How much luck is involved in order to become a concert pianist in the likes of Argerich, Cziffra, Richter, Horowitz or some of our modern day ones like Hamelin, Kissin, Lang Lang, Yuja Wang etc..?

I watch all these performers on youtube and think about all the other pianists around the world at various universities and conservatories who practice just as much and dedicate just as much of their time to the art, but don't end up making it as a concert pianist. It makes me wonder how much luck is involved to "make it".

If it is a large percentage of luck, that is a unsettling truth.

I don't think we'll ever know the true answer to this question. But it sure is a good question.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, I think success as a concert pianist is ninety percent talent and hard work; and the other half is luck. Fortune favors the prepared mind so you have to be good and then ready to take advantage of the stroke of luck.

I think the luck comes mainly in that they are brought up in a situation where they are able to develop their talents, and has less to do with the later stages of 'making it big'. In other words, for example with a superstar like Cziffra, he was just amazingly good and cut through the crowd of many hard-working pianists.

Of course Cziffra was hardly born into ideal circumstances for developing his talent, but he ultimately did have good enough circumstances (coupled with extraordinary talent that probably made up for the missing training).

At a less 'superstar' level, you probably do have some people who are just as talented as others who you've never heard of, and the difference may be just luck.

Choice is more of an aspect than people think, too. A lot of pianists want to be as famous as Perahia or Argerich, but not very many want that kind of schedule.

I know some pianists who are very good but have chosen much lower-profile careers than they could have simply because they wanted a family or weren't interested in flying all over the planet to do concerts.

I think a lot of people assume that everyone who studies music at a conservatory wants to have a busy, high profile career. Having known people who've studied at big conservatories, that's just not the case.

On the other hand, I know a few people who makes regular appearances at festivals around the world, performing frequently as concerto soloists and recitalists. But it comes at a price - they've taken jobs at a colleges where they'd rather not live in order to have a stable income, they've been rather unsuccessful in relationships (it's hard to keep a long term relationship going when you're constantly out of town), and they have far more acquaintances than friends (again, it's hard to have close friends when you're rarely around for them.) But it's a life they've chosen, and for them, it's worth it.

I think that any luck involved would likely be situational, such as being in the right place at the right time (think Lang Lang stepping in for Andre Watts at the last minute in Chicago in 1999). The outcome of one of those situations will be the result of hard work and dedication.

Maybe luck can open a door for you, but I don't think that it will get you through it.

Kreisler, great post. Plus I think temperament (some very talented people don't have the emotional stamina for the concert artist life), connections, being in the right place at the right time (ok, luck) and even, these days, physical appearance may all play a role too.

It's a TON of freaking work and anyone that doesn't think so can drop what they've got lined up for a few years and take on the schedule. Of course there IS a bit of luck involved just GETTING to the point of contract/tour(s)/endorsements, etc., but it's much, much more work than most think and much, much more than most are willing to take on.

luck is needed in every discipline of sport, art, work or even in everyday life. Of course it's better when you help your luck. That's why some artists sell their souls to devil...

I almost lost my soul, but instead I turned the tables on him and got a gold fiddle Imperial Bosendorfer 290!

Luck has a lot to do with it. If an artist chooses to be a top-level touring A-list performer, and has the talent, the background, the repertoire, the work ethic, etc, thus the overall package, that does not automatically guarantee top A-level success.

If it did, there would be a lot more people at the top, which sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

I read somewhere that the aforementioned style of success in music is defined as "having the right product, at the right time, in the right place, in front of the right person/people". I think there is more than a little bit of truth to that.

I personally know several phenomenal performers who have all the above qualifications and desire, have put in a lifetime of work, yet are not anywhere near the top, even though they can play as well as, and in some cases better than, the people who are household names.

Yup, luck is a component.

ps...Politics has a bit to do with it also.

Along this thought, what about looks? Does having good looks and/or gimmicks and flashy moves helps too? It seems lots of modern day famous pianists are either cute or flashy.

_________________
http://undergrace2.blogspot.com/

I can think of one that is both cute and flashy!

It takes a fair amount of pushiness, as well.

Now I'm dying to know who are you thinking about.

____________________
http://undergrace2.blogspot.com/

Not Tellin'.

