Claudio Arrau:"Who are the great pianists of the past most remembered? For me they are Busoni, Schnabel, Fischer, Cortot... All thinkers and great interpreters, as well as great pianists."
Claudio Arrau is one of the most important and well-known pianists of the 20th century. Who are his favorite pianists? Who influenced him? I've compiled both video and text. This written article is more comprehensive. Compared to the video, the article includes more resources, more details, and my own views.
Frankly, Arrau mostly disliked post-1950 pianists:"Today, too much commercialism has crept into the picture to allow the young artist sufficient time to develop. Music has become too big a business. Now young people win a prize and are expected im- mediately to live up to expectations. They are supposed to be ready-made great artists, which obviously they cannot be. They need time to mature; instead they are pushed into a tour of fifty or sixty concerts with only one or two programs, which is as unhealthy a situation as you could find. I suppose that, with the number of young gifted people available, it is quite difficult to make a career without winning a competition, but there ought to be another way, too."
Of course, there were names from the past that he did not like at all and criticized them harshly, for example: "(Alexander) Brailowsky! The worst Chopin you ever heard." Although he referred to some pianists as "Great pianists", he stated that he didn't like the piano interpretations of names such as Sergei Rachmaninoff and Leopold Godowsky.
But here we will talk about his favourites! Now let's get started with Arrau's favorite pianists and what he has to say about them!
Ferruccio Busoni
Ferruccio Busoni (1866 - 1924)
"Oh, Busoni was genius!"
According to Arrau, the greatest pianist he ever heard was probably Ferruccio Busoni. Although Busoni is best known today for his Bach arrangements, he was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, perhaps the greatest. Arrau speaks of him with extraordinary praise and respect:
"Busoni's plays unforgettable, the Mozart piano concertos. Different from any Mozart you have heard. Always dramatic, driven. He had his own ideas about everything. You could never say to a pupil, 'That's the way this concerto should be played.' But it was so marvelously done, and so creatively, that you had to accept it. Not as a final interpretation. But it was incredible. I also remember an incomparable Liszt sonata, and an in comparable Hammerklavier. In Chopin, the preludes, as played by Busoni, were incredible. Not the usual Chopin, perfumed. But it was very beautiful. A little shocking, yes but so exciting and new. . . I remember his last concerts. There was not the slightest sign of less fire or power."
Arrau had also played Busoni's compositions early in his career. Busoni's intellectual character must have deeply influenced Arrau. It may be surprising, because while Busoni almost identified with Johann Sebastian Bach, Arrau didn't like Busoni's interpretation of Bach:
"His Bach was orchestral, and sensuous in sound. I didn't like it. And he played mostly his own transcriptions. I found it theatrical."
Arrau preferred to play Bach more "academic". One of his teachers even came to Arrau and said, "Why are you playing like that? Why don't you use your imagination?"
Busoni's intellectual character as both pianist and composer greatly impressed Arrau. Arrau had also played Busoni's compositions early in his career. In later years he would express regret: "Why didn't I play more Busoni?" He also highly praised Busoni's Lieds of Goethe and the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau recordings of these works, these songs are also underrated for me.
Busoni's pianism is truly admirable.Besides these, Busoni unfortunately had very few recordings, only 25-odd-minute sets he made in 1922. Even this twenty-minute recording shows Busoni's individualistic genius, moreover, this compositions are relatively simple pieces and it is difficult for the pianist to express himself, but even in these pieces, Busoni shines and shows all his qualities and uniqueness. He has some wonderful recordings, like Liszt's 13th Hungarian Rhapsody. However, I'm still not sure we're seeing it exactly. Probably, Busoni's interpretations of Beethoven's Hammerklavier, Liszt's Sonata, Chopin's Ballads are more suitable pieces to show Busoni's talent and genius. But as a result we don't have them.
