In my own opinion - I have the best musicality in the world.

[opus10no2]

No pianist can play everything to everyone's taste, but considering that my own tastes are my own...why should any other pianist's musicality be better than my own to myself?

When I imagine playing a piece in my head - I can often hear the perfect interpretation to myself, I hear it how I want it played, and the ONLY barrier to me playing it that way would be technical, not musical.

If I had the perfect technique, the only need I would have for listening to other pianists would be to hear ideas they have that I never imagined myself.

Beyond a certain level of musical ability and sensetivity, I can't see how one pianist's musicality can be universally superior to another's - because it's all subjective.
The only thing that can be quanitified is the resonance it has with the public, the popularity and empathy people have for a pianist's musical choices and instincts.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

So in other words to you the only thing that really makes a difference is the technical ability of the pianist, and that determines who is better and who is worse?

[opus10no2]

Greetings.

So in other words to you the only thing that really makes a difference is the technical ability of the pianist, and that determines who is better and who is worse?

I'd say that's the only criteria that can be objectively assessed, yes.

[debussy symbolism]

But then wait a minute. Why not just run a MIDI a hundred times as fast? There wouldn't be wrong notes; all would be flawless. Why should that bother you? According to you each interpretation is perfect in itself so why not listen to MIDI's?

[opus10no2]

I didn't say every interpretation is perfect, I only said there is no objective way to discern a superior interpretation, other than following the score - which most often just produces a dull interpretation, and by counting popular opinion, which is still subjective.

There is no value in running a MIDI a hundred times as fast, why would there be?

[viking]

Yes, music is a very personal art with no right or wrong answers.  However, I think the greatness of a pianst is determined by how they relate to and communicate with others through their music, whether it be disbelief of superhuman technique, or the suttleness, or the imagery, colors, etc...  In this respect, music is subjective, but a MIDI posesses none of the previous mentioned tools of communication. 

[maxd]

your argument as usual is not valid.

beautiful women are beautiful not based on measurements, but because they are beautiful.

[counterpoint]

Beyond a certain level of musical ability and sensetivity, I can't see how one pianist's musicality can be universally superior to another's - because it's all subjective.

There is a great part of subjective decisions a musician has to make when playing a piece.
But there is also a musical content, which is intended by the composer. If you don't be aware of the composer's intentions, you can't play the piece well, and that is no subjective statement. And furthermore, you need the ability to communicate your musical ideas to the audience. That's more a psychological than a technical issue.

It is wonderful, if someone has almost unlimited technical skills, but understanding of the musical content is as important as surpassing technical difficulties.

[opus10no2]

If you don't be aware of the composer's intentions, you can't play the piece well, and that is no subjective statement.

Partly true, but even so - I often hear something magical when some 'intentions' are ignored and even inverted. So again, this is partially subjective, and following 'intentions' alone is never enough to make a piece come alive musically.

The printed score tells the performer everything but the essential. - Gustav Mahler

your argument as usual is not valid.

beautiful women are beautiful not based on measurements, but because they are beautiful.

Just what?

Go to california, I know this plastic surgeon than can give you a discount on augmenation 

[mephisto]

opus10no2, imagine that you are playing a very easy piece(technicly). Do you really think you could play the piece as good as Horowitz? At least I never fell that I can do this. It is not only fingers. It is a combination of fingers, hearth and mind. Juts listen to the best Mozart and Scarlatti pianist. Please don't tell me you can play as beautifully as them(I like your improvs, so don't get me wrong). That is technicly easy reperetoire(most of it), but it is extremely difficult to play it as good as Horowitz and Haskil.

Interpretation is not completly personal imo.

[opus10no2]

opus10no2, imagine that you are playing a very easy piece(technicly). Do you really think you could play the piece as good as Horowitz? At least I never fell that I can do this. It is not only fingers. It is a combination of fingers, hearth and mind. Juts listen to the best Mozart and Scarlatti pianist. Please don't tell me you can play as beautifully as them(I like your improvs, so don't get me wrong). That is technicly easy reperetoire(most of it), but it is extremely difficult to play it as good as Horowitz and Haskil.

Interpretation is not completly personal imo.

Yes, important points to consider..

