A kvetch from Kettle

[kishnevi]

As my history exams used to say, discuss.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2002/sep/05/classicalmusicandopera.artsfeatures

[kishnevi]

And I find Facebook brings up a similar complaint from 1986
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/06/arts/do-today-s-pianists-have-the-romantic-touch.html

[Brian]

Two main reactions, which I will try to keep short because I could talk about them all day.

1. A lot of pianists today ARE technically brilliant but expressively dull. It's a big problem. There are probably several thousand people who can play all the Rachmaninov concertos, but how many would you want to hear?

2. I pity Kettle, because there ARE fascinating young pianists of great artistic importance, probably two or three dozen of them. (And really, has there ever been an age with more than 40-50 truly fascinating pianists active at once?) He just doesn't know they exist.

[mn dave]

He's old and likes Schnabel.

End of discussion.

[Florestan]

A lot of pianists today ARE technically brilliant but expressively dull.

Say what? Just look at Yuja Wang's facial expression when playing. 

[Pat B]

Two main reactions, which I will try to keep short because I could talk about them all day.

1. A lot of pianists today ARE technically brilliant but expressively dull. It's a big problem. There are probably several thousand people who can play all the Rachmaninov concertos, but how many would you want to hear?

2. I pity Kettle, because there ARE fascinating young pianists of great artistic importance, probably two or three dozen of them. (And really, has there ever been an age with more than 40-50 truly fascinating pianists active at once?) He just doesn't know they exist.

Heads up: the article was written in 2002.

My thoughts basically matched yours. I'm not really up on which young pianists to listen to (though I was intrigued by Biss in the Waldstein blind comparison), but I also didn't write a feature for the Guardian asserting they don't exist. If I had, you can bet I would have included Moravec in the aging-but-still-alive category; he was still performing and recording in 2002. Probably Sokolov too.

[Florestan]

As my history exams used to say, discuss.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2002/sep/05/classicalmusicandopera.artsfeatures

He does have some valid points when he speaks generally about how the piano came to predominance and then faded out (when speaking of amateur music-making), but...

1. If we are going to endlessly and forever compare young pianists (say, in the 25-40 years range) with the long series of celebrated master of the past (presumably starting with Liszt himself, if not Beethoven, as Kettle seems to imply) then the former stand no chance in affirming their own personality and making themselves a career. It's a point I've touched upon in another thread but it fits in here as well. I'm sure that each and every young pianist out there aspiring at an international concert / recital career is as serious as it gets about it and gives her / his best. Schnabel, Pollini, Horowitz and whoever else will always be revered and listened to, but does it mean that there will be no good, outstanding or genius pianists anymore, from the time Horowitz died, or Brendel retired? If one really thought so, then he could just as well proclaim music as an art form dead once and for all, which is preposterous.

2. Besides, to lament "there is no Schnabel in the making anymore" is disrespectful both to Schnabel and the young pianists. To Schnabel, because it implies he was not unique in his technique and musical personality; given the right conditions another Schnabel, exactly like him, could rise to fame. To young pianists, because it implies that no matter how much effort, dedication, passion and musicianship they'd devote to their career, they would never be able to match Schnabel and as such they are not worth listening to. (Substitute any other grand name for Schnabel, if you want). This kind of attitude is exactly what is needed for discouraging youngsters to consider a career as a pianist.

3. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Is there any "iron law of piano playing", prescribing that what Liszt and his direct pupils made of the music they played is exactly how that music should be played for ever and ever, amen? Young Rubinstein was contemporary with late Brahms; so what? does it make his interpretation of Brahms the universal yardstick by which all others are to be judged? If chronologically overlapping with a composer lifespan is the criterion for a good performance, then we should ban any performance of music by composers dead before 1900 as inherently inaccurate and bad. This is preposterous, too.

So, bottom line, I cherish Richter or Berman in Scbubert's D 960 just as much as Kettle, but this doesn't mean I eschew Severin von Eckhardstein or Klara Wurtz. The more performances there are of that piece, the better, because it means that Schubert's music is just as alive and telling and impressive to younger generations as it was 100 years ago.

That being said, i don't imply that there are no bad or mediocre performers out there, but I contend that even they have a role to play in preserving classical music, even if only by making some discerning listeners want to hear the music in a better performance.

And finally, dare I say it?, hearing music in a mediocre performance is better than not hearing it all.

[mn dave]

I'm glad my brain is not so critical of these piano recordings. There are recent albums no one here would bother with and may even mock that I find quite lovely.

[DavidRoss]

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.

It's easy to imagine some pompous Viennese critic uttering similar statements circa 1794.

Two words: Herbie Hancock.

...there ARE fascinating young pianists of great artistic importance, probably two or three dozen of them. [Kettle] just doesn't know they exist.

Word.

[Sergeant Rock]

Say what? Just look at Yuja Wang's facial expression when playing. 

Just look at her legs! Any more expressive and she'd be illegal 

Sarger

[DavidRoss]

As a public service, for those who don't know:


What's more, she can play.

[The new erato]

As a public service, for those who don't know:


What's more, she can play.

Who cares?

[Florestan]

Just look at her legs! Any more expressive and she'd be illegal 

Too bad she's not an organist. Just imagine what invaluable insights into her playing subtleties could we have had from a camera mounted on the pedals... 

she can play.

Absolutely. Play, foreplay and everything in between... 

But then again, imagine you are the concertmaster here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbHbDena_U

I wonder how he managed to play the right notes, at the right time, in the right tempo...