I think looks have something to do with it, but I wouldn't limit it to "modern" pianists. Liszt surely became more famous because he was good looking and had a good stage presence (or should I say salon presence?).

I have a collection of quotations, most compiled long ago. Here's a few pertaining to "luck" and I hope they have meaning and can be helpful to anyone whose goal is to be a concert pianist.

"The secret of success is constancy to purpose."--Disraeli

"Good luck is a lazy man's estimate of a workers success."--????

"Success is simply a matter of luck. Ask any failure."--Earl Wilson

"Genius can happen in 10 seconds. It's that 90% follow-up that's tough and necessary."--???

"When someone referred to his 'Godlike genius', Edison snorted, 'Godlike nothing! Sticking to it is the genius." --Thomas Edison

"Winston Churchill was once asked how he accomplished so much in so many varied fields--from painting to politics. His answer was, 'Audacity is the only ticket'."--Bernice Fitz-Gibbons

"I've never sought success in order to get fame and money; it's the talent and the passion that count in success."--Ingrid Bergman

Assuming much talent, I'd go with the old saying: "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Bech

Luck plays a HUGE part. Look at the music industry as a whole and who has gotten famous. Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Susan Boyle, Kate Perry, they are all the product of an entertainment media that push glamour and hype over real music.

If any musician wanted money they wouldn't even bother with trying to be a concert pianist. Who's rich in the classical world, Lang Lang, Joshua Bell, Yo-Yo Ma? It's the singers like Pavoratti and Andrea Bocelli. I can't even think of anyone else.

The Spice Girls got rich and all of them combined have less musical talent than the pinky finger of Keith Jarrett. But their wallets sure aren't complaining.

I second Bech.

trail of tears this subject isn't in regards to pop music. Completely different world that is.

Turtle, this subject is related to the entire music industry as a whole. He's asking why some concert pianists make it and some don't. Talent is a big part, yes, but so are looks, appeal, charisma.

You pick any musical genre, classic, jazz, pop, rock, country, rap, hip hop, and luck is a factor in why some artists become famous and others are never heard from.

Talent may have more weight in classical, but sheer marketability is a HUGE factor.

I always heard in either classical or pop two types of people get popular, the insanely beautiful or the insanely talented.

In pop music these days, it seems all you need is the "insane" part.

I always feel old when I say stuff like this, but when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, I remember a lot more talent than today. The 70's and 80's had some really incredible talent - Eddie Van Halen, Michael Jackson, Elton and Billy, Madonna, Genesis, the Police, etc.. Sure, we had our share of fluff (Debbie Gibson, anyone?), but there were some seriously talented people in the business.

Today, there still seem to be some talented people out there - Dave Grohl and Thom Yorke come to mind, and I think Regina Spektor's first album was very interesting. But on the whole, today's headliners (Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Nelly, Kenny Chesney?) just don't seem to be going anywhere. Pink Floyd followed Dark Side of the Moon with Wish You Were Here. Michael Jackson had Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad. It felt like artists those days were just that - artists, trying to say something new and interesting, developing their voices. I even applaud some hip-hop artists for doing that - Dr. Dre, Eminem, Busta Rhymes, and Queen Latifa. Even the Beastie Boys have come a long way since License to Ill.

I just don't see the same coming from the Billboard charts these days. Nor do I see as much variety. I blame the 90's, that decade was awful. What did the 90's give us? Dave Matthews and Nirvana? Really? (Okay, it gave us Radiohead, specifically OK Computer, but I still think Laurie Anderson can take 'em in a fight.)

And please don't anyone mention U2. I will never understand the popularity of U2. Or why people take Bono as seriously as they do. I mean, the Joshua Tree was a good album, but I thought Lauper's True Colors was every bit as good, and perhaps a more personal and original statement.

And these phenomenal performers that you know have they chosen, as you say, to become "top-level touring A-list performers"?

Is it related to the whole, or to whether luck is required to make it as a top tier concert pianist (which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to me was the OP's topic that I only read a minute ago).

I think this has a lot to do with the way pop music and marketing has developed and sorted itself out in the digital era, rather than the talent of the performers. Back in the good old days you talk about, I think many of us were exposed to a much wider spectrum of pop music than is common today, and the vast number of specialized niches that characterize the current scene just didn't exist.

