What type of playing do you like the best?

[thalberg]

Discussions welcome.

[ramseytheii]

You have given us two false opposites.  Why should not the markings in a score indicate drama and emotion to be above everything else?

Walter Ramsey

[counterpoint]

Why perfect technique vs imperfect technique?

Technique should be as perfect as possible, but perfect technique alone ist not enough. Just playing what is written in the score is not enough either.

[nicco]

This is a Horowitz vs Hamelin question.

[ted]

Answering the poll as it is would force me to choose between two unsatisfactory states. Music is my primary interest, of course, with appropriate and sufficient physical technique to express it. I can tolerate a good many physical faults in somebody's playing provided they do not seriously detract from the musical result. On the other hand, no amount of finger dexterity can compensate for a vacuous musical effect.

Couched in that negative way, the question is easy to answer. I can ignore physical incompetence to a much greater degree than I can ignore unsatisfactory sound.

[thalberg]

Why should not the markings in a score indicate drama and emotion to be above everything else?

Walter Ramsey

Well, in Bach for instance, not much is written in the score.

In Beethoven, have you seen the Schnabel edition?  He takes great license, even indicating tempo changes within movements.

In Perahia's rendition of the Wanderer Fantasie, he is completely faithful to the score, but he also takes liberties.  Listen to his 3rd movement.  Sometimes you can match the metronome at 66 to the dotted quarter, sometimes it goes as high as 80.

My point is that some people feel freer than others to do something that is not written.  I have even seen people go against specified things, like articulations or even dynamics.

[thalberg]

Also, I was not wanting to indicate that these two ways of playing are opposite.  They are not opposite.  I was just presenting two sort of imaginary people and asking which one you'd want to hear.

[rc]

Probably the one who's taking more liberties...  It would likely be an indication of their own creative imagination, and so a more natural expression, more likely to 'breathe'.

Though there's a line where I think if a pianist is completely changing the composition, that they should be writing their own music rather than calling it 'Mozart'.

[ramseytheii]

Well, in Bach for instance, not much is written in the score.

Of course, that means that it is impossible to take liberties.     By which I mean, there is nothing to be liberated from.

In Beethoven, have you seen the Schnabel edition?  He takes great license, even indicating tempo changes within movements.

It is true that Schnabel adds a great deal of interpretation into his editions, but you will also find that he never cancels out anything Beethoven originally marked, in other words, the liberties are not from a lack of strictness in score-reading.  A poetic and dramatic performance can and does include both fully what is notated in the score, and the extra part that is impossible to be notated.

In Perahia's rendition of the Wanderer Fantasie, he is completely faithful to the score, but he also takes liberties.  Listen to his 3rd movement.  Sometimes you can match the metronome at 66 to the dotted quarter, sometimes it goes as high as 80.

Right!  So he fits into neither of your categories.

My point is that some people feel freer than others to do something that is not written.  I have even seen people go against specified things, like articulations or even dynamics.

Well, it was phrased in a confusing way originally, in that case.  Perhaps it would be better to pose the question, "Is it better that someone just plays what is in the score, no more, no less, or that someone plays what is in the score, plus some?"

Walter Ramsey

[thalberg]

Well, it was phrased in a confusing way originally, in that case.  Perhaps it would be better to pose the question, "Is it better that someone just plays what is in the score, no more, no less, or that someone plays what is in the score, plus some?"

Walter Ramsey

Well perhaps I could rephrase it.  Honestly, I was thinking of particular people whom I know personally when I originally phrased the question.  That's where the criteria come from. Your assessment is correct, though.

[prongated]

This is a Horowitz vs Hamelin question.

...eh? You think Horowitz's technique was shonky?? In any case, it sounds more like Brendel VS Rubinstein to me...

There's a story when Brendel was quite excited of a release of Gilels' Beethoven Sonata recording. He listened to it intently until Gilels deviated slightly from Beethoven's score marking...at which moment Brendel stopped the recording - apparently it 'ruined' the whole performance...

Anyway, I'd generally take Rubinstein over Brendel any day.

[daniloperusina]

In any case, it sounds more like Brendel VS Rubinstein to me...

...eh? You think Rubinstein's technique was shonky?? 

But sincerely, maybe Thalberg's point is that we live in a high-tech, un-poetic and un-artistic era. A true 'voice' in a pianist's fingers has been substituted for a sports-like chase of easy-to-grasp matters, of which perhaps speed and clarity are predominant. And not hitting wrong notes...
And true 'interpretation' has been substituted for a misguided literal view of the score.

What is the most frequently heard comment after a concert? "I didn't hear a single wrong note!"

In the book "Conversations with Arrau" he talks about Berlin in the 1910's. He says wrong notes were considered signs of genius, and the note-perfect pianist's were often dismissed as uninteresting, as it often implied that they were not very expressive. But today the wrong-player hasn't a chance to survive.

Both Brendel and Schnabel have commented on how not everything should be heard clearly, some passages that simply must be obscured. And how Brendel has been fighting a loosing war with sound-technicians' obsession about clarity in recordings.

Maybe this isn't Thalberg's point at all.
In any case, I'd likely look for my profound musical experiences in the second category. Which wouldn't exclude that they could happen in the first.

[prongated]

...eh? You think Rubinstein's technique was shonky?? 

...hahaha...actually no, that's what Rubinstein himself thought of his technique

[daniloperusina]

"Any student who plays even a half-descent Scarlatti makes me think he's a better pianist than me" -A Rubinstein 

Or something like that...

[Bob]

I'd go for playing it authentically and according to the the composer's wishes.  If it meant to be expressive, then I'd want expression.

[invictious]

I'd go for my personal interpretation
and you should go for your own personal interpretation.

[cmg]

I'd just go out for a beer.

[forester]

This question is like one of those Zen riddles.