Watching a show just now about famous piano performances. They showed Liberace play a Burt Bacharach medley that was recorded in 1972. His style seems to be “why play 1 note when you can play 6 instead”. Was he really as good as his level of fame would suggest?
He was a showman. Playing flashy piano was his gateway to get folks hooked into his show, along with the gaudy outfits. He probably could have played some level of classical piano, if that’s what he had wanted to focus on and work at. He opted for the show biz and money approach – less effort and more profit. I don’t fault him for that, there are plenty of classical pianists around.
edited to add: the Malaguena is good. Not exactly classical, but it’s nice.
I just stopped in to say (and now echo, because it’s a common criticism) that he was primarily an “act”. He had talent… which wasn’t the point, but it was enough to be a foundation for his “embellishment”.
I also stopped in to mention that I grew up next to a huge Victorian run-down haunted house. Which was really scary, especially the odd noises in the middle of the night.
There were rumors that Liberace was looking to get it renovated as a Liberace Museum. The neighbors were not excited.
(Although it did need renovation before it collapsed in on itself… well, one of my friends grew up and bought it! Put a couple of million into fixing it up.)
Music critics were generally harsh in their assessment of his piano playing. Critic Lewis Funke wrote after the Carnegie Hall concert, Liberace’s music “must be served with all the available tricks, as loud as possible, as soft as possible, and as sentimental as possible. It’s almost all showmanship topped by whipped cream and cherries.” Even worse, to said critics, was his apparent lack of reverence and fidelity to the great composers. “Liberace recreates—if that is the word—each composition in his own image. When it is too difficult, he simplifies it. When it is too simple, he complicates it.” They referred to his as “sloppy technique” that included “slackness of rhythms, wrong tempos, distorted phrasing, an excess of prettification and sentimentality, a failure to stick to what the composer has written.”
It sort of feels to me like Liberace and Freddie Mercury were both unfairly panned for having chosen the flashier, more popular form of their art, rather than the “purer” forms, like classical piano or opera.
But… the fact that they were panned for that is a sort of tacit recognition that they had the chops to have done those things had they chosen, and that the panning is more about their choices, than their ability and skills.
Personally I think we’re better off for both having gone the popular route. I mean, had Mercury chosen to be an opera singer, would we ever had heard him, or of him? Probably not.
My favorite celebrity pianist is Oscar Levant. He was known as an actor in major Hollywood films, a radio and TV host, songwriter and even game show panelist, but above all he had serious talent at the keyboard. I’ve always loved the fantasy sequence from “An American In Paris” where he takes on multiple simultaneous roles in performing Gershwin’s “Concerto in F”.