Horowitz's Scarlatti and Mozart, in his old age , were incredible, colourful and imaginative beyond compare.

Firstly consider he played on a unique piano, but aside from that, consider that someone with a very good musical ear, and sensetivity to dynamics - they could aurally remember the details and expression, and with the perfect technical command, they could replicate the performance.

There is a sense of style everyone must learn, how to play and be sensetive to these composers.
Also a pianist has to have a creative and spontanious edge that brings the music to life.

Apart from that it is actually all just technique, it's the ability to replicate what you hear in your head - you imagine a great crescendo and subtle rubato in your head - you have the musicality! you just may not have the technique to produce it.

Alot of the Horowitz magic is acualy technical - the tone he could produce; the control of independant voices, it's technique.

So is my musicality inferior to Horowitz's? I can't say for anyone else, but what I can say is that I would be more consistently happy with my own musical decisions than his. 

[counterpoint]

Not to forget one little point:

it doesn't matter, if I think, I am the best musician in the world

it would only be of any interest, if many, many people (who are excellent musicians themselves) think so.

Or in other words:

He, who thinks, he is better than all others, often lacks of imagination only.   

[opus10no2]

The point is that it matters to YOU, and your own musical tastes are the BEST in the world, aren't they!

I think my musical tastes are like TEH BEST EVAR 

[allthumbs]

I'm a 'legend in my own mind!'

[elevateme]

Go to california, I know this plastic surgeon than can give you a discount on augmenation 

yeah i bet you do

[ted]

I have serious difficulty in defining quality through solipsism in that it would appear to eliminate my capacity to be surprised and delighted. Without the freedom to experience revelation and serendipity through somebody else's superior musicianship my own musical response would be intolerably drab. If I were impervious to the power of certain creators to reduce my own ego to the strutting insignificance it really is, to let me "see the universe in a grain of sand", I should begin to wonder why on earth I bother with music.

In a certain biologically pragmatic sense the original assertion is true yet, as an extrapolated generalisation, it is curiously and sadly false. This is very hard to put into words. 

C.S. Lewis said he would rather be the person caught in the spell than the wizard casting it. I have no particular axe to grind for Lewis, but his remark seems to sum up my view on this particular matter rather aptly.

[opus10no2]

True, Ted, I wasn't saying it isn't magical listening to other's playing, just that in actual fact, no other person's musical tastes and ideas are ever as consistently satisfying as my own, but your point lies in the fact that everyone oneself does it predictable, and listening to another pianist always delights us and surprises us in an entirely different way.

[ibbar]

Interpretations aren't as concrete as your post might suggest.  As a pianist matures, his conception of a piece changes.  It's funny when I revisit a piece that I learned years ago, and think of all the details that I missed, all the possibilities that I overlooked.  Presumably I'll repeat this process in the future.  My interpretation of a piece will change, and it's silly to presume that because I hear a certain 'ideal' now, that this must represent a perfect musicality, even for myself.

There may be some subjectivity involved in comparing performances, but it's too easy to hide a mediocre inspiration behind that word.  A good interpretation requires involvement and care from the performer, and these are nearly always evident in performance.  You're right that these can't be quantified, but neither can technical accuracy (which is an awful lot more than just right notes) in any really valid way.

[maxd]

post a recording opus, let us hear how beautiful your playing is..

[houseofblackleaves]

Musicality is what you do with the technique you have to effectively convey what you are trying to say to the audience through a peice.  It doesn't matter if the listeners agree with your interpretation or not.  If you can't express what you want through a certain peice, then it's too hard for you.

[opus10no2]

post a recording opus, let us hear how beautiful your playing is..

Did I say my playing is beautiful?

[musicsdarkangel]

IMO my wang is big.

tis great for etudes with blocked chords

[maxd]

oh.. of course..

your playing is both ugly AND musical ... ...........................right!, ok then..

continue to play for yourself and WITH yourself then, and don't make anymore misleading statements please.

[opus10no2]

oh.. of course..

your playing is both ugly AND musical ... ...........................right!, ok then..

continue to play for yourself and WITH yourself then, and don't make anymore misleading statements please.

I didn't say anything about my playing - the point of this thread is that 'musicality' is basically one's internal musical sensibility, taste, and creative energy.