There are also Busoni's piano rolls, but these proved unacceptable to those who knew Busoni's piano playing. (Busoni's pupil) Egon Petri was horrified by the piano roll recordings when they first appeared on vinyl and said that they were a travesty of Busoni's playing. Similarly, Petri's student Gunnar Johansen who had heard Busoni play on several occasions, remarked, "Of Busoni's piano rolls and recordings, only Feux follets (no. 5 of Liszt's Transcendental Études) is really something unique. The rest is curiously unconvincing. The recordings, especially of Chopin, are a plain misalliance"
Teresa Carreño
Teresa Carreno
"Busoni and Carreno had been two great influences in my"
Along with Busoni, Arrau's role model was Teresa Carreno. Carreno was the first "legendary" pianist to come out of South America and was the most famous female pianist after Clara Schumann. Her strong playing shocked everyone, she destroyed the "masculine" understanding of the period, Carreno was perhaps the first female pianist to be equated with male pianists in the eyes of society and critics. She was often referred to as the "Valkyrie of the Piano", Arrau also referred to her as the "Goddess".
Arrau describes Teresa's powerful piano playing:
"(Vladimir) Horowitz never plays octaves for a long stretch—after a while he gets stiff. Carreno would play Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6 without cuts, and at the end you thought the house would come down, would cave in from the sound. Carreno could be said to be a mixture of Latin feeling and German training. She studied in France first. Later, she changed completely, and learned a lot from her husband Eugene d'Albert. She became a very good Beethoven player. She was a better pianist than d'Albert himself, although he was probably the greater musician."
If you're familiar with Arrau's late recordings playing slowly and without force, you may have found this interaction odd; but Arrau's early career piano playing was quite agile and powerful. You can take a look at Arrau's pre-1945 recordings.
Additionally, in Victoria A. von Arx's book "Piano Lessons with Claudio Arrau: A Guide to Her Philosophy and Techniques", Arrau had this to say about Teresa: "She restudied at a late age—I think she was about 50—and changed her entire way of playing." There is an interesting parallel here, because Arrau's piano playing began to change after the age of 50.
Teresa Carreno has unfortunately never made any acoustic recordings, all we have is the piano roll (Welte-Mignon), and unfortunately, as the critic Harold C. Schoenberg put it, Carreno's piano rolls are "untrustworthy", just like Busoni's. Teresa's piano rolls were made in 1908, piano rolls became more convincing after the 1920s with technological improvements. But no matter what happens, piano rolls are never a substitute for real recordings because the accents, timbres, pedaling, dynamics were basic imitations of real piano playing. Still, listening to Carreno's piano roll of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6 is an interesting experience. It's shows that she is a brilliant and astonishing virtuoso.
Wilhelm Furtwangler
Wilhelm Furtwangler (1886 - 1954)
"He was a marvelous pianist himself. Very sensitive. . . The insensity, the drive, the freedom, the depth. . ."
Yes, Furtwangler! One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century, Wilhelm Furtwängler was also a pianist. According to my research, he took piano lessons from Conrad Ansorge, a student of Liszt, whom Arrau liked very much. In fact, Furtwangler can be considered different from other pianists/conductors. Conductors such as Bruno Walter, Gustav Mahler, Georg Solti, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Leonard Bernstein began their careers as pianists, but Furtwangler began his career as conductor and composer.
One of the biggest figures for him was Furtwangler and Arrau admired both his conducting and pianist. He emphasized Furtwangler's depth of interpretation in his comparison of Furtwangler and Toscanini:
"Toscanini's Sound, rhythm, and precision. And a certain transparency. People said, 'Oh, here is a melodic line we have never heard before.' But when it came to real interpretation, it wasn't there. He couldn't begin to do what Furtwangler did with the Great Schubert C-major Symphony; give you the depth and the anguish along with the musical shape."
What Arrau said also applies to Furtwangler's piano character:
"He was a marvelous pianist himself. Very sensitive. The instensity, the drive, the freedom, the depth. . . When Furtwangler played the piano in the Fifth Brandenburg, he would employ every means of modern piano playing. It was very beautiful."
Fortunately, we have a recording of the 5th Brandenburg Concerto with Furtwangler on piano. Furtwangler had a very distinctive piano playing, his piano timbre and structure were orchestral. But it wasn't just about the structure, Furtwangler also contained the spirituality that Arrau sought in Bach.
