what the goshdarn is MUSICALITY anyway?!

[stevie]

this word is used by the cleavagecumbucketload , but what does it mean, and what does it mean to *you*?

people say so and so have profound musicality, what are they saying?

i think really, they are merely expressng their personal preference for a particular pianist's style and musical inclinations, nothing at all about something that could argue they are an objectively superior pianist to another...

and what really gets my randy goat, is when a pianist is accused of a 'lack of musicality'

now ive heard this accusation thrown at cziffra (WTFFFFF?!?!?!), for what reason? because he tended to play in an unbridled bravura style which suits the music he plays....i find this ironic because if anything i would accuse performances lacking in speed, fury and bravura as also lacking in musicality, because thats what the piece requires, musically.

now, another 2 pianists who are completely contrasting have had the 'lack of musicality' label thrown at them an insane amount- hamelin and lang lang.

hamelin plays without exaggeration, with elegance, but little in the way of 'unique colours' and creative touches that bring more attention to the performer than the piece, people accuse him of being a glorified player piano, this is one extreme.

the other extreme is the schizofrenic style of lang lang, he is accused of being too wild, random, and for 'banging', his style is exaggerated and focusses the attention of the audience more on the performer than the piece, and for all of this, he is accused of a lack of musicality.

my opinion, as hypocritical as it may be(because i am denouncing the value of the word in musical conversation) is that they are 2 of the most musical pianists out there, completely different, but great musical minds nevertheless.

the reason i hate the 'lack of musicality' dogma is that it is basically THE MOST INSULTING thing you can say about a musician, its perfectly ok if you dont like or agree with their interpretation, but to actually DENOUNCE and DISRESPECT their musical ear and senses is INSANELY INSULTING.

its basically like denouncing someones intelligence if you dont agree with their opinion, no matter how well informed and well thought out, if you just disagree with it.

lets get this pregnant dog cleared up.

and for the record, the reason i talk more often about technique and speed than 'musicality' , is simple....

noone can argue with the almighty

[palika dunno]

no pianist plays unmusically...u can only like or disklike his/her musicality. it's all about taste.
haha, my holy opinion 

palika






















































(gotta love lang lang's musciality  )

[thorn]

I'd probably say musicality was just simply down to sense of style and interpretation.

Like ^^ said, no pianist plays unmusically... but i suppose musicality is another thing. the way i see it, anyway, anyone with sufficient technique could master anything with practise, but the musicality of the individual is what makes the audience love or loathe the performance.

It probably is more useful to talk about technique and speed when referring to yourself, because obviously no musician is going to admit to themselves they lack musicality (i have only encountered one). But speed is a dangerous thing to go by... it isnt everything and a lot of people make too much of a fuss about it. Take the example of Feux Follets... I found an MP3 of someone playing it in like just over 2 minutes which is the fastest i've ever heard it... technically fantastic, but musically rubbish. Then take a much slower recording, such as Arrau's, and yes, you still have the technical brilliance, but at the same time you can actually enjoy listening to it, rather than just being astounded at the speed.

[chromatickler]

Take the example of Feux Follets... I found an MP3 of someone playing it in like just over 2 minutes which is the fastest i've ever heard it...

HEY WOMAHN



















U LEFT YO STOPWATCH IN DA KITCHEN

[da jake]

HHAHA DA ZEP{P!!!!/

anyway, Hamelin is NOT a great musician. He has a brilliant mind that make his hands do everything the score says, but he he doesn't really bring that much in the way of interpretative creativity. He's like a souped-up Pollini. I think the reason he plays all this obscure repertoire is because he is unable to contribute to our understanding of the works of Schubert, or Beethoven - by playing them with any originality.

Thousands of pianists today have great techniques. True skill lies in bringing something to the music that nobody else does. This is why people will be listening to Schnabel long after Lang Lang has been forgotten.

[thalbergmad]

HHAHA DA ZEP{P!!!!/

anyway, Hamelin is NOT a great musician. He has a brilliant mind that make his hands do everything the score says, but he he doesn't really bring that much in the way of interpretative creativity. He's like a souped-up Pollini. I think the reason he plays all this obscure repertoire is because he is unable to contribute to our understanding of the works of Schubert, or Beethoven - by playing them with any originality.

Thousands of pianists today have great techniques. True skill lies in bringing something to the music that nobody else does. This is why people will be listening to Schnabel long after Lang Lang has been forgotten.

Sums it up to perfection for me.

Thal

[henrah]

anyway, Hamelin is NOT a great musician. He has a brilliant mind that make his hands do everything the score says, but he he doesn't really bring that much in the way of interpretative creativity.

True skill lies in bringing something to the music that nobody else does.

Have you heard/seen his Hungarian Rhapsody No.2, excluding his cadenza (as obviously that can't be compared to any one elses in terms of interpretative creativity as it's his own)? To me, it is the freshest and most beautiful interpretation (not transcription) of that piece I have ever heard. He has 'true skill', in regards to 'bringing something to the music that nobody else does' as you put it. However this is only from my own experience, and so there might be an interpretation that I might think of being even better than Hamelin's. And obviously your own opinion plays a part in this, which is where you might not think he is a great musician as his interpretations might not connect to you, or sound better to you than that of another musician.

This is why people will be listening to Schnabel long after Lang Lang has been forgotten.

