I have to call BS on the illusions some people are under about the intrinsic quality of someone’s tone being detectable with a single note. Yes on a violin, cello, etc.
But a piano on the other hand has only 2 variables (besides pedaling and other little subtleties etc)-
Exactly how hard a note is struck
Exactly when that note is struck
So a signature touch can’t reveal itself in a single note. It unfurls over time. It’s all about the relativity of each dynamic to another.
I know this is all obvious but I feel it’s worth reiterating to distinguish exactly what the difference is between a beautiful tone on a violin vs a piano.
A single note can tell you which great violinist is playng, but it takes more ‘unfurling’ over time for great pianists to show their sound.
I’m not talking about you, sorry, and I’m exaggerating at the start there - I don’t think people genuinely think they can tell a pianist from a single note.
I DO however think that a lot of people overestimate how ‘small scale’ a beautiful tone on the piano is.
I think it takes a substantially longer amount of time, compared to a violin performance - to gauge the tonal command of a pianist.
We as piano fans don’t look for the micro-nuances in tone - that’s what draws violinists and cellists to those instruments - there’s so much subtlety and nuance that can be expressed with so few notes.
With the piano - the more notes that are unfurled - the more opportunity the pianist has to play with the relative dynamics, voicings, rhythm and arc to the way it flows. In that regard it’s a bit more of a bigger picture instrument and less inherently ‘colour’ obsessed, even though I love colour.
Hope what I’m trying to say comes across, the main distinction I’m trying to make is that between the piano and other instruments and the type of listener and listening ‘style’ the piano attracts.
For the record the Cello is my favourite instrument for tone, and I love the Oboe and Clarinet also.
But the piano is king because of those things I listed above, the larger scale relativity of what makes something beautiful as opposed to tonal microcosms.
Allright. Well yeah I agree, tone is simply about how you produce sound. It’s physical stuff - how tense/relaxed you are, how you’re sitting, the arch of the hand, weight vs force, etc. Sound is how you actually sound as a pianist, which is made up of many more things and where your mind and imagination as a musician play a central role.
Well let’s take Horowitz and take Richter, two top pianists of their type in many ways.
Did each of them possess a command which could successfully absorb the sound of the other and imitate their playing to any degree in the form on a pianistic ‘impression’?
What I’m saying is…is a sound unavoidably innate or can a pianist with good enough of an ear and physical ability actually do this if they wanted to?
I’m not saying there’d be any point to this, and I suspect that each could caricature the other in a somewhat comical way - but it would reveal that every pianist is best suited to really go their own way and cultivate an individual sound of their own that comes completely naturally as part of their personality.
It’s also a question of what you value. Tonally beauty/colour are secondary considerations for many pianists, especially from the old German school (I would not include Gieseking as part of this btw). If you read the Conversations with Arrau, I don’t think he mentioned colour once as something he valued, for example. I don’t think it necessarily follows that he didn’t also have an excellent ear.
No you can definitely work on it. Horowitz’s sound changed quite a lot between the 70s and 80s for instance, Ciccolini old vs young springs to mind as well. Indeed most pianist’s sound change during their career, some more than others. But I do think the result is a bit of a fingerprint - I know I can’t imitate anyone at the piano at least. Pletnev is said to be able to imitate Rachmaninoff really well, which I’d love to hear.
I think it’s both, and I couldn’t tell you in what proportion. For example, pianists with relatively long fingers have an inherent difference in the sound they’ll produce than pianists with shorter fingers and a pudgier hand (for example I heard a kinship in the sounds of Gilels and Volodos, whose hands look similar to me) and there are other physical factors at play, however a pianst can work on their sound, as did Schiff for example. When I heard those Tchaikovsky competition recordings the other day I couldn’t recognise the sound of the pianist he is today.
Frankly I‘ve heard so many exaggerated stories about Pletnev that I tend to take them all wih a grain of salt. Except the ones about his activities in Thailand, those ones I’m inclined to believe.
Very true. For some pianists - and some listeners - it’s simply not a factor.
I’ve changed a lot with this myself. Paul Hoeffler, who was mentioned earlier today, used to lecture me about how pianists phrased, breathed, vocalized etc (he loved Schnabel) when I was about 18 and I simply couldn’t care any less. I was in to Richter at the time. Prokofiev . And tried to get him to climb his attic to find that Horowitz tape where he outthundered the orchestra. It planted a seed however, and I later really did begin to think about it. Similarly another friend is a big Cherkassky fan and has kept highlighting the sounds pianists make, colouristic effects, tonal palette etc for as long as I’ve known him, and I didn’t really care about that either at first but now it’s become hugely important for me as well. I don’t require it, but I love it when it’s there. It’s given me a whole new appreciation for Arrau, Bolet and Cherkassky in particular, while it’s become more difficult to appreciate Zimerman and Hamelin for instance.
I’ve gone more the other direction, I used to value sound and colour a lot but now I see it as the icing on the cake. Although in recent times, I’ve taken much more of an interest in pedalling, simply because I think this is a neglected aspect of technique which few (really only Schiff) do satisfactorily amongst the pianists I’ve heard.
I tried hearing that comparison ( G and V) the last time you mentioned it, but I don’t hear it. I’d love to hear someone similar in sound to Vol, but I haven’t heard anybody very close yet. His ear must be one of the best ever.
I think Arrau never really had to worry about his sound specifically because he did have an excellent ear. I think the better your ear, the easier it is to control your sound.
There’s a certain ‘roundness’ (for lack of a better word) that I hear in both pianists. I never heard Gilels in the hall obviously, and my impression of Volodos’s sound is based on what I’ve heard in person. Volodos is a very orchestral player, and he does have an excellent ear, probably more like a conductor. I didn’t actually find his sound that ‘pretty’ though. For that kind of a sound, Trifonov wins amongst those I’ve heard live. Too bad his interps are becoming increasingly mannered.
. And tried to get him to climb his attic to find that Horowitz tape where he outthundered the orchestra. It planted a seed however, and I later really did begin to think about it. Similarly another friend is a big Cherkassky fan and has kept highlighting the sounds pianists make, colouristic effects, tonal palette etc for as long as I’ve known him, and I didn’t really care about that either at first but now it’s become hugely important for me as well. I don’t require it, but I love it when it’s there. It’s given me a whole new appreciation for Arrau, Bolet and Cherkassky in particular, while it’s become more difficult to appreciate Zimerman and Hamelin for instance.