We also have a Hugo Wolf recital recording where Furtwangler accompanies soprano Elisabeth Schwarzkopf on piano. Furtwangler's playing here is so impressive, I can say it's one of the best piano accompaniments I've ever heard! Unfortunately, Furtwangler does not have another piano recording.
Arrau states that he was equally impressed by Furtwangler's piano recommendations:
"Furtwangler also taught me something In the second movement of the Schumann Piano Concerto. There is a forte-piano nobody takes, and he made a terrific rubato there—moving forward to the forte-piano, and lingering on it a little. It was really beautiful. Things like that— when I found somebody with something beautiful to suggest, I always accepted it. But pianists. . . I don't think I have ever had such good suggestions from pianists."
Alfred Cortot
Alfred Cortot (1877 - 1962), with Furtwangler
"The person I liked most in Chopin was probably Cortot."
French/Swiss master Alfred Cortot is one of Arrau's favorite pianists, especially his Chopin. Arrau didn't hide his admiration: "I remember a marvelous performance of the etudes in London. I heard him also do the preludes."
Cortot's playing Chopin preludes and etudes has been referenced by many pianists, especially Cortot's 1933/34 Chopin recordings still preserve their effectiveness and beauty. However, Arrau disliked Cortot's approach to German composers. Arrau, who lived in Berlin for a long time and listened to great German pianists, did not like this perspective of Cortot:
"Cortot was absolutely marvelous, I adored him. But he couldn't play German music. Maybe Schumann a little bit. But he couldn't play Brahms at all, or Beethoven. His Beethoven was sentimental. I remember how he played the First Concerto. It was not right at all. Much too sweet."
Indeed, his Schumann and Bach were also respected by other pianists (I personally adore them too), but as Arrau says his Beethoven or Brahms playing is not well known and Cortot himself did not make commercial recordings for these composers, with a few exceptions. Besides, an interesting fact: The great cellist Pablo Casals loved Cortot's Beethoven, and even praised his Beethoven interpretations the most! But I think most would probably agree with Arrau's critique of "too sweet".
Another view of Arrau about Cortot was of his corrupted technique but he didn't care much for Cortot's technique, Cortot's depth of interpretation impressed him deeply: "Cortot practiced a lot. D'Albert and Ansorge didn't practice. But Cortot knew exactly how to do everything. He wrote all those exercises. His (technical) problems, I think, were more psychological."
Well, was Arrau's argument that "Cortot had a lot of practice... His problems were more psychological" true? I think both yes and no. That's one reason, I think there are many reasons. First at all, he didn't care about technical issues! Pianist Alicia de Larrocha remembers a Cortot concert in which he got all mixed up in the first movement of Chopin's B minor Sonata ''and then went on to play the slow movement so beautifully I could have cried,'' she said. "After the performance my teacher and I went backstage. Cortot had his hands in the air, and we thought he was in despair about the mess in the first movement. But no. 'I never played the slow movement so beautifully,' he kept saying.'' Missed notes never bothered Cortot very much (Source).
In Cortot's early recordings, there was no problem with his technique, although there was a deterioration due to his psychological state, I think it was a matter of preference. Looking at Cortot's earlier recordings, his technique was better, much better, but his playing was drier.
Edwin Fischer
Edwin Fischer (1887 - 1960)
Edwin Fischer, another Swiss pianist, was one of the pianists Arrau was most influenced by while in Berlin. Fischer's teacher was also Arrau's teacher, Martin Krause, a pupil of Franz Liszt. Although Arrau and Fischer had the same teacher, they had distinctly different styles, still Arrau always spoke highly of Fischer:
"One never had the feeling in performance of hearing a pianist. One heard a poet. . . He had divinatory quality. Oh, he had it to an incredible extent."
But Arrau seldom appreciated Edwin Fischer's studio recordings, and thought that Fischer's true musical spirit came from the concerts. This is a very understandable view for me. There is almost no difference between the performances of today's pianists at the recital and the ones in the studio. However, the situation was different for pianists before the Second World War, when the romantic traces were not erased. Many "romantic" pianists were born and lived in a period when recording technology did not exist, or rather, did not become widespread. When they were growing up, there was no final idea of playing, piano playing was more variable and based on instant impulses. Although we are not aware of it, studio recordings are a very different concept. Recording all your mistakes, instant impulses, instant inspirational ideas was uncomfortable for some old pianists.
