Then who do you play to?

[LastS]

I was reading the Ali Wood thread, and I wondered something.  There was quite a bit of criticism about . . . diluting (for lack of a better word) classical music and skimping on technical skill/emotional impact and playing this to the masses.  But what about the opposite?  That is, buffing up a piece just so that other pianists take you seriously?  I often find myself inserting technical muck into my compositions so that I can "prove myself" as a pianist, but "proving myself" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I've since then decided against the whole thing, even though there will always be a pianist in the audience who won't hesitate to declare that I totally suck.  But at least I suck with enthusiasm  Thoughts, anyone?

[chopiabin]

Musicality over technicality. Seasoned musicians will be more impressed by a very emotional and thoughtful performance more than they will be by a simply technically difficult one.

[liszmaninopin]

Yes, and don't forget to play intelligently, too.  Keep your performances emotional, and cohesive; which is an extremely important factor.  Perhaps tell an emotional story with your music, just don't confuse the audience.  Technical brilliance will only do so much, and only then if you really have a stellar technique.  The shock effect of incredible technique will wear off quickly, so you must have substance behind what you're playing.

[bitus]

But at least I suck with enthusiasm  

Hahaha! You rock
Indeed, it hurts to face comercial pianists... anybody thinking with me about Kleiderman?
Dignity, my friend... you need to have dignity as a piano player, and not show off in front of those who are not as good as you are, but do your best when you play for the better ones.
I used to show off a lot until i took a moment and was honest with myself, understanding that i'm not the best... therefore untill then, i have to play with modesty.
The Bitus

[Rob47]

Someone at school told me that the word technique is used in the wrong sense all the time.

Technique or playing something technically well, does not only apply to the agility of your fingers, your octaves, your accuracy, etc.  The misconception comes from examinations, where you are marked separately for technique and musicality.  But in a sense your ability to control the sound and convey emotion to the listener is just as much "technique" as your ability to play quickly and accurately.  Think about Horowitz: he had good technique as a showman, in his lighting fast runs and octaves, but at the same time had a brilliant ability to control the tone of each note over an incredibly vast dynamic range!  In his later years when his fingers were perhaps not as agile as horowitz the young virtuoso, his colour shading, or whatever you want to call it, was, and is, in my opinon unsurpassed today.  That is some technique right there if you ask me.

What are we talking about again? i just read an earlier post which said "musicality over techncality" or something like that and went off there.  Forgive me.

But think about that too.

Rob47

[Snuffel]

I think we need to make a distinction between art and show business.
Ali Wood, Liberace, Claydermans, Victor Borge etc. are in show business and it is a bit false to judge them by the same criteria as you would a concert artist.
I know that there is increasing pressure, particularly young female artists, to be physically attractive, I find it sad that Vanessa Mae can sell out the Festival Hall and Ida Haendel plays to a half empty Wigmore Hall. There is no question of a: who is the greater artist and b: who looks best in a wet T-shirt.
What can you do! Sex sells and always has.

[eddie92099]

Someone at school told me that the word technique is used in the wrong sense all the time.

Exactly. Similarly, https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=perf;action=display;num=1072277845
Ed

[anda]

who do you play for? everybody! of course there's always going to be someone to think "you suck" - that's totaly unavoidable... but you still have to love all your audience, no matter what

as for technique vs. musicality - i can't see the contradiction... the technique is a tool you need in order to gain access to a lot of works you couldn't play otherwise; also you need a good technique (meaning your fingers have to have no problem with playing this or that passage) in order to be able to concentrate on what really matters - structure, feelings, and so on. personally, i think the most important thing is to really love what you're doing, really love that work, and have a personal image (and a very clear one, too) on the work you have to play - you need to be convincing. you know what they say - a well told lie is more convincing than an hesitating truth. most important is that you believe in what you're doing - like you said, suck with enthusiasm )

[faulty_damper]

I think we need to make a distinction between art and show business.
Ali Wood, Liberace, Claydermans, Victor Borge etc. are in show business and it is a bit false to judge them by the same criteria as you would a concert artist.
I know that there is increasing pressure, particularly young female artists, to be physically attractive, I find it sad that Vanessa Mae can sell out the Festival Hall and Ida Haendel plays to a half empty Wigmore Hall. There is no question of a: who is the greater artist and b: who looks best in a wet T-shirt.
What can you do! Sex sells and always has.

Venessa Mae is a violinist.  (I had to Google it up.)

You're right, she'd look way better than Ida Haendel (whom I've yet to Google up.)

Ida Haendel is also a violinist.  Ida is also a woman.

Which leads me to one pertinent conclusion: I don't know violinists.  Except for That young violinist.   That guy who plays the perfection of that Stradivari sounding violin.  The one that cost $1 million.  Maybe not the most expensive but certainly the best sounding violin I've ever heard.

Edit: Joshua Bell.  I think he got a great deal on his violin.  Some are playing on 4 million dollar violins and they sound inferior.

Edit 2: Just googled him up as well.  He isn't so young (33) and he did pay 4 mil on it...   But he had sponsors to pony it up.