|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
78.149.18.174
In Reply to: RE: 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?
Follow Ups:
discussion about the nature of excellence, how to define it.
. . . although, as I'm sure you're aware, no two listeners will have quite the same taste as far as artists and repertoire are concerned.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: