Best self taught pianist?

[sevencircles]

What is the best autodidact pianist you ever heard?

Godowsky barely had any pianolessons at all I believe and what about Liszt?

[steinwaymodeld]

richter, if u count him as one. (Neuhaus said he didn't have anything to teach him)

[stevie]

id actually say myself, i am really rather good.

these others you mentioned did have lessons....i dont really consider them self-taught

[zheer]

richter, if u count him as one. (Neuhaus said he didn't have anything to teach him)

He had three very important piano teachers.

         I would say Glen Gould , his mother was his piano full stop.

[canucks13]

He had three very important piano teachers.

         I would say Glen Gould , his mother was his piano full stop.

Gould was also taught by Alberto Guerrero at the RCM in Toronto.

[zheer]

Gould was also taught by Alberto Guerrero at the RCM in Toronto.

O thats intresting, do you know much about him and his influence on Gould ?

[canucks13]

O thats intresting, do you know much about him and his influence on Gould ?

Gould's hunching posture can be attributed almost entirely to Guerrero, who played in a very similar fashion. Guerrero also taught Gould his highly analytical approach to preparing an interpretation.

Also, (I'm paraphrasing from 'Wondrous Strange' here), a recording of Guerrero playing the Italian Concerto in 1952 survives and a recording of Gould playing the same piece in the same year is nearly identical in interpretation and tempos.

Guerrero also reccomended that his students soak their arms in warm water (which Gould obviously became known for)


I could go on for a lot longer but if you want to know more, the book Wondrous Strange has a lot of information about Guerrero and his influence on Gould.

[zheer]

Umh , i didnt think Gould would listen to anyone, he was so origianl. Thanks.
That thing about the hot water i thought it was a gould thing.

[PaulNaud]

I don't trust pianists who say that they are autodidact. Somebody from the beginning showed them how to play. They may have chosen their own way later on!!!!!!

[Barbosa-piano]

 I read somewhere that Brahms was self-taught...
As of today, I believe that one of the few excellent self taught pianists is Alfred Brendel.

[chromatickler]

id actually say myself, i am really rather good.

these others you mentioned did have lessons....i dont really consider them self-taught

1. you are rather crap
2. it's my fault because i am your teacher

[presto agitato]

Alfred Brendel and Keith Emerson

[g_s_223]

I read somewhere that Brahms was self-taught...
As of today, I believe that one of the few excellent self taught pianists is Alfred Brendel.

Brahms commenced piano lessons at age 8 with Otto Cossel, and at age 10 then moved on to lessons with the leading Hambug pedagogue Eduard Marxsen. He gave a public concert at age 14 with Marxsen's collaboration. He subsequently dedicated his magnificent 2nd Piano Concerto to Marxsen in memory of the latter's assistance.

Brendel had a variety of teachers, including Edwin Fischer. He tended not to stay long with any one though.

[arensky]

I don't trust pianists who say that they are autodidact. Somebody from the beginning showed them how to play. They may have chosen their own way later on!!!!!!

We all evantually choose our own way. Obviously you do not consider Errol Garner and Art Tatum to be pianists. What wouuld you call them???

Oh, and Harold Bauer....

[cfortunato]

Is Emerson self-taught?  That's surprising.

As for not being able to teach yourself, yes you can.  I am self-taught, and my entire knowledge before I taught myself was someone who explained steps and half-steps to me, and how to use them to build a scale.  And playing "On Top Of Old Smoky" on a chord organ.  I first took lessons after playing for more than three years.

[m]

He had three very important piano teachers.

Neuhaus as one of them doesn't count, as Richter came to him as an accomplished MASTER, in his twenties. In any case, Neuhaus did not teach Richter how to play piano.

I am curious who are other two.


Arthur Rubinstein had very little formal training. Obviously he did not find a common language with Mr. Bart.

[presto agitato]

Im not sure but i think that Chick Corea is self taught.

