Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Horowitz and Argerich are pianists that can make their audiences cry and have shivers up and down their spine and excite them with their inhuman technical virtuosity. What sets them apart is that a lot of concert pianists can do either or, not both.
First of all, they're hitting all the right notes in the right time at tempo, which is no easy task in difficult pieces with a brisk tempo. This seems obvious, but in difficult pieces, lesser players simply cannot do this. For example, in a long, difficult piece can you play every single note with the same proficiency as every other one, the most difficult bar played just as perfectly as the easiest one? A lesser player will mess up in the difficult bars and start to fudge his technique to cover his shortcomings, which will be glaringly obvious to the listener. Big time players like this can hit even the most difficult to reach note just as proficiently as the easiest to reach one, which is why they "sound so good."
First of all, they're hitting all the right notes in the right time at tempo, which is no easy task in difficult pieces with a brisk tempo. This seems obvious, but in difficult pieces, lesser players simply cannot do this. For example, in a long, difficult piece can you play every single note with the same proficiency as every other one, the most difficult bar played just as perfectly as the easiest one? A lesser player will mess up in the difficult bars and start to fudge his technique to cover his shortcomings, which will be glaringly obvious to the listener. Big time players like this can hit even the most difficult to reach note just as proficiently as the easiest to reach one, which is why they "sound so good."
My teacher began telling me at a young age that music is a lot more than just hitting the right notes in the right rhythms. I mean, what if I can play something really pretty, like Schubert Impromptu op 90 no 3, and I can hit all the notes and rhythms perfectly, but I just bang them all out without paying attention to phrasing, voicing, dynamics, articulation, pedalling, rubato, etc? It's not going to be great by any means. In fact, my teacher and I can actually START to work on a piece in lessons once I have learned the notes and rhythms. It's not an ending place.
First of all, they're hitting all the right notes in the right time at tempo, which is no easy task in difficult pieces with a brisk tempo. This seems obvious, but in difficult pieces, lesser players simply cannot do this. For example, in a long, difficult piece can you play every single note with the same proficiency as every other one, the most difficult bar played just as perfectly as the easiest one? A lesser player will mess up in the difficult bars and start to fudge his technique to cover his shortcomings, which will be glaringly obvious to the listener. Big time players like this can hit even the most difficult to reach note just as proficiently as the easiest to reach one, which is why they "sound so good."
Technique is not everything, if you cant feel the piece you play, your performance going to be compeletly garbage. The important thing is while you are hitting all the right notes in the right time at tempo, you have to reach heart of the audience too. All great pianists feel the pieces they play very deeply thats because they are great.
What makes a good pianist stand out? What makes pianists like Vladimir Horowitz, Martha Agerich different than other average pianists?
I think perhaps you mean, "what makes a good pianist famous?" And the reason I think this is because I don't necessarily believe that people like Horowitz and Argerich are necessarily part of a exclusive club of extraordinary musicians. I think they are part of a elite club of musicians who have happened to have struck fame. Exceptional musicality is not nearly as rare as people want to believe. There are a least a couple pianists I know of in my own home city who I would count as equally talented as a Horowitz or a Argerich, but who do not possess their fame. I think it is easy to fall into the common fallacy that people are famous because they are the best at what they do. But you need only look at the Miley Cyrus's and Helene Grimaud's of the world to know that this is simply not the case. People become famous for all sorts of reasons and under all sorts of circumstances. Argerich and Horowitz are remarkable pianists, but I think if you make the effort you will see that remarkable pianists can exist without the remarkable fame.
There are a least a couple pianists I know of in my own home city who I would count as equally talented as a Horowitz or a Argerich,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Funniest thing I've heard all day (and no, I don't need to hear your hometown neighbors). Hop aboard my list, matey!
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
I find it inconceivable that a pianist pursuing a career would go unrecognized if he was as good as Horowitz or Argerich. Audiences and critics aren't deaf, and skill of that magnitude is going to be obvious.
