Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modern Concert Pianists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Modern Concert Pianists


    I noted this article that appeared in the British newspaper 'The Guardian' by Martin Kettle on 5th September 2002 and immediately thought of Rod's views on the subject -

    'WHY ARE TODAYS CONCERT PIANISTS SO BORING ?'

    Thursday September 5, 2002
    The Guardian

    'It was the reviews of Evgeny Kissin's recent concerts that brought things to a head. The brilliant pianist is regularly hailed as the greatest of the modern age. But his reviews were terrible. The fans had cheered him, yet the critics hated his technically flawless playing. Left cold by Kissin as always, I sided with the critics. But it made me reflect that the problem may run deeper than a single pianist. If there were a softer and gentler way of saying this, then I would say it. But in my view, modern concert pianists have become boring. Very few of them have anything very interesting to say, at least to me.

    Article continues
    To make such statements is to invite some heartfelt attacks. Some will say that it isn't the pianists who are boring, but I who am bored with the piano. Perhaps that is the case. But then I only have to put on a CD by Schnabel to know that I'll never be bored by him, at any rate. Others will ask what someone who does not himself play the piano can say on this subject with any authority. I have no answer to that. I merely believe that piano recitals - and piano recordings - used to be far more rewarding than they have become today. Is this objectively the case; and if so, why?

    Many will say (as friends with whom I have discussed this subject have said): "But what about so-and-so? How can you dismiss an artist like X or Y?" And of course, in a way, that's unanswerable too. How could anyone in their right mind ignore an artist such as Mitsuko Uchida, for instance? But perhaps the world in which we listen to Uchida has changed more than we realise.

    There was a time when the piano was the most accessible and most powerful medium of music for many people. The piano was to musical culture what the internal combustion engine was to mobility. The piano revolution started around the time of Beethoven and began to come to an end with the arrival of the LP. But its time is clearly over.

    The piano's heyday stretched from around 1830 to 1960. That was true in four ways, all of them connected. Firstly, there was the technical revolution in the instrument itself, culminating in the unprecedented expressive richness of the concert grand. Secondly, there was the explosion of great writing for this wonderful new instrument, stretching from before the time of Chopin to after the time of Prokofiev. Thirdly, there was the emergence of a succession of outstanding players (of whom Liszt is generally acknowledged as the starting point), who gave concerts and later made recordings that deepened the public's enthusiasm for the piano's possibilities.

    Finally, there was the increased availability of the upright piano and of relatively inexpensive sheet music, which combined to provide the principal means of domestic music-making of industrial society.

    The days in which every middle-class home, and many working-class ones too, contained an upright piano - and at least one person people who could play it a little - have not been completely erased from memory. But they are fading fast. The gramophone, the radio and above all the television long ago replaced the piano as the focus and main source of home entertainment. It will never reclaim that place.

    The piano's fall from eminence has been accompanied by a falling-off in the replenishment of the piano repertoire. As in all other music, composers have gone in other directions. Who, since, let's say, Shostakovich (and even this is stretching a point), has written piano music that genuinely holds its place in the recital repertoire? Certainly, few composers any longer write music that amateurs are able to play (not that many amateurs could ever play much Chopin); or (more importantly) that amateurs want to play, even in simplified editions.

    In this context, it is hardly surprising that the piano recital itself should have begun to wither too. The recital has undoubtedly become a less mainstream part of musical life. There are fewer of them. They are not such big events in either box-office or artistic terms. Of course, there are exceptions. There always are. But we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that nothing has changed.

    This brings us back to the pianists of the modern era, and the question of whether they have - or could have - remained unchanged amid so many other alterations in their world. The answer has to be that they have not. As the place of the piano has changed, so the place of the pianist has changed too. Pianists, and the audiences who listen to them, can no longer be sure that they represent a living and constantly regenerating art form. And it shows in the playing.

