Can you explain what you do ?

[m1469]

And, how important do you feel the ability to do this would be for a performer ? 

I am basically talking about being able to put into words the ability to play/perform and what is happening as one does.

Or is this an ability only necessary for teachers ?





m1469 

[ted]

No, I don't think I can really, at least not the deeper aspects. It's all a bit of a quale. I have tried hard to do so at various times in order to help people enjoy their music more and worry less about it. The success of these efforts, however, is very much open to conjecture.

[arensky]

It is only nessacary for the teacher. Many of the most brilliant performers cannot explain what they do and how they do it, for them it is a reflex or reaction they've never thought about. Or having to explain it simply irritates them, they don't understand why others don't get it like they do. However many brilliant performers are good teachers.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

theoretically, i would know what im doing and be able to explain it. but the result of the work done in practice and the musical intentions, the performance itself? no... they seem to be not what and how i wanted them to be... sometimes good, sometimes not. every performance is so different.


im crazy!:)

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i think it's a plus to be able to put into words how you work as a pianist.. it will make you become a good teacher... being a good teacher will make you a better performer...

[celticqt]

Not really.  Maybe that's because half the time I'm not sure what I'm doing myself.   

Isn't that kind of like the magician explaining how he pulled the rabbit out of the hat?

[m]

Re: Can you explain what you do ?

Some can, some can't. It is very individual. Usually (but not neccessarily), those who can are better teachers.

In this respect, it is interesting to read Abraham Chasins' passage about one of the J. Hoffmann's concerts, where afterwards Hoffmann could explicitly explain every single aspect of the performance, down to the smallest detail.
Ask somebody like V. Sofronitsky about it, and they'd be completly helpless.

But the most important is a result, both in teaching and playing.

[lostinidlewonder]

I get people when I finish playing coming up to me and say, "How on earth do you remember what to do".

I usually answer along the lines: I've played it 1000s of times, listened to the piece more than most people would and looked at ever part of it under a microscope! You just listen to the result of practice and work. If you listen to me play something that hasn't gone through this process you will be able to tell.

I feel like there is nothing to be proud of in any person who can play the piano well. I think modesty is very important, if people start reasoning that they do what they do because they have ability/talent it is a big joke. You have the ability through practice, you have the ability because you want to do well with the instrument.

Modesty might make some musicians shrug their shoulders and say, they just do it, or, it is what needs to be done, something along those lines. What they should reveal is the amount of practice that actually goes behind it all. Older pianists have countless hours of practice behind each of their pieces, they have performed particular pieces hundreds of times for an audience, they use years of experience to learn new music. Younger pianists have just run the first gauntlet, managing to get their hands and minds around all these new peices, they are inspired to present their hard work in sound creation.

No one can just do it. People who rely on their talent to absorb huge numbers of works but who rush through each piece not spending focused time on particular works will sound mediocre no matter how talented they are.

Someone who plays well does so because they have experimented with the sound of the piece, they have tested what they think is good or bad they know what to avoid and what to encourage physically. This Good and Bad judgement of sound changes somewhat with repeated observation, so no one can escape the need for hours and hours of practice for one piece. Not if you want a refined playing of a piece.

[pianistimo]

i never thought of modesty as tied into the hours that you actually practice, but it makes sense now.  sometimes we (i) sabotage ourselves by thinking we don't need the amount of practice that it takes to be really good - and settle for mediocre (since we think we are talented).  it's actually eye-opening how someone who is talented still practices more than someone who is not very talented and thinks they are practicing enough.  after many years you tend to get the idea - but it doesn't sink in far enough if you play for audiences that accept the status quo.  but, look at the eyes of your jury panels.  are they enjoying what they hear or do they have a sort of questioning stare. hahahah (ok i had some memory lapses)  and you cannot rely on humor with musicians - whereas an audience of amateurs or non-musicians - you could probably get away with quite a lot.

i am realizing that to fulfill my 'dream' of playing with an orchestra professionally (a piano concerto) someday - i will probably have to at least practice 4-5 hours plus per day and more whenever the time can be squeezed in. as it is now, i'd rather chat on the forum.  so the days go by and i feel really good until i look at the calendar and then the piano.  i think every pianist should be forced to write SOMETHING on the calendar (even if it is a big X - no practice) or 1, 2, 3 however many hours practiced - and then do an actual tally.
deceiving oneself only leads to depression in 'why can't i be better' on this amount of practice. 

[gorbee natcase]

STD1 >= STD0;x + .25 AND STD1 <= STD2;x - .25  (35STD1 >= STD0;x + .25NC > NC;x - (.10*NC;x) AND NC < 0.100 First replicate NC = 0.050 OD
Second replicate NC = 0.070 OD
Third replicate NC = 0.040
NC mean = 0.0533
25 % NC mean = 0.0133
NC mean + 25 % NC mean = 0.0666
NC mean – 25 % NC mean = 0.040 to the power of 88 there abouts any way