But I think if you really start digging, you can still find many pop musicians who are as creative as ever - but it is unlikely they will be headliners or on the cover of People (I think the fame machine has a problem with real creativity, because it is too unpredictable to market effectively over time). An interesting development is that there seem to be a good number of composers who see themselves as primarily classical, at least in their training, but who are working in areas very close to pop. And the reverse it true, too - there are people like Steve Mackey who moved from rock to classical. And none of these are doing cheesy "cross-over" stuff.

Sort of non sequitur, other than speaking of the good old days - one of the people I most admired in pop music, Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart), died last month.

Yes. Their whole life is focused upon that very elusive goal.

As some here have said, I'm sure many top flight pianists simply refuse to experience the loneliness and bother of constant travel, being away from family and friends, boring interviews that require good answers, a smiling face and sucking-up to sponsers. Some have all the money they need so don't need to be bothered with so much that is non-musical? And, they can always play their special piano rather than having to often contend with pianos that are second rate, or worse. And.... all in the comfort of their own home.

Concert pianist Di Wu speaks of sometimes having doubts about her career choice on her web site. I believe she also mentions that every line of work has some drawbacks and of course that's true.

Conversly, I'm sure some pianists experience their greatest moments of joy when they "connect" with an audience and reap thunderous applause. They are exactly where they want to be. It has to be a wonderful feeling when the pianist receives admiration and even love from thousands of music loving people throughout the world. I expect Valentina Lisitsa is experiencing this right now--and, due to considerable effort on her own part.

People are different. Some are not comfortable with strangers and unfamiliar locations while others feel "the world is their oyster" and "home is where ever they hang their hat."

A few will have found their niche in life while others will find the life of a concert pianist is not for them. Some few don't need or want the luck. Their talent, passion and persistence is all they need.


Bech

If they play as well as and in some cases better than the top tier pianists of note on today's stage, then, might I ask where they are? Major competitions? Performances?...

luck plays a very large role in being famous. You have to be born into a situation where you are given the means and opportunity to hone your craft, and then you need to meet the right people who know the right people that can further your career.

Where are they now? One is still scrambling to get there, the other has basically given up trying to get to the top, but is still playing on a local level.

ps...I will not name them, so please stop asking.

I'm not asking you to name them. I'm wondering if they've entered any major comps or are performing at all. Unfortunately, a comp win is about what it takes to kick off a career these days (and has been for a while).

I don't know all the details, except that they both pushed and pushed and tried and tried to get to the top.

Not really sure you could call the good Captain "pop"! But he is a case in point. He was inventive and original, to say the least, he chose not to be popular. With his voice he could have been a huge blues artist, but selling out wasn't his thing.

[quote=KreislerI always feel old when I say stuff like this, but when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, I remember a lot more talent than today. The 70's and 80's had some really incredible talent - Eddie Van Halen, Michael Jackson, Elton and Billy, Madonna, Genesis, the Police, etc.. Sure, we had our share of fluff (Debbie Gibson, anyone?), but there were some seriously talented people in the business.[/quote]
It's probably true that even the standards of popular music have drastically lowered, but hasn't popular music always been geared toward an unsophisticated audience? I can't think of any pop singers who are as vocally accomplished as well-trained opera singers or any pop pianists who can compete with the likes of Horowitz, Rubinstein, or even Lang Lang.

It's probably true that even the standards of popular music have drastically lowered, but hasn't popular music always been geared toward an unsophisticated audience? I can't think of any pop singers who are as vocally accomplished as well-trained opera singers or any pop pianists who can compete with the likes of Horowitz, Rubinstein, or even Lang Lang. [/quote]

Excuse me while I step outside to , but first, let me say...let's please refrain from listing the latter pianist with the first two, ok? Thanks. (walks away and outside into the falling snow to smoke muttering "my GODDDDDDDDDDDD why must they do this to me...forever the abominations...")

Of course, I wasn't suggesting that Lang Lang is anywhere near as good as Horowitz or Rubinstein. I was merely pointing out that even someone like Lang Lang is leagues ahead of famous pop pianists.

-- !

I've been thinking about this for a while, lately: What's the big deal about fame?

I kind of think being a top-tier pianist and being famous are two different things. If fame is your motivator, then, yuck!

There is, however, something very special, indeed, when you connect with a live audience. And when you believe you have something special to give them, and actually do, it starts.

