I'm simply curious. I have no definition to propose but I'd like to know what you think characterized a good pianist, a very good pianist, etc. I'm talking in terms of amateurs here, not professionals, not conservatory trained musicians.

What an interesting question.

I'd need to ponder it further to come up with anything resembling benchmarks, but it seems as though musicianship should be given as much weight as technical proficiency. (Perhaps that's a no-brainer and already taken for granted?)

Steven

Hi Frycek,

Great question. I think the answer is in the “eye of the beholder” or should I say the “ear of the listener”. I’ve heard some amateur musicians over the years that were very technically proficient, as Sotto Voce says, yet lacked a certain spice, accent or style that made them rather bland in spite of being technically proficient; so, they were good but not great.

On the other hand, I’ve heard amateur musicians that were not necessarily technically proficient yet had a great presentation and delivery that made them not only good but very good.

Of course, being technically proficient as a musician is a big help toward being great.

Best regards,

Rickster

"Good" is better than I am. "Very Good" is better than I can ever hope to be.

Stick me in a room with a piano and nobody else and I'll be the best piano player in the room.

To me, the difference between a regular enthusiast or amateur, and a good[/b] pianist is control. I was in a competition last week and I noticed that in the younger category preceding me, the winner had played the Grieg Notturno. Not a difficult piece technically, compared to some of the more daring Rachmaninoff and Beethoven that others had played, but he had played with such control over the sound he was creating that I could see how he earned that top prize. He knew exactly what sound he wanted to create and manipulated the piano accordingly.

So I think the difference between a good and not-so-good pianist is that the not-so-good one is at the piano hitting the correct notes and the piano produces the desired effect, whereas a good pianist is using or manipulating the piano as an instrument to produce the sound that he/she wants. Probably doesn't make sense when I write it...

I found Art Tatum dazzling..yet robotic..

This topic is really in line with where I'm at in my lessons. I began with a new teacher a few months ago, and the music she has been assigning is not difficult to learn. At first I thought she was under-estimating me, but then I realized I was one of those not so good, but hitting the right note players.

I just finished a fairly easy arrangement of a Mozart piece and even though it wasn't difficult to get the notes right, I was really struggling with having it sing. With weeks of technique hints from my teacher, I now think it's the best piece I have ever played, even though it is definitely not the most difficult. My husband gave the ultimate compliment and said "Now that's classical music, so beautiful!" I just hope I can put the two (technically difficult and beautiful) together one day.

Tireless use of the ears.

When it comes to music, I have a built in appreciation meter; it's called goosebumps!.

While I do admire the technically difficult pieces in terms of how complicated or intricate they may be, finger gymnastics does nothing for me emotionally.

Since I only play and listen to piano music for the pleasure of the harmonic melodies, it is the performer who can give me goosebumps that I admire most.

I think that for an amateur pianist, comfort is very important. The piece doesn't have to be totally without mistakes, but I don't want something to get in the way of me enjoying the music they are playing, whether that is their nervousness, lack of control, etc.

Stacey--Your experience with the Mozart is a wonderful teacher. Often we move on to another piece once we have the notes right, but I find that if I give it some more time, I can make it something much more than that. After an even longer period, if I let them slide and then re-learn them, they become even more solid, comfortable and beautiful.

Nancy

A good Pianist studies a work until it's more than O.K., without errors and with plenty of technique. A very good Pianist will probably have that too, but IMHO a good Pianist has a great range of musical possibilities, and will probably understand music better than a "good" Pianist. Obviously, a Pianist becomes great with constant study and hard work, as every other thing in life.

Cheers!

bluekeys stole my definitions. A good pianist is better than me. A very good pianist is way better than me. A great pianist can bring tears to my eyes. But then, so can a really bad one.

Originally posted by TX-Dennis:

A great pianist can bring tears to my eyes. But then, so can a really bad one. [/b]

Good one!

Dennis,

I think you have just about covered the most important ones.

I think your definitions are right in line with my own!

[Looks like Hunk and I liked your post around the same time. Howdy, Hunk! ]