Hmm. I don't think it's as much about "virtuosic" music vs. "slow and lyrical" music, or even fast playing vs. slow playing. Because, I don't believe faster = less musical and slower = more musical.

I think it's more about the performer playing only for themselves instead of caring about the composer and the (overwhelming?) desire to be true to music and the proper style/taste for whatever music is being played. And I feel this care should be more (MUCH more) than the desire to win competitions, get lots of performance opportunities, gain a big reputation, make money, etc... It's MUSIC people, not some way to promote yourself! A very fine art that you enjoy because of how amazing it is (and because I personally believe it is a gift from God, one of the very best things he blessed mankind with).

But whatever you believe, you should NOT believe music is just a way to glorify yourself.

I had an interesting conversation with my teacher today. He told me that when he studied with Dame Myra Hess, she told him that she felt that virtuosos of the time, namely Horowitz, had ruined two generations of potential musicians because many tried too hard to be flashy and virtuostic like him...what is your opinion? Has "showing off" become a goal for many rather than making music?

Does anyone else find this interesting: Hess criticises Horowitz and his contemporaries of mechanical performance; and now, to criticise the current generation of virtuosi of mechanical performance, we use Horowitz as an example of what is not mechanical.

....Let us say two pianists are playing the Chopin 4th Ballade - one plays the coda not too fast, with careful attention to balance and voicing, not letting anything get out of control. The other pianist gets worked up into a wild frenzy of passion, takes an extraordinary tempo, and there is a bit of banging and rushing, and a sense of being "on edge". For me, it is paradoxically the second pianist who is the more "musical" one, as his playing is closer to the essence of what that coda is about.

Skorpius' paraphrase of his teacher paraphrasing Myra Hess doesn't, by my reading, accuse Horowitz of mechanical performance...

I think it's more about the performer playing only for themselves instead of caring about the composer and the (overwhelming?) desire to be true to music and the proper style/taste for whatever music is being played. And I feel this care should be more (MUCH more) than the desire to win competitions, get lots of performance opportunities, gain a big reputation, make money, etc... It's MUSIC people, not some way to promote yourself! A very fine art that you enjoy because of how amazing it is (and because I personally believe it is a gift from God, one of the very best things he blessed mankind with).

But whatever you believe, you should NOT believe music is just a way to glorify yourself.

I think that if musicians are totally honest with ourselves, the desire to be perceived as a great, elite person is what spurs us to work toward musical mastery.

juxtaposing:
If Horowitz had played in a mindless, mechanical fashion- as many of his imitators do- then he would never have become as famous and idolized as he is.

with

I think that if musicians are totally honest with ourselves, the desire to be perceived as a great, elite person is what spurs us to work toward musical mastery..

I think that if musicians are totally honest with ourselves, the desire to be perceived as a great, elite person is what spurs us to work toward musical mastery.

nobody knows why music appeals so much to human beings and just being a small part of it already enobles you.

Now that is nicely said.

And welcome Wuxia to the forum.

The person who is the musician par excellence is Horowitz. He did not desire to be pereceived as a great elite person. He put his attention to understanding music and playing it well. That coincidentally turned him into a great musician. If you aim toward how others perceive you, then you will miss the boat.

Stores, Lang Lang's problem is that he is either unwilling or unable to develop the discipline needed for true musical mastery. He could obtain an even greater level of fame if he learned to play at Horowitz's level of artistry.

His biographies say that he was always very status-conscious (which may explain why he wanted to be the son-in-law of Toscanini) and was concerned with being perceived as the greatest, most famous pianist who always played to sold-out halls.

But you are mixing things up. I don't really know anything about Horowitz, but I am sure that if you have the idea that it is this "obsession with obtaining prestige" that led him or anyone else to become a great musician, you are really off base.

Yeah, if you're Lang Lang. Of course, musical mastery is not terminology that can be used to describe his work. Technical mastery? Ok. But musical mastery? Absolutely not.

he is what 29 ? I think he is doing ok and what ever musicality you think he lacks, that will come with maturity.