When you say that the pianists are as talented as Horowitz and Argerich, do you mean that they simply appear to have the same level of natural ability that they did, but are not at the same skill level? After all, talent only indicates potential skill, rather than actual realized skill. It's conceivable that a person could be supremely talented, but fail to utilize that talent to its full degree.
Recent Repertoire: Liszt: Concerto #1 in Eb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dY9Qw8Z7ao Bach: Partita #2 in c minor Beethoven: Sonata #23 in f minor, Opus 57 ("Appassionata") Chopin: Etudes Opus 25 #6,9,10,11,12 Prokofiev: Sonata #3 in a minor Suggestion diabolique
I find it inconceivable that a pianist pursuing a career would go unrecognized if he was as good as Horowitz or Argerich. Audiences and critics aren't deaf, and skill of that magnitude is going to be obvious.
When you say that the pianists are as talented as Horowitz and Argerich, do you mean that they simply appear to have the same level of natural ability that they did, but are not at the same skill level? After all, talent only indicates potential skill, rather than actual realized skill. It's conceivable that a person could be supremely talented, but fail to utilize that talent to its full degree.
I find it very conceivable, if everyone who has the ability to master a Rachminoff concerto were as famous as a Horowitz and Argerich, then the Royal Albert and Carnigie hall would be packed day and night with piano recitals.
Just to provide an example, check out the girl playing the Tchaikovsky concerto. The concerto starts at 3:42. Clearly she is a great talent (by "talent" I don't mean to imply anything other than she can play the piano damn good), and I think if she was given the opportunity she could show her metal just as much as an Agerich or a Horowitz.
It's like I have said before, people put pianists like Horowitz, Argerich, Richter, etc. on a such a lofty pedestal that only a very few people can manage to break into. If it were the case that audiences and critics new best 100% of the time then pianists like Helene Grimaud would not be selling tickets to the largest venues.
in general, i think the truly brilliant will find their way. i'm talking about generational talents--the horowitzs, the argeriches, etc. it's the ones that are just a hair below them who need some luck to stand out. like, i think, someone on the level of kissin--if he didn't have the great publicity he got as a teenager, it's entirely possible he wouldn't be so well-known. maybe he's good enough as is, maybe not. we'll never know.
and i think that's probably why pianists place so much emphasis on competitions. for many, winning them is the break you need. even if you don't win, you need the free publicity.
but we've gotten off-topic: just what makes a pianist stand out?
honestly, i don't know. sure, i can hear it--but it's not an answer. well, it's a very unsatisfying, hand-wavy answer. i'd love to quantify it, but i can't really do it. as somewhat of an academic (in the quantitative sciences), i've accumulated a few rules to decide whether makes a performance great. but at this stage, the rules are so rudimentary, and, i think, detail-oriented that often times it loses the big picture.
like: phrasing, dynamics and timing are all things you can analyze to death. but "passion"? i haven't really managed to translate that to something tangible. when does "passionate" pass into "sentimentality" or even "trashy"? the "phase-space" is almost infinite dimensional, and we humans, with our experiences and training, interpret what we hear in a certain way as to render a translation from mere sounds very, very difficult.
and we're not even including the non-musical aspects: charisma, quirkiness, or, sheer luck, etc. as has been pointed out, those could matter much more than the ability of creating music itself.
but we've gotten off-topic: just what makes a pianist stand out?
honestly, i don't know. sure, i can hear it--but it's not an answer. well, it's a very unsatisfying, hand-wavy answer. i'd love to quantify it, but i can't really do it. as somewhat of an academic (in the quantitative sciences), i've accumulated a few rules to decide whether makes a performance great. but at this stage, the rules are so rudimentary, and, i think, detail-oriented that often times it loses the big picture.
like: phrasing, dynamics and timing are all things you can analyze to death. but "passion"? i haven't really managed to translate that to something tangible. when does "passionate" pass into "sentimentality" or even "trashy"? the "phase-space" is almost infinite dimensional, and we humans, with our experiences and training, interpret what we hear in a certain way as to render a translation from mere sounds very, very difficult.
and we're not even including the non-musical aspects: charisma, quirkiness, or, sheer luck, etc. as has been pointed out, those could matter much more than the ability of creating music itself.
