https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y

Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust
DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.

But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even Moscow
rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on how good their first
movement of the Moonlight was.

Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many will argue
otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.

But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd rather hear
then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl (mispelled for DK), vinyl
dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over
Kempff.

-Owen

Owen Hartnett wrote:

> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y

> Half of this list is the usual suspects,
> the other half designed to disgust DK,
> should he be slumming sometime and deign
> to read it.

Why would one be "disgusted" by anything
as predictable as institutional imbecility?

> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver?
> Gilels is in there, but even Moscow rated
> Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated
> these guys on how good their first
> movement of the Moonlight was.

Most likely they were rated by the number
of albums they sold.

> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty
> safe selection, not many will argue otherwise,
> even those who haven't heard him.

> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the
> past pianists that I'd rather hear then
> some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs.

Isn't it curious how so many of the living
greats aren't mentioned? Pletnev, Sokolov,
Volodos, MAH and HJL for starters. Also
note Cziffra did not make the cut while
Zimermann and Arrauthritis did. The guy
or gal who wrote this farticle probably
has concrete eardrums.

> Malcolm Frager is more listenable than
> Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.

Unfortunately for them, both Frager and
Janis are/were Jewish, therefore carried
no authority over Kempff, Gieseking, or
Fuckhaus. Such is life.

Cheers

Owen Hartnett wrote:

> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y

Do you mean they play with less vibrato? ;-)

Cheers

Owen Hartnett wrote:

> Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking.

Certainly not in Beethoven op 17 no.2 or Mozart KV 488...

Where do you think Frager is better than Gieseking?

> -Owen

DeepBlue wrote:

> Unfortunately for them, both Frager and
> Janis are/were Jewish, therefore carried
> no authority over Kempff, Gieseking, or
> Fuckhaus. Such is life.

You sure it's not because they sucked?

How about providing some examples and thoughts on why you think so? From what I heard Frager and Janis are both worse than Kempff and much worse than Gieseking...

> Cheers

On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>
> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>
>
> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust
> DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>
> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even Moscow
> rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on how good their first
> movement of the Moonlight was.
>
> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many will argue
> otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>
> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd rather hear
> then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl (mispelled for DK), vinyl
> dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over
> Kempff.
>
> -Owen

I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!

On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>
>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>
>>
>>
>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to
>> disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>
>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>> Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>
>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>> will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>
>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>
>> -Owen
>
> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!

Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
its use.

It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
favorite is and maybe the result would be different.

Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!

On Mar 6, 2024 at 1:23:53 AM EST, "DeepBlue" <DeepBlue> wrote:

> Owen Hartnett wrote:
>
>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the
>> past pianists that I'd rather hear then
>> some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs.
>
> Isn't it curious how so many of the living
> greats aren't mentioned? Pletnev, Sokolov,
> Volodos, MAH and HJL for starters. Also
> note Cziffra did not make the cut while
> Zimermann and Arrauthritis did. The guy
> or gal who wrote this farticle probably
> has concrete eardrums.
>
>>

From the looks of the awardees, I thought it was a dead pianists list. The
fact that Yuja and Lang Lang were not on it further solidified that
impression.

-Owen

On 2024-03-06 9:26 a.m., mINE109 wrote:
> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to
>>> disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>
>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>
>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>
>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>
>>> -Owen
>>
>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>
> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
> its use.
>
> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>
> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!

I knew a London-based pianist some years ago who told me that
all the pianists looked on John Ogdon with awe.

Graham wrote:

> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>
>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>
>>
>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust
>> DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>
>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even Moscow
>> rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on how good their first
>> movement of the Moonlight was.
>>
>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many will argue
>> otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>
>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd rather hear
>> then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl (mispelled for DK), vinyl
>> dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over
>> Kempff.

> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!

It certainly implies foreknowledge of the future, which
in and by itself is deceitful advertising and marketing
fraud.

Cheers

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> DeepBlue wrote:

>> Unfortunately for them, both Frager and
>> Janis are/were Jewish, therefore carried
>> no authority over Kempff, Gieseking, or
>> Fuckhaus. Such is life.

> You sure it's not because they sucked?

maybe they sucked, but they certainly did
not lick Nazi boots like Kempff or Fuckhaus.

> How about providing some examples and
> thoughts on why you think so? From what
> I heard Frager and Janis are both worse
> than Kempff and much worse than Gieseking...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1b0sa-Q3JU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I7qIvd-7HY

Plenty of other examples may be found on YT.

Cheers

On 3/6/2024 9:49 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>
>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>
>>
>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust
>> DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>
>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even Moscow
>> rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on how good their first
>> movement of the Moonlight was.
>>
>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many will argue
>> otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>
>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd rather hear
>> then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl (mispelled for DK), vinyl
>> dinosaurs.

Sure, but the technical quality of the recordings have nothing to do with the greatness of the performer. Unless the recording is so bad that you can't tell what the performer is doing.

Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over
>> Kempff.
>>
>> -Owen
>
> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!

On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>
>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>
>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>
>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>
>>> -Owen
>>
>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>
> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
> its use.
>
> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>
> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!

What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).

On 3/6/2024 1:23 AM, DeepBlue wrote:
> Owen Hartnett wrote:
>
>
>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>
>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
> Why would one be "disgusted" by anything as predictable as institutional imbecility?
>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on how good their first
>> movement of the Moonlight was.
>
> Most likely they were rated by the number of albums they sold.
>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>
>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs.
>
> Isn't it curious how so many of the living greats aren't mentioned?

Primacy bias?

