|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
66 members (bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, 15 invisible),
2,196
guests, and
389
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69 |
Generally speaking, there are all kinds of self righteous fools in the world. Objectivity, science and factual analysis are fine as long as they are tempered with tolerance and compassion.
Interesting that Chopin wrote this about Liszt: Liszt is playing my etudes, and transporting me outside of my respectable thoughts. I should like to steal from him the way to play my own etudes. I do wonder if Chopin might have said that about Ashkenazy's Melodiya recording also. It's funny that this quote has been used to describe that Chopin enjoyed Liszt's playing of his studies. And yet, it really sounds like an indirect way of saying that Liszt played like crap (but was considered rude to state such things so bluntly.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Generally speaking, there are all kinds of self righteous fools in the world. Objectivity, science and factual analysis are fine as long as they are tempered with tolerance and compassion.
Interesting that Chopin wrote this about Liszt: Liszt is playing my etudes, and transporting me outside of my respectable thoughts. I should like to steal from him the way to play my own etudes. I do wonder if Chopin might have said that about Ashkenazy's Melodiya recording also. It's funny that this quote has been used to describe that Chopin enjoyed Liszt's playing of his studies. And yet, it really sounds like an indirect way of saying that Liszt played like crap (but was considered rude to state such things so bluntly.) Or perhaps the true meaning of Chopin's statement simply got lost in translation.
Last edited by carey; 07/20/14 11:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 561
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 561 |
Or perhaps the true meaning of Chopin's statement simply got lost in translation. Yeah, it sounds way better in Polish.
Michael
"Genius is nothing more than an extraordinary capacity for patience." Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Perhaps "technique" isn't everything.
Agree 100%; what makes a musical legend is musical achievement, I only mean to speak strictly about technical facility. Objectivity, science and factual analysis are fine as long as they are tempered with tolerance and compassion. I see what you're saying, and agree on some level, but "tolerance" is not the right word. The problem mechanism I'm pointing at is the denial of truth, which is a disservice to education. And taking this to the extreme....... “One man's gospel truth is another man's blasphemous lie. The dangerous thing about people is the way we'll try to kill anyone whose truth doesn't agree with ours.” Mira Grant
Last edited by carey; 07/21/14 12:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Horowitz and Rubinstein (along with a host of other famous pianists) had poor technique. However, they didn't sound bad at all (though I strongly disagree.) Faulty - If you can/will acknowledge that this is YOUR OPINION - and not a statement of fact - you'll probably do fine here. How is it not my opinion? I am writing my own posts, am I not? (Yes, I am indeed.) Thus, it is implicitly acknowledged that it is my opinion on the matter. Further, it's already implicitly implied that these are not facts that can be verified (like the speed of gravity or the absorption of light by chlorophyll) because these are qualitative statements, not quantitative ones. And about writing, when making an argument, it is unnecessary to constantly state, "my opinion". It's already understood it's an opinion. This is what is taught in writing classes - or has writing instruction dropped so low that people don't know how to write anymore? (Reading various forums suggests that this is the case, that many people don't know how to write to communicate clearly.) I'm simply suggesting that what may seem perfectly implicit to you may not be quite as implicit to others.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Perhaps "technique" isn't everything. That depends on how "technique" is defined. Often, when discussing technique, for the ease of communication, it must be separated from the discussion of music. Otherwise, it would be difficult to tease apart sound and movement and the audience will have a difficult time understanding. Thus, "technique isn't everything" is understood in the sense that it is different from sound. However, in practice, neither can be separated. And since technique is a precursor to playing, technique is, in fact, everything leading up to the actual production of sound. Actually when I said "technique isn't everything" I was thinking about the unique ability of Rubinstein and Horowitz to communicate musical ideas (whether due to or in spite of their techniques), Beethoven's sheer genius and Liszt's skill as a composer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69 |
Or perhaps the true meaning of Chopin's statement simply got lost in translation. Yeah, it sounds way better in Polish. I'm pretty certain he wrote it in French.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69 |
I'm simply suggesting that what may seem perfectly implicit to you may not be quite as implicit to others. So you're saying that I'm making a naive assumption that my audience is educated. What a nice way to make an insult.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
I'm simply suggesting that what may seem perfectly implicit to you may not be quite as implicit to others. So you're saying that I'm making a naive assumption that my audience is educated. What a nice way to make an insult. Notice the "seem."
