Why should younger people play slow pieces and be criticised for playing fast pi

[steve jones]

eces?

A pianist's athletic ability only lasts so long, so while we have the ability to play fast, why don't we?
Why dont we leave the less mechanically demanding pieces until we are older?

Of course every pianist should have a balanced repertoire, but why should anyone be criticised for doing something while it lasts?

If I understand it correctly...

I think that some people critisise young pianists for playing much of the advanced rep as they dont feel the they are mature enough to have anything to say about the music. They may have the physical requirements, but not the mental or spiritual.

Perhaps they are right. But I must admit, it does seems little spiteful to me. If a kid of 10 can play advanced music that would convince 99.9% of listeners, then that is a marvelous achievement. With maturity, they will play them only better.

I mean, Iv heard kids play Chopin Etudes better (imo) than some very well respected established pianists! Perhaps they dont YET have anything original to say, but that will come with time.

Then again, perhaps it wont? I often wonder if the likes of Lang Lang didnt play better as kids!

SJ

[opus10no2]

I just dislike being forced to play Bach and Mozart in competitions and concerts.

It feels like they are raping me from the grave, forcing me into it!

[steve jones]

Ah, well in thats respect I guess I cant relate - I play for myself only and learn whatever music I like and can handle. I agree though, it must be terrible to have to play music that you dont like to fill some kind of 'requirement.

SJ

[danny elfboy]

If I understand it correctly...

I think that some people critisise young pianists for playing much of the advanced rep as they dont feel the they are mature enough to have anything to say about the music. They may have the physical requirements, but not the mental or spiritual.

Perhaps they are right. But I must admit, it does seems little spiteful to me. If a kid of 10 can play advanced music that would convince 99.9% of listeners, then that is a marvelous achievement. With maturity, they will play them only better

No
The point is that a kid of 10 can have more musical maturity than a man of 40
Kids are too smoothered nowadays to maintain an individual status rather than being "things" their parents own and live vicariously through, but I can imagine my father at 10 having lived enough real life, felt real emotions, done a lot of existential thinking to have a big artistic maturity. In fact to have a big maturity, period

[opus10no2]

And would this father be danny elfman? 




You've completely AVOIDED providing evidence of pianists with what you'd call great technique, name some names!

[danny elfboy]

And would this father be danny elfman? 

LOL 

You've completely AVOIDED providing evidence of pianists with what you'd call great technique, name some names!

Arthur Rubinstein, Alicia De Larrocha, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Sviatoslav Richter, Arturo Michelangeli ...

Okay I have some problem spotting flawless coordination and efficient muscle use and optimal alignment in moder modern and younger pianists. But just because I'm not well informed about new pianists

Suggest me few names your consider great pianists and I can see a performance video of and I will give you my personal opinion about their technique. Mind you, there are great pianists that sound great even if they have horrible technique. We're speaking of body abuse here not of being unable to be a great pianist

[liszt-essence]

Danny,

It's never pointless to argue with people.

Just because you will not convince them, just because they will not see the (Relative) truth, it does not mean that you failed. Because you háve convinced me and you have really helped me with your answers! Puzzle pieces coming together, you really helped me on my way.  I already notice the difference at the keyboard..

Perhaps it's all about convincing the right ones, those who have to be led into the right direction, and this may require a public scene where the 'opposition' is gathered, the battle is fought, but most importantly, the stage is set where the information may be expressed, which is exactly what happened here.

So I really should thank both parties, for we all have our own roles to play in this little drama. In the end, those with the the 'right' orientation will pick the fruits of their labour, and those who do not have this orientation or are led by their fears and/or stubborn convicitions just for the sake of 'winning' and 'being right', will reap what they sow.

It's, once again, just as it should be..

P.S Danny, see the private message for the answers on the bach theme and for more questions

[rob47]

[opus10no2]

Arthur Rubinstein, Alicia De Larrocha, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Sviatoslav Richter, Arturo Michelangeli ...

Sviatoslav Richter was famed for his Chopin 10/4, his best time being 1:31.

In his later years he progressively played the piece less, and in his 70s was down to less than 1:50, with noticably less control and dextral facility.

Hamelin, in his latest DVD, displays still great technique, but a SLIGHT decline in raw facility, being in his mid 40s.

Rubinstein played the most amazingly fast Beethoven Appassionata finale in his youth...in his elder years he played it much slower, with less clarity.

