Talk:List of classical pianists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure the list could do with some trimming (I'm sure the redlinks could be reduced for a start). But I don't think it's sensible to remove people jsut becuse no recordings exist Liszt and Chopin are probaly as well known for being pianists as much as composers, and for other pianist composers for whom there are well-documented accounts of them performing their own or other's compositions (e.g. Mozart, Beethoven) there seems a strong case to keep them in. Of course there are many composers who simply used the piano as a composition tool rather than being well-regarded as concert pianists, and thee should be left out. David Underdown 10:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lists, endless and finite

I was the person who suggested confining the list to people who have left a recorded legacy. After all, I play the piano, but I certainly don't deserve to be listed in Wikipedia! All composers since the inception of the piano have played it, with the possible exception of Berlioz. For this reason, I don't feel anyone needs a Wikipedia page. Why stop at Chopin? Where's Bach, JS, Bach, CPE, Bach WF, Bach JC - and on and on...

A list must be finite to be useful, and I think this one would serve a useful function if we define what it's a list of. Anyone who ever played the piano is too vague. Come to think of it, my seven year old son falls under that header...

I have added a couple of pianists who specialise in 19th and 18th century pianos.

I'd agree that the current definition is somewhat broad :) and whilst many (most?) composers can play the piano to some extent, the number that are actually notable for their pianism as opposed to their composing is somewhat more limited. It is probably wise to think about the Wikipedia concept of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY) and apply it here, which should make it a rather more closed list. If their pianistic talents were not such that they would be included in Wikipedia as a notable pianist, they don't deserve to be in this list. That's partly why I suggested going through the red links as a start to get rid of any vanity mentions, if there would be sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article on them as a pianist, I don't see any reason to remove them from the list.
Of the composers you mention JS Bach would be more likely to go in a list of organists or harpsichordists than pianists - I understand he didn't much like the only pianos he tried out. The other Bach's, if they were known for their performances on the piano in public - why not? David Underdown 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually WP:MUSIC is a better reference for what I'm trying to get across. David Underdown 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the entries on the list of recorded classical pianists should be in this more inclusive list; however, there are discrepancies between them, with the recorded pianist list being much longer than this list. All the pianists in the recorded list should at least be in this list also. How to do that quickly and easily as I'm new to this. Sll10sll10 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entry started

OK - I give up. I have created a separate page for pianists of whom there are recordings.

I believe all the entries on the list of recorded classical pianists should be in this more inclusive list; however, there are discrepancies between them, with the recorded pianist list being much longer than this list. All the pianists in the recorded list should at least be in this list also. How to do that quickly and easily as I'm new to this. Sll10sll10 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schoenberg?

Not noted for his pianism!

I'll grant you that one. By the way do try and remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~. It makes it much easier to follow who said what in a protracted exchange. David Underdown 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability of...

Is Brian Kovach notable enough for us to have an article about him or listed on this list? Frosty 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A very quick google suggests he has appeared with at tleast the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Orchestras, so I'd incline towards yes, but don't have time to investigate further. David Underdown 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Amos?

Though she studied classical piano for a time, does this qualify her as a "classical pianist"? Unless she has given classical performances at the professional level or released recordings of classical music, I would think not. If having a classical training is the only criterion needed, several musicians would have to be added to the list - Tony Macalpine is one example I can think of off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.62.77 (talk • contribs)

Reply - DK - Based on the description of this wikipedia page, I felt Tori Amos belonged on this list based on her gifted talent and abilities. However, I respect and understand the reasons of the members here and will stop adding her (only added her twice). However, I do think the one sentence intro to this page should be slightly modified - as she is a very well trained classic pianist and is also a notable performer and pianist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.161.91 (talk • contribs)

The use of "played" in the intro is supposed to reflect the fact that some of those listed are dead. By a rather literal interpretation of it I suppose as it stands you could argue for her inclusion, but the sense of the list, given it's title, is that it should consists of those who notability as a pianist stems from playing classically. I can't think of a snappy re-phrasing at the moment. Anyone? David Underdown 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self referent entries

Removed Mikhaïl Faerman from the page, in line with policy on self publicity (see under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) which states Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself.

Mr Faerman's main claim to notability so far is his autobigraphical entry in Wikipedia.

Rconroy 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This list should require that only notable entries with their own main articles can be included here, as in other similar lists. If a person does not even have their own article, it is dubious as to why they should be mentioned here. Shawnc 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt it could be "trimmed" (I do try and keep an eye on new entries, but I've never had time to go through the whole list), but it's also perfectly possible that a genuinely notable performer has not yet had an article written about them, a red-link here will hopefully give someone the idea of writing that article. Do you have an example of a similar list wehre all red-links have been removed? David Underdown 11:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a sort of vanity in the idea that if you are not in Wikipedia you are not notable. There are indeed many pianists who have had distinguished performing and recording careers who are not yet on WP. Rconroy 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the recorded pianists list to this one, I found that many, many names appeared on only the former. I've just finished importing all such names under "b"; please note that some are not familiar to me and may well be insufficiently notable for this list (or, perhaps, even for that one). Moreover, while recognizing that the level of notability required to merit inclusion on this list is a subject not yet well defined, I'm wondering whether Jedadiah Bernards and Michael Born, who do not appear on the recorded pianists list, should be here either. A quick Google search suggests that both are teenagers; the former seems to appear only in YouTube and MySpace, while the latter is apparently still a diligent student with some compositions listed on a Sibelius site, as best I can tell. Has anyone encountered either in more "formal" surroundings? Drhoehl (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with "Classical pianists (recorded)"

