I recently watched a video of Josef Hoffmann playing and it was eerie, uncanny, and frankly kind of creepy how his body became an extension of the piano.

Although I absolutely adore a huge number of pianists and have seen maybe thousands of performances, I've rarely seen that kind of mind-meld.

But then I saw Sokolov doing pretty much the same thing.

Are there any others who are noted for that sort of thing? Usually it's impeccable technique and musicality that dazzle. But I'm trying to describe something entirely different that transcends both.

dsch -

When I read your post it occurred to me that I'd never actually seen filmed footage of Hoffmann playing. Did a quick search on you tube and found the following from 1945 (Rachmaninov Prelude in C# minor). Is this the one you were referring to - or is there another ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx1Sxmh-fbc&feature=related

Yes, that's the one. My understanding is that footage of Hoffmann playing is extremely rare.

At any rate, it's uncanny valley for me. I get goosebumps from *his* playing.

According to Wikipedia, the recording of the Rach Prelude was Hoffmann's ONLY filmed appearance...Interesting !!

The two pianists I thought most treated the piano as an extension of themselves were Dorothy Donegan and Bobby Enriquez.

In a different way, Steve Allen did too. He comped his conversations. There is the joke about how to keep an Italian from talking: Tie his hands. For Steve Allen, it was: Take away his piano.

Is that Hoffmann's own piano? its supposed to have had "narrower keys?

Here's Sokolov doing the Pastorale Scherzo and Rondo, for comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVZMfa39tYU

also, Couperin: Le Tic Toc Choc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glg99Zc0JjU

I think they were/ARE both autistic.

This reminded me of a Currier & Ives print about becoming one with the piano stool. Or so it seemed to me, as a child, when I was looking through the old book of prints. Some of the humor was beyond me... here, I thought the joke was that the little girl had sat there so long that her lower body had merged with the bench, and the boy had become part of the armchair.

Now as penance for not saying anything serious about transcendence I will copy a little portion from my Charles Cooke book!
"Josef Hofmann did not approve of the use of a metronome. He once wrote in answer to a question on this point: 'You should not play with the metronome for any length of time, for it lames the musical pulse and kills the vital expression in your playing. Tempo is so intimately related to touch and dynamics that it is in a large measure an individual matter. Consult your own feeling for what is musically right in deciding upon the speed of a piece.'"

On performing: "To play for people is not only a good incentive for further aspirations; it also furnishes you with a fairly exact estimate of your abilities and shortcomings, and indicates thereby the road to improvement. I recommend playing for people moderately, on the condition that for every 'performance' of a piece you play it afterward twice, slowly and carefully. This will keep the piece intact and bring you many other unexpected advantages."

I have no idea what's the logic for playing them twice afterwards,... not sure how much advice of great musicians is suitable for amateurs anyway! Do we understand them? Do they understand us???

And do they understand each other? Rachmaninoff, for example, apparently used the metronome in a way that Hofmann would not have approved of. Not to mention Chopin, who would do things like have his students practice the left hand part of the op. 9, no. 2 nocturne alone, to a metronome.

Argerich is one of the people who can play in a way that makes it seem as if the piano is just another part of her body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9MvizSf78

An interesting thing about that video of Hofmann: Hofmann had an incredible absolute pitch, according to reports. He also wrote that A 435 was the only pitch that should be used. However, that recording is at A 440. It may have been speeded up. Or maybe the change drove him to drink.

Well, that's good to know! The Hofmann no-metronome advice seems a little bereft of context-- I guess it's if you have a good sense of timing. (Maybe learned from using a metronome, haha)

I think there have always been musicians who seriously hate the metronome. That's fine, they don't have use it. But what I don't understand is the assumption that metronomes somehow mess with people's playing and therefore nobody should use it. Clearly, many fine musicians do use them, and I don't really know of any musicians who have been ruined by it. And just as clearly, there are musicians, particularly students and amateurs, who may play "metronomically", but I don't know that that sort of mechanical effect is actually caused by using a metronome.