In those years, most pianists played very differently in concert and in the studio, for example, Josef Hofmann's controlled piano playing in the studio contrasts with his extreme spontaneous nature in concerts. Moreover, many of the pianists from this tradition refused to record for many years. For example, despite being very famous, Rosenthal made his first recording in 1928 at the age of 66.
In this context, Fischer was also able to take more risks and be more creative in concert. And of course much more volcanic and poetic! We can hear this when we compare both studio and live recordings.
Artur Schnabel
Artur Schnabel (1882 - 1951)
In 1952 (one year after Schabel's death), Arrau wrote an article for Musical America magazine titled "Arthur Schnabel: Servant of Music." In this article, Arrau compared Edwin Fischer and Artur Schnabel:
"Long before the war, Schnabel was already considered in Berlin to be the supreme intellectual authority on Beethoven, Schubert, and Brahms, -hence, also dry. Schnabel's younger contemporary Edwin Fischer, on the other hand, was known as a volcanic, eruptive Beethoven player. But whereas Fischer often became selbstherrlich in performance and was not above putting in things that were not in the score, Schnabel was the first to insist on faithful adherence to the written page. In this field he was the first celebrated perfomer to illustrate the concept -strangely enough, a new one in his time- of the interpreter as the servant of music rather than the exploiter of it."
Schnabel was the leading figure of a new intellectual movement, and Arrau was also influenced by him. For example, his interpretations of Beethoven were different from all Beethoven interpretations of the period. He was very different from the famous pianists with his Beethoven, such as Fischer, Hofmann, Edouard Risler and Frederic Lamond, he had a much more modern perspective of Beethoven. Later, pianists such as Kempff, Serkin and Arrau followed Schnabel's Beethoven.
Have you ever listened to Schnabel's compositions? These were very modern compositions that were different from all the pianists of their generation, compositions that we could call unique, for example Rhapsody for Orchestra (I recommend D. Mitropoulos's recording) and that we could easily insert into the second Viennese school (Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg etc.), Arrau also enjoyed such compositions and even recorded Schoenberg. He was clearly different from the Romantic generation in every way.
Schnabel didn't have some of the inclinations of the star pianists of his time. He had an intellectual purpose, and he had a somewhat modern perspective. Like Busoni, pianists were intellectuals or Backhaus faithful to the composer's writings, but they were also a kind of "superstar" with their stance on the stage, their charisma, the brilliance of their piano playing. Schnabel avoided this kind of virtuosic or star approach. Here is the description of Schnabel in Mr. Harold's book "The Great Pianists": "He looked anything but the popular conception of a pianist. At the keyboard he was a rather unimpressive sight. Most popular pianists are neccssarily showmen, and have been so since Liszt. Nearly all of the romantic pianists lifted their hand high; smoke came from their nostrils and lightning from their eyes, and their audiences screamed and carried on. But that did not apply to the new school of pianists. Schnabel never lifted his hands high, nor did he shake his head or try to see the Deity on the roof of the concert hall. . ."
Of course, unlike today's pianists, he has always preserved his individuality. Schnabel's student, Leon Fleisher, describes Schnabel's respect for the score but also his individual touch to the music: ". . . there was little caprice in his approach to music. ‘Because I feel it that way’ was never a sufficient reason to do something; that is arbitrary and it had no place in his lessons either. Everything that he did, he could point to the text, and the text - an urtext, an original text - was terribly important to him. His edition of the Beethoven sonatas is so instructive because his ideas and suggestions are in a different print than what Beethoven wrote; you can always distinguish between Beethoven and Schnabel. But that kind of dedication, that kind of musical integrity to the desires and instructions from the composer, gave it an authenticity that was irresistible, and that was combined with his level of inspiration. Very quickly, it became impossible to distinguish between Mozart and Schnabel, Beethoven and Schnabel, or Schubert and Schnabel; he became the musical personification of the composer, which is why it was so irresistible what he did."