[cfortunato]

Paul McCartney was originally self-taught, although he has taken lessons since.  I've always been impressed with how quickly he went from not playing the piano at all to the excellent barrelhouse piano break on "Lovely Rita" (which was only the second time he played on record, the first being the piano bass line in "Good Day Sunshine")

[thierry13]

We all evantually choose our own way. Obviously you do not consider Errol Garner and Art Tatum to be pianists. What wouuld you call them???

I would call Tatum a Jazz maker.

[zheer]

i am curious who are other two.

 

        His father who was a concert pianost and teacher, also Wagner according to Richter.
The thing about Nauhause is not true, he did teach him a lot.

[m]

 
His father who was a concert pianost and teacher...

According to Richter himself, his father gave him some lessons, but mostly left him alone. It is impossible to talk about some systematic formal piano education.

The thing about Nauhause is not true, he did teach him a lot.

Yes, it is true, however as I said, Neuhaus did not teach him how to play piano. When Richter came to Neuhaus, he was already an accomplished artist. According to Richter, Neuhaus was mostly working on removing harshness of the sound (in fact, something what Richter was struggling for a long time).

[zheer]

I agree.

[arensky]

I would call Tatum a Jazz maker.

Explain.

[arensky]

1. you are rather crap
2. it's my fault because i am your teacher

LMFAO!!!

What is it like to teach da Stevie? Inquiring mind wants to know....

[porter]

This is my first post on this forum. If you play by ear only without any theory and you cannot and never could read music. Does that put you in a different category? Erroll Garner was one of those people. Never knew Art Tatum was though, if so, it makes him even more a rare talent.

I have played for 70 years without being able to read a score or anything. I play jazz. It's an ability to understand which notes make what sound. Practice for years and years is to me the biggest improver of style. Your subconscious brain does the rest. Fingering technique is the hardest part and where scale practice is vital.

The piano keys all have the sounds there it's just a matter of knowing what keys will give a particular sound. A bit like a singer forms the sound from the brain sound recall.

This is another form of playing by ear, totally.

Alan

[zheer]

I have bad news for you porter, you are 6 times older than most people on this forum.

[arensky]

This is my first post on this forum. If you play by ear only without any theory and you cannot and never could read music. Does that put you in a different category? Erroll Garner was one of those people. Never knew Art Tatum was though, if so, it makes him even more a rare talent.

I have played for 70 years without being able to read a score or anything. I play jazz. It's an ability to understand which notes make what sound. Practice for years and years is to me the biggest improver of style. Your subconscious brain does the rest. Fingering technique is the hardest part and where scale practice is vital.

The piano keys all have the sounds there it's just a matter of knowing what keys will give a particular sound. A bit like a singer forms the sound from the brain sound recall.

This is another form of playing by ear, totally.

Alan

I (who own over 200 individual Tatum performances) did not know this until the other day, when I was perusing a possible new textbook for my Jazz History class. Evidently he learned to play from rolls, being ALWAYS almost completly blind. Guess that "he studied Chopin Etudes before his eye was put out in a teenage fistfight" stuff is spurious misinformation, planted by the legitos...

You are right Alan, the subconcious brain should do the work after all the practice, but there is a difference between Jazz and other improvised genres and Classical or arranged or recreative genres. The classical pianist has to play all the notes as they are written, because s/he is recreating what a composer wrote. It's harder to let your subconcious go when you are doing that; improvising IS the subconcious, revealed immediately for all to hear, regardless of what genre or style or vehicle.  The challege the improviser faces is to have his subconcious come out organized, not as random spewage (although that can work in a pinch  , and much classical music is little more than that.).

And so we are all after the same thing, just approaching it from opposite ends of the spectrum. The classical player builds the structure from blueprints, with the goal of having it sound fresh, as if it had just been written. The improviser (Jazz, Raga, anything) builds on the spur of the moment, and must convince his listeners that the structure s/he has built is valid, not a rambling mess.

                                            

Yes, we are in different categories, but we are all doing the same thing.......

