Technical playing is alot easier than "musical" paying.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Today I received a very thoughful, to me at least, and a very pensive comment from none other than my own mother about my playing of a couple of Chopin Waltzes. She commented on how my playing lacked musicality, if I should use that word. She also however commented on how well I play the technical material such as Moszkowski etudes, so naturally the question for me arises: playing musically is much harder than playing technically, even if the "musical" piece is easier. I would much rather perform the difficult Moszkowski etudes to a public than a technically easier, but musically difficult Chopin Waltz. I always knew that playing musically is very important, but I never actually realised just how difficult it is. I do have to admit that I am working on the Moszkowski etudes (I know 5 so far) for much longer than the Waltzes (I just started them), but the technical demands are very different. I guess I just need to focus also on not just the notes, but the meaning behind the notes, or for a more technically precise term, articulation, tone and dynamics.

[opus10no2]

If the piece is more difficult to play 'musically', then it must be inherently a less interesting piece of music?

It demands more from the performer because it isn't much alone by itself.

[debussy symbolism]

If the piece is more difficult to play 'musically', then it must be inherently a less interesting piece of music?

It demands more from the performer because it isn't much alone by itself.

I am going to pretend to ignore that comment...

If it demands more from the perfomer then how on Earth can it possibly be not much by itself?

[opus10no2]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

[debussy symbolism]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

Then you should be very capable of supplying me with a definition of "excellent" music. If you so wish, why don't you just enter the notes into a midi and listen to that instead. Heck, you could even speed it up a 100 times so that it will truly be as fast as you wish.

[jre58591]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

comme gtfo.

[Mozartian]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

"[He] never open [his] mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
-Thomas Brackett Reed on comme

[thierry13]

Greetings.

Today I received a very thoughful, to me at least, and a very pensive comment from none other than my own mother about my playing of a couple of Chopin Waltzes. She commented on how my playing lacked musicality, if I should use that word. She also however commented on how well I play the technical material such as Moszkowski etudes, so naturally the question for me arises: playing musically is much harder than playing technically, even if the "musical" piece is easier. I would much rather perform the difficult Moszkowski etudes to a public than a technically easier, but musically difficult Chopin Waltz. I always knew that playing musically is very important, but I never actually realised just how difficult it is. I do have to admit that I am working on the Moszkowski etudes (I know 5 so far) for much longer than the Waltzes (I just started them), but the technical demands are very different. I guess I just need to focus also on not just the notes, but the meaning behind the notes, or for a more technically precise term, articulation, tone and dynamics.

In fact I think if you are really comfortable with technique, it is much easier to play musically, because you only have to think about it. Technique is only a huge help to play more musically.

[prongated]

...aaaha I will be writing a paper on this sometime this year...

hmmm atm I do think technical playing is easier than musical playing. Put simply, there is a foreseeable limit to which one can perform technically. Yet, artistic qualities in a performance know no bound.

However, just because technical playing is 'easier' than musical playing, doesn't mean technical playing is easy. Pianists with brilliant technique like Lang Lang, Hamelin, Godowsky etc. don't get there without lots of practise. Technical playing is also very difficult!

People who are "musical" or appreciate "musicality" can't dismiss this. Many are probably snobs who themselves don't have technique for one reason or another, and got beaten (despite "musicality") in comps because of it.

And so they should be. In a performance, musicality can't substitute wrong notes.

[prongated]

In fact I think if you are really comfortable with technique, it is much easier to play musically, because you only have to think about it. Technique is only a huge help to play more musically.

...then it comes down to definition of technique doesn't it?

I personally define it as a tool to which one achieve musical goal. Come to think of it, if fast and furious is your musical goal...

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

...then I suppose we might as well let computer do concert performances...

Haha 'tis so like human challenging pong in tennis.

[Bob]

hmm... I thought it was common knowledge.  I think it uses more or a different part of the brain.

I think it's a lot easier and more objective to talk about the concrete elements in music.  When it's musicality though, it begins to boarder on the subjective, but that's where the good stuff is.

To have your mom say that is kind of harsh though.  Kind of like the noivce with an inciteful comment though -- which makes it all the more painful.


How would a computer do a performance?