How anyone "gets to the top," and what their true motivations are, is all so incredibly complicated and idiosynchratic. Talent, work ethic, support, connections, money, politics, timing... it hurts my brain to even start thinking about it. Pardon me while I go play piano for a while to calm down.

I am not so sure luck plays such a big role, a pianist with the same skill as argerich, horowitz, yundi li etc would not take long to 'become' a concert pianist. All they would need to do is win a competition, and their career would be kick started. Perhaps luck, in the sense of being born into a family which supports and encourages your goal, having excellent teachers, and ample time to practice is a much bigger factor.

I think that aspiring pianists want to be both top-tier and famous. After all, the prospect of fame and recognition is the reason why dedicating yourself to music seems like a worthwhile ambition.

Understood. But then the motivation is misplaced, imho.

Longing to immerse yourself in an ocean of glorious harmonic frequencies and bringing something of the sublime to others would be the purer...

That is beautiful and true, Andy!

You can be so hilarious (there's that word again) sometimes. Keep the posts coming, I always read 'em!

Seriously, I do wonder why LL is mentioned with H and R, all things considered, seems a bit premature to make that call.

Nevermind, I could politely point out that we have recordings of H and R from the same age as LL, but things will just go to hell as they always do.

Sad.

As a teen I saw them in concert several times, I loved their music, and met Bono once, just once, after a concert. He was an incredible man. Jeez, sorry for that...

Maybe I misread this post, but if I didn't then I need to disagree. I think the love of music is why it's worthwhile to dedicate yourself to it.

I don't think that great musicians are focused on the love of music for its own sake. I think that musicians develop a love for and dedication to music because they are attracted to the idea of being great. The urge to achieve excellency appears to motivate musicians more than anything else. It has been said that Horowitz and Rubinstein were primarily concerned with success, being the most famous, and being perceived as the greatest.

Although I'm sure Horowitz and Rubinstein had big egos, I've never read they were primarily concerned with being the most famous or perceived as the greatest. Where did you read that?

There was a quote from Wanda in one of Horowitz's biographies where she claimed that Rubinstein was obsessed with fame and saw the piano as a means of achieving that. I also recall quotes from other musicians about how Horowitz was primarily concerned with being the most famous and being known as the greatest technician.

I think I've read all the Horowitz biographies as well as "Remembering Horowitz" and I don't recall seeing that anywhere (could be wrong though). Don't get me wrong, Horowitz had both a huge and fragile ego so I'm sure public recognition ("fame") meant a lot to him but I don't think it was his primary interest.


I'd take the quote from Wanda about Rubinstein with a couple of bags of salt. Whatever their private difficulties, she mostly stood by her man in public and it's easy to see her being dismissive toward Rubinstein.

Possibly; Yet at the same time I know pianists with equal talent to those you mentioned whom are struggling to pay rent.

Perhaps, but read Artur Rubinstein's autobiographies. He met the "right people" again and again, but you can hardly describe his career, and life, in such a linear way. Rubinstein nearly killed himself in despair at one point, and his so-called success was erratic for quite a long time. The only thing that kept him going was his love of music and life. The rest seemed to just take care of itself.

What I find particularly refreshing with someone like Marta Argerich and her playing with relatively unknown pianists, or Maria Joao Pires and her Belgais Centre, or what happens regularly at Marlboro and the like... at least publicly they are emphasizing the music, not the stardom or the career. Once we do the latter we create monsters like Lang Lang who are more about career than music, imho.

Bullshit.

Why is that "bullshit", toyboy?

In the Glenn Plaskin biography, I remember several colleagues accusing Horowitz, at the beginning of his career, of being most interested in success with the public and being known as the top technician. Cortot even said that he was contemptuous of someone who wanted to use his unique phyiscal gifts to wow the public.

I'd like to respond by saying "simply because it is" but obviously I doubt that would satisfy you. The one thing I can grant is that both of us are postulating motivation, which is a dicey enough thing to begin with. But if you want to show me a true musician that is motivated more by fame than by music, I'll show you a fraud. At least that's how I feel. From all I have read, it seems that most honest musicians carry their careers as a necessary burden in order to do what they love. And that in some ways they are no different than an amateur musician with a day job. It's just that their day job happens to be music making.