    There can be no real dispute that the age of the pianistic "lion" - the age of Liszt and Rachmaninov - is dead. It died with Vladimir Horowitz in the same month that the Berlin wall fell. It was the end of the era of the pianist as star, an era in which pianists could be seen as demons possessed by brilliant and magical technical skills.

    What is more striking, I think, is that the age of the intellectual pianist, the priestly interpreter of the classic works, is disappearing too. This tradition, stretching from Bulow and Busoni to Schnabel and Arrau (with a brief detour into the Glenn Gould cul-de-sac) now lives on largely in Alfred Brendel. But as the years pass, even this tradition is becoming frayed in the postmodern world.

    Arthur Rubinstein once, with a characteristic smile, told an interviewer that he always thought of Brahms as a modern composer. This wasn't an assertion of conservative taste on the great pianist's part. It was simply true. Rubinstein's own youth had overlapped with Brahms's old age. When Rubinstein played Brahms, which I heard him do in his 80s, he was playing the music of a man who was part of his own lifetime. Listen to the wonderful Brahms recordings he left. It shows.

    Twenty or 30 years ago, it was still relatively easy to hear elderly pianists who knew in their very being, as Rubinstein did, that they were artists in a living interpretative tradition. That quality shone through everything that such people as Arrau, Wilhelm Kempff or Rudolf Serkin ever played. All three were, I think, taught by pupils of Liszt (as was Schnabel before them), and Liszt had famously been kissed on the forehead by Beethoven himself. Arrau's Beethoven always had a sacramental feel. Serkin's Beethoven and Schubert recitals, of which I heard several, were overwhelmingly creative experiences in ways that one now never hears. Again, the Serkin records provide the proof.

    And then there was Sviatoslav Richter. The first Richter recital I heard has stayed in my head as no other concert has. I remember everything he played and quite a lot of how he played it: an Olympian rendering of an early Schubert sonata; Franck's Prelude, Chorale and Fugue, in a performance so magisterial that I have never had the slightest inclination to hear anyone else play it; then, after the interval, an overwhelming account of the Liszt sonata.

    This may all seem like nothing more than an exercise in 20-20 rose-tinted nostalgia. But golden ages really do exist. The 1960s and 70s came at the end of one such age. But those years were not some caprice of the pianistic gods. They were rooted in the European cultural history that immediately preceded them.

    It seems to me significant that some of the most outstanding young pianists of that same era gradually turned away from the solo piano at this time. Whether this was a conscious rejection, let alone a coordinated one, is hard to know. But of the four most celebrated 60- something pianists of that period, only one continues to play regularly.

    Daniel Barenboim still occasionally gives piano recitals, but for 30 years and more his remarkable talents have been focused on conducting. Martha Argerich, whom many people tend to nominate as the greatest living pianist, has not, so far as I know, given a solo recital in years, preferring (when she turns up) to play concertos and chamber music.

    Vladimir Ashkenazy's withdrawal is especially remarkable in the light of his wonderful gifts. Like Kissin, Ashkenazy emerged from Russia with a technique that appeared to sweep away all technical obstacles. Unlike Kissin, Ashkenazy's technical skill was harnessed to a rare sensibility and a rich self-awareness. Yet for some years now, he too has turned his back on a virtuoso career.

    The one enduring recitalist of that generation, Maurizio Pollini, seems troubled in a different way by the pianistic inheritance. The years have not dimmed Pollini's technique or his intellectual integrity, but there has recently been a cold intensity to his playing that is disturbing. This is a condition that seems particularly to affect Italians (Michelangeli in the previous generation went through a similar process). It is as though, in the pursuit of objectivity, Pollini now seeks to negate what was previously understood by interpretation.

    This does not mean that there are no important recitalists any more, or that no pianist makes recordings worth listening to (though I can't help feeling that digital recording has not helped). Brendel, Uchida, Maria Joao Pires, Andras Schiff, Jean-Yves Thibaudet and, judging by a recent recital, Richard Goode, are all active pianists who in various ways continue to extend our understanding of the art form. The career of Joanna MacGregor, who is engaged in a one-woman crusade to reinvent the repertoire and the recital tradition, is proof both that there are exciting modern pianists and that the cultural terms on which they must play, if they are not to become mere antiquarians, have changed fundamentally.

