Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The great "Golden Age" pianists

Hofmann was from an age where many pianists did not strive to follow the score as closely as most pianist from the last fifty years. I don't think it's possible to know how much of a given interpretation was planned and how much was on the spot decisions. Even if there were say five interpretly different recordings of a given piece to compare, which is not true in the case of Hofmann, those could be his only five interpretations. Any pianist can choose to emphasize inner voices more than is customary, and this is not necessarily difficult.

Here is György Cziffra playing an absolutely amazing free improvisation:



And, found a sheet music score for it!

Although Cziffra's improvisations are technically very difficult, I think they're incredibly boring from a musical standpoint. On a scale of 1 to 10 I think they are technically a 10 but musically a 1.

Although Cziffra's improvisations are technically very difficult, I think they're incredibly boring from a musical standpoint. On a scale of 1 to 10 I think they are technically a 10 but musically a 1.

Geza Anda

Raoul Koczalski is in a direct lineage from Chopin, and his playing style is probably closest to that of Chopin among the pianists who have made recordings during the Golden Age:

Frederic Lamond
Vladimir Sofronitsky

IMHO the present day pianists are the best pianists

No, I’m serious. I get the nostalgia thing and I’ve had my fair share of digging all these undoubtedly great “golden age” pianists and I really appreciate the “direct lineage” notion but let’s face it, you can find excellent young pianist of today that can play equally as good or better. They can convey the supposed 19th century Romantic piano performance freedom as it has been described and captured in the old records. And they can play immaculately even the most demanding repertoire. But yeah, it’s not cool to admit something of today is good (let alone Asian guys with same names, right? 😉). I get that. Old is gold.

I agree you are right in general but to support your point which young pianists would you say play as well or better than Rubinstein, Argerich and Pletnev?

Argerich and Pletnev are present day pianists. As a matter of fact, I have tickets for a concert with Argerich (in a piano duo with Evgeni Bozhanov who is my favorite pianist) after 10 days.

If you need younger pianists, here's a list of some of my favorites in no particular order: Vadim Kholodenko, Xiayin Wang, Vikingur Olafsson, Plamena Mangova, Alexandre Tharaud, Seong-Jin Cho, Beatrice Rana, Daniil Trifonov, Benajmin Alard, Boris Berezovsky, David Fray, Denis Matsuev, Emmanuel Despax, Eric Lu, Yundi Li, Igor Levit, Hubert Rutkowski, Lucas Debargue, Martin Stadtfeld, Nelson Goerner...

I believe they are at least as good as some of the most famous older ones (including the "golden age" pianists), however I won't mention specific names. It's all too subjective I specifically started with IMHO.

I don't think one listens to the olde recordings by those extinct pianists for fidelity to the composer or accuracy or perfect technique.

But many of them had playing styles all their own which could not be mistaken for any other pianist past, present or future, whereas almost all the pianists of today (with the exception of Pletnev, Argerich and Lang Lang) could easily be mistaken for each other in almost any piece.

Whereas the playing of Horowitz, Rachmaninov, Koczalski, Cortot or Cziffra is instantly recognizable, whether you like them or loathe them. Benjamin Grosvenor has frequently said that he prefers to listen to those pianists precisely for their unique styles, from which he can glean fresh ideas.

Rudolf Serkin

Thanks!

As I somehow missed him in my original list (?) -- one of my personal favorites, also!

His legendary recording on Columbia Records (in the 1960's) was epic:



And, rare "live" footage from the White House with Ronald Reagan in attendance:

Hmm...seems to me that if they include Saint-Saens, they should also include Dohnanyi, Bartok, and Medtner. And possibly Poulenc, Stravinsky, and maybe Ravel.

Here is a rare clip of Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli playing the final movement of Chopin's Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35:

There are too many pianists too include in one book unless each pianist is covered very briefly like in Dubal's The Art of the Piano.

Although neither the OP nor anyone else on the thread has defined the Golden Age of Pianists (and as far as I know there is no accepted definition), I think that book's definition is reasonable since it chooses a simple and convenient part of the 20th century for the pianists' activity.

I think there are at least 50 pianists who have not been mentioned yet.

I think that many modern pianists tend to have a fairly standardized approach. What they have gained in technical profficiency, they have lost in character. There are some minor differences, and except a few pianists who have a definitely unique style, many are quite alike and interchangeable. For a given frequently played piece i could find at least 10 versions which are more or less the same.

When i listen to Cortot version of Ballade 4, it is completely unique. And i can recognize Rubinstein anytime.

Cortot is probably the only one of the so called "golden age" pianists that IMHO knows how to play Chopin, he's also a direct lineage to Chopin which is why his Chopin recordings are indeed one of the best, they are a golden standard that is rarely achieved nowadays. Cortot is an exception that confirms the rule But can you point to another golden age pianist that can play Chopin that good? (Yeah, I know "good" is in the eye of the beholder but we both agree Cortot is the norm). For instance, Paderewski was linked previously, his Ballade 4 was incoherent and totally lacked the subtlety of Cortot. I understand he was already too old when recording it but still.

Regarding Rubinstein, I personally can't stand his Chopin. He deserves praises for popularizing Chopin but IMO his Chopin is just too lifeless. Horowitz is IMO so much better and closer to Cortot. Well, yes, Rubinstein has his unique style but unique doesn't always mean good. Modern pianists indeed may have lost their uniqueness because they build on all the knowledge and can read, discuss, listen, compare, so expectedly that means they end up with something that's kind of equal between them. Equally good Each to their own but I'd personally prefer listening to Chopin, than to the pianist and I hear Chopin in all these young lions that e.g. compete in the International Chopin Competition.

BTW, you can recognize Cortot because he is very different than all the rest of his time and you hear a cr*ppy mono recording. If they somehow translate that recording through some clever engineering and re-perform it in modern times, recorded properly in stereo (there are a few recording like that already, for instance some of Rachmaninov's old recording were re-performed on a modern grand), would you be able to still recognize him and swear it's him playing?

If you can't hear Cortot's unique take on rubato (I'd describe it as 'effusive' - and very different from Rach's cool idiosyncrasy, BTW) - especially in Chopin: easily recognizable even if you transform it electronically into harpsichord sound - I don't know what it is you're listening to in any recording.

Who else plays like this (ignoring the desychronizations, used by many pianists of that era, including Michelangeli):

Bozhanov plays like that.