Do you mean stand out to the public and critics, or stand out in musicality in general? If you mean the latter case (which I suspect you do), you are unlikely to get an answer everyone will be satisfied with. Scientists can't even agree on what constitutes intelligence, how one earth can you expect to quantify something as vague as exceptional musicality? And vagueness is just one of the problems, in both the former and the latter instance, standing out is probably the result of a multi-factored sequence of causes and not the result of one specific cause. To try to discover, weed out, and establish each cause's degree of relevance is so monumental a feat that I am going to go out on a limb and say it can't be done.
I find it very conceivable, if everyone who has the ability to master a Rachminoff concerto were as famous as a Horowitz and Argerich, then the Royal Albert and Carnigie hall would be packed day and night with piano recitals.
Well, of course, but here is where your depth of understanding goes no further than the wading pool. There are a ton of pianists that can play the notes...to anything. No one cares about the notes...it's what is behind, between, around and within those notes that make the difference. Sadly, these days there are those, who, like your example of Grimaud, sell tickets and recordings and are the result of the marketing machine, but there is not, nor will there ever be, anyone to take the place of the one and only Vladimir Horowitz, or Queen Martha Argerich. Pianist like these two, or your other example of Richter, don't just happen onto the scene...there's a reason they sit atop those lofty pedestals.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
Well, of course, but here is where your depth of understanding goes no further than the wading pool. There are a ton of pianists that can play the notes...to anything. No one cares about the notes...it's what is behind, between, around and within those notes that make the difference. Sadly, these days there are those, who, like your example of Grimaud, sell tickets and recordings and are the result of the marketing machine, but there is not, nor will there ever be, anyone to take the place of the one and only Vladimir Horowitz, or Queen Martha Argerich. Pianist like these two, or your other example of Richter, don't just happen onto the scene...there's a reason they sit atop those lofty pedestals.
You don't give people enough credit. A lot of people care deeply about the music they learn and perform. It is unfortunate that you can't see that. I guess people like you are compelled to mimic the view of the overwhelming majority because you have an inability to form your own opinions, which is why you can't accept the fact that pianists of comparable ability may exist and yet may not be famous. You're so afraid of being wrong that you predictably stick with the safe bet so that nobody can accuse you of liking a inferior pianist: This causes you to erroneously think that the best pianists are the ones who achieve great fame. If they don't have great fame then they must not be great pianists.
It is true that great talent can help you reach fame as in the case of Horowitz and Argerich, but having great talent does not necessarily mean you will achieve fame. Furthermore, it is also true that fame does not necessarily equal great talent.
I find it very conceivable, if everyone who has the ability to master a Rachminoff concerto were as famous as a Horowitz and Argerich, then the Royal Albert and Carnigie hall would be packed day and night with piano recitals.
Well, of course, but here is where your depth of understanding goes no further than the wading pool. There are a ton of pianists that can play the notes...to anything. No one cares about the notes...it's what is behind, between, around and within those notes that make the difference. Sadly, these days there are those, who, like your example of Grimaud, sell tickets and recordings and are the result of the marketing machine, but there is not, nor will there ever be, anyone to take the place of the one and only Vladimir Horowitz, or Queen Martha Argerich. Pianist like these two, or your other example of Richter, don't just happen onto the scene...there's a reason they sit atop those lofty pedestals.
I'm sorry, but are seriously trying to say they're actually famous because they just excel where others do not?
What about Lang Lang? Would you say the same thing?