    This is not "the death of the piano". The piano will never die. But the great days have gone. With the passing of time, the piano is becoming ever more a historical musical instrument and ever less a creative one. Perhaps that explains why, though the pianists can play all the notes as well as ever, the notes carry so much less meaning to some of us than they once did'.

    //


    #2
    Dear Robert,

    I do not agree with all the critic had to say because it is no good to generalize.
    There are still great artists among the young.

    However, one memorable performance by Rudolph Serkin must be mentioned here. He was by then an old man when I heard him in Philadelphia. His recital was technically flawed but the artistry was beautiful and moving. He played Schubert's Wanderer's Fantasy. It will remain in my memory as a definitive performance in spite of the many mistakes Serkin played.

    One reason for the mechanical approach
    to piano performances among the younger artists is the number of competitions in which they take part. If you ever attended an International Piano Competition you will realize that the music is sacrificed to
    perfect rendition and to not committing a single mistake. Such attention to technical perfection makes the performance less spontaneous and lacking in feeling. It becomes an automatic performance.

    However, for the young artists, the piano
    competitions are a necessary evil. They cannot be noticed without winning a competition nor can they, in most cases, find management.

    Regards,
    Agnes.


    Comment


      #3

      Dear Agnes,

      Nice to hear from you. Hope all's well with you.

      I think anyone who read such an article would agree there is a problem. But not everyone would agree what the problem actually is. I know for sure that in, for example, Moscow, there are several hundred pianists whose technical and artistic skills are great enough to be matched with anyone of repute in the entire music recording industry. It is possible to be taught by a formidable pianist there for less than US$10 an hour. But to my way of thinking the problem goes far beyond any of the points raised by the writer of that 'Guardian' article. It goes to the whole issue of tones and semi-tones as they are available on the piano itself.

      I'm confident that in the not too distant future out of chamber music ensembles (e.g. out of music to be written for groups such as string quintets and string quartets) will arrive a new kind of music. And that out of it will even come a new kind of composition where pitches impossible to obtain from conventional fixed pitch instruments such as the piano will become an integral part of both composition and performance. I believe that such a thing is really at the root of what is longed for by musical listeners.

      That the works of Beethoven etc. will continue to be played and loved I've no doubt whatsover. But whereas, in the past, musicians were acclaimed for their technical virtuosity in future they may be acclaimed for a new sort of musical ability - that of working with others in performance to obtain pitches/frequencies not normally heard. (The exact way that this will be done has not yet been imagined. Or, so it seems to me).

      It is noteworthy that amongst the greatest pianists of recent times have been quite a few whose style of playing was so idiosyncratic as to be an attraction in itself. (I can mention recordings by Richter, Gould and even Ashkenazy as examples).

      To me, the crisis in piano playing, performance and in recording is a symptom of something far greater and more important - the certainty that new music can and will arrive in the not too distant future whose implications will be very far reaching for performers and artists alike.

      Regards

      Robert


      Comment


        #4
        I think that the problem with the piano world today is not only in the mechanicality of performers, but because it is required that they be so. Conservatoires and universities teach the new generation how to be more and more accurate, so as to win competitions, because men like Horowitz would never win a modern competition were they not already famous.
        Just look at the demands of a competition and what they require that the pianist play. It's always what's most technically challenging, not what is most "pianistically" challenging. I mean, one of us could judge an entire competition based solely of performances of the Quasi una Fantasia n.2. Or just it's first movement.
        Or the Op.49.
        Or Für Elise. Imagine a competition where the requirements is Für Elise. Not only there would be 5.000 competitiors, but competition would be extremely harder. Imagine having to come up with something extraordinary and making that something pass to the other side and be seen as something so sublime the winner could not be anyone but you with the above mentioned.

