The virtues of listening to non-pianists

[opus10no2]

Violinists, cellists, etc.

See, pianists have idiosyncracies, and there are certain sounds and expressions which are just more CONVENIENT to produce at the piano.
Listening to other instruments we don't hear the same things, because of the physically different nature of the instrument, and it's interesting to take influence from them.

Also, I feel listening to MIDIs does alot to tell us what a piece could sound like with no physical barriers.
Some composers composed with the effect of piano writing completyely in mind, and some didn't, and didn't count on pianists applying their instrumental habits on the music.

Of course the habits can be beautiful, but they shouldn't just be there for the sake of a habit 

[ramseytheii]

Violinists, cellists, etc.

See, pianists have idiosyncracies, and there are certain sounds and expressions which are just more CONVENIENT to produce at the piano.
Listening to other instruments we don't hear the same things, because of the physically different nature of the instrument, and it's interesting to take influence from them.

Also, I feel listening to MIDIs does alot to tell us what a piece could sound like with no physical barriers.
Some composers composed with the effect of piano writing completyely in mind, and some didn't, and didn't count on pianists applying their instrumental habits on the music.
Of course the habits can be beautiful, but they shouldn't just be there for the sake of a habit 

Hmm... surprisingly safe post from opus12.  Where do you stand on the matter?  All you tell us is, "it's interesting to take influence from [other instruments.]"  It's more than interesting: it's the entire history of modern piano technique, and probably ancient technique as well.

We wouldn't be anywhere if Liszt hadn't heard Paganini, and realized the worlds that were possible on the piano.  But he didn't simply transcribe Paganini figurations to a piano setting, he explored the entire range of diverse sounds Paganini was able to create, and applied them to his own instrument.  Not only that, he was inspired by Paganini's own imitations of other instruments, and wrote those into his scores (quasi corno; quasi flauto; etc.)

He took Paganini multiple steps further, especially with works like Totentanz, which with its percussive effects and almost bizarre voicing takes piano sonority into the twentieth century - all based on imagining another sound.

Even Bartok, who wanted to imitate the vast repertoire of folk-singer ornaments and "out of tune" sound onto the piano, where the pitches are fixed (unlike violin, which can incorporate any number of slides or ornamental effects), was able to transpose those sounds, through an ingenious pedal technique and unique ornamentation. 

Practically every composer whose music we play has a sound that can be paralleled in other instruments, and while the rage for orchestrating piano pieces has safely passed, it is still  rather fun to do in programs like Sibelius or Finale.

Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

Yes! I agree, but was simply primarly speaking of the virtues to performance, not necessarily the development of piano writing itself which is also a very vast subject.

Actually this brings about another topic of discussion, as I am very interested in the works for unaccompanied violin - the Paganini caprices, Ysaye sonatas,  Bach works, etc.
Also unaccompanied other solo instruments actually, the lute, guitar, and others.

These are all seemingly also playable on the piano, but they are very difficult because they arent idiomatic, and of course many violin pieces in particular make use of effects and things the piano just cannot do.

Just as an example, Raymond Lewenthal advised students to take the solo violin and cello works of Bach and play them with the left hand alone.
Now these work are very interesting to hear in recordings, because the performances are so utterly idiomatic and seem to be only possible on thazt instrument..the incredible subtleties...and on cello in particular, the amazing performances by Casals.

[dnephi]

I've been told that many pianists listen to Opera to learn about sustaining a bel canto line.

[theodore]

This narrative is an interesting aside to this discussion of listening to other instruments. At my university a talented student won the performance prize and was scheduled to perform the Schuman concerto with a leading symphony orchestra.

At the first rehearsal the student was seated and ready to go. The conductor brought the orchestra to attention and began the concerto. This concerto begins with the main theme played by the oboe. Apparently this student had rehearsed the concerto many times with his teacher playing the orchestral reduction. This day oboist was in prime form and rendered a sumptuous emotion ridden introduction.

The pianist was so taken with the sound of the solo oboe and accompanying strings that he failed to come in at his entrance. The conductor began again and everything fell into place the second time. Incidentally the playing of this concerto at performance time changed quite dramatically as the pianist slowly picked up many musical hints at the full orchestra rehearsals and from the conductor’s suggestions.

[opus10no2]

Indeed, this reminds us of the fact that the piano is incapable of many things, but can give the illusions of, like a true crescendo on just a few notes.

[richard black]

Listen to singers. They're the truest musicians because they do the most with the least. We just hide behind a damn great machine....

[slobone]

I'm not sure how much it helps just to listen to singers, but to sing yourself is very valuable. I sang with an amateur chorus for several years, during which time I played the piano very little for various reasons.

Now that I've gone back to playing more, I'm really amazed at how much more feeling I have for phrasing than I did before. I can't always achieve what I want technically, but I have it in my ear much better. If the piece is within my technical reach, I feel like I can really make the phrases sing.

(Of course at the moment I don't have a teacher to tell me how awful I probably sound!)

There's a wonderful scene in From Mao to Mozart -- you've all seen it, right? -- where Isaac Stern is giving a master class to a young violinist. She plays the opening of Beethoven's Spring Sonata completely flatly -- no expression at all. He has her sing the melody out loud and then play it again. What a magical difference the second time!

I've tried doing that myself -- sing a phrase out loud, then play it -- but it takes a lot of time and I didn't get very far with it. Does anybody do that on a regular basis?

[ahinton]

I'm not sure how much it helps just to listen to singers,

As you can see, Richard IS sure of this - and he knows well of what we writes, since he does a great deal of it; the only caveat I'd place on this is that it is wise to be careful and choosy about the particular singers to whom you listen(!)...

but to sing yourself is very valuable.

It can indeed be so.

Now that I've gone back to playing more, I'm really amazed at how much more feeling I have for phrasing than I did before. I can't always achieve what I want technically, but I have it in my ear much better. If the piece is within my technical reach, I feel like I can really make the phrases sing.

(Of course at the moment I don't have a teacher to tell me how awful I probably sound!)

There's a wonderful scene in From Mao to Mozart -- you've all seen it, right? -- where Isaac Stern is giving a master class to a young violinist. She plays the opening of Beethoven's Spring Sonata completely flatly -- no expression at all. He has her sing the melody out loud and then play it again. What a magical difference the second time!

I've tried doing that myself -- sing a phrase out loud, then play it -- but it takes a lot of time and I didn't get very far with it. Does anybody do that on a regular basis?

Interesting; the only problem here is that by no means everything that you're trying to play is inherently "singable"...

Best,

Alistair

[Mayla]

I guess it's likely that there are virtues in listening to and becoming familiar with almost any other instrument (and type of music, for that matter).  Sure, there are exceptions to that -- but out of all of the instruments that can be found in an orchestra, for example, there are a lot of decent reasons they individually exist as a means of producing sound and music; many of which can be applied, in one way or another, to whatever our own instrument(s) of choice is.

[slobone]

Interesting; the only problem here is that by no means everything that you're trying to play is inherently "singable"...

No, perhaps not, obviously you can't sing the Chopin Etude #1 for example! (Although come to think of it you could at least sing the left hand part in whatever octave you sing in.)

But in the playing of the pianists I admire I do find that there's a "singing" quality to even the most buried inner voices and the odd little bits of things.

Even if the left hand is only going oom pah pah oom pah pah, you can play it with more or less vocality. This is separate from the issue of whether voices are independent or dependent.