This is one of the best threads I've seen on PS in awhile, btw. Bravo!

[opus10no2]

...then it comes down to definition of technique doesn't it?

I personally define it as a tool to which one achieve musical goal. Come to think of it, if fast and furious is your musical goal...

...then I suppose we might as well let computer do concert performances...

Haha 'tis so like human challenging pong in tennis.

That wasn't the point I was making.

A pianist with ZERO creative musicality, and only a technical command of the instrument , mechanically and musically (ie - musical capibilities, not choices), is a human equivelant to a MIDI.

A MIDI correctly assimilates everything written in the score, completely and literally.

To reproduce everything on a page, as written - is all TECHNICAL difficulty.

What I DIDN'T say, and which is obvious - is that ANY piece benifits from creative musical input from the performer, be it a great piece or not.

"Musical" difficulty is simply a misnomer, if a piece is more musically difficult than another you must either simply not like it as much, or find it more difficult to find the musical essense of(or make up your mind from the myriad of possibilities).

[brewtality]

Greetings.

playing musically is much harder than playing technically

Not necessarily. For example Rubinstein in his young days had no problem grasping the musical meaning of the pieces he played, but could never render a technically polished performance. So I would say it depends on the piece and the person playing it. In fact most pianists manage to play badly in both respects. 

[prongated]

To reproduce everything on a page, as written - is all TECHNICAL difficulty.

What I DIDN'T say, and which is obvious - is that ANY piece benifits from creative musical input from the performer, be it a great piece or not.

"Musical" difficulty is simply a misnomer, if a piece is more musically difficult than another you must either simply not like it as much, or find it more difficult to find the musical essense of(or make up your mind from the myriad of possibilities).

Oh. Then I quite agree . I prefer your latter definition of "musical difficulty", even though the former is also possible.

I can also sort of start to see your definition of 'excellent' music...

[danny elfboy]

Greetings.

Today I received a very thoughful, to me at least, and a very pensive comment from none other than my own mother about my playing of a couple of Chopin Waltzes. She commented on how my playing lacked musicality, if I should use that word. She also however commented on how well I play the technical material such as Moszkowski etudes, so naturally the question for me arises: playing musically is much harder than playing technically, even if the "musical" piece is easier. I would much rather perform the difficult Moszkowski etudes to a public than a technically easier, but musically difficult Chopin Waltz. I always knew that playing musically is very important, but I never actually realised just how difficult it is. I do have to admit that I am working on the Moszkowski etudes (I know 5 so far) for much longer than the Waltzes (I just started them), but the technical demands are very different. I guess I just need to focus also on not just the notes, but the meaning behind the notes, or for a more technically precise term, articulation, tone and dynamics.

Imo technique is the piece of cake aspect of piano playing.
Everything can aquire it given some knowledge on effective practice and consistence.
In fact all the technique one will ever need to play everything can be aquired in a rather short amount of time.

Putting technique at the service of good performance which captivate the audience and flows emotionally is the hard part.

I've made the example.
Perform poems so that the essence of the poem is trasmitted to the audience and all the emotional nuances are emphasized but doesn't ruin the flow of the words is ONE of the hardest thing ever. Yet it has nothing to do with speech-technique.
From years of speaking we have all the "technique" required to manipulate the volume of our voice, whisper, control the tone, rest, make lung pauses and so on.

So even when you have the technical means required to express yourself artistically, expressing yourself artistically is still the hardest task ... the one not only that require a great control on using your means but that require choices on how to use them that no one will choose for you (think of how each conductor make choices about the rendition of a score)

Having the technical means is just less than half of what being an artist means.

Having the technique to perform all the figure in dancing doesn't mean trasmitting passion and communicating interesting things with your dancing.

Having the technique to perform all the dynamics of singing doesn't mean transmitting passion and communicating interesting things withyour singing.

Having the technique to type fast on a keyboard and never make a mistake in outlining your page doesn't mean trasmitting passion and communicating interesting things with what you write.