Michelangeli had incredible control and technique, but actually pretty average mechanique for a concert pianist...
He rarely truly unleashed, and in his later years he progressively played less and less, and retired pretty early, as to not show his technical decline.

[daniel patschan]

Joyce Hatto however played all of the Godowsky studies at the age of 76. Once again: end-stage ovarian cancer. Same speed as Hamelin, more control and much more ease than Berezovsky (his age at the time of recording: 35 ? 36 ? 33 ? - something like that). 

[opus10no2]

Joyce Hatto however played all of the Godowsky studies at the age of 76. Once again: end-stage ovarian cancer. Same speed as Hamelin, more control and much more ease than Berezovsky (his age at the time of recording: 35 ? 36 ? 33 ? - something like that). 

More ease than Berezovsky?

No.

The same speed as Hamelin isn't that hard to achieve, his ChopGods are often very disappointing speed-wise.

But yes, Hatto was incredibly dedicated and gifted.

[daniel patschan]

BTW: today i purchased a few Berman CDs (recorded in the old soviet union). This crazy man played Opus 10 Nr.2 in 1:04 !!!

[danny elfboy]

Sviatoslav Richter was famed for his Chopin 10/4, his best time being 1:31.

In his later years he progressively played the piece less, and in his 70s was down to less than 1:50, with noticably less control and dextral facility.

Hamelin, in his latest DVD, displays still great technique, but a SLIGHT decline in raw facility, being in his mid 40s.

Rubinstein played the most amazingly fast Beethoven Appassionata finale in his youth...in his elder years he played it much slower, with less clarity.

Michelangeli had incredible control and technique, but actually pretty average mechanique for a concert pianist...
He rarely truly unleashed, and in his later years he progressively played less and less, and retired pretty early, as to not show his technical decline.

Michelangeli had perfect skeletal alignment, most efficient muscle use and effortless movements which is what I was mentioning these pianists for

Anyway if they declined they declined not because of their muscles but because of their tendons, ligaments and neurology. When I questioned the belief that neurological decline is unavoidable at 50-60 I was referring to the fact that since it's caused by oxidative stress it is known that lifestyle influences oxidative stress (hence the Okinawans 105 years old still teaching karate and fighting shown to have nothing to do with their genetics)

I don't know the lifestyle of these pianist so I don't know what caused their decline especially neurological. It could be chronic nervous central fatigue. What I'm anatomically sure of it that their "decline" had nothing to do with their muscles

[mad_max2024]

Anyway if they declined they declined not because of their muscles but because of their tendons, ligaments and neurology.

And possibly boredom... they probably played the music hundreds of times before

[moe]

But yes, Hatto was incredibly dedicated and gifted.

 

[jericho]

Tempo is all relative. The first Paganini Etude in G minor (S141) is Andante!

Tempo is relative...the first thing that comes to my mind is Gaspard de la Nuit. Ondine is Lent and Scarbo is Moderato. However, you have to deal with nauseatingly tremendous amounts of 32nd and 64th notes.

[jericho]

Joyce Hatto however played all of the Godowsky studies at the age of 76. Once again: end-stage ovarian cancer. Same speed as Hamelin, more control and much more ease than Berezovsky (his age at the time of recording: 35 ? 36 ? 33 ? - something like that). 

After all these recent developments about Hatto, what can you say now? 

[ichiru]

Just to define pieces into SLOW and FAST is really a low understanding of music. Ever heard the word "philosophy"? Or color? Or contrast? Or shadow? Music is not just notes. Debussy said himself, music is whatever happens between the notes.

Basically... only slow or fast can't determine whether that piece is difficult of not. There are many other aspects to consider. There are sooooo many things to work on a piece, rather than just playing the right notes in the right tempo. But generally, fast pieces are usually hard to deal with in the beginning. But later on, after practicing hard and conquering the technical difficulties, it will become easier. Slow pieces are easy to deal at the first because you easily master the notes. But then, slow pieces tend to be boring much more easy than fast pieces. The challenge is how to make it interesting. And that's a mental work, not physical. And I think that burdens more than just technical difficulties.

But anyway... people have their own way of expressing themselves. If you know you can play fast and you like it, do it. And if other people want to play the slow one, it's their choice. After all, music is VERY PERSONAL.