You almost answer your own question in your second point about Horowitz, stating that colleagues accused Horowitz... I'm not calling him a saint, but you have to ask which came first the musical egg or the musical chicken? Horowitz is/was in a class to himself (although he practised like a demon for it) and he was and still is accused of all sorts of things. But in his case at least, would someone so venal just stop playing in public for 12 years like he did, or for that matter, play as much Scriabin as he did? We can accuse the artist of all sorts of things, and sadly that seems to be a popular sport. Philistines live!

It's easy for any avid listener or fan to sit back in their armchair and pick apart motivations. But aside from the so-what aspect of that game, seems to me that if the music ain't there the career ain't there. That's what's so troubling about all this cultural emphasis on the "wow, look what I can do" aspect of music making. With some clever and talented pianists it's easy to make a career by "simply" (and I know it's not all that simple) showing it off. I said in another post that I'm less and less excited by virtuosic display. It's kind of like the proverbial Chinese food, after you finish listening, are you really feeling nourished and satisfied or simply drained from the visceral excitement of it all?

Standing ovation from me, toyboy!

Along with your well-expressed two syllable characterization, I can think of one more: "sell-out." Although, the one syllable "fraud" is beautifully said!

It takes some amout of ego to think you are good enough to "perform" for people. It takes a degree of humility to realise that it's a gift to have the ability to perform well enough that people to want to listen to you. These can collide. It gets messy when there is also a "neediness" in a person to recieve praise for an accomplishement. Or a realisation of the responsibility in bringing your interpretation (meaning an expression of your very soul) into the historical record. Motivations are truly complex, and life is messy. Anyone motivated to the craft by fame will probably get what they are after in some way, shape or form. But what they really need is a healthy dose of introspection, or they are in for the biggest bummer you can imagine, imho. And that bummer won't arrive right away, either.

I'll second that in a big way.

Why bullshit? I don t think la Regina meant that every artist has that in mind . But definitely some do. And i mean recognized classical music artists. Can think of a few conductors.

"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi

Ok, let me put it another way Isaldu. Once I hear that career guidance counselors are giving out advice to young high school students such as this:

CGC: Well Mary, have you thought about your future career oppotunities?
Mary: Not really.
CGC: Well tell me some things that you enjoy doing.
Mary: I dunno. I play keyboards for the Dead Canker Sores.
CGC: So you enjoy music?
Mary: I guess.
CGC: Well I hear there is a great need for concert pianists.
Mary: Concert what?
CGC: Concert piano playing. You get to travel all over the world. Stay in the finest of hotels. You'll have men (or women) throwing their hotel keys at you. And salaries start in the high 6 figures.
Mary: Kewl!

... then I'll outta here.

I think there is plenty of luck! From an interview with Menahem Pressler:

Interviewer: How would you describe your life as a musician?

Pressler: I’ve been lucky. My wife calls me in German “Glückspilz,” which translates to “lucky mushroom.” I’ve been lucky with the Trio, lucky with invitations. I’ve had exquisite experiences. I just was at the Radio France et Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon festival in France, and got lovely reviews. Well, from what I can tell ... I only can recognize a few words.

I would ve thought we were past this level of discussion. Does every conductor show the ego Von karajan displayed? Are all piano legends as casual as Argerich? Arent some artists more "pushy" than others? Like it s been said, artist manage their careers in different ways.

Sorry you take such umbrage. What level is that exactly you don't like? Humor? Or presumption?

Anyway, like I said myself earlier, getting into individual motivations is tricky business and was never my intent.

But I suppose it's also tricky to be speaking philosophically.
And it is also tricky speaking one's mind clearly on the Internet.

But moreso, this line of discussion had nothing really to do with ego. I"m sure Argerich has her share of egotism. And good for her if she does. I don't think you could survive in her world without a healthy dose of it. I don't know enough to speak about VanK, and whether his egotism was driving by the wish for fame or the love of music. Do you?

Well i think it was both, but one side seems to take over the other in some cases, specially in successful careers . Sorry if i sounded rude earlier on, it was not my intention.

Given the infallibly Olympian image Karajan so assiduously projected (and heavily reinforced by his recording labels), it's difficult to think that music factored in at all, especially in later years. Obviously this was not the case (he must have liked music a little bit), but I find the whole Karajan mystique very tainted, and I avoid his recordings, not to mention any YT videos.