Like I said, fame DOES NOT equal quality. Nor is it an indication. There are a lot of talented - equally talented - people who are not famous. There are also famous people with no talent. This goes beyond piano, but applies just as well.
II. As in, second best. Only lowercase. So not even that. I teach piano and violin. BM, Violin & Percussion Performance 2009, Piano Pedagogy 2011.
Well, of course, but here is where your depth of understanding goes no further than the wading pool. There are a ton of pianists that can play the notes...to anything. No one cares about the notes...it's what is behind, between, around and within those notes that make the difference. Sadly, these days there are those, who, like your example of Grimaud, sell tickets and recordings and are the result of the marketing machine, but there is not, nor will there ever be, anyone to take the place of the one and only Vladimir Horowitz, or Queen Martha Argerich. Pianist like these two, or your other example of Richter, don't just happen onto the scene...there's a reason they sit atop those lofty pedestals.
You don't give people enough credit. A lot of people care deeply about the music they learn and perform. It is unfortunate that you can't see that. I guess people like you are compelled to mimic the view of the overwhelming majority because you have an inability to form your own opinions, which is why you can't accept the fact that pianists of comparable ability may exist and yet may not be famous. You're so afraid of being wrong that you predictably stick with the safe bet so that nobody can accuse you of liking a inferior pianist: This causes you to erroneously think that the best pianists are the ones who achieve great fame. If they don't have great fame then they must not be great pianists.
It is true that great talent can help you reach fame as in the case of Horowitz and Argerich, but having great talent does not necessarily mean you will achieve fame. Furthermore, it is also true that fame does not necessarily equal great talent.
If anything, I don't side with the majority, I'm NOT afraid to be wrong, I don't stick with the safe bet, nor do I have an inability to form my own opinions. ...ask anyone here who knows me about that (that last is actually pretty damned funny). I DON'T think that the best pianists are necessarily those who've achieved great fame. Lang Lang, is probably the most famous pianist in the world right now and he sucks, so throw that theory out the window. Clearly, you've not been around long enough to know anything about me. I speak my own mind, I speak it well and you'd better make sure you know what you're talking about or I'll pull the rug out from under you. Now then, you go find me two pianists the likes of Horowitz and Argerich (or two you think comparable) and I'll be happy to tell you (as will others, I'm sure) why they're not in the same league.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
Do you mean stand out to the public and critics, or stand out in musicality in general? If you mean the latter case (which I suspect you do), you are unlikely to get an answer everyone will be satisfied with. Scientists can't even agree on what constitutes intelligence, how one earth can you expect to quantify something as vague as exceptional musicality? And vagueness is just one of the problems, in both the former and the latter instance, standing out is probably the result of a multi-factored sequence of causes and not the result of one specific cause. To try to discover, weed out, and establish each cause's degree of relevance is so monumental a feat that I am going to go out on a limb and say it can't be done.
Well, the less ambitious version is just to get musicality right. Obviously, we hope to reproduce musicality the same way we hope to reproduce intelligence--that's the holy grail. (Not an AI expert, but I think scientists do know the kind of intelligence being sought after. Not sure what you're referring to--perhaps the various kind of tests used to determine if a program is close enough?)
I feel that in some ways "becoming famous" is easier because it feels like one of those things that's highly chaotic in nature so... if you can establish that then you're probably done, done in the sense it's so complicated you don't bother. But like picking stocks, just because something is "highly chaotic" doesn't mean you can't improve your chances of guessing right, so in that sense, it could be just as difficult as you mentioned. Obviously impossible to get it 100% right--we're talking human society not math or physics--but some level of predictability.
Anyway, I wrote the reply because, as a pianist (not a professional one) wanting to improve, and relatively lacking in musicianship, I want to improve by trying to figure out what makes people fall in love with certain performers and see if I can copy them. Obviously there's some disparity in piano techniques that I can never hope to overcome but at least I hope to become a better musician in the process. It feels this is something that perhaps resonates with the OP.