Combining this with the perfect technique - I would be my own favourite pianist, but alas I will concede that I do not have the perfect technique, which I never claimed to have anyway.

Understand yet?

[brewtality]

I didn't say anything about my playing - the point of this thread is that 'musicality' is basically one's internal musical sensibility, taste, and creative energy.

Combining this with the perfect technique - I would be my own favourite pianist, but alas I will concede that I do not have the perfect technique, which I never claimed to have anyway.

Understand yet?

you're wasting your time. The guy obviously has the comprehension abilities of a garden slug.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

just some thoughts i came up with while reading the thread:

- technic and musicality are an integral part of each other.

- if you are a good musician AND pianist, the more you should think that you know so little.

- Horowitz has both musicality and technic (and both are superb). but he has something which others don't - PERSONALITY! I don't think he's that scholarly though, but he sure is SMART with his interpretations. hehehe. wonderful performer!

- I, on the other hand, am the best interpreter of $%^&*(&*%!!!! Any objections?!


Peace!

[opus10no2]

- technic and musicality are an integral part of each other.

In a great musical pianist - yes, but in most of us, they are seperate, and we are most often lacking in one or the other.

Point I think is valid to make, is that musicality is for the most part innate, and cannot be developed like technique can.

Technique is what we should concentrate our work on.

- if you are a good musician AND pianist, the more you should think that you know so little.

Perhaps..

I do not post because I wish to preach that I know it all, and that I have absolute 100% closed-minded arrogance in my theories/beliefs.
I post because, on the contrary, I am open minded to having my theories tested and argued with, because this is the only way to learn.
Through this; my conviction in my own thoughts may be strengthened, or changed slightly, but either way..I know that in the path to knowledge we must humble enough to accept that we may know nothing. perhaps.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

In a great musical pianist - yes, but in most of us, they are seperate, and we are most often lacking in one or the other.

I am not a great pianist myself, i am average and i'm sure you'd agree if you check out the audition room. but i have realized that working on musicality and technique TOGETHER is more effective than separating them. i used to think they're seperate, but it'll come to a point when you will also think as i do. i promise you that, it's one of the greatest realizations i ever had.

Point I think is valid to make, is that musicality is for the most part innate, and cannot be developed like technique can.

I think we are missing the essence of musicality here. Musicality is like your body of musical decisions that you should carefully organize in order to build a strong, founded and convincing interpretation of a piece.
Ok, if you are talking about the "innate-ness" of musicality, yes, i do agree that part of it is innate, and i believe a very important part of it, too. The innate qualities are the warmth of your communication, the conviction of the execution of your ideas, and the opening of yourself to your audience as felt in every phrase of the music (in other words, you expose your person).
But without your musical interpretation, it will all be a passionate yet sloppy performance. Musicality is NOT feeling alone.

Technique is what we should concentrate our work on.

Technique based on your musical decisions is what we should concentrate our work on.

I do not post because I wish to preach that I know it all, and that I have absolute 100% closed-minded arrogance in my theories/beliefs.
I post because, on the contrary, I am open minded to having my theories tested and argued with, because this is the only way to learn.
Through this; my conviction in my own thoughts may be strengthened, or changed slightly, but either way..I know that in the path to knowledge we must humble enough to accept that we may know nothing. perhaps.

i know that is true for all of us here. that's why i said, "just some thoughts i came up with while reading the thread". i hope you learn something from my refusal to agree with your opinions.


- crazy

[opus10no2]

I do agree with some of what you say, but the disagreement seems to center around the definition of 'musicality'.

Musicality, to me at least, is musical instinct, as opposed to musical intellect, which is the realm of interpretation.

Musicality can be focussed and honed to a degree, but it's still a raw instinct.

Interpretation is the taming ang intellectual controlling (or lack of) of this raw instinctive musicality, which, in my opinion and experience, can not be made 'better' or 'worse' through work, the only thing that can improve your 'musical instincts' is to broaden it's range of musical experience.

This can only be done through listening to other pianists, really, listening to their dynamic and rhythmic personalities, and ingraining those elements in your musical instinctive subconcious.