And, try question yourself. What do you want to be: an athlete, or an artist?

[elevateme_returns]

id like a mix of both to be honest lol

[a-sharp]

Perhaps, you confuse the [perceived] criticism...? If there is a criticism in the area, for me at least, it would be if a young person played ONLY fast pieces, and did not play musically. It is, after all, music - and music come at all tempos and all ranges of dynamics. I would personally feel somewhat stressed out after hearing a recital that only included works of blazing speed, and nothing musical or lyrical. I am interested in vast variety of music - some of it is fast, much of it is slow, and even more is some combination of both.

But - this age-classification thing I find a little off-base. I am over 30 and can play "faster" - or with more technical acuity than I EVER did when I was 20. Probalby, because I simply have more interest in analyzing and developing my technique than I did before. However, some of the most difficult passages are NOT the fast parts, I find the slow parts often far more difficult to express at the highest level possible. Part of musical expression is learning how and when to 'breathe' .... if that makes any sense. Some of the highest-level pianists - are mostlly 'technicians' to me ... which doesn't impress me as much as someone who uses their tehcnical abilities to express themselves - and the music their playing. It's art - not sprinting, right?

Blazing fast technique is always impressive to watch, but at the end of the day, I want to hear music.

Anyway - I guess if you're 85+, you start to "slow down" LOL.

my2c.....

[elevateme_returns]

After all these recent developments about Hatto, what can you say now? 

hahahahahahaha

[jericho]

Rubinstein played Appassionata fast, but Ricter and Gilels could play even faster.

Most people have the misconception that playing slower makes them more musical or more profound. I heard people who play at blazing tempos and are still very musical. Richter's Appassionata is one of the best imo so are his Prok sonatas and Schumann Toccata. So is Horowitz's Rach 3, Michelangeli's Ondine, Argerich's Chopin Preludes,..and so on.

[matraveo]

I think that younger, and when i mean this i mean really young kids with small hands, it might be harder for them to play faster songs beacuse they cant connect notes as easily (i would immaging smothly reaching from C to B in the next octave might tough)

But by all, why should someone be critisized ffor plating a faster song. Anyone can play anything they want. For me faster songs are harder than slower, as for many people. Trust me, trying to play Frederic Chopins Fantasie Impromptu was a like getting my teeth pulled. But if I feel like playing a fast song, might as well....though the outcome would be a little slugish.

And who says faster songs are always harder, slow songs with big chords, movements, fingerings, and tempos can also be a strain.

[danny elfboy]

And who says faster songs are always harder, slow songs with big chords, movements, fingerings, and tempos can also be a strain.

We tend to forget that hard doesn't just mean "technically hard" ... that the least.
There's also musically and interpretative hard ... which doesn't not only has nothing to do with speed ... but nothing to do with technique either.

[ramseytheii]

We tend to forget that hard doesn't just mean "technically hard" ... that the least.
There's also musically and interpretative hard ... which doesn't not only has nothing to do with speed ... but nothing to do with technique either.

But it does!  As a performer, it is not enough to understand difficult musical logic.  You have to be able to "realize" it in sound, and to convey it to an audience.  This takes all the technique in the world.  Every piece in the classical music canon is an illustration of this principle, but just to take one example at random: the last movement of Beethoven op.110. 

It isn't hard to play the notes of this movement, although the last pages may be initially uncomfortable.  The difficulties are achieving a hearable unity and logic of form, an immense progression from "dolente" to an uplifting fugue, back to dolente, to a fugue that reaches ecstatic heights.  Would you say that realizing this in sound has nothing to do with technique? 

We have to have techniques to approach the following problems in this movement:

legato chord technique for the opening and for the arias;

legato finger technique for the arias and fugues;

immense variety of sound and touch (portato, legato, legatissimo (not the same as legato), recitativo (a kind of touch), vibrato (measure 5), cantabile, creating the effect of "ermattet");

supreme control over rhythm, both local and large-scale (8 rhythmic indications within the first 10 bars, changing tempos that have to reflect one another, difficult rhythmical problems to solve (in the second fugue, the meno allegro which is also written in faster note values);

difficult rhythms to make understood (end of the second arioso);

contrapuntal playing, both in the arioso and the fugues;

tremolos (left hand in the final pages);

pedal technique to achieve legato in all parts without any blurring.

