Pretty decent list of non-critics.
Just making way through; few surprises, few obvious choices.
2 Likes
Honestly, Iād probably respect a criticās opinion more than another instrumentalistās. How many pianists really know the orchestral and violin repertoire (and vice versa)? Let alone many recordings. Meanwhile, I actually thought Zimermanās Debussy preludes were bad, when I listened to them on the flight home a couple of months ago.
I donāt knowā¦ 
Brew has a point too. No names mentioned, but I know several cases where friends of mine (= hardcore pianophiles) have been pitched these questions from elite pianists to answer for them when theyāve been asked similar things by journalists.
Thereās stories about juries/exam panelists where they bring different instrumentalists on to the ones theyāre judging. A pianist might let something go because they realise how difficult it is, whereas a non-pianist will call it lacklustre or boring.
But I would think most of those names would be familiar with this rep - itās mostly pretty bog standard.
Plus -
The old clichĆ© about āit all being a matter of personal tasteā still holds
Itās not just about being familiar with the rep, but knowing recordings. Most musicians arenāt like us; they might know maybe a handful of recordings of any given piece in their instrumentās repertoire. For example, if you took all the pianists at my school and asked them to name 5 great pianists, I doubt they could, and this is after including da Dongah and da Shrimp in the list.
Not sure why Bru is being nitpicky about this - I think itās refreshing to see such lists and my only complaint is that we canāt see who voted for what!
Iām trying to figure out who da 
voted for 
1 Like
Looks like any other critic list, really, lots of bad/uninteresting choicesā¦ Wonder what da doc voted for.
I know his dad was a huge Cortot fan so those may be his votes, and his knowledge of non-88 rep is surprisingly vast also.
These arenāt your average musicians though. (If, according to da X, weāre to believe it is actually them voting).
I remember reading Zim listened to over 90 recordings before re-recording the Brahms dminor.
Iām surprised given the usual disdain for critics opinions that you mofoās are against this. Obviously, I donāt agree with/donāt like some of the choices.
I suppose the whole point of critics and lists like these are to act as time saving measures.
I donāt want to take the time to listen to dozens of recordings to find the best one. I want just a few contrasting but equally great recs of a work to hold my attention.
And in relying upon critics - we must trust that they have done the hard work so we donāt have to - but BRU has a point in that musicians are often NOT as big on listening to as many recs as critics are, since itās their job - and the job of a musician very different and leaves less time for it.
Because this list is somehow supposed to be more authoritative than the usual BS list that these types of magazines put out, but for me it isnāt. And I didnāt see Zimermanās name on the list of participants. So I donāt see what the relevance is. I remember what Hough wrote about Hofmann many years ago, which showed that he hadnāt listened to any of his recordings.
I enjoyed reading through it but I agree that I think itās a very safe list. Just like the competition winners of today - juries pick the safe choices that wont divide opinion as much.
Brendel for the Totentanz instead of Cziffraā¦yeah. Case in point.
Brendel is ārespectedā more than Cziffra. Load of shit.
1 Like
I guess he voted for da Feinberg tho
1 Like
Also - there are only 2 Chopin recs on there, wtf
1 Like
And Brahms gets 16. Brahms is awesome but NOT 8 times more significant than Chopin.
And the chop 3 is surprisingly da Plate. I admit to not having heard that one, but if itās better than Kapell Iād be very pleasantly surprised.
Also fun to see Gould chosen for several brotha sons. I like that.
1 Like
Itās very good but Kapell is the gold standard.
Plate is a great rec for an alternative take once a gold standard has been established.
Same for 
in Beethoven - heās not the gold standard authentic interp but he provides a great probing alternative to an āauthenticā take on Beethoven.
That was my point. Granted, heās not on the list but Iād be willing to give the benefit of the doubt that these people know their stuff.
Iām not saying itās better or worse than a ācritics listā. Just a different view point. I would have liked to have seen who chose what and why.
Thatās where we differ. Zimerman is by no means the rule, in fact Iād bet heās the rare exception.