About the technique thing, yes - I agree with musical playing of the piano, but seperating technique from music to work on the raw mechanics of pianism, I feel, is essential to developing a world class technique, but this is work aside from the work on technique which is done in harmony with musical thought.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

ok, thanks for that. i think you know what you're talking about. it's just a matter of how we present our ideas that differ. but i suspect we just mean the same thing... if u know what i mean.

[opus10no2]

Indeed, in most cases.

Although, it is also evident from my other posts on the forum that I have a passionate interest in the purely technical side of pianism, and it is through this that I have developed the 'technique seperated from music' mentality.

So on the 2 sides of the coin, I appreciate and promote mechanical pianism - extreme octaves and other forms of keyboard atheleticism, and I appreciate music too, of course, but that music can never come without great technique alongside it.

And that's the excitement of virtuosity for me - the combination of amazing physical feats and musical passion in symbiosis.

[elevateme]

When I imagine playing a piece in my head - I can often hear the perfect interpretation to myself, I hear it how I want it played, and the ONLY barrier to me playing it that way would be technical, not musical.

International pianists are so good because they can reproduce what they hear in their head on the piano. Although you may hear the perfect version of a piece in your head, how easy is it to perfect every single texture/dynamic/phrasing etc?

Also, although you say everyone has unique interpretations that cannot be criticised, there are obvious exceptions ; for example say if someone played a bach partita with tonnes of rubato. or if they played a mozart sonata without letting go of the sustain pedal.
But with finer details, I suppose at the end of the day it's down to personal taste

[opus10no2]

International pianists are so good because they can reproduce what they hear in their head on the piano. Although you may hear the perfect version of a piece in your head, how easy is it to perfect every single texture/dynamic/phrasing etc?

Yes, it's called technique.

[elevateme]

yes it is.  and really really really really good technique at that

[opus10no2]

Indeed, and Gavrilov in his prime had one of the best techniques I've ever witnessed.

[elevateme]

yeah.. his technique is amazing :S

[csy]

How about Garilov nowadays?
What happened to him? He seems to disappear from concert appearances...[

quote author=opus10no2 link=topic=22563.msg251915#msg251915 date=1167817268]
Indeed, and Gavrilov in his prime had one of the best techniques I've ever witnessed.

[elevateme]

check the other thread lol

[elevateme]

Andrei Pays Homage to Bach
by Benjamin Chee

The first thing someone at the SSO asks me as I arrive at the concert hall is, "Have you seen Gavrilov ?" Before I can clarify whether she means if I know where he is or if I have seen what he looks like, she answers herself: "He doesn't look like his pictures at all."

Andrei Gavrilov, indeed, does not look like your typical classical musician. Loud Hawai'ian shirt, rings on his fingers, a humungous dangly pendant and a second gold chain around the neck, hair pulled into ponytail and Hush Puppies. Someone could seriously mistake him for a rock star. He has anything but an rock star's attitude when we talk to him, though.

We meet four days before his (quote-unquote) Gala Concert and he's wandering around the corridor leading backstage, looking at all the students setting up for a Youth Festival concert. "The Victoria Concert Hall is a popular location for school and amateur concerts on weekday nights," I tell him. "Last evening they were doing the Yellow River Cantata."

He nods knowingly at the amount of activity that's going on through his shades. "I wish we could have played to more people," he says, gesturing at the auditorium. His English is excellent. "Eight hundred is nothing, we should be doing two thousand." He may be alluding to the new concert hall at the Esplanade which is going to seat a thousand six.

We ask him how long he's taken to prepare the Rach 3. "Oh, about three weeks. You know, I have to prepare about five to seven concert programmes now, it's all the summer music festivals I'm doing." After emergence from his five-year hiatus, it's not surprising that Andrei is in such great demand.

We tell him about Friday - exactly 250 years to the day that Bach passed away. He knows it, "And I don't know why your guys asked me to play Rachmaninov. We could have done something else instead, more meaningful."

"Why don't you play Bach for an encore, then?" He thinks over my suggestion, then says, "Yeah, I wish I could play all the preludes and fugues. Well, maybe a couple of them; do something in his memory."

Friday night, backstage two hours before the concert. I'm finishing a meeting in the meeting room that doubles as the soloists' dressing room during concert nights. Andrei comes in, Fonz-like, and declares, "After tonight's concert, I'm going to let all the orchestra members off, then I'll play the Forty-Eight. Not both books - I don't like the second one as much - but the first one."