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,765
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,765 |
Or perhaps the true meaning of Chopin's statement simply got lost in translation. Yeah, it sounds way better in Polish. I'm pretty certain he wrote it in French. He did, to Ferdinand Hiller. But I don't think we should make too many assumptions on his opinions based on that, since it was a joint letter from Chopin, Liszt and Franchomme, not a personal one...
Last edited by outo; 07/21/14 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 999
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 999 |
A famous pianist (I'm not remembering who, exactly) was asked during an interview whether such and such a piece was difficult to play. He replied "There is no such thing as a difficult piece; either it's easy or it's impossible."
I take this to mean that unless one has a sense of ease and freedom while playing, it isn't really playing, and the piece is not truly mastered. To arrive at a state where a piece becomes easy might take days, months, or years depending on the piece and the contents of one's technical tool box at the beginning of study.
Assuming for the sake of argument that faulty_Damper's assertion (that adopting the correct set of motions particular to a passage is necessary and sufficient for technical mastery) is correct, the question arises: why, for most people, does it take so much time and effort to master certain passages?
I see three possibilities. 1) One never finds the correct motions, but with diligent work, achieves a semblance of a good performance using motions that are not optimum.
2) By trial and error experiment and the help of good luck, one learns to recognize the correct motions and trains oneself out of the habit of using the incorrect ones. Having a good teacher can speed up the process.
3) Certain motion combinations themselves must be acquired. In some cases the solution is (to use FD's analogy) as simple as realizing that running works better with swinging arms. Other cases require motions that must be learned, that are not naturally built in. Instead of running, it's more like intricate moves in ballet, to learn which one must first learn (laboriously and patiently) the five positions of feet, pliés, battements, etc., which no one is born knowing.*
*(Dancers here, please excuse any wrong terminology.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Or perhaps the true meaning of Chopin's statement simply got lost in translation. Yeah, it sounds way better in Polish. I'm pretty certain he wrote it in French. He did, to Ferdinand Hiller. But I don't think we should make too many assumptions on his opinions based on that, since it was a joint letter from Chopin, Liszt and Franchomme, not a personal one... It always helps to know the "context" in which something was written. One must assume that Chopin sincerely meant this as a compliment.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 189
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 189 |
Faulty was a very active member on the pianostreet forums, so I ask him -why did you come here? My guess is involuntarily... Anyways, welcome! You'll find that the general level of knowledge here is much higher than on your previous forum, so don't expect to be able to behave the same way you did before. You're having a fresh start! Think about this.
Excuse you, but you imply that I behaved badly on that forum when it was the other way around. Other members behaved badly (name calling, sexual innuendos, personal attacks, etc.). They didn't agree with me so they attacked me. What's amazing is that other members didn't even read my posts but assumed, because these harassing members accused me of being uncivil, that it was true. Kind of like those teenage girl rumors intended to damage reputations, no one checks to see if it's true; looking at who the finger is pointing to, not the person pointing the finger. It was the people pointing fingers who had the issues. Anyway, yes, there seems to be a slightly higher level of maturity and knowledge here which is why I decided to post. But there are still the young ones who still need to learn the difference between what is said and who says it. That's quite a victim point of view. I think the world will start to become better the day most people will start assuming the responsibility of their acts instead of justifying everything on other's reactions. I've been reading a few posts of you on Pianostreet and I think you may ask yourself sincerely if you really didn't anything that could annoy other people or wrote something that could offend somebody on that forum... As other people said, you have the opportunity to make a fresh start...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69 |
That's quite a victim point of view. I think the world will start to become better the day most people will start assuming the responsibility of their acts instead of justifying everything on other's reactions. I've been reading a few posts of you on Pianostreet and I think you may ask yourself sincerely if you really didn't anything that could annoy other people or wrote something that could offend somebody on that forum...
