|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
|
|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
In Reply to: Argerich, Schiff, Uchida, Brendel, Perahia, Ax, Pletnev, Thibaudet, Ashkenazy, Pollini… why haven't the past posted by tinear on November 14, 2014 at 10:05:04:
Let's just start with an obvious statement - most pianists are good in some repertoire and pretty ordinary in others.
Pogorelic - some marvellous early period, some very weird later stuff
Rubinstein - special in Chopin and more contemporary works, just good in others
Kempff - divine in Schubert, arguable in Schumann, mixed in Beethoven
Horowitz - divine in Scriabin and Debussy, not everyone's taste in Chopin or Beethoven
Richter - marvellous in Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Schubert and a lot of others, not my taste in Scriabin or Bach
Samson Francois - some moments of utter brilliance like his 1947 Scarbo. Otherwise just "interesting"
One could go on and on. Almost no pianists do everything better than anyone else.
So why not just value pianists for what they're really good at? And leave it at that?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- What's left out of your argument is the consistency of pianists - andy evans 00:28:14 11/15/14 (3)
- Why do it? Because it's fun to evaluate artists. It leads to - tinear 07:28:15 11/16/14 (1)
- Fair enough - and I agree about the fun part [nt] - Chris from Lafayette 09:42:20 11/16/14 (0)
- Wise words - Chris from Lafayette 10:54:16 11/15/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
