Michelangeli

Michelangeli is one of the most skeletal players I have seen. He also achieves that neutral, objective state, which prof. Fraser discusses where all extraneous motions and "expressive" devices are eliminated. The only other players that I can think of whose physical organization reached that level of perfection are horowitz, tatum, nyiregyhazi, hamelin, cziffra and perhaps a few more. His pedagogical ideas are similar to those found in the craft of piano playing. He was suspicious of relaxation techniques, emphasized the activity and energy of the fingers and practiced very slowly and expressively. What are your thoughts? Debussy: Scarlatti:

OK, fascinating clips. The Scarlatti especially impresses me. What amazingly, hypnotically even 16ths! But it's not their evenness so much as their sound that enchants - it's something so far beyond mere evenness. And his hands are moving so little as he does it. There's something very harpsichord-like about his technique - very little movement of the fingers but precisely the movement needed. It looks like he really does use little else than the distal phalange - as Bach described his own technique... The Debussy is more problematic. It is great playing but you see clearly certain technical traits which actually limit his sound. 1) Many times you see him doing the 'classic arm out' and I really wonder why. He obviously doesn't need to, but he does it, and it only seems to pull his hand away from that wonderful alignment to the keyboard he cultivates which gives him so much in return for so little physical effort. 2) At 2:36-2:42 he does a tremolando where he distinctly stiffens his hand and fingers into a unit and rotates his forearm. Maybe he does it because he wants more sound, but it's a little bit of a journeyman's solution. A little later, at 2:53-2:57 he does a much more independent-fingered octave tremolando - one that is much more evolved technically to my mind. 3) In between the two moments cited above I find his chord playing again to be somewhat monochromatic because although he indeed 'uses his skeletal structure' he again basically stiffens it and drops it into the keys instead of keeping the fingers moving which would allow more individual orchestration and colour in the chords. 4) On the positive side, look at the arch of his left hand at 3:35-3:38. Amazing! I love it! Overall an amazing pianist but the question I ask myself - is there a cause/effect relationship between the moments where I see him technically 'playing it safe' and the monochromatic, conservative interpretations that can be so 'cultivated' that they become lifeless? (For instance, the first movement of Beethoven Op. 7 - SO slow, SO perfect, pedantic and boring!) AFF

I don't find his technique particularly sophisticated. It's not inefficient, but can't find something to take home with. He's the kind of pianist who would keep pressing after the notes have been hit-- and sometimes he tried to re-gain his structure after the notes has been hit, probably because he wasn't feel too secure with the structure he hit the notes with !!!!

Alvin, I agree with your points - from one point of view there's nothing so spectacular about his technique, and yes the flaws you point out do indeed exist. However, there is also the phenomenal tonal and expressive control he often displayed. I will NEVER lose my affection for his rendition of the 2nd movement of the Ravel G major concerto, which for me stands head and shoulders above all other interpretations. I feel tears literally every time I hear it. And there are certain live recordings of Gaspard which are slow but all the more beautiful and otherwordly for being so, which I highly admire. That tonal and articulative control is there in the Scarlatti clip we are discussing. The physical technique looks unassuming, but the tonal results indicate there is something VERY right going on inside. AFF