Karajan seems to have been at his best in opera: his recordings of Boheme, Ariadne, and Rosenkavlier are considered by many to be classics, and indeed, those are my favourites.

Probably the fairest answer. Good people get involved in intolerable or difficult situations. But, then as I was reminding myself of the name of Pires's community in Portugal I discovered that she left it all in protest to the Portugeuse government and is settling in Brazil. There ARE alternatives than just "making it big" in the classical world, and to do so without compromising one's talent, skill or artistry.

Or Andre Watts stepping in, at the age of 16 (plus/minus a year) for Glenn Gould.

Also, Horowitz, in the famous concert in Berlin in the 1920s, stepping in for some unnamed pianist.

Success depends upon being able to connect with the listening public. Luck, talent, hard work, good training, good management, desire for success - all links in a chain. Lack any one, and you won't rise (or, to continue the metaphor, won't be pulled up to the heights).

Agreed on both counts. In my opinion, there's another reason to avoid his recordings, especially the later ones: as his high frequency hearing got worse (happens to us all as we get older) he set the tonal balance of the orchestra to compensate. The later recordings are so bright as to be positively screechy and are (at least to me) almost unbearable. Usually for me a great performance trumps a great sound but I wouldn't classify a lot of his recordings as being great and, given the sonics, all the more reason to pass.

Back to the original topic. It's more than a little ironic (poetic?) that Lang Lang's career was launched by stepping in for Andre Watts in Chicago just as Watts' career was launched stepping in for Gould. Any other examples of people whose careers got launched in similar fashion (Bernstein leaps to mind)?

I think the bottom line is that a lucky break gets you in the door, talent keeps it open.

What Andy and others mean I think (and I second that) is that if you LOVE something, you do it because you love it and not because you are after fame. If you go for a walk in nature you are not after fame (the first example that comes to mind), and playing the piano can give a similar joy.

As has been alluded to in this thread, it's awfully hard to make sweeping generalities but I think if you add up all the ingredients to a successful career (talent, ambition, luck, love of what you're doing, hard work, looks, connections, ...) the people at the top probably score pretty high on all of them.

Edited to add: I'm not all that big on sporting parallels but do think being at the top of just about any endeavor has the same prerequisites. I've not read the book but recall from interviews & excerpts of Andre Agassi's biography him saying how much both he and Steffi Graf hated tennis. I'm sure there are top level pianists who feel the same way e.g., Argerich no longer performing in solo recitals. I don't know that she hates it but know she dislikes doing it enough that she's stopped (more's the pity IMHO).

I think also that your chances of being lucky are increased exponentially if you are standing near the doorway.

ah, do I smell the whiff of a sane metaphor? the whole point of this thread has mystified me from the start and it's kind of sad that the idea of playing music for itself seems to need to be explained. call me naive if you wish, but if the classical world has gotten so infected with fantasies of stardom as per pop and entertainment standards, shouldn't we be worrying more about THAT instead?

i love this image of a new thread though: How much luck is involved in order to become a nature walker in the likes of John Muir and Henry David Thoreau?

Excuse me, but what exactly is a concert pianist and what does one do?

Toyboy, are you theorizing that Horowitz's colleagues, out of envy, falsely accusing him of primarilyy caring about success? That may be so, but as you mentioned, it can be very difficult for any of us to discern the thoughts of any musician. However, we can take an educated guess as to what their motivations were, based on their actions. Actions are generally the most reliable indicator of a person's state of mind.

Horowitz's twleve-year retirement seems to lend credence to the notion that being perceived as the best was his primary concern. It appears that one of the main reasons Horowitz left the concert platform was because he was distressed over the negative reviews he recieved for the Schubert Bb Sonata. Those reviews cast doubt on whether Horowitz was the best- or at least whether he was the best for that type of repertoire. It seems that Horowitz didn't have much of a desire to play if he wasn't constantly receiving praise.

In regards to the "wow, look what I can do" aspect of music making that you chastise, Horowitz was allegedly one of its proponents. In Remembering Horowitz, one pianist said that he believes Horowitz's art is a self-indulgent one where the composers are merely vehicles to show off his skills. "Not bad for an old man" was allegedly Horowitz's refrain.

