"Golden Age" Pianists

[kishnevi]

Questions for those, like George and Mandryka, who go for  historical recordings:

1) Was there really a Golden Age of pianists in which the playing was superior to those of our own time?

2)If so, in what way were they superior to modern pianists?

3)Whatever your answer to the above two questions, why are you interested in historical performances?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

1) Was there really a Golden Age of pianists in which the playing was superior to those of our own time?

No. Not at all. Besides, "superior playing" isn't the same thing as "superior interpretation".

There hasn't been any resolution to this age-old debate since well before performances began being recorded. The Clementi vs. Mozart thrilla of a piano competition is famous for resolving exactly zero. On one side was Clementi who carried the torch for all that was "acrobatic" at the keyboard, able to turn tricks of finger-busting dexterity unsurpassed in his time. While on the other side there was Mozart who favored a more ruminative, thoughtful approach to keyboard playing.

Who was right?

Those who witnessed the event were divided in their allegiances.

Same for the Liszt vs. Chopin debate. Chopin winced at Liszt's interpretations of his music, calling Liszt too "showy". But again who was right? Historical evidence concludes that Liszt, whatever his talents as a composer (uneven, but one of the greats), had legendary chops that might in fact never be bested. 

And on and on and on...

No difference today.

The "trends" in the early days of piano recordings might have reflected a more extroverted style of playing but there's nothing inherently more "musical" about this at all. Some listeners favor it, some don't. I find equal validity both in early styles and present-day styles. But for me it all comes down to who can interpret, whether it flows from something extrovert or introvert. Placing one above the other I find to be a dead-end game.

[Holden]

My feeling is that technical virtuosity is what is valued most nowadays and that musicality takes a bit of a back seat.

[zamyrabyrd]

I don't think that technical virtuosity is overvalued these days. On the contrary, more musically educated audiences expect more in terms of interpretation.  If one reads what the pianists of yore actually did, like Tausig taking the last breakneck 16th triplets at the end of the Chopin Concerto No. 1 in octaves,  Dreyschock doing the Revolutionary Etude in octaves as well, not to mention the studies upon etudes favored by late 19th century and early 20th, making them even more daunting, yes, I feel the conclusion is that there WAS a golden age of piano playing, probably not to be repeated.

ZB

[Scarpia]

I find any assertion that piano performance was superior to today during a "golden age" to be absurd and unsupportable.  One issue which I suspect comes into play is that the weakness of the old recording techniques encourages listeners to use their imagination more.  This allows listeners to attribute virtues to the old performers that they did not, in fact, possess to any greater extent than modern performers do.

[bwv 1080]

I find any assertion that piano performance was superior to today during a "golden age" to be absurd and unsupportable.  One issue which I suspect comes into play is that the weakness of the old recording techniques encourages listeners to use their imagination more.  This allows listeners to attribute virtues to the old performers that they did not, in fact, possess to any greater extent than modern performers do.

I have thought this myself

[Bulldog]

I find any assertion that piano performance was superior to today during a "golden age" to be absurd and unsupportable.  One issue which I suspect comes into play is that the weakness of the old recording techniques encourages listeners to use their imagination more.  This allows listeners to attribute virtues to the old performers that they did not, in fact, possess to any greater extent than modern performers do.

Hey, I just listen to what it presented in historical recordings (same as modern ones).  Some historical performances are transcendent and easily overcome a less than admirable soundstage.

[k-k-k-kenny]

Hey, I just listen to what it presented in historical recordings (same as modern ones).  Some historical performances are transcendent and easily overcome a less than admirable soundstage.

So true. For mine, Fischer's WTC and Lipatti in just about everything are good examples. But even elsewhere - as with late Cortot, when much technique had been lost, the musical sensibility still shines. But take Rachmaninoff, Busoni, Grainger, Brailowsky, Paderewski - the list goes on: we're so lucky to have these recordings. Even those on rolls (which if you didn't know they were rolls would sound better than their gramophone or cylinder recordings)
Whether such artists were "better" than those of today could be endlessly and pointlessly debated.

[RJR]

Benno Moisiewitsch.