I've never seen the point of having 2 separate lists. Obviously, those who were around prior to the invention of recording never had the chance to record; and some of the later ones have chosen to play and teach but not to record. But the distinction is pretty flimsy imo. Surely, what we need is ONE list of classical pianists, with an asterisk or whatever next to those who've recorded anything. That way, we'd avoid the absurd situation where certain names appear in the "Classical pianists (recorded)" list but not in this list. Surely, anyone who qualifies for the "Classical pianists (recorded)" list automatically qualifies for this list, which means we have to remember to add the name to both lists. As new names come to notice, in the vast majority of cases they're young, emerging pianists who in the main have a recording career, so the need to add new names to 2 separate lists will be there in most cases.

I strongly urge us to merge these two articles into one, call it "Classical pianists", have ONE list of such names, and indicate those who recorded. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point is not without force, and I'll plead guilty to having sometimes added names to the "recorded" list while forgetting to do likewise to this one. Please have a look, however, at the immediately preceding call for exclusion of names from the "classical pianists" list unless they meet a somewhat elevated threshold of notability and at earlier discussion about keeping the list from spinning out of control. A sister list of violinists is managed along those lines; newly-added names appear to be frequently removed pronto on grounds, to paraphrase, that "not every kid who made it through Juilliard is notable enough for this listing." While making a good deal of sense to maintain a useful enumeration when faced with a more or less boundless universe of candidates, that approach would exclude at least a substantial subgroup of pianists who made a few records. Such performers do, however, satisfy "classical pianists who recorded," meaning that the "recorded" list is not necessarily a perfect subset of the "general" list unless the latter is truly comprehensive, with all the sprawl and possibly impaired utility that such inclusiveness implies. (Do you really want the name of some otherwise unknown lady who cut a single side of idiosyncratic Chopin for Edison in the teens, and hence who may be quite pertinent to the recording history of the instrument, showing up in a general listing?) Moreover, for those who are interested in the piano's recorded history, there's a real convenience, or even value, in being able to browse a centralized list and know that everyone on it made records, rather than being forced to sift out the "recorders" from a sea of "non-recorders." My first inclination, then, would be to preserve the distinction but sharpen it, perhaps by taking an approach for the general list akin to that of the violin list I mentioned supra. Drhoehl (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive response, Drhoehl. Is it really the case, though, that we are confined to serving a group of users who are specifically interested only in recorded piano music, and uninterested in live music-making or the general history and development of piano playing? I'm sure such people exist, but how representative are they of the general mass of pianophiles? I'd have thought that an annotated list of all notable pianists would meet their needs in any event. All the information they want would be there, a win for them, and management of the sole list would be easier, a win for us. Also, they could gain the bigger picture by seeing at a glance how many of the entire list of pianists are those who recorded. My take on the otherwise unknown lady who cut a single side of idiosyncratic Chopin for Edison in the teens, is that if her sole venture into recording is considered important and notable enough to mention in the Recorded Pianists list, then ipso facto she's a notable pianist by virtue of that one recording. So, yes, I would like to see her name in a general listing. She makes it into the Recorded Pianists list because she was a pioneer in recorded piano music, whereas her equally otherwise unknown cousin who made a similar single disc 25 years later has been totally forgotten because there was nothing in her playing that distinguished her from the mass of pianists who were recording by then. But the fact that the first lady is considered a pioneer in some aspect of piano playing means she's notable as a pianist, not just as a recorded pianist. (I guess one could see it the other way too, though.) The other thing is that neither of these lists makes any mention of why each name is included. What happens if the first person to ever record a major composer's piano works happened to play extraordinarily badly, and would have never made it onto the list if he'd been the second? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may be permitted to quote a couple of extracts: "Is it really the case, though, that we are confined to serving a group of users who are specifically interested only in recorded piano music...? I'd have thought that an annotated list of all notable pianists would meet their needs in any event. All the information they want would be there, a win for them, and management of the sole list would be easier, a win for us. ... The other thing is that neither of these lists makes any mention of why each name is included." In answer to the first question, I'd say—as you quite rightly imply—that, no, we aren't restricted to serving such users, but I think that maintaining the two lists serves such users, or even those who simply wish to concentrate attention on recorded pianists while still maintaining a broader interest as well, better than merging them. If for no other reason, the presence of a name on "recorded" by definition indicates the existence of recordings, whereas the absence of an asterisk or "r," or whatever signal is chosen to indicate recordings in "general," could simply indicate that the person who added the name, who may well have known about recordings, forgot to set the flag. Especially for relatively obscure performers (like our now-soon-to-be-famous Edison lady), other users, even if they thought to check, might find chasing that information out a bit of a challenge. All that said, I fully agree that close attention to your second quoted point would serve everyone well: each list should make very clear right up front exactly what sort of names a user should expect to find there. ("Recorded" does address the issue on its discussion page, as I once actually questioned whether a list of every pianist who made records might be unwieldy, but of course a user won't see the ensuing discussion on the main page.) Moreover, I just strenghtened the "recorded" list's cross reference to suggest that names added there likely also should be added to the "general" list. Now, here is one thought that's been nagging at the back of my mind: would it be feasible to create a "bot" to ensure that names from "recorded" aren't inadvertently omitted from "general"? Wet behind the ears as I admit to being, I'm aware that bots exist but not really up on just what they can and cannot do.
One further point: I think we really need to hear from user Rconroy in this discussion, as he was responsible for setting up the "recorded" list parallel to the "general" one in the first place. I'll freely confess to being very much a Johnny-come-lately by comparison. Drhoehl (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spurred on by this discussion, I've begun reviewing the two lists letter-by-letter to bring them into line. More detailed discussion of what I've done appears at Talk:Classical pianists (recorded). (OOPS--forgot to sign this when I posted it: Drhoehl (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) )