Probably there are 100 more.  What does Chopin Etude op.10 no.1 require?  It requires a technique that can play a lot of notes widely spaced in a short amount of time; legato octaves in the left hand; the ability to contrast volume at high velocity.  It basically requires two types of touch: one for the right hand, one for the left.  The left is not challenged to play widely spaced notes, only to create beautiful and logical phrasing. 

If we look at it this way, the challenges of Beethoven op.110 far outnumber those of Chopin op.10 no.1  However I don't look at it this way.  I only write this to show that so-called "technical" challenges are to be found everywhere, whether the piece has a lot of fast notes, or not.  It is a technique to create a certain type of sound, and in Beethoven op.110 you need more than a dozen distinct sonorities - in Chopin op.10 no.1, you need two. 

This discussion, on the surface embarassing, is actually quite fortunate.  The people of this forum are generally defenseless when it comes to people like opus12 saying the only thing that matters is speed.  Not everyone, but the counter-arguments look a lot weaker then his argument.  Opus12 is quite smart, but unfortunately a pervert.  He thinks that because nobody convincingly challenges him on his own terms it makes him right. 

He thinks for instance that if someone plays a piece at maximum tempo, faster than anyone else, that is an achievement in itself to be looked at as separate from "musical" playing. 

However he doesn't realize, that in order to make any fast performance understood, phrasing is required, not just dexterity.  As soon as you begin to phrase, you begin to approach the vast art of music and performance.  Nothing is possible, nothing can be understood, without phrasing.  And phrasing demands above all, the ability to inflect an infinite number of sonorities from the piano, and Neuhaus understood this.  Opus 12 does not. 

In fact, none of us have ever heard speed as a thing in itself, not even in a glissando.  Not even in Conlon Nancarrows music for piano rolls.  Even there, the utmost of phrasing is inflected; in a glissando, there is a starting point, and a destination.  Speed as a thing in itself doesn't exist.  Ask yourself: speed of what?  The speed of phrasing going by, the speed of music progressing. 

This is all to show that the technique of piano, is the technique of sound.  Neuhaus apparently made his students inflect on one note, 100 levels of dynamic.  He also noted that contrapuntal playing was the key to a complete technique.  Why?  Because when you have control over the sound, you gain control over the means to produce the sound.  Then it doesn't matter what tempo you want, you can achieve it, by pairing the sound and the tempo together.

Walter Ramsey

[danny elfboy]

Okay but just imagine you have the technique, you acquired it all after 20 years of studying of all levels and such. Who is going to say that the hardest thing to play are faste pieces?
I believe instead that the musical expressiveness challenge of certain fast piece can be more demanding of any fast virtuoso piece.

To many another example I believe it's harder to play easy piece musically and not mechanically or banally than it is to play fast virtuoso piece and I'm more impressed by the ability to make grade 3 pieces as musically as possible and to compose simple pieces than the ability to play or compose extremely technically and rhythmically complex pieces.

[opus10no2]

However he doesn't realize, that in order to make any fast performance understood, phrasing is required, not just dexterity.  As soon as you begin to phrase, you begin to approach the vast art of music and performance.  Nothing is possible, nothing can be understood, without phrasing.  And phrasing demands above all, the ability to inflect an infinite number of sonorities from the piano, and Neuhaus understood this.  Opus 12 does not. 

I've never said that while driving fast one can't appreciate the scenery, one simply has to appreciate it quicker. 

[ramseytheii]

I've never said that while driving fast one can't appreciate the scenery, one simply has to appreciate it quicker. 

Actually, by arguing that "speed is a goal in itself" you negate the possibility of scenery.  You don't even realize that you are taking the idea of phrasing for granted; but knowing that nothing comprehensible is possible without it, is also knowing that there is no "speed" that is a goal in itself, and in fact speed itself is not any measuring stick.  If you are looking to judge pianists on speed, it is speed of... what?  How fast their fingers are moving?  So it doesn't matter, in other words if they are playing random notes, or a Chopin Etude.  So in the end, you have no point, if you argue that only speed matters - which you do.

The reason I called opus12 a pervert is because he is very succesful at playing on the insecurities of many people on the forum, who aren't sure how to express the most difficult elements of piano playing, and are vulnerable to being swayed by thugs.  I wouldn't think of these posts as being worth it, except that I think opus 12 has convinced himself that he believes what he is saying, and we can all see in Amerika the dangerous paths that leads a person to, and all the people who he insists follow him.