        Not only competitions are to blame, for they have existed as long as more than two musicians at the same place have, but advertising is also a major villain in all this. See how they advertise Lang Lang. "Winner of blabla and blabla", "Perfect execution", etc.

        But then I come to think: what if the problem is that perfect execution is all that is left for us today. Take for an example what happened to Ries and his symphonies. If they were too Beethoven-esque, they were just to similar to Beethoven so they weren't good enough, if they were too un-Beethoven-esque, then they were just not Beethoven so they weren't good enough. Maybe this is the era where, as has happened to the great Wagnerian voices, people simply can't be good enough, for the great giants of piano playing have already walked this earth.

        ================
        ok, I guess it's the boos talking and I should be going to bed. 3:49 a.m. here after a night out with the friends.
        g'nite.

        ------------------
        "Wer ein holdes weib errugen..."

        [This message has been edited by Rutradelusasa (edited 06-04-2006).]
        "Wer ein holdes Weib errungen..."

        "My religion is the one in which Haydn is pope." - by me .

        "Set a course, take it slow, make it happen."

        Comment


          #5
          Interesting article. Of course I would say the develpoment of the piano itself has a part to play in all this, but I'll put that to one side for the moment. The other problem is the academisation of the whole process of learning and performing music - this is a process that kills invention, kills new ideas relating to old ideas. And the staid men and women who control whe whole system, and who no doubt decide who wins and who loses the competitions, are the arbiters of musical taste.

          On the subject of competitions, I always watch the Young Performer of the Year competition every on the BBC, waiting in vain for someone to have the guts to play Beethoven on the piano. However the vast majority of the music seems to be post-Schubert, technically very complex, but very easy from an interpretive point of view. The latter point explaining why you probably don't hear Beethoven, at this level at least??

          ------------------
          "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
          http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Rutradelusasa:
            I mean, one of us could judge an entire competition based solely of performances of the Quasi una Fantasia n.2. Or just it's first movement.

            I watched a televised competition on the BBC, piano concertos, and the programme included two performances of the same Rachmaninov concerto! How bizzare is that. I wouldn't have allowed it, they should have flipped a coin at an early stage.

            ------------------
            "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
            http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

            Comment


              #7
              This is only a sub-crisis of the main one. Which is that classical music composition as a central creative art in Western civilization is dead, or nearly so. While good classical music may be being written now, virtually nobody knows about it, and certainly crowds are not waiting for it to premiere at their local concert hall. One could not expect interpreters of a moribund tradition to equal the accomplishments of those who played when the tradition was alive. The main problem is not interpretation, but where new music is coming from. Robert may be right about microtones giving birth to a new music, butr microtones have been around for a long time.

              By the way, in the book I reviewed in the "Temperament' thread, there were descriptions and pictures of historical pianos which had extra keys, in a third layer above the black keys, which had in-between tones. These were attempts to solve the temperament crisis by including microtones so as to give the performer or composer the option to move from one temperament to another on the same instrument during the same work. So that contrary to Robert's analysis, the piano need not be limited to 12 tones per octave, but could be remodeled along these lines in order to participate fully in this potential revolution.
              See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Rod:
                Interesting article. Of course I would say the develpoment of the piano itself has a part to play in all this, but I'll put that to one side for the moment. The other problem is the academisation of the whole process of learning and performing music - this is a process that kills invention, kills new ideas relating to old ideas. And the staid men and women who control whe whole system, and who no doubt decide who wins and who loses the competitions, are the arbiters of musical taste.

                On the subject of competitions, I always watch the Young Performer of the Year competition every on the BBC, waiting in vain for someone to have the guts to play Beethoven on the piano. However the vast majority of the music seems to be post-Schubert, technically very complex, but very easy from an interpretive point of view. The latter point explaining why you probably don't hear Beethoven, at this level at least??

