Oh, the historians! It's amuses me that many of you rank pianists and composers in the same way you rank tennis players (as opposed to just admitting you have a "favorite"), especially since it's even more subjective with music (there are no scorelines here). I think people should just focus on finding the pianist or composer that speaks to him or her the most.
A poster above, I think in good fun and and not being particularly serious, made some very bold statements about the technique of a particular Canadian pianist in relation to Liszt. Of course, this is absurd since no one on the planet has heard Liszt play and there's no recording we can consult. We can only look at a hyperbolic nineteenth century press. Also, the piano has changed quite a bit from the nineteenth century; so, can you even compare? (The answer is a resounding no). I've also never heard anyone make this particular statement about the Canadian pianist, whom I like a lot and I've heard perform in person (saying his technique is superior to Liszt's). I've heard Argerich play in person and while she's wildly different than Hamelin, it would be foolish to proclaim one as having "better" technique. Technique varies based on the repertoire, which is a way of saying that certain styles lend themselves to some effects and not others. Would Hamelin be able to convey Gould's musical ideas? No. And vice versa. The idea of one pianist having a supreme technique to rule them all is just a story for the press.
So, I just wanted to point out that many of the statements made by this classical music connoisseur can be made problematic quite easily. They're mainly statements of opinion and preference. This poster has some interesting opinions and is clearly passionate, though, and I think that's great. Again, I don't think he was being particularly serious or dogmatic, but I just wanted to show some of the problems with this thinking, if we were to take it seriously. I think if we want to grow classical music (and the "Greek" reference the poster made is not one I'd make), we need to be supportive of the current wave of pianists, many of whom are amazing musicians who offer many new and interesting ideas, and move away from exclusionary rankings and canonization (and all of the fetishizing involved); these "rankings" (and I mean this word broadly speaking), either on message boards or the more institutionalized form, might have some benefits, but they're also a way for people to uphold their personal values and biases. It can be fun to talk about this stuff, but I'm not one to make sweeping cross-century statements comparing pianists techniques and declaring something "the best." That's why I moved away from the GOAT discussion in tennis, too.
A poster above, I think in good fun and and not being particularly serious, made some very bold statements about the technique of a particular Canadian pianist in relation to Liszt. Of course, this is absurd since no one on the planet has heard Liszt play and there's no recording we can consult. We can only look at a hyperbolic nineteenth century press. Also, the piano has changed quite a bit from the nineteenth century; so, can you even compare? (The answer is a resounding no). I've also never heard anyone make this particular statement about the Canadian pianist, whom I like a lot and I've heard perform in person (saying his technique is superior to Liszt's). I've heard Argerich play in person and while she's wildly different than Hamelin, it would be foolish to proclaim one as having "better" technique. Technique varies based on the repertoire, which is a way of saying that certain styles lend themselves to some effects and not others. Would Hamelin be able to convey Gould's musical ideas? No. And vice versa. The idea of one pianist having a supreme technique to rule them all is just a story for the press.
So, I just wanted to point out that many of the statements made by this classical music connoisseur can be made problematic quite easily. They're mainly statements of opinion and preference. This poster has some interesting opinions and is clearly passionate, though, and I think that's great. Again, I don't think he was being particularly serious or dogmatic, but I just wanted to show some of the problems with this thinking, if we were to take it seriously. I think if we want to grow classical music (and the "Greek" reference the poster made is not one I'd make), we need to be supportive of the current wave of pianists, many of whom are amazing musicians who offer many new and interesting ideas, and move away from exclusionary rankings and canonization (and all of the fetishizing involved); these "rankings" (and I mean this word broadly speaking), either on message boards or the more institutionalized form, might have some benefits, but they're also a way for people to uphold their personal values and biases. It can be fun to talk about this stuff, but I'm not one to make sweeping cross-century statements comparing pianists techniques and declaring something "the best." That's why I moved away from the GOAT discussion in tennis, too.
Last edited:
Quite possibly the most perfect synthesis of emotion and intellect in music.
