Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What makes a concert pianist?

Yeah, Orion's a terrific pianist; glad he's getting concerts. Funny that Licad got mentioned in this thread, my ex filled in for Licad at the last minute in Germany, and got quite a bit of noteriety for it.

koji (STSD)

Watts needs to come to KC and cancel STAT.

Apologies for a badly worded question which should have read

"What background, attributes and skills are necessary to qualify to become a Concert pianist"?

Scrub round all those very real marketing strategies, money and luck catalysts.

Can you qualify for Concert pianist status without

1. Musical flair
2. Perfect pitch
3. Top teachers
4. Sight-reding fluency
5. Equivalent ABRSM Grade 8, etc.
6. Dedicated practice
7 Rachmaninoff hand-spread
8 Photographic memory

IMO, numbers 5, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are not essential traits of a concert pianist. I think a certain amount of panache is needed to be popular, but I don't think good body language is absolutely necessary. 4 is iffy, as I don't think you ever have to sight-read a piece on command without being given time to practice and learn it (Brendan, care to comment?). 6 is the most important step for anything in music, so it is necessary to being a successful concert pianist - nay, a successful person.

Depends what you define as "concert pianist". If we're talking strictly solo performances, then sight-reading is only important insofar as it helps one learn new repetoire quickly.

"Musical flair": not sure what you mean by that; if we're talking "showmanship" then that may help one become popular I suppose. In terms of the old "musicality" versus "technique", I'm afraid technique wins out by far. It doesn't matter if you think you have great musical understanding of a piece; being able to play the notes in a very professional and polished manner is a necessary requisite of being a concert pianist, where as excellent musicality probably is not (note: obviously a bare minimum of decent musicality is expected).

"Perfect pitch": absolutely unnecessary.

"Top teachers": not necessary, but helpful of course.

"Grades or diplomas": nope

"Dedicated Practice": Of course. This is an absolute requisite no matter what path you choose.

"Rachmaninoff hand-spread": [originally misread that as hand-speed] nope. Rachmaninoff had huge hands, very few concert pianists would match his, and there are plently of successful pianists who have fairly small hands. Obviously, being able to reach a 10th would help, but it's not necessary.

"Photographic memory": well, being able to easily memorize pieces and keep them stored without much practice would be an amazing boost, but it is not necessary to be unusually gifted in this sense in order to become a professional.

Just my 2 cents. Please note that I am not a professional and my playing is no where near that level.

Thanks to NAK and Fred for the input. It would be interesting to discover whether a Concert pianist would concur with your views.

There are concert pianists that don't have 2, 7, and 8, but I don't think any haven't had the rest. I think they are a requirement in the real world.

That's good because someone (a non-pianistical someone) once told me that I would never be a concert pianist because my hands are too small. I thought that this was an incredibly narrow-minded view to take as I rarely have a problem with big stretches as long as there is a suitable alternative (rearrangement of the chord). I'm still hoping that I will play in concert professionally at some point.

yeh my hands are probably relatively small, but then look at people like daniel barenboim, he doesnt have big hands does he?

yet i still think hes a great pianist,

De Larrocha has relatively the smallest hands of all pianists. She is not even 5' in height. Yet she played Khachaturian Piano Concerto.

You could also have every one of those 8 things and not succeed as a concert pianist.

Yeah, there are plenty of people out there with hands much smaller than Rachmaninoff's who can play...well, Rachmaninoff's music (with a few exceptions depending on exactly how small the hands are--also, notes might have to be left out or rolled into chords, but that rarely matters very much). They say Ashkenazy has "small" hands--not the smallest ever--but can play most of the "huge" Rachmaninoff pieces, including the concerto cycle. And Godowsky, perhaps the greatest technical pianist before 1950, had generally small and chunky hands--definitely not the slender, narrow hands of Liszt or Chopin. He got by all right; check out his Passacalgia for proof.

It really comes down to flexibility and accuracy (of the fingers), I think, and of course the ability to relax 100%. But if a pianist has trouble reaching an octave comfortably, he might run into considerable trouble in more advanced pieces (though some stretching through practice wouldn't be out of the question).

I'm not planning on going pro, but I must say out of btb's list, I really hate not having 2, 4, or 8...well, I have relatively good pitch and sight-reading is something one can improve upon...but I often wonder if it's possible to develop a photographic memory. I sort of doubt it.

How important would you all say 2, 4, and 8 are, then?

2 is not required at all
4 helps, but again is not really required
I would think 8 is pretty important.

Yeah, I guess you're right. 8 should definitely be important.

Great encouragement for small hands.
The Rachmaninoff hand-spread looks like a bonus.

But where are the Concert pianists to "talk turkey"?

I think having a large hand span is an occasionally useful but highly overemphasized trait. Looking back, someone like Rachmaninoff was almost the exception rather than the rule. A large percentage of successful pianists have been small in stature (beethoven, mozart, chopin, rubinstein, godowski, de larrocha, to name a few) and many were child prodigies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the chords near the end of the Hammerklavier's Adagio Sostenuto (a 10th split by a 4th) weren't so easy for even Liszt to negotiate.

I think large hands are always a plus, not a minus. It is important, even though not necessary. As far as piano playing is concerned there is a limit as to how small the hands can be. At least one's hands need to reach the octave.

Can you qualify for Concert pianist status without

1. Musical flair - no

2. Perfect pitch - yes

3. Top teachers - most of the time, no

4. Sight-reding fluency - if you're good enough to be a concert pianist, chances are your sight-reading won't exactly suck

5. Equivalent ABRSM Grade 8, etc. - Grade 8? No. Degrees and advanced diplomas might help, but I don't know - I'm not a pro

6. Dedicated practice - Duh

7 Rachmaninoff hand-spread - Would be nice, but you don't need it

8 Photographic memory - same as above

Good question. I certainly don't qualify, as I've only performed a handful of times in the past 12 years and I am just now finally getting my fingers back into real playing shape.

I think concert pianists need more than photographic memory. "Muscle" and aural memory is an absolute must, I would think. A solid memory is pretty much a necessity, and the ability to memorize fast doesn't hurt. But I think photographic memory might fit more into the "would be nice" category. Same with perfect pitch. A concert pianist has to have drop dead accurate relative pitch and a strong sense of where pitches fall on the keyboard (e.g. hear it and play it). But I think perfect pitch falls more into "would be nice" category as well. I can think of some situations where it wouldn't be all that nice to have.

you know photographic memory aint all it's cracked up to be. In the literal sense it means they can actually see the score in their mind and read from it while playing. It is a rare phenomena like perfect pitch and the problem is that people with photographic memory can be dependent on it. But like all special features it has its weakness...if for some reason your focus is taken away or you have an off day or something goes awry then you can lose your spot on the page...literally and then you have nothing to save you.

My teacher had a student with photographic memory once and said that he was shocked she would come in and have pieces completely memorized in a week...however if anything was a little out of whack she would fall apart being completely dependent on her photographic mind.

Instead of literally photographic memory I would say on number 8 it is important to have a well rounded memory. A memory for the theory, the harmony, aural memory, a good ear, physical memory (most common) and a strong understanding of the piece.