                Don't forget you only get to see excerpts from a few of the final rounds - I recall a fabulous performance of the Diabelli variations a few years back which for some inexplicable reason the performer abandoned!

                As for the 'academisation' of music - if you had actually gone through the process of learning at that level you would know that the professors have very different approaches and ideas. You would also appreciate that the general level is far higher than you would have found in Beethoven's day.

                I would not say that music post Beethoven is easy to interpret. It's very well if you don't play the instrument to sit back and say that, quite another to actually do it.

                ------------------
                'Man know thyself'
                'Man know thyself'

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Peter:


                  As for the 'academisation' of music - if you had actually gone through the process of learning at that level you would know that the professors have very different approaches and ideas. You would also appreciate that the general level is far higher than you would have found in Beethoven's day.
                  I disagree Peter, the vast sums of money I have wasted on misguided conceptions of Beethoven's prove that. Who's fault is this I ask you? The performer or the professor or both?


                  Originally posted by Peter:

                  I would not say that music post Beethoven is easy to interpret. It's very well if you don't play the instrument to sit back and say that, quite another to actually do it.

                  Again I disagree, I reiterate I am not talking about technical matters, rather the 'form' of the music. If you read the classical music magazines, as I do, you cannot deny the collosal number of bad Beethoven sonata CDs that are being produced even now. I haven't read a good review in ages, certainly concerning the 'new crop', yet I'm sure the recordings are not full of wrong notes.

                  PS Concerning the concerts it seems those who play B never make it to the final of the YPOTY, perhaps that is why the guy abandoned the variations.


                  ------------------
                  "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin



                  [This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-06-2006).]
                  http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Rod:
                    Again I disagree, I reiterate I am not talking about technical matters, rather the 'form' of the music. If you read the classical music magazines, as I do, you cannot deny the collosal number of bad Beethoven sonata CDs that are being produced even now. I haven't read a good review in ages, certainly concerning the 'new crop', yet I'm sure the recordings are not full of wrong notes.

                    PS Concerning the concerts it seems those who play B never make it to the final of the YPOTY, perhaps that is why the guy abandoned the variations.


                    With respect since you've never studied the piano at that level you're hardly in a position to disagree on either issue. I have studied with different teachers and can tell you they have very different ideas on technique and interpretation.

                    Regarding the money you have wasted on 'misguided' interpretations, there is no such thing as the perfect interpretation - what is misguided to your ears may well be ideal to another's. What matters is a performance that communicates, that goes beyond the notes - this is a far more important issue than whether the instrument is a fortepiano or pianoforte.

                    Regarding the competition, my memory may be at fault as it was years ago, but I think Liam Macawley played the 1st concerto in the final. They no longer cover all the earlier rounds on tv but I have no doubt that Beethoven sonatas feature regularly.

                    ------------------
                    'Man know thyself'
                    'Man know thyself'

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Peter:

                      With respect since you've never studied the piano at that level you're hardly in a position to disagree on either issue. I have studied with different teachers and can tell you they have very different ideas on technique and interpretation.
                      With respect, despite having never studied the piano please explain why it seems that I have a more focused assement of what Beethoven on the piano should sound like than many more learned professionals today, presumably such as those the writer is discussing? It seems you cannot be taught good musical taste and judgement. I suppose if the reverse was the case every sudent would be a genius - this is the whole problem with the academic system, as people with apparently no taste or judgement whatsoever can become musical professors!

                      Peter I ask you to look at the article and comment on that in relation to my position, not my position in isolation.

                      [/B][/QUOTE]


                      Originally posted by Peter:

                      Regarding the money you have wasted on 'misguided' interpretations, there is no such thing as the perfect interpretation - what is misguided to your ears may well be ideal to another's. What matters is a performance that communicates, that goes beyond the notes - this is a far more important issue than whether the instrument is a fortepiano or pianoforte.
                      The point of this chain is that the communication is failing, I agree with the article's principle point even if we discount the fp/pf issue. I bet I still have more Beethoven pf recordings in my collection than many professors.