[mr david]

Harold Bauer is the best example I can think of, though as I understand it even he had formal training to a high standard as a violinist, and so was likely much better prepared for the piano than someone starting from scratch.

[porter]

Arensky,

Thanks for your reply and pleased about your collection of Tatum recordings. I have a few video clips taken from the TV music programs. To see the way he does the beautiful runs and all that is a true miracle. Nobody has beaten him for such talent. His eye problem was due to some fight I think and then the other eye became worse leaving him virtually blind is what I thought.

I would never attempt classical music as I consider that would be arrogant. I like the Teddy Wilson style and he was so precise. I never stop learning.

I learned to pick out tunes on the piano when a child of 6 or so. I just kept at it and found I could develop gradually all the time. Played in bars at 16 during the WW2, for sing-a-longs.

I recently bought a new piano, a Pleyel 131 which has a lovely bass and touch. I am even more drawn to the instrument and the practice always make me better.

I have to ne happy to play though otherwise my subconscious is less dynamic.

Sorry I'm so old. But you are as old as you feel. And I always feel young in heart.

Alan

[zheer]

I would never attempt classical music as I consider that would be arrogant.

Why

[porter]

zheer.

I suppose that I hold the talents of good classical pianists as above my ability. I understand that classical music has to be played as written and although some say that they play by ear on classical compositions. Unless they do memorise the work from the score as they usually do, that would still preclude such as me playing it.

I do enjoy and appreciate classical very much and a colleague of mine tells me he is a self taught classical pianist, I still think it's above my ability. I any case I never feel I achieve enough on the jazz/swing era piano to even consider classical.

Do you have knowledge about classical pianists that have achieved the playing of classical music without any knowledge of the score and the other factors of playing the classics correctly?


Thanks for the interest.

Alan

[zheer]

zheer.

I suppose that I hold the talents of good classical pianists as above my ability.

Thats rubish, i think you need more talent to play music by ear than by notes. I have a friend who does both very well, classical and jazz. i remember someone saying there is no such thing as a wrong note in jazz only oportunities.

[rc]

Thats rubish

Agreed!

The idea that one is better than the next is nonsense. Piano is piano, music is music... There are only two kinds; the good stuff, and the rest.

A classical pianist would have a hard time adapting to jazz just as a jazz in classical, but it's just a matter of adjustment. I think a jazz musician could learn a lot from classical, and a classical musician could learn a lot from jazz. The two styles seem to compliment what the other tends to lack.

Oscar Peterson advocates people have a classical training to gain a strong foundation to use in jazz.

[fryc]

Chopin was essentially self taught.   As a small boy, he received rudimentary instruction from his mother and older sister.  His only formal teacher before he studied composition at the Warsaw conservatory was a violinist who was a friend of his violin playing father.  (Yes, Chopin  did learn to play the violin, but apparently never touched it after he left home.)  Liszt was very well taught.  One of his teachers was Czerny.

[apion]

As of today, I believe that one of the few excellent self taught pianists is Alfred Brendel.

Agreed.  Brendel was almost totally self-taught.  Quite AMAZING!

[prometheus]

Jazz is harder to play than classical.

[zheer]

Agreed.  Brendel was almost totally self-taught.  Quite AMAZING!

I also agree, i read a book about him and he talks about haw he learnt to look at himself in the mirror to correct his bad mannerisms, like throwing his head so far back that his glasses would fly in the air. I love him, not liturally.

[arensky]

Jazz is harder to play than classical.

Interesting. Why do you feel that way? I think they both present their own difficulties.

[prometheus]

Because a jazz musician has to do both the tasks of the performer and the composer while a classical musician only has the tast of the performer (with exceptions of course).

Jazz music is also less perfected. I tried to play bebop jazz on a guitar once. Because you have to think about implying the harmony and the modulations in the harmony through the solo you are thinking so much about what scales and keys to play in I had no time at all left for musical considerations. Now surely it comes with time and a lot of practice but that is really a lot. I do have to add that scales on the piano are laid out very logical so it may be a bit easier on the piano compared to other instruments.