I think we should all use this discussion as an opportunity to dig deeper into the music we are playing, and the music that we love, and discover why we go back to it again and again, ask ourselves what we want to achieve with it, and find out what is stopping us.  Only in this way can we achieve the security of knowledge and experience, not by mincing words with a faceless internet entity.

danny elfenboy, I only wanted to show that technique encompasses all the difficult things we have to achieve, not just the goal of playing fast.

Walter Ramsey

[danny elfboy]

danny elfenboy, I only wanted to show that technique encompasses all the difficult things we have to achieve, not just the goal of playing fast.

I know what you mean. I said "wait a moment ... interpretation can be harder than technique" and you rightly said "but being able to provide interpretation depends on technique too"

But I do believe that technique as in control, coordination and efficient motions is the least important and demanding thing in piano playing. With some good knowledge about the better way to ingrain motions and use the body efficiently and some consistent all the physical technique one will ever need can be acquired in a short amount of time. After that it's the most demanding challenge of piano playing and music making: adding colour to the music, interpretation, emotional control.

Opus would probably believe that once someone has gained all the physical technique to play everything he is "the pianist" but that's just the easy and quick aspect of piano playing: musicality is the challenge.

I would compare it to peotry performing.
It's not like we don't have the technique to make stop, raise the tone, lower the tone, whisper (we all posses it from having practiced those our whole life)
And yet performing a poetry the right way (and by right I mean so that it stands out, is meaningfully phrased and emotional rich) is one of the hardest thing ever.
It's not a matter of lacking voice technique but controlling the emotional content through that means and it's mostly a matter of decision.
Deciding how to interpret. This goes beyond being ABLE to interpret.

In a way it's like being able to type properly and whatever word you need to VS writing something meaningful, intelligent, well articulate and interesting.

And to make an analogy with opus beliefs: try to go an listen a "speech-virtuoso" whose goal is to perform poem as fast as possible without no care for phrasing, puntation marks, full stops, commas. I don't think many would be appealed; they would choose to enjoy the slower poem performer but that does use covey something beautifully coordinated and meaningful.

As I said before; going so fast so that the piece is hardly recognizable IS CHEATING!
Because no one can tell, except yourself, that you're playing that piece and not just random notes ... and it's very easy to play random notes fast.

Speed per se is a piece of cake.
Putting speed at the service of beautiful phrasing, articulated and emotional rich sound ... that's the real challenge

[cmg]

Thanks to Danny and Walter Ramsey for their comments here.  What you both say is so eminently sane and logical.  Not to mention that it reflects the longstanding wisdom taught by master musicans throughout the last three centuries of Western music.

That this forum has come under the sway and thuggery of a bunch of post-adolescents with obvious emotional problems -- problems that they are channeling into bizarre, distorted views on musicianship and personal attacks on others who disagree with them -- is rather depressing.  It's as if a once respectable neighborhood has been taken over by some stupid, bullying gang.

It's odd, isn't it, how the most ignorant are the most arrogant.

My final words on this.  Maybe reason will once again prevail here.

[virtuosic1]

The more you realize that you don't know even a small fraction of what there is to know.

[virtuosic1]

As I said before; going so fast so that the piece is hardly recognizable IS CHEATING!
Because no one can tell, except yourself, that you're playing that piece and not just random notes ... and it's very easy to play random notes fast.

Unless the foot is removed from the sustain pedal, which is firmly embedded into the floor. Once the sustained drone is removed, almost everyone can tell.

[opus10no2]

More irrelevance.

I have never said I don't love music, I just say that I also love display of technical skill, it still appears that people have trouble understanding this.

I don't advocate playing everything fast, there's no point, but in certain technically challenging repertoire which is already meant to be played fast, I DO advocate using these to as 'race tracks'.

I also develop my musical interpretations of pieces, and feel that one of the great things about piano music is the diversity of interpretation allowed, even all by one pianist.

Bear witness to Ingolf Wunder's great performance of the winterwind etude, a Live record, and it also happens to sound great to me.

Having velocity as a prime intent in a piece does not inherently rule out some 'musicality' along the way.

Plus, playing a piece as a technical stunt does not betray the musical ability of the pianist.

[opus10no2]

https://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/2/14693.html

deb8