What makes you think that I am offbase?

What makes you think that Horowitz didn't want to be perceived as a great, elite person? His biographies say that he was always very status-conscious (which may explain why he wanted to be the son-in-law of Toscanini) and was concerned with being perceived as the greatest, most famous pianist who always played to sold-out halls. Since Horowitz might despair over even the slightest criticism, it seems like he was extremely concerned with how people perceived him.

It's my understanding that the two desires go hand in hand. If you are obsessed with obtaining prestige through music, then you will be motivated to put forth the utmost effort to develop the highest level of musical artistry- as Horowitz did.

Wuxia, I think it's important to remember that Bach was a devout Christian. If a person feels very strongly about Christianity, it isn't surprising that he or she would connect music to the glory of God.

Stores, Lang Lang's problem is that he is either unwilling or unable to develop the discipline needed for true musical mastery. He could obtain an even greater level of fame if he learned to play at Horowitz's level of artistry.

In guise of an answer, let me ask you: what drives you ? Why do you play music ?

My interest in music has always been predicated on the prospect of being the greatest in the world.

The experiences I've had suggest that I may be on the right track.

I think the reason I didn't answer quite clear but if I must spell it out, I guess I will spell it out.

The fact that I admitted to forging a document and the rather idiotic notion of providing someone that has already displayed a rather opulent dislike and a somewhat misplaced interest in the personal life of someone which they have no relation either personal or business, as far as we know. which to be honest is somewhat disturbing. well i think that is perhaps a good reason.

There is a thread in the teacher's corner where I criticize the approach most teachers including the ones I had the pleasure of having.

Now you seemed to play, play being the operant word , detective rather well in that first attempt to pry answer so perhaps Sherlock can deduce some reasons why I wouldn't divulge that information to you. What sort of idiot would purposefully give information that can only serve a negative purpose.

Now let me reciprocate as this sluthing seems quite fun. Now from my angle, I see a bitter old pianist who never quite attained any level of significance, the kawaii was as give away , who has a chip on his/her shoulder where he / she feels the need to insult any pianist they feel is not perfect or to their liking. A professional would not judge another musician in such childish and meaningless ways such as you did. "He just sucks" . However those types of asseseements are quite typical of the annoying teenager or in your case, the jaded 50 year old that can't get passed the notion that they never made it. I can honestly see why thinking everyone is awful would actually make you feel better.

Now i do apologize if I am way off as I probably don't spend as much time as you trying to assure myself that everyone else is worse which I imagine requires a fair amount of deduction imagination and Guinness book worthy pessimism. What I can say is that your negativity and somewhat weird interest in others for reasons I'm sure we can agree are not in good faith really do come across as the actions of a failed unhappy person that projects this awful attitude unto others any chance they get. Again I could be wrong. Its just hard to see things any other way when you have been around successful musicians, conductors, composers. They don't seem to share your distasteful pessimism. So I can only assume that since you seem to act in a way that is completely foreign to what most successful people exude, well what else am I to conclude. So there you go.

But regardless of your success or lack there of, do you not find it somewhat sad that someone your age, almost 50, has this yearning to invent drama for reasons , i just don't get. What could you possibly gain even if all your ill conceived delusions where true, What if I was actually a drummer who for some reason decided to join a piano forum then when prompted regarding what school they went to , researched a good school to impress people and say Curtis. Now if I was lying, how hard would it be for me to just google the school and get a name of a teacher ? So your entire endeavour just seems entirely pointless silly and worst of all sad. You sad little person.

And to end this ,

Lang Lang in your words might just suck but he isn't playing a shitty upright Kawai, he sure as heck isn't approaching his 50's attacking behind a screen other musicians. And while you are just being an out right jerk , he is getting paid to do what he loves with some of the greatest musicians on earth.

I think his answer to your criticism would be , I may suck but you can suck it.

...But regardless of your success or lack there of, do you not find it somewhat sad that someone your age, almost 50, has this yearning to invent drama for reasons...