The technical standards for a great deal of classical pieces is higher because it can be higher because the classical performer has less to do. You can play a classical piece in a few months of piano practice. But playing a jazz standard like All the things you are requires much more time.

[steve jones]

True, but dont forget that jazz players base their impov's on many of their own personal cliches, and variations of.

I would say different, rather than harder / easier.

[stevie]

True, but dont forget that jazz players base their impov's on many of their own personal cliches, and variations of.

I would say different, rather than harder / easier.

i agree completely

there are also those pianists who could do both, particularly cziffra who is my musical idol, he improvised jazz aswell as popular and 'classical' fantasias.

i have a natural facility myself for improvisation, i find it very natural, and i actually find it easier than dsiciplining myself with fixed notes.

[prometheus]

I wonder if you guys understand what playing over changes means. You are playing highly chromatic syncopated lines while you still need to imply all the chords. So you need to play the right notes at the right moment in comparison to the beat. And then you need to think about music. You can't just play something. At least for me it is tons harder. It takes a life time to learn it.

[steve jones]

I think I can comprehend this yes. I was quite an avid jazz guitarist and I found it much more inspiring than the classical music of my early lessons. I was also fortunate enough to be in close contact with some really good jazz muso's playing brass and woodwinds, string bass etc. So I got a good feel for the style. And that really is what its about, for me anyway. Its about feeling that riff and working your little licks tunes around it. It isnt really composing on the fly, as the majority of the things you play are you own cliches!

But piano may be different (in the technical sense). I have not studied jazz piano so I really cant talk about it to a great extent. But from the experience of jazz / classical that I do have, I think its very difficult to claim one is harder than the other.

I would wager that a jazz player can 'get away' with far more than a classical player. Opps, a wrong note? Meant it!  Opps, a wonky technique? My new style! 

[arensky]

i agree completely

there are also those pianists who could do both, particularly cziffra who is my musical idol, he improvised jazz aswell as popular and 'classical' fantasias.

i have a natural facility myself for improvisation, i find it very natural, and i actually find it easier than dsiciplining myself with fixed notes.

Are there recordings of da Ziff playing Jazz? Mah bad self would love to hear....

Of course it's easier! You are wearing your own clothes, and don't have to tailor someone elses...

[arensky]

Its about feeling that riff and working your little licks tunes around it. It isnt really composing on the fly, as the majority of the things you play are you own cliches!

I would wager that a jazz player can 'get away' with far more than a classical player. Opps, a wrong note? Meant it!  Opps, a wonky technique? My new style! 

Yes that's exactly what it's about! But cliches are to be avoided as muh as possible. Hopefully the player will always present them in a new way or say something with them.

Yes, we can get away with more, but these are escape hatches, and it's easy to tell whose abusing them!

[cfortunato]

I find classical harder, since I have a natural ability with improvisation.  Playing EXACTLY what somebody ELSE says I should play  - as opposed to what I think I should play - is something I find difficult.

Many years ago, I was struggling with a jazz transcription, and I said to my brother, "that is so fast and so twisted, how does the guy manage to PLAY it?"

He said, "Don't you get it?  That's just the stuff he DOES, except somebody bothered to turn it into sheet music.  You have crap that's just what YOU do, too.  If somebody ever put THAT on sheet music, anyone who wasn't you would have a hell of a time reading  and playing that, too."

It was a revelation.

[arensky]

I wonder if you guys understand what playing over changes means. You are playing highly chromatic syncopated lines while you still need to imply all the chords. So you need to play the right notes at the right moment in comparison to the beat. And then you need to think about music. You can't just play something. At least for me it is tons harder. It takes a life time to learn it.