Pletnev, Sokolov, Volodos, MAH and HJL for starters. Also note Cziffra did not make the cut while Zimermann and Arrauthritis did. The guy or gal who wrote this farticle probably has concrete eardrums.

All he/she did was compile the results of the survey.

>> Malcolm Frager is more listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>
> Unfortunately for them, both Frager and Janis are/were Jewish, therefore carried no authority over Kempff, Gieseking, or Fuckhaus. Such is life.
> Cheers

Graham wrote:

> I knew a London-based pianist some
> years ago who told me that all the
> pianists looked on John Ogdon with
> awe.

Only those who had ears. The others
looked at Gould and Arrauthritis.

Cheers

On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to
>>>> disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>
>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>
>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>
>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>
>>>> -Owen
>>>
>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>
>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>> its use.
>>
>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>
>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>
> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only
> provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).

That number > the number of Van Cliburn records

And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein,
Alkan, etc

On 3/7/2024 10:33 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Owen
>>>>
>>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>>
>>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>>> its use.
>>>
>>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
>>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>>
>>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>>
>> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).
>
> That number > the number of Van Cliburn records
>
> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Alkan, etc

My second sentence above implies this.

On 3/7/24 1:52 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 10:33 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed
>>>>>> to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>>>> its use.
>>>>
>>>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>>>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who
>>>> their
>>>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>>>
>>>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>>>
>>> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only
>>> provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).
>>
>> That number > the number of Van Cliburn records
>>
>> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein,
>> Alkan, etc
>
>
> My second sentence above implies this.

If implications are to be assumed, you'd already have the answer to your
question.

mINE109 wrote:

> And restricting it to recordings
> eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein,
> Alkan, etc

This is not unreasonable as no living
person can relly tell how they played.

Hearsay is not admissible evidence ;-)

Cheers

On 3/7/2024 3:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 3/7/24 1:52 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/7/2024 10:33 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Owen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>>>>> its use.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>>>>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
>>>>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>>>>
>>>> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).
>>>
>>> That number > the number of Van Cliburn records
>>>
>>> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Alkan, etc
>>
>>
>> My second sentence above implies this.
>
> If implications are to be assumed, you'd already have the answer to your question.

Not really. While Dan's answer to my question is true, it only partially answers the question.

On 3/7/2024 5:09 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
> mINE109 wrote:
>
>> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Alkan, etc
>
> This is not unreasonable as no living person can relly tell how they played. Hearsay is not admissible evidence ;-)
>
> Cheers

Then this means it all just comes down to everyone's opinion as no collective rating is possible, since compiling the results of today's critics, musicians, opinions is no less hearsay.

On Mar 6, 2024 at 11:01:11 PM EST, "Frank Berger" <frankdberger@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to disgust
>>>> DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>
>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>> Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>
>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>> will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>
>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>
>>>> -Owen
>>>
>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>
>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>> its use.
>>
>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>
>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>
> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only provide
> evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).

Maybe like Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra?

-Owen

On Mar 7, 2024 at 10:33:52 AM EST, "mINE109" <pianoforte109@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed to
>>>>> disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>> Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>> will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Owen
>>>>
>>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>>
>>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be allowed
>>> its use.
>>>
>>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get when
>>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who their
>>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>>
>>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>>
>> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only
>> provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).
>
> That number > the number of Van Cliburn records
>
> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein,
> Alkan, etc

I'll bet Cliburn outsold most of the pianists on the list.

-Owen

Owen Hartnett wrote:

> I'll bet Cliburn outsold most
> of the pianists on the list.

Certainly not Horowitz, Ruby or
Liberace.

Ciao!

On 3/7/24 4:36 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 3:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 3/7/24 1:52 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2024 10:33 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 11:26 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 8:49 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 10:41 p.m., Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/20-greatest-pianists-all-time?fbclid=IwAR1teef5IXh6vDiVkm7fY7rY3rNBejSVDBMNSkxOCc6BKlu6LBEDgZ0OW4Y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Half of this list is the usual suspects, the other half designed
>>>>>>>> to disgust DK, should he be slumming sometime and deign to read it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what's Van Cliburn? Chopped liver? Gilels is in there, but even
>>>>>>>>  Moscow rated Cliburn over Gilels. Seems they rated these guys on
>>>>>>>> how good their first movement of the Moonlight was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heading the list is Rachmaninoff. A pretty safe selection, not many
>>>>>>>>  will argue otherwise, even those who haven't heard him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there's a lot of not-that-far-in-the past pianists that I'd
>>>>>>>> rather hear then some of these old fogy, scratchy monorawl
>>>>>>>> (mispelled for DK), vinyl dinosaurs. Malcolm Frager is more
>>>>>>>> listenable than Gieseking. Byron Janis over Kempff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the phrase "of all time" should be banned!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a super-centenarian Harold Schonberg equivalent should be
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> its use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a safe list, but I see it's a survey, so this is what you get
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> one asks one hundred pianists for a "great" pianist. Ask again who
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> favorite is and maybe the result would be different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cliburn needed to make more records to make this list!
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the minimum number of recordings necessary? Recordings only
>>>>> provide evidence of greatness (or lack thereof).
>>>>
>>>> That number > the number of Van Cliburn records
>>>>
>>>> And restricting it to recordings eliminates Liszt, Anton Rubinstein,
>>>> Alkan, etc
>>>
>>>
>>> My second sentence above implies this.
>>
>> If implications are to be assumed, you'd already have the answer to
>> your question.
>
> Not really.  While Dan's answer to my question is true, it only
> partially answers the question.

Apologies for not specifying which question.