Pianists

[orbital]

If by Michelangeli you mean Richter, then we are in complete agreement. 

I'm not crazy for Richter's Chopin (or Bach) 
Of course the two are not exactly comparable. With the limited repertoire he kept, Michelangeli  holds an unfair advantage 

[Don]

I'd take Gould and Tureck for Bach.

I should have also noted Craig Sheppard.

[prémont]

With the limited repertoire he kept, Michelangeli  holds an unfair advantage 

Yes, a very important point.

[prémont]

I should have also noted Craig Sheppard.

What about Wolfgang Rübsam? With a gun in front of my head I would say Rübsam.

[orbital]

You mean you like someone's Bach? 

Yes! Weissenberg.  and Gould and Nikolayeva

[orbital]

Oh, yeah. I got his GPOTTC set recently. I'll need to give it a spin.

Great. That was one of the more difficult ones to find in the series.
You are in for a surprise regarding Debussy. I bet you've never heard Debussy played like that. You'll either love it hate it. There are also a few Scarlatti pieces there that are not available separately AFAIK. The 2 or 3 tracks of Scriabin are also of high interest. I hope you enjoy it.

[orbital]

So far the Bach sounds good.

Was it the 6th Partita that was included there? I don't have the playlist with me. If it is, it is gold Howard... gold!

[orbital]

BTW Banya would make a splendid avatar! 

Yes, but only if one can find a more animated expression.. such as the one he does when saying "Gold Jerry.. gold"

[Iago]

Why isn't Liberace on that list?

[ezodisy]

With the limited repertoire he kept, Michelangeli  holds an unfair advantage 

this is something that should be celebrated as a matter of intelligence and something that other pianists should emulate

[Holden]

this is something that should be celebrated as a matter of intelligence and something that other pianists should emulate

Yes, maybe, but a pianist of ABMs ability should have had a more eclectic repertoire. I don't necessarily see it as intelligence, more like pedantry. In the last decade of his life he started to branch out (hence the 5 LvB Ctos for example) but it was a bit too late.

[Renfield]

(For the record, I voted Kempff.)

[ezodisy]

Yes, maybe, but a pianist of ABMs ability should have had a more eclectic repertoire.

Not in my view. Most pianists, with less ability, should play less repertoire. The fact Michelangeli had more ability (than pretty much anyone in any way) doesn't imply he should serve the public more than he did.

In the last decade of his life he started to branch out (hence the 5 LvB Ctos for example) but it was a bit too late.

Like Zimerman, his repertoire was much larger than what he fed the public.  It's nothing about being late IMO, it's about developing as an artist. If memory serves, in a recent radio interview with the BBC Zimerman mentioned how in spite of having Beethoven's op. 111 in his fingers for many, many years, he was only just playing it in public. The same sense of fruition would probably apply to Michelangeli.

People often comment on Richter's huge repertoire (and that in spite of avowing he only plays what he likes and what he thinks he can contribute to). In private pianists like Zimerman and Michelangeli probably have/had just as large a repertoire. The fact they reserve(d) it is irrelevant, and the fact that Richter played his in public shouldn't give him any more credit, IMO.

[jochanaan]

Not in my view. Most pianists, with less ability, should play less repertoire. The fact Michelangeli had more ability (than pretty much anyone in any way) doesn't imply he should serve the public more than he did.

Like Zimerman, his repertoire was much larger than what he fed the public.  It's nothing about being late IMO, it's about developing as an artist. If memory serves, in a recent radio interview with the BBC Zimerman mentioned how in spite of having Beethoven's op. 111 in his fingers for many, many years, he was only just playing it in public. The same sense of fruition would probably apply to Michelangeli.

People often comment on Richter's huge repertoire (and that in spite of avowing he only plays what he likes and what he thinks he can contribute to). In private pianists like Zimerman and Michelangeli probably have/had just as large a repertoire. The fact they reserve(d) it is irrelevant, and the fact that Richter played his in public shouldn't give him any more credit, IMO.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I have read that Michelangeli was a noted perfectionist who would sometimes refuse to play a concert if, in a pre-concert rehearsal, he wasn't playing up to his own standards--or perhaps for some non-related musical reason.  As fabulous a pianist as he was, it would seem he had insecurity issues.  (Most great musicians do, but the issues often don't make them refuse to play. )  Perhaps he felt that much of the music he played was "less than perfect" and therefore not playable in public.  But as a performer myself, I understand very clearly that I were to wait till I had achieved perfection, I'd never play at all!

I would have loved to hear Michelangeli play more pieces even if he wasn't "perfect" by his standards.  But maybe he couldn't do that and stay true to himself.  Still, I'd have loved to hear him branch out a bit.

[mn dave]

I'm beginning to think that applying a ranking system to artists is rather silly. 

[ezodisy]

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I have read that Michelangeli was a noted perfectionist who would sometimes refuse to play a concert if, in a pre-concert rehearsal, he wasn't playing up to his own standards--or perhaps for some non-related musical reason.  As fabulous a pianist as he was, it would seem he had insecurity issues.  (Most great musicians do, but the issues often don't make them refuse to play. )  Perhaps he felt that much of the music he played was "less than perfect" and therefore not playable in public.  But as a performer myself, I understand very clearly that I were to wait till I had achieved perfection, I'd never play at all!

I would have loved to hear Michelangeli play more pieces even if he wasn't "perfect" by his standards.  But maybe he couldn't do that and stay true to himself.  Still, I'd have loved to hear him branch out a bit.

see bold - that is one way to understand it. But as a performer yourself, couldn't you also understand it by saying that it really doesn't matter what an audience wants? And how is it possible that an audience can call someone insecure who has given perfect, even inhuman performances of pieces? Does that even make sense?

Good points, jochanaan.

Would you like to contribute something?

[ezodisy]

As to Michelangeli's greatness, I think that it is hard to know how fabulous a pianist he was, given that all we can hear are the works that he feels he can play well.

Listen I didn't mean to set you up for a fall, but this has to be the stupidest thing said on GMG since Saul last posted. Here is Michelangeli's discography:

http://www.andrewfwilson.co.uk/abm1.htm

After seeing that, and, presumably, after listening to his live recordings, are you still going to sit there and say that it is hard to know how fabulous a pianist he was?

I chose Richter because he covered a vast amount of repertoire, played most of it damn well and showed a more human side in his interpretations.

No argument with your choice--a choice is personal after all. I'm only arguing with some of these wacky comments about insecurity and being unable to tell that he was a fabulous pianist (surely more your fault than his).

[mn dave]

Okay, just ordered 20 CDs of Michelangeli, thanks (or no thanks) to this thread.

[ezodisy]

Okay, just ordered 20 CDs of Michelangeli, thanks (or no thanks) to this thread.

buy the live recrdoings.

from Testament:



from Altarus:



from BBC legends:



from Diapason:

[mn dave]

2 10-CD sets from Documents. Hell, if he didn't record that much, then that should be the bulk of it, right?

$45