Giver of fire it's great that you've really thought about this, you may have a better understanding of it than many Jazz musicians! I could put your first post here in a book. But I will write my own someday, no plagarising! I would like to point out where you go wrong. Look up at your second post. You describe perfectly what is supposed to happen. And then..."you need to think about the music". Yes, but BEFORE you play, not AFTER. The Jazz player (or any sophisticated improviser) is doing too much to be able to think while doing it. You will choke. When you are making love if you stop to think about what you are doing, and how it should work and analysing your performance, you will experience a "downward spiral"    It is the same with playing any kind of music; the thought and strategy and perparation must come before the act or action, or else we stumble.

Ans so I encourage you to pick up that guitar or hell the piano's easie and try again. But think FIRST, not DURING.  

[arensky]

I find classical harder, since I have a natural ability with improvisation.  Playing EXACTLY what somebody ELSE says I should play  - as opposed to what I think I should play - is something I find difficult.

Many years ago, I was struggling with a jazz transcription, and I said to my brother, "that is so fast and so twisted, how does the guy manage to PLAY it?"

He said, "Don't you get it?  That's just the stuff he DOES, except somebody bothered to turn it into sheet music.  You have crap that's just what YOU do, too.  If somebody ever put THAT on sheet music, anyone who wasn't you would have a hell of a time reading  and playing that, too."

It was a revelation.

Exactly! I thought my improvs were easy; I played some of them into a reproducing computer program or whatever, and after some tweaking my friend printed them for me. I was stunned  I had always dismissed my Jazz, because I had not realized the complexity of what I was doing. It sounds conventional a lot but is very strange when you look into it. And quite diffiult, more than I imagined because it's COMFORTABLE for me. I think comfortable is a key word here in unlocking this mystery, if it is one. I don't understand why everyone doesn't do this; maybe their evil fascist philistine teachers beat them; no one ever did that to me, although one of my college piano teachers said something one day about "I don't want any chicken pecking Jazz technique in my studio!" when I told her that I was doing the occasional gig here and there. I never mentioned it again, and envisioned a giant Oscar Peterson chicken chasing after her, "pecking" all the way... 

In contrast to this close minded attitude from "liberal" American academia, was Moscow Conservatory grad Boris Berman's response to the same issue..."I respect and admire the Jazz musicians but I do not claim to understand the music and it's process. As long as this does not interfere with our work..." OK, that's a lot better! My teacher in Grad School, again an "enlightened" 12 tone "liberal", never said anything directly, but I could always tell he hated Jazz, and my increasing involvement in it. I ran across other "educators" in music schools who had a similair attitude. Things seem to be changing, although not entirely for the better; what happened to classical music is happening to Jazz, thanks to academia. However the damage is not yet done, and I am thinking deeply about how this must be done correctly...

Have any of you been supressed or upbraided by your musical "authority" for venturing into different styles or genres? Do share, mah bad self's inquring mind wants to know....

[porter]

I think it's over simplistic to quote 'jazz' as a style of music. Jazz in it's many styles has been played and composed since the days ( late 19th Century) when it began.  Listen to Scott Joplin for instance. The tune had a melody and framework that allowed further imbellishments, or variations on a theme.

Now take todays general styles like Chick Corea, Keith Jarret and lots more. They play in a manner that almost defies copying. There is no general tune based on a well known popular song, unlike the days of the mainstream and traditional jazz and swing too.

So they are the extremes and I never play the very modern style as I prefer to base my music on the traditional songs or blues which is of course another style. I like to have freedom with the interpretation or probably combine a few well known styles from other pianists.

Though there is a limit!  There is only one Oscar Peterson ; Erroll Garner; Art Tatum; Earl Hines: so on and so forth. I just like to take a few bits of their style and do my own thing.

Although I never play to an audience except to friends of jazz in private I like to know that they will know the tune and be able to recognise it inside my jazz offering.

Consider Benny Goodman's moto " I play for the public to have them dancing to the beat of well known songs".

All of my own opinion of course.

[g_s_223]

Regarding the stuff about individual technique, just imagine the hypothetical situation where Thelonius Monk has to give a piano lesson to Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli - or vice versa