It has always been my understanding that the desire to feel great and to be constantly praised is why people want to become concert artists. If you merely love music, you can always listen to other people play. That is a much easier task than putting in all of the time and effort that is necessary to create music yourself. Ergo, I don't see how the mere love of music is a sufficient motivation to spend so many hours at the instrument and to make so many sacrifices. It seems that that level of effort is only worthwhile if you believe that you can become a musical legend and recieve a lot of praise and accolades. I believe that the most exciting part of being a musician is when people are amazed by your playing and shower you with excessive praise.

Well, this time I hear you. And it's hard to refute, but I'll try anyway.

After I've posted my other ran- I mean posts, I was thinking about applause. I remember once honestly saying to someone that I felt the best reaction I could get after playing for people was silence. (And for the record, I said this before I heard Celbidache say the same thing in a documentary.) My friend's response was simple: But people naturally want to show you they appreciate the effort and talent you put into it.

Now enlarge that onto the concert setting. I can't refute the fact that most performers appreciate applause. As hard as I like to think I work at learning my pipsqueak repertoire, they work that much harder, and deserve some sort of "relief", if you will, in the form of praise. But as a constant, churning, daily motivator? I just can't understand how that works.

Again, to pick at inner motivations is crazy, and with Horowitz even crazier. All we can go by, at best, is with what he said, what colleagues said, and (worse) what writers analyze. I recently saw a documentary of him, by Peter Gelb, shot in his apartment. One thing I remember him saying that stood out. He was mimicing pianists that emote as they play, writhing around, beatific facial expression. (This was pre-Lang Lang!) Then he stopped and said (in quotes but I'm paraphrasing): "from me you won't see this. The expression is in the fingers and keys and the music." Also, when he is begged to play some difficult pieces he would repeatedly say things like "Oh that's too hard" or "I've forgotten it" showing a very shy aspect of himself.

At least from this documentary alone, I saw alot of different sides to him: extreme shyness, extreme pride at what he could do, and extreme pleasure while he was doing it. Also annoyance at Wanda interfering, but that's another story. So, really who's to say? But again, as a constant motivation to get up in the morning and practise practise practise just to be better than Rubinstein (to pick a name out of a hat), I'm not so sure. Maybe it's naive to say, but I would prefer to guess it's more of a friendly rivalry. There was alot of "child" in Horowitz, to be sure, and that also means capriciousness, no?

And yes I do agree with you that Horowitz was a master at wowing the crowd. No question. And believe me it both turns me off and wows me at the same time. (I'm not saying I don't appreciate the skill of a virtuoso.) And it's easy for me to disparage it from this vantage. I guess in the end all I'm doing is "voting" for those musicians that understand that skill and virtuosity aren't ends in themselves. There are and were such animals out there.

As for "merely" loving music, etc, I understand what you're saying. But then by what you are saying, you are choosing to almost pre-decide what greatness in music making is: that of virtuosic skill rather than other, less tangible aspects. And where the words fail, that's where this debate fails.

If you haven't already, I strongly recommend looking at a documentary of Celibidache that's on YouTube. He is my true hero in music making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hEv91yiwXU

I would not use Horowitz' example and reactions to make generalizations about anything. The man was essentially an idiot savant. And I mean this in the best possible of ways. My (humble) impression of him judging by documentaries, biographies etc, all of which may be misleading, is that he lacked emotional maturity and his prodigious talent took over most aspects of his personal and public life as he aged.


As for the above discussion, the reality (?truth) is, as often is the case, somewhere in between the dispassionate love of fame proposed by Regina and the passion of "toyboy".

At this level of music making, it is no longer "mere love of music", it is a passion and a sensory and emotional overload.. Otherwise the world would not have starving artists and would be much poorer for it. However, you really cannot navigate the top concert halls with passion alone. There must be a need for recognition and acclaim or at least an ability if not a need to bask in the glow. Intelligent concert artists know that their position is precarious and that they can be dislodged by the next passionate newcomer. They need to have an innate drive to maintain their spot under the lights. Of course there are many artists who could not keep up with the pace and who elect to be more reclusive. Examples abound. Argerich is one fascinating phenomenon. She has never really opened up about her emotional connection to music and to her inner turmoil and love / hate relationship with her career. One gets the impression that stage fright is an important element though I am not aware of any major public disaster. She however is passionate about music and it is probably a major component of how she self-defines. Thus her prolific chamber and group activities. Richter is another giant whose relationship to fame is not readily definable. He was known to have toured Russia driving a car and giving barely announced concerts in remote villages.