As other people said, you have the opportunity to make a fresh start...
You should read everything in context, which means others' posts. You'll notice I addressed the topics very directly, never pussyfooting around the issue. The harassment went on for several months so I doubt you even had a glimpse of the extent of it. You'll also note that I never (with two exceptions, one that got me banned) retaliated. I was a member for over 10 years and it was only in the past several months that this harassment occurred. The moment I mentioned Horowitz et al had bad technique and weren't very good musicians did the barrage of insults, personal attacks, etc. commence. They were offended that their idols were being criticized so they attacked me. And how did they justify the name calling? They didn't like my tone, those were famous virtuosos, etc. Bwahahaha. I don't like sagging pants or skinny jeans, but I don't call them "stupid" if they choose to wear them. However, I will concede that I'm aware of how sensitive some people are. In order to express an idea clearly, it must be said in a way that eliminates any misunderstandings. I said what I said knowing that certain people (not all) would be offended by my directness, probably because they've never heard any different. My purpose was not to offend, but offer genuine criticism to help open their minds to new ideas, especially considering how so many of them were still struggling with basic issues. Sometimes, in order to get people to brush their teeth (and tongue) you have to tell them the truth, that their breath stinks. Wouldn't you want to be told your breath stinks? I'm glad I was. I'm now confident that my breath smells like a pot of potpourri.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277 |
Horowitz and Rubinstein (along with a host of other famous pianists) had poor technique.
Who, in your opinion, has good technique?
If music be the food of love, play on!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 69 |
Horowitz and Rubinstein (along with a host of other famous pianists) had poor technique.
Who, in your opinion, has good technique? I can't name a single famous pianist who has it all, and I'm ignoring musicianship to make this simple, and focussing only on movements. I've yet to see a single pianist use all available movements to facilitate playing. It may be easier to specifically cite certain pianists in certain parts of performance that they use the optimum combination of movements, like I did with Louis Lortie's use of the wrist to align the fingers. However, his left hand apparatus, which only plays octaves, is poor (he presses down unnecessarily as well as using unnecessary legato fingering [the pedal makes legato fingering unnecessary.]) It may also be easy just to list pianists who typically have limited movements. Y*** W***, H*****tz, R*******n, L*** L***, Y**** L*, R*******ff, S***** H****, L**** L*****, M***-A**** H******.... etc. Note that these pianists just use limited movements, but some are much more limited than others. Of the list, the last has the least limited movements, which is probably why he can play such a vast repertoire including rather difficult ones. He is most limited when he plays fast runs, in which he articulates his fingers without aligning them. This may be the reason why he can't play melodies expressively (crescendo/decrescendo) as his performances are often criticized on this point as being dull, flat, and unexpressive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277 |
OK, just to see if you have anything positive to say about somebody for a change, how about the pianists you haven't got on your list (who all have poor technique, but amazingly, are all considered among the greatest virtuosi): Maurizio Pollini, Krystian Zimerman, Grigory Sokolov, Arcadi Volodos, Evgeny Kissin, Mikhail Pletnev, Denis Matsuev, Daniil Trifonov, Boris Berezovsky.....
And also, how about other deceased greats like Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels, György Cziffra, Van Cliburn?
