent.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Claudio Colombo


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

John Browning. Why? Expert in Baroque (Scarlatti, Bach), early Romantic (Beethoven, Schubert), Romantic (Schumann, Chopin, Liszt), and modern (Prokofiev, Barber). He’s also widely considered the preeminent interpreter of one composer, Samuel Barber.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The late Marcelle Meyer.


----------



## Mifek (Jul 28, 2018)

Vladimir Ashkenazy


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Ashkenazy and Perahia, but I feel like they’re trotted out by their respective labels to record everything even if their hearts aren’t totally in it. Richter probably did the greatest amount of repertoire at the most consistent quality.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Ashkenazy and Perahia, but I feel like they're trotted out by their respective labels to record everything even if their hearts aren't totally in it. Richter probably did the greatest amount of repertoire at the most consistent quality.


Well, I think I prefer Perahia to Ashkenazy personally. However, a while ago I started a thread about Ashkenazy, primarily about why he seemed to be so ignored in terms of references on this site.

Insofar as there was a conclusion it was (in my mind) that he was so uniformly good. My sense was that people post a lot about their favourites and others that they set up as their "anti-favourites". Because few had much against Ashkenazy he didn't get mentioned so much, as he was no-one's anti-favourite.

Hence, I think the answer to the question here is: Ashkenazy. He is the most versatile.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I see a Bulldog game emerging from this thread.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

I will give my personal rating to the contenders:

Ashkenazy (3/5) is excellent with Russian romantic repertoire (and a good conductor), I like his Chopin but he does not stand out of the extreme competition. He is unremarkable in Bach and Classical works and other 20th century music. He did some good chamber works most noticably with Perlman. I personally think his peer Barenboim has more talent than him and Pletnev is a better pianist.

Barenboim (2/5) is more of a conductor now.

Perahia (4/5) is a good pick but he does not venture into 20th century music and Russian romantic repertoire (which is pretty important for a modern pianist to be considered to be versatile).

Pollini (5/5) is a serious contender because he is top tier in Beethoven, Chopin, and 20th century music (Boulez, Webern, Bartok, Schoenberg), his transcendental technique covers complete range of different era and, also serious and meticulous about music making. However he is not into fancy stuff like Liszt or the Russian repertoire.

Argerich (4/5) is a true romantic giant, top tier in Chopin, Schumann, and the Russian repertoire, tons of chamber works, blazing techniques and instantly recognizable personality. Sadly Beethoven is her weakness (her Bach is quite good).

Richter (5/5) very versatile, Top tier in Liszt, Schumann, Russian repertoire and 20th century music, but also play great Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Ravel (acquired taste), as well a large number of chamber works, he has no weakness.

Aimard (4/5) an authority on 20th century piano works, also plays great Beethoven and Bach, but Romantic work is his weakness (or he doesn't care). A pianist is incomplete without some good Chopin performances (because there are so many inventive techniques to master in Chopin).

Hamelin (4/5) technically, he might be the most versatile since he play insanely wide range of repertoire, but he does not focus on interpreting the core repertoire and I think that's important (it's easy to interpret obscure works that few have done it)

Uchida (3/5) top tier in Mozart and Schubert, also great with Schoenberg, Chopin, Debussy, Beethoven, a true musician (as oppose to a pianist). That's a lot of coverage for a specialist but I don't think she like virtuoso works and Bach

There are many other considerations I will add later to the list. In my view, a versatile pianist must master Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and some 20th century or contempory music (not all composers are created equal, including Mozart) and need to be great as a accompanist, so for now, I will vote for

Sviatoslav Richter


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

As the OP asks about pianists, no genre specified, I nominate Andre Previn. Who else could more than hold his own right across the range from Mozart to Thelonius Monk?
And a top-rank performer of Poulenc, I might add.


----------



## perdido34 (Mar 11, 2015)

Among contemporaries, Hamelin. He's often underestimated as an interpreter of the "usual suspects" from the Romantic period.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Angela Hewett. 
Walter Gieseking
Claudio Arrau


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Gulda would get my vote. Great (though sometimes a little quirky) classical pianist, and a legit jazz pianist (not just the odd Gershwin performance).
Also Richter and Sokolov.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

What about Stephen Hough? 
He has recorded Tchaikovsky. Brahms, Debussy, Beethoven amongst others. An orchestral and chamber musician. 
Don't know if this counts but he has written books and painted!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I will give my personal rating to the contenders:
> 
> Aimard (4/5) an authority on 20th century piano works, also plays great Beethoven and Bach, but Romantic work is his weakness (or he doesn't care). A pianist is incomplete without some good Chopin performances (because there are so many inventive techniques to master in Chopin).


Aimard certainly plays Chopin and Brahms (and does it well IMO) but he might not have recorded any. His name is not a big seller so he might not be offered the opportunity to ... or maybe he just feels his take is not sufficiently unique to merit another record of much recorded works?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

One among them has to be Arthur Rubinstein, one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. His repertoire ranged from Bach through contemporary composers including Villa-Lobos, Falla, Granados, Szymanowsk and Mompou who died 1987.

In his time he was the greatest interpreter of the greatest composer for the piano, Chopin, and was equally as good in Beethoven, Schumann and Rachmaninoff.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

larold said:


> One among them has to be Arthur Rubinstein, one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. His repertoire ranged from Bach through contemporary composers including Villa-Lobos, Falla, Granados, Szymanowsk and Mompou who died 1987.
> 
> In his time he was the greatest interpreter of the greatest composer for the piano, Chopin, and was equally as good in Beethoven, Schumann and Rachmaninoff.


Rubinstein is indeed very versatile, I have his RCA complete recordings set and I approve. Sadly he doesn't have as many fans as he used to have (because his reserved and aristocratic approach is not exciting to the jaded listeners).


----------