Schnabel is also known in the community for his technical problems like Fischer and Cortot. However, Arrau has a rather satisfying view on this:
"He (Schnabel) was flawless. I think the change must have come after his first bad experiences with the Nazis, before he left Germany. It was then that all these technical difficulties started, and all these memory mistakes. And he got this neurotic thing in his playing that was very bad—impulsive rushing. The more difficult the music got technically, the more he rushed, which is a neurotic reaction—to get through faster. Yes, it was terrible afterward. That would never happen before. He was flawless, always. And he had a lot of technique. I heard him do the Konzertstiick of Weber, beautifully. And the First Chopin Concerto—that sounded like Bach, but pianistically it was beautiful."
Eduard Erdmann
Eduard Erdmann (1896 - 1958)
Eduard Erdman was close to Schnabel in many ways: they were both students of Theodor Leschetizky, both were friends with composers such as Busoni and Schoenberg, their compositions were of the modern direction, and they specialized in Schubert and Beethoven. In 1925, Erdmann gave the premiere of Schnabel's Piano Sonata, at the Venice ISCM Festival. But Erdmann's play was a little more romantic than Artur's and, unlike Schnabel, he also frequently performed 20th century works.
When I listened to his Schubert sonatas years ago, I was quite impressed and asked myself: "Why isn't anyone talking about Erdmann?", because they were really good recordings and there were other memorable recordings as well. But later on, I was glad to see that Arrau agreed with me.
"Eduard Erdmann, a pianist nobody knows in this country. He was also possessed when he played, completely in another world. Just before he died, he recorded the last three Schubert sonatas. It's not at all like he was in concert. He was said to be terribly nervous in front of the microphone. Still, they are very beautiful recordings. Once I heard Erdmann and Gieseking play a four-hand recital. It was so funny—both fellows, you know, were giants, with big hands and long arms. And they both started snorting and making other incredible noises—particularly in Schubert, because they were so excited. It was beautiful playing. But people were actually tittering a little bit." Arrau also compared Erdmann to Gieseking and said he would prefer Erdmann as a musician: "I admired Erdmann much more (than Gieseking) as a musician."
Walter Gieseking
Walter Gieseking (1895 - 1956)
Walter Gieseking has one of the largest repertoires among pianists, his musical mind and memory were unbelievable. Arrau admired his unmatched pianossimos and some of his interpretations, but was still cautious of him.
"I have only heard in my life one really good performance of the (Schumann's) Davidsbündlertänze: Gieseking, in one of his good concerts. It was really fantastic. I mean, when he was in that mood, he swept everyting away. . . I admire sometimes Gieseking. Unforgettable were Kreisleriana, Davidsbündlertänze, the Bach Variations by Reger. Those three—unforgettable. You know, he wasn't a man to study much. He left everything to the intuition. Sometimes it worked and sometimes not. But his sound was out of place in Beethoven, I thought. And I didn't appreciate him very much as an interpreter of Debussy— which might sound strange, because he was so well known as a Debussy interpreter. The immaterial pianissimos were fantastic. But he stayed on the level of sound."
Gieseking's working principle was different from all famous pianists. He memorized the pieces directly from the score, didn't touch the piano while learning the pieces, and probably didn't practice either. In a way, when he played the piece for the first time, it was the first time in every sense! It was highly experimental, but Gieseking's musical mind and natural talent could largely handle it.
As Arrau said, Gieseking's intuitive and fresh approach sometimes sounded strange, sometimes miraculous.
Vladimir Horowitz
Vladimir Horowitz (1903 -1989)
"Horowitz, he's a special case. Tremendous electricity. Him I would call a great pianist."
Vladimir Horowitz and Arrau were rivals. Both were born in 1903 and both of their mothers were pianists and received their first education from their mothers. Both had left their home countries to pursue careers in Germany and Horowitz wanted to hear Busoni and Schnabel in Berlin and be their student, just like Arrau.