Andromaque - seems to me the truth "in between" us is simply having a good management team, n'est-ce pas?

Not to disparage any of your remarks, but it shows me that what we are all really trying to do is be armchair concert pianists, and try and make second-guesses. It's an impossible task no matter what we might think.

I've known that about Richter, and have always been thoroughly enchanted by the idea. And if that ain't a love of music, it's "at least" a love of his fellow human beings. He didn't need to go to Siberia to get his daily dose of fame.

En fait you are being a little too snarky mon cher toyboy. What you are saying is that everyone else is wrong and second guessing in their fauteuil and you are not.. A bit sophomoric, non?

au contraire mon ami, je ne pas snarke´, pas du tout. je m'inclus dans la "deuxieme guessing", bien sur. et je ne suis pas sophomoric. je suis tres tres senior.

Mais votre Français est très minable. Stick with Yankee language, the nicer kind.

Yes, the Yanky language is a little more favourable. (cross reference, hehe)

Anyway, I love Horowitz... Amazing, unique pianist, possibly unsurpassed in areas, but I agree with some of the posts above: I don't think it's the best idea to use his example for the norm for professional artists. I don't think he was necessarily some kind of savant (in the United States, "idiot" is a rather derogatory word so I would not want to say that) as he was just eccentric like a some other musical geniuses (although I need to read up on that more, so correct me if I'm wrong!)

Ok let me try again, since you seem to be willing to disparage what I say in any language. I was not saying you or others were the only ones second guessing (or in Franglais, "deuxieme guessing", c'est pour rire, non?), but I was second guessing as well. I've said as much in various ways, and it's hard to understand how you missed understanding that, other than the usual sort of Internet thing.

Even silence could be construed as a sign of approval. It could mean that the audience was so stunned and moved by your playing that they were left speechless (soundless).



I don't see any problem with praise being a constant motivator. A pianist may want praise so badly that he is wiling to spend hours at the keyboard, refining his skills in an attempt to earn a high quantity of praise.


Greatness doesn't have to solely pertain to technique. You can be obsessed with achieving both technical and musicl greatness, as you can obtain even more praise if you are a great musical mind in addition to being a virtuoso.

Referencing a post here ^^^ from the current thread "Victor Borge." The documentary linked to in the quote above is germane to this dicussion and worth the view and consideration, imo.

--Andy

I know one viewing of one documentary doesn't tell you everything about a person, but you look at that video and tell me if you see a person so childish as to be doing what he is doing, and knowing what he is knowing, simply for something as ephemeral as "praise". I personally see someone thoroughly musical, and motivated solely by the music. His every movement and spoken thought comes out of that. I just don't see how you can watch him in action and see that he's doing all that simply in order to get praised in the end, silently or not. The quote of his, when you see it, is his way of saying that when the audience reacted silently, he was pleased because he understood that he COMMUNICATED the music successfully. That is all he cared about, or at least what he expressed caring about. And if I may be bold and extrapolate, aside from taking some bows of gratitude to applause, any serious musician would probably feel the same way. At least I like to think so.

Anyway we're going in circles here in a rather pointless debate. If you want to feel that concert pianists are only there for your applause, well then all I can say is stand up, clap yo' hands and holler your head off.

Maybe different musicians have different motivations. Celbidache may display the so-called noble motives that you describe, while Horowitz had different motives (as the examples that I cited imply). Since Horowitz was the greatest pianist, I feel that his motivations override those of any other musician.

That last sentence...how old are you again, Regina?

And that, as they say, is that.

Claiming Horowitz to be the greatest pianist is of course personal and debatable. For instance I wouldn't put his Mozart above say, Uchida.. You don't insist that it's fact, do you, Regina?

Stores, are you implying that you have to be old or young to declare Horowitz the greatest pianist?

Pogorelich, when deciding who is the greatest panist, I consider the overall picture. I wouldn't merely make the decision based on how one composer is played, but based on an overall assessment of what great things they have accomplished throughout their career. I believe that Horowitz accomplished more great things- especially from a technical perspective- than any other pianist.

Hahaha...no, not at all (and I'm not being facetious).