Accuracy

Accuracy in pianism is a function of many things. When someone calls a performance flawless, they usually refer to the fact that the pianist did not miss a single note. There are other judgements inherent in that assessment that tend not to be fully formed in the mind of the one making it, such as emotional control, phrasing, etc.; but in the main, the word "accuracy" is typically used to refer to not missing notes - not letting notes "fall under the piano", as it were. It is this narrow definition of the word that has unjustly bestowed on certain less-than-accurate pianists a reputation for flawlessness.

I'm here to set the record straight. Accuracy comprehends a far greater range of meanings than just note accuracy, just as virtuosity comprehends a far greater range of meanings than technical acrobatics. Accuracy implies minimum loss of information between the performer's mind and the performer's fingers.

We all know that Michelangeli was the most perfect pianist on record. There is little debate on this. But observe that his note-perfect performances are so much more than merely note-perfect. They exhibit absolute control and mastery over every aspect of the keyboard: an otherworldly evenness, chords in which every note is struck at the same time, perfect clarity and definition, controlled rhythm and tempi, and - as an added delight, when we are so fortunate as to have a Michelangeli performance on video - perfect economy of motion. It is as if the fingers were there first and the keyboard was built to fit perfectly under them. The spidery fingers of Lang Lang or Kissin or even Cziffra couldn't hold a candle to Michelangeli's. But in all fairness, this last point is very minor indeed.

The point of all this being that the listener ought not to be deceived into thinking a performance flawless or accurate based on note-perfectness alone. On the flipside, the absence of note-perfectness does not of itself make a performance less than accurate in any great degree. Control is the keyword. Horowitz, for instance, was known to make mistakes - especially later in his life. His early performances were pretty note-perfect, but he was no Michelangeli when it came to note-perfectness. Yet Horowitz was one of the finest pianists ever. His accuracy lay in his control, even if he let a few notes fall under the piano. Mastery of rhythm, tempo, and clarity were at the heart of his playing. He was also a master of dynamics, and how even were his chords! Simultaneity realized at the microsecond level. Valentina Lisitsa could not reproduce the evenness of Horowitz's chords in her wildest dreams, no matter how many note-perfect performances she may strive to give with her enormous mouth curled into that awful grin of hers while confessing in the video description to being the best pianist in the world. Horowitz, Michelangeli, et al. were so many leagues removed from what passes for pianists today that a comparison just isn't possible.

This was accuracy in a nutshell. Notice that, in spite of the somewhat wide definition I've given the word, I make no mention of interpretation (emotion and whatnot) anywhere. That's a whole 'nother matter. I am also not claiming that accuracy is just the things I've mentioned here and nothing more. One would do well to remember that before writing off Alfred Cortot or Sviatoslav Richter for being sloppy pianists.