When Arrau went to Horowitz's concert for the first time with his mother, they were "tremendously impressed", and his mother said, 'he plays better than you':
"I remember he played the four Chopin ballades, and the Liszt sonata, and the Funeral March Sonata of Chopin. He also played, very well, the Beethoven Thirty-two Variations. Oh, I was tremendously impressed by him. It was some of the most volcanic playing I've ever heard. I remember I was sitting with my mother in the first row of the Beethovensaal, and I was amazed by the things he could do in spite of this incredible stiflftiess of the arms. The first movement of the Funeral March Sonata I'll never forget. The second theme! My mother, who was very musical, and was never pleased with anybody—that night she was carried away. On our way home she said, 'You better get to the piano and practice, because he plays better than you!'."
Emil Gilels and Alicia de Larrocha
Arrau and Emil Gilels (1916 - 1985)
Arrau spoke highly of two pianists on the BBC's radio show: Emil Gilels and Alicia de Larrocha.
"C. Saint-Saëns Piano Concerto No. 2 in G minor, played by Emil Gilels, friend of mine. I consider it to be one of the greatest piano recordings ever made."
"Alicia de Larrocha, A wonderful sensitive and extemely musical pianist."
Eugen d'Albert
Eugen d'Albert (1864 - 1932)
A student of Liszt, Eugen d'Albert was a pianist whom Arrau admired during his Berlin days:
"There was a marvelous performance of the Third Nocturne by d'Albert. That was magic. . . d'Albert never practiced. He used to have a big technique. Then he started losing interest in piano playing in order to compose. And yet his performance of the Liszt sonata was still marvelous. Full of wrong notes, and missed passages. But the feeling was wonderful... Coordinating the whole thing, with each idea coming out of the one before."
D'Albert's wrong notes were quite famous, and there were even those who were impressed, for example composer and pianist Percy Grainger: "When I saw d'Albert swash around over the piano, with the wrong notes fling to right and left, the whole thing a welter of recklessness, I sait to my self: 'That's the way I must play.' I am afraid. I learnt his propensity for wrong notes all too thoroughly!"
Other pianists Arrau liked
Arrau's portrayal of the French composer-pianist Camille Saint-Saens is remarkable: "Saint-Saens! Leaning back with a big beard, and a huge belly, and playing the piano with incredible ease. I heard him play two of his own works with orchestra -the Africa Fantasy, and the Wedding Cake. The most even scales you can imagine, and great power in the fingers. Ice cold, but amazing".
One of the pianists Arrau remembered from his Germany days was Liszt's pupil Conrad Ansorge, who was also Furtwangler's piano teacher. Arrau called him: "A wonderful musician." Nevertheless Arrau added that sometimes he could hit the completely wrong notes. Arrau also appreciated Vladimir de Pachmann, he was Liszt's friend: "I heard de Pachmann. The Fourth Scherzo. That was quite beautiful—light, and all the passage-work somehow beseelen [soulful] also."
Another was the pianist Josef Pembaur, who both surprised and fascinated Arrau: "Pembaur was a famous pianist in Germany—and only in Germany. He was a Liszt specialist. He had all sorts of peculiar ideas about Romantic playing. Actually, I remember a recital that was quite interesting—everything stretched, tremendous rubatos. I didn't even recognize a section of the Liszt Sonata! But there were fantastic things in his playing. The Totentanz, for instance, I never heard better. And he looked so strange! He looked like a devil. I didn't remember!"
He also respected the pianists Wilhelm Kempff and Rudolf Serkin: "Serkin was very good. He was a serious musician.." and "I enjoy Kempff. Kempff always." He also talk about Kempff's view of piano technique: "There was this group of pianists who considered preoccupation with technique to be superficial. Kempff also believed that. I don't think he ever practiced, or studied exercises."
Among the new generation of pianists, Daniel Barenboim caught his attention: " enjoy Barenboim—quite a lot, actually. . . I think he is an extraordinary musician. To me he is the greatest of the young artists. In both fields, as pianist and conductor, he is really outstanding because he is a true musician."
Thank you!! Thorough examination in each case, clear and precise reasoning. Thanks. Thorough examination in each case, clear and precise reasoning. Thanks.
_(cropped).jpg)
Thank you!! Thorough examination in each case, clear and precise reasoning. Thanks. Thorough examination in each case, clear and precise reasoning. Thanks.
ReplyDelete