My first thought was: that's going to take two hours or so. And, as if reading my mind, he elaborates, "Well, I don't like to do encores, and I think it's too mean to just do one prelude or two. I should play the entire Well-Tempered Clavier, just the first book or maybe the first five preludes and fugues. We can invite whoever wants to stay, they don't have to pay anything, I'm doing this for free, and I'll play us some Bach."

And so he did.





thought that was quite interesting

[maxd]

if technique was the most important aspect to achieve musical results, computer-sequenced pianos would achieve perfection.

with modern sequencers and diskclaviers you can program velocity, timing, phrasing and speed etc..

problem is that once you DO get beyond technique you will find that technique means nothing..

touch is everything.

a simple piece played with MUSIC is worth 1000 complicated pieces which were worked on endlessly to perfection...

also consider that you are all in competition with other pianists who already have very few technical limits and are touring already.

the difference between a great musician and a poor pianist is in the way he can communicate and stir-up a significant reaction in an audience who has no conception of technique..

[opus10no2]

Touch is part of technique, dynamics.

so what?

[maxd]

ok then, where's the recording? let's hear your excellent touch.

technique, dynamics...only elements of a whole

touch goes beyond analysis into the realm of the unexplainable, otherwise everyone could do it.

some people are born with it and display it even before they mature as a player, others achieve touch later on.

some have a mediocre touch even at the peak of their technique and can't do anything about it..

and mostly everyone can achieve technique given enough study.

[opus10no2]

Touch is the physical manipulation of sound, dynamic control.

Did I say I have excellect touch? no.

Touch does not go into the unexplainable; different pianists produce different sounds because of the differences of their anatomy and technique.

It's difficult to study because some sound effects that are easy to one pianist would be much more difficult or impossible for others.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

touch may be achieved through scientific measurements of weight and action from the body. however, i have never heard of anyone who's done that because our physical selves are incapable of measuring them accurately.

but i do believe that great touch is simply having a very good ear for music and sound. the ear can approximate the sound in the mind (that perfect image of sound) and our facility (body) has to react to it. great pianists (like Ivan Moravec) are very consistent with touch because of the habit of doing them. that's why we have repetitive practices of the "correct" sound.

also, touch cannot be just one note played in a "beautiful" tone. i think it is the combination of the sounds we make on the piano. every note has to be in context to the whole picture. that's why i don't necessarily believe in an "all-beautiful" touch/sound because to be able to appreciate beauty, one has to hear ugliness too (i don't mean harshness here though, that's a different story). that's why it is necessary to have different touches/sounds so as to appreciate the combinations of these touches.

my 2 cents worth...


- crazy

[elevateme]

wow well said mate

ok so the question here is  - is touch more to do with technique or with muscality & ear?

in my opinion it is how well one listens to the sounds being produced, i dont think it is technique. also i suppose it also depends on the instrument and how familar it is to the performer

[counterpoint]

I always thought, that this thread is a satire on another thread, where brainwashing is the topic 

[crazy for ivan moravec]

wow well said mate

ok so the question here is  - is touch more to do with technique or with muscality & ear?

touch alone is technical. GOOD touch, however, requires good musical instincts and good technique.
so i think it's both, 50/50 maybe... like in my previous replies to this thread, i believe that both technique and musicality cannot be practiced separately. we have to deal with them simultaneously.

[elevateme]

maybe technique can be separated - eg technique exercises?

[crazy for ivan moravec]

maybe... find out for yourself.

[opus10no2]

wow well said mate

ok so the question here is  - is touch more to do with technique or with muscality & ear?

in my opinion it is how well one listens to the sounds being produced, i dont think it is technique. also i suppose it also depends on the instrument and how familar it is to the performer

Touch is all technique, although it is pretty much impossible to cultivate it without a good ear.

maybe technique can be separated - eg technique exercises?

2 areas of technique -

The physical ability to manipulate the sound of the piano to your musical will.

Raw mechanical ability - speed, endurance, etc.


Naturally the former cannot be seperated from the ear and music, but the latter can and should be seperated from music.