                      As you say interpretation is a matter of personal justgement, I say the same above, you can't teach it, you can't teach performers to have the discipline to observe the writing on the page. Or it seems there is no will to teach students to perform in a manner the score indicates. This is no more so the case than with Beethoven's music. Even the basic Italian indications are regularly ignored, Beethoven's own perfectly usable metronome marks routinely laughed at for years, you cannot deny it. But you are obviouly prepared to accept a performance that blatantly ignores what is written on the score even to an amateur's ears, I am not. Unless you have another explanation for all this that does not involve a failing of the system? Perhaps the gene-pool of good pianists has simply come to an end, as I think the writer is indicating.

                      By the way I don't waste money any more, I just take the disk back and exchange it. Sometimes I invent an excuse, sometimes I just say the truth and tell the astonished assistant that the recording is crap.

                      Originally posted by Peter:

                      Regarding the competition, my memory may be at fault as it was years ago, but I think Liam Macawley played the 1st concerto in the final. They no longer cover all the earlier rounds on tv but I have no doubt that Beethoven sonatas feature regularly.

                      All the same it doesn't say much about the system if the King of the piano hardly ever gets a mention in the finale, whereas a much lesser piano composer like Rachmaninov gets a regular mention. Please explain this if you can Peter.

                      ------------------
                      "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin



                      [This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-06-2006).]
                      http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Rod:
                        All the same it doesn't say much about the system if the King of the piano hardly ever gets a mention in the finale, whereas a much lesser piano composer like Rachmaninov gets a regular mention. Please explain this if you can Peter.

                        So what would you have, a return to the poor performance standards of Beethoven's time, when an orchestra mangles the recitatives of the 9th, bodges the repeat in the Choral fantasia and finds the finale of Schubert's 9th too difficult? I'm sorry but it is as a direct result of the establishment of the very institutions you attack that musical standards have been raised to the high level we have today.


                        ------------------
                        'Man know thyself'
                        'Man know thyself'

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I'm with Peter. I love Kissin's flawless playing, and his enthusiasm.

                          ------------------
                          To learn about "The Port-Wine Sea," my parody of Patrick O'Brian's wonderful Aubrey-Maturin series, please contact me at
                          susanwenger@yahoo.com

                          To learn about "The Better Baby" book, ways to increase a baby's intelligence, health, and potentials, please use the same address.
                          To learn about "The Port-Wine Sea," my parody of Patrick O'Brian's wonderful Aubrey-Maturin series, please contact me at
                          susanwenger@yahoo.com

                          To learn about "The Better Baby" book, ways to increase a baby's intelligence, health, and potentials, please use the same address.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Peter:
                            So what would you have, a return to the poor performance standards of Beethoven's time, when an orchestra mangles the recitatives of the 9th, bodges the repeat in the Choral fantasia and finds the finale of Schubert's 9th too difficult? I'm sorry but it is as a direct result of the establishment of the very institutions you attack that musical standards have been raised to the high level we have today.
                            Well you're not really answering the points made in the article or for that matter my own. Never mind, I confess am prepared to stick my neck out on an issue, whereas, with further respect, getting a critical performance assessment of any kind out of your good self has long proved a difficult task.

                            I think Beethoven was a little unlucky with the orchestras at his disposal, but I'm sure they had a hell of a lot less rehearsal time than we offer today, and the music was new then.

                            Concerning the piano one wonders why so much of the best keyboard music ever written was inspired at a time when apparently nobody was capable of playing the piano properly. A mystery indeed.

                            ------------------
                            "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
                            http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Peter:
                              ... and finds the finale of Schubert's 9th too difficult?
                              Objection! This was an AMATEUR orchestra.

                              And it was Schubert's 8th.



                              [This message has been edited by Cetto von Cronstorff (edited 06-07-2006).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X