If music be the food of love, play on!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391 |
It's easy to criticize, so it comes down to this: what can you do that is different? Presumably if you are offering criticism that no one does this with regularity, then is it really something to worry about? I don't think anyone here considers themselves anywhere near the ability of those pianists mentioned, nor have I ever heard anyone say they were perfect. What they have to offer is a musical experience for the listener. Some are more expressive than others, some are more technical than others, but they are all talented and deserve to be considered "great" or "good" at what they do. Now your comments about movements still sounds to me like saying something obvious. The goal when learning a piece is to make it easy. - to become efficient with what you're doing so that you can get beyond the "how" and get into the "what" you are trying to say through your music. That, I think, most people would agree is the goal - at least in the classical music genre. So two things about what I believe you are saying: 1) Perfection will never be achieved in any sense because we are flawed human beings, but it is a worthy goal to do your best and to continue to improve over a lifetime 2) In the end, all that really matters is if you can move people. Music is communication to the soul, and if you can do that effectively, the rest is secondary. I think some of the famous pianists mentioned in this thread aren't very effective in moving, and some are more expressive. Ask someone else and they'll tell you who moves them the most, and it will be different from my list. It is worthwhile to try and do one's own best and to study what other pianists are doing and learn from them - both what they do well and what they fail at - but it crosses a line if you expect from them something impossible and something that you yourself are not able to achieve. I can criticize singers and identify exactly what is wrong with their technique after hearing only a few notes, but I know that you can find good recordings of Caruso, Tebaldi, Callas, and terrible ones. When they were good, they were awesome - flawed, but awesome - and those moments were worth listening for. It's not idol worship, it's a healthy respect. I think that kind of respect goes a long way toward convincing others if you have criticisms to share that can benefit others, but saying large sweeping statements along the lines of "everyone sucks and you've been duped into thinking they were great" doesn't go very far. IMO.
Last edited by Morodiene; 07/21/14 08:55 AM.
private piano/voice teacher FT
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,126
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,126 |
Why look at the cup as half empty instead of half full? Certainly we do the best with what we have. Some have more, some less.
Last edited by MikeN; 07/21/14 11:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,019
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,019 |
I've yet to see a single pianist use all available movements to facilitate playing. If none of them use all available movements, perhaps there's a reason for that. Perhaps people choose, consciously or unconsciously, to limit their repertoire to those movements that are (a) within their physical limits, and (b) comfortable to them. If they do in fact choose limit their movements in this way, but they still sound good, then to me, there is no problem. That's because I am of the opinion that the ultimate goal for a concert pianist is not to have "perfect technique" (for whatever is your definition of "perfect"), but to perform beautifully (for whatever is your definition of "beautifully"). Of course, in order to play the piano beautifully, one needs a certain level of technical proficiency. So anyone who wishes to become a good pianist should pursue "good technique". But in doing so, they are necessarily going to have to work within whatever range of movement their body will allow them to comfortably execute. For example: I can comfortably span distances larger than a ninth with one hand. My piano teacher cannot. Of the two of us, guess who's the better pianist. Most people will naturally gravitate towards doing certain things a certain way, and for the most part, that's OK. There are, for instance, many different ways to handle the fingering on any given Bach fugue. Some of them are objectively better than others, but some are simply an acknowledgement of the way a given person's body physically functions. That doesn't mean, of course, that if a pianist is having trouble mastering a specific skill or a specific musical passage, he or she can't or shouldn't look for ways to solve that problem. Perhaps the solution will be the introduction of a new physical movement. Perhaps it will be something else. But when you, Faulty_Damper, see a pianist who "sits too low" in your opinion, and yet the music coming out sounds good regardless, then the problem may not be with the way that person chooses to sit. The problem may be that *you* think (s)he needs to sit differently, when in fact perhaps (s)he's tried that and concluded that sitting low just works better for him (or her). When I was in primary school, I had a classmate with no arms. He could draw very beautifully. He was better than any of us on the Nintendo game console. He could tie shoelaces faster than I ever saw anyone else do it, before or since. How did he accomplish those things? He used his legs and feet in ways that none of us can. You may argue that if this guy had had hands, and if he had been able to use a pencil the way most of us are taught to use it, he may have been even better at drawing beautiful pictures. But the point is that he *didn't* have hands, and he still drew very beautifully. Other people's physical limitations may not be quite that obvious, but the idea remains the same. All of the pianists you listed have a limited repertoire of movements. That's either because they lack the physical ability to perform certain movements, or because they choose not to deploy those movements -- perhaps there are others that work better for them. Either way, they all end up sounding better than the vast majority of people in the world who have ever tried their hand at playing the piano. So just because, for one reason or another, they choose to limit their repertoire of movements, doesn't mean they are bad pianists.
Last edited by Saranoya; 07/21/14 12:07 PM. Reason: edited for clarity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|