To me, many, maybe most, of the pianists who are generally considered "great" have that extension-of-the-instrument thing going on, although it may not be something visible, and it may not be there all the time. I've seen it in various pianists, both well-known and not so well-known. In my own concert-going, I've noticed it happen in playing by Arrau, Brendel, Haefinger, Aimard, Ohlsson, Tomsic, Argerich, Rubinstein, Cherkassky, Mathis, Cole, Muraro, McDonald, and a Russian whose name I don't remember who collaborated with the violist Yuri Bashmet in one of the most amazing concerts I've ever heard. I'm sure I've heard more, but they don't come to mind at the moment.

Somebody once said to Sorabji, "Oh yes [Mr] Sorabji, the piano is an extension of your personality isn’t it?", to which he replied by saying, "I have never heard so much rubbish. It is not something that is just there, it is part of me, physically a part of me. I feel if you took my piano away you might as well cut off my forearms." (See "Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: An Oral Biography" by Owen, Sean Vaughn, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton (United Kingdom), 2007, p. 306)

However, Sorabji is best known for his compositions, and somewhat ironically, he never composed at the piano.

I'm not seeing it. What in the video prompts you to make that observation? By the way, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to understand what you're seeing that I'm not.

It's as if he's erased himself, all traces of his personality, and become this conduit through which the piano plays itself.

I don't see that with Martha. With Martha, I never forget that it's Martha playing. She imparts her artistry to a work rather than becoming the work.

I don't see it either, and I'd be interested to hear in what way Hoffman makes his body "an extension of the piano." I see a lot of head-bobbing on successive, individual chords and a fair amount of "grand manner" arm raising that all seem somewhat distracting to me, not that I find them objectionable but distracting in the sense that they bring attention to themselves.

Clarification of the phenomenon would be appreciated.

Regards,

I watched the video again, with the sound muted, and did notice one thing that had escaped me before: Hofmann's facial expression, despite all his rather extravagant motions, is utterly blank, making it look as if he's in a trance or even (this is admittedly getting fanciful) controlled by an external force. I don't know if that's what the OP was picking up, but I now agree there's something a bit eerie/uncanny/creepy about it.

This gets into very tricky, but very interesting, territory - how do you know it is not something about you yourself are perceiving different artists?

Or, why is it that Hofmann seems to have "erased" himself? Would the music sound different if it were a different pianist who did the same kind of erasure?

I think the whole premise of the the thread is rather meaningless. "Becoming one with the piano"? "Mind-meld"?

First of all it's not a complement to say one's personality is lost. And I think becoming one with the piano is either meaningless or open to so many interpretations as to be meaningless. What I think the OP really meant was that Hoffman's utterly passive facial expression combined with effortless technique(kind of like Heifetz)seems to take his personality out of the picture(not a very good thing IMO). To me this has nothing to do with becoming one with the piano.

Also, if one was to use such a description, I think it makes sense to say the piano became an extension of the pianist and not the opposite.

Sometimes when you perceive something like that about a performance or performer, it's like a reflection of something undeveloped in yourself. That's what I've noticed about my own experience, anyway... especially when it's something so subjective and vague that you can't really put your finger on it or explain it in words. I have made comments about performances that I thought later "why did I project THAT onto him/her, they are just playing..." but then in starting serious practice again, it's obvious, the things I said about them-- that's what I am doing myself! (good tendencies and bad) It's interesting how performances can be like mirrors, sometimes. They let you see yourself better; even if you don't realize it; but something resonates in you, and someone else may not be the slightest bit moved.

EDIT: looks like wr said something similar above. I'm not trying to plagiarize... it just comes naturally without trying

The main things I see there is the high lifting of his arms. As mentioned above, they seem more for the show than for anything useful.

As asked above, how can you SEE if someone becomes one with the piano? And, what are you in fact saying by that statement? Is it something that you like very much in his performance?

I don't notice anything too unusual either apart from the lifting of the arms...