[edit] Names Removed

As a byproduct of trying to coordinate this list with the one of recorded pianists, I started this section to note a single name that I had removed as apparently not appropriate. Rather than set up a similar section for each succeeding such name, though, perhaps a better approach is to note all such names under a single head. Hence, I'm modifying the section accordingly. Drhoehl (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Marcus Chapman As best I can tell from a Google search, he is a music student working toward a degree in piano who has posted a couple of recordings to a free download site. (I presume the anonymous editor who added this name was not referring to the bass guitar player of the same name!) I think we really should avoid adding names of those who have not yet established a career in piano performance; questions of "notability" aside, including music students would swell the list beyond any pretense of utility. Hence, I'm removing this name. If I'm in error (i.e., if there's yet another musical Marcus Chapman more established as a classical pianist), please add the name back in, preferably with a note here so that I can learn something! Drhoehl (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lane As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia entry, he was not noted as a classical pianist, although he seems to have had classical training and interest. I removed him from the recorded list and will do so from this one as well, subject, of course, to reversal by someone more familiar with his work than I am. Drhoehl (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am somewhat confused about the criteria, as Shawn Lane recorded his own "Piano Concertino" on a digital keyboard. There is video of him playing a (out of tune) classical piano on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A2vG0GsG54 Kettil (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure any formal criteria have been set at this point. That said, I would be inclined to discount performances on keyboards; I may be a stick in the mud, but for my money one becomes a pianist only by playing the piano, not electronic instruments. (Admittedly, Wikipedia muddies the waters by lumping pianists into "keyboardists.") Moreover, going by the Wikipedia article on Lane, it appears to me that he was a pop musician who occasionally may have played a bit of classical music, not really a "classical pianist," which I would take to be someone who devoted a substantial percentage of his performing career to playing classical literature. To cite an example going the other way, I'd say that guitarist John Williams is a "classical guitarist," not a pop star, even though he formed a pop group, with which he released a couple of recordings, back around 1980 or so. I'll confess to total unfamiliarity with Lane, however, outside of his Wikipedia article; if the article led me to a wrong conclusion and he actually spent substantial time playing classical music on the piano, by all means add him back in. That's why I noted his removal here in the discussion. Drhoehl (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Tony MacAlpine, as best I can tell, presents another case of the primarily pop artist who touches on classical a bit, too. I'm making a judgment call that he really isn't a "classical pianist" as I think this list contemplates--but, again, I'd never heard of him until I started coordinating "M" with the recorded pianists list, and others may disagree. Drhoehl (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maksim Mrvica What I've read about him suggests that he takes some classical material and turns it into modern dance music. Again, my judgment call is that he is more a "pop" than a "classical" artist; again, having no personal exposure to him beyond some fairly hasty reading, I'm removing his name subject to revision by those with better knowledge. Drhoehl (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shoudie N. Marzan ll I have removed this name, which was incorrectly inserted under "A." The article is a one-liner with no sourcing and NPOV problems. I've tagged it in both respects, but beyond that I'm not sure what to do about it; someone more knowledgeable than I am may wish to take a look. Drhoehl (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fully Coordinated with Classical pianists (recorded) as of April 3, 2008; Shortcoming of This List Revealed

I have now finished working through all the letters of both lists, ensuring that no one appearing in the recorded pianists list is omitted here (and adding not a few names there that appeared only here). For detailed comments, see the discussion page of the other list. Whether all the imported names actually belong here is a matter for debate (see the discussion of merging the two lists, supra), as is the notability of some names, particularly those of some individuals still in conservatory, appearing here; I'll leave those questions for another day. What did emerge during the process was that the instant list, as it stands, could almost be renamed "List of Classical Pianists from the 20th Century or Later." Even before I began my cross checking, it was seriously underpopulated with names from before the recorded era, and of course adding names from "recorded pianists" did nothing to address that issue. I intend to start working on the problem, but I'm no expert in 19th century or earlier pianists; I would beg others to help out! Drhoehl (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)