According to your own logic, your interpretation of 'true skill' cannot be a correct answer to the question of 'Why will people be listening to Schnabel long after Lang Lang has been forgotten?'. Lang Lang does bring something that nobody else does to the music he plays, be it bashing it out frantically or playing it smoothly (of which I haven't had the pleasure or discomfort of hearing). You cannot say that what he has done nobody else has done (though possibly Horowitz, but only in terms of bashing out pieces). Either way, you must admit that the way he plays the music he plays is entirely new and different than anybody else before him. It doesn't neccesarily mean that everyone will like what he plays, but he surely is different - and according to your logic behind holding true skill, he most certainly has it, and isn't a reason for the possibility of one performer lasting longer in peoples record collection than another.

Also your reasoning for stating that people will continue to listen to Schnabel after Lang Lang is forgotten is entirely based on your own opinion, and thusly you cannot state this on behalf of the 'people'. It is a pretty big assumption to make. I admit I have never heard Schnabel before, but you cannot assume that everyone else in the entire world agrees with your opinion.

I think the reason he plays all this obscure repertoire is because he is unable to contribute to our understanding of the works of Schubert, or Beethoven - by playing them with any originality

This might be so; but have you also considered the likelihood that he simply doesn't like or enjoy playing Schubert or Beethoven? It could also be for a myriad of other reasons - such as only being exposed to such modern and obscure music as a child - of which you, or I or anybody else, will ever know for sure unless we talked to him, or read a quote of him.



This post might sound like I am impressing my own opinions on you (which a part of this is my own opinion: the part concerning my love for Hamelin's HR2 interpretation, but none of it am I impressing upon you) but the rest is merely showing you that the things you are saying like they are fact (the way you are saying it sounds like you are saying it's a true fact) is in fact your own opinion. However I could be wrong, and be interpreting what you are saying as fact when you meant it as opinion - this is an ongoing problem with internet chat as there is a lack of body language, and certain sentences and phrases could be taken the wrong way. If this is so, I do apologise.

Self opinion being stated as fact by some people is something which irritates me, and I become quite pedantic about it, so please don't take this the wrong way. Though to be quite honest I don't really know what the right way to take this is...
Henrah

[da jake]

spam

[airasia]

Lang Lang does bring something that nobody else does to the music he plays, be it bashing it out frantically or playing it smoothly (of which I haven't had the pleasure or discomfort of hearing).

I just came across this video, if this isn't smooth I don't know what is:

&search=%22lang%20lang%22

[henrah]

Ah, then I guess from your point of view Hamelin is the perfect bridge between composer and audience, which is what I hear many critics boast about some pianists. Yet I see what you mean, how there is little input by himself, except maybe exaggeration or the opposite of exaggeration (what is that??) of the expression marks written on the score. Your startling revelation to me has made me want to listen to his HR2 again whilst reading through the score and see if this holds up. Mind you I'll have to find the same edition he learnt off of, if it were to be a fair test.

The slow movement was asphyxiated, true to form.

I'm guessing that this proves it then, though when I read 'asphyxiated' I think of it as a bad thing. But I have no knowledge of that piece, so I'm assuming that that is the correct way - in terms of how the composer wanted it to be - for it to be played.

In a way, as you say, perfection can be a bad thing, as sometimes it's more enjoyable to listen to a personal interpretation.


Airasia, that was lovely, and was exactly the kind of music I wanted to hear L.L play Though I prefer to listen to it and not watch, because those panning shots of his face almost seem like they are there to show the emotion he is portraying, for those dumb enough to not here it in the music. But I loved the end of it, where he kind of floated off and looked like he was almost going to fall backwards off his seat and suddenly snapped out, like he was in a trance or something! Hehehe, great comedy
Henrah

[panic]

Here is my take:

Interpretation is the way that the pianist shapes the substance or character lying behind and driving all the notes.
Musicality is the ability to convey the fact that that character is there in the first place.

[demented cow]

Rating someone's musicality has certain things in common with rating somebody's technique. Technique can be rated by easy-to-notice criteria (e.g. 'how fast can the pianist play the Schumann Toccata with what level of accuracy?') or more subtle criteria (e.g. 'can the pianist play genuine pianissimo at very fast speeds, or play 4-part fugues with perfect control of every line').
It's the same with musicality. I bet if any pianist uses easy-to-notice nuances such as different tone colours, dynamic contrasts, rubato, different articulations, they will be considered very musical by most of us. But there are more subtle things such as comprehension of design or composer's intention that aren't considered as often in questions like this (it's not that they never are; some posts above show that they are sometimes.)
Being a simple soul, I go for the more easy-to-notice criteria. So I prefer the musicality of pianists like Horowitz who add lots of noticeable nuances to their playing.
Or another example: most Mozart sonata performances bore me silly because I don't (yet) see the virtue in the normal approach to Mozart, i.e. be 'tasteful' by not overdoing the nuances. (One exception was Wanda Landowska playing K576, where the whole thing is just one big series of nuances that jump out at you.)
But it might be that artists who play in a less nuanced, more uniform way (e.g. Hamelin, Kissin, Barere and dozens of German classicism people) think that too many nuances might detract from the unity of the whole work, and they may even have a profound musical vision which most of us are unable to appreciate, and which is pretty much impossible to evaluate objectively.
This is why Stevie should start asking more serious, objectively answerable questions like 'Who is the fastest pianist'.