And what about chess champions. The technique required to play chess is rather easy and can be all learned in a month. The hand part is making choices, using your logic, your intelligence, your analitical skills. Again: possessing technical means and using those technical means efficiently and with skill are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ASPECTS

I think it should be very obvious.
If you compare a world famous artist and a graduated pianist the difference is not in their technique since they have the same complete technique.
The same can be said between anyone with a driving licence and a world champion in F1 or again the difference between the other pilots and the world champion in F1.
After all those years of running they all have the same technique ... it's how they use their means which makes the difference and using your technical means goes way beyond possessing those means.

This is also way I'm more impressed by someone who can perform a simple grade 3 piece beautifully or who can compose simple but beautiful pieces rather than someone who can play and compose virtuoso rhythmically and technically complex pieces.

[danny elfboy]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

Yeah right ...
Guezz da wat? NO!

[nasalstein]

just a food for thought........

arthur rubinstein  "technique is just like money.  you can buy lots of things with it but there are things it can't buy"

me would humbly add  " there are things only money can buy"

and i guess it makes anyone feel good seeing 0's  on your bankbook anyway?

[lostinidlewonder]

If you are technically strong you can be musically strong. Unfortunately you cannot say it the other way around, many people are musically strong but they haven't the technique to express what they hear from within. This is from lack of practice more often than not.

If you are technically strong you can simply shift attention as to how you play your notes. No longer simply think you have to play everything safe and evenly, explore different way to actually play a phrase of music that highlights the musical idea in a way you enjoy.

Technically strong players should see themselves as a conductor and their fingers the orchestra, the fingers know what to do but need to be told where to fous their attention to produce the conductors musical vision. This musical vision needs to be developed and can simply have been ingored as tehcnically strong players focused all their attention on getting all the notes comfortable under their hands and neglecting creativity on the part of sound production. Record yourself, experiment with different ways of expressing a phrase, record yourself, listen to yourself and record yourself again etc.

[invictious]

I disagree with how if you are technically strong then you are musically strong.

I would say, with a hint of arrogance, that I am rather musically strong, but my technique is..let's not talk about it.

Once you get to a level, you will realize playing it with musicality and with technicality is very difficult.
That's when you start playing insanely difficult pieces, and people start complaining about the lack of musicality, happens all the time.

[danny elfboy]

If you are technically strong you can be musically strong.

you CAN be .. not .. you ARE
Without the mean you can't express yourself and you musicality.
But having the means doesn't mean having a strong musicality.

In a way you can that if you have a good kitchen you can express your culinary talent.
Unfortunately often people with a good culinary talent don't have a good kitchen that allow them the means to express their talent.

Nonetheless, buying the best kitchen ever with all the toold of the trade doesn't mean automatically having a culinary talent, superb control over the harmonies of tast and top quality creativity.

[danny elfboy]

I disagree with how if you are technically strong then you are musically strong.

I would say, with a hint of arrogance, that I am rather musically strong, but my technique is..let's not talk about it.

I have seen this many times.
In conservatories here they accept people whose level is grade 1 or 2 too.
And they say "you lack technique because you've just a beginner technique but you have a well developed musicality and control over the sound you want to express not to mention interesting ways to express it; you have something more than other students don't have, imagine what could you do if you have the technique!"

So the belief that technique alone provide musicality even if there's no good musicality and expressiveness to begin with doesn't hold water. Often students lack technique but have already a great musicality and expresiveness meaning that it is possible even without technique.

It's very logical: the mean influence a pre-existing foundation.
If the foundation is there the mean will help it to emerge.
If the foundation is not there there's nothing the mean can do to create it.

Someone made an example with money.
The logic with money is that if you have a pre-existing foundation which needs a mean (i.e. you're a very eclectic and stimulated and need money to follow courses, lean things, see places, meet new people, join association ... then money will definitely help to make your life better)

But if you're apathetic, unpleasant, asocial, understimulated, judgemental and have no friend or happiness ... money will never be able to buy you happiness or friends.

A mean (technique) is like a trigger it allows something to be expressed.
THAT SOMETHING must be there to begin with otherwise the mean (technique) has no purpose

Great technique and lack of anything to express, dry, emotionaless and boring playing is absolutely possible so musicality doesn't depend on technique, technique just allow it to be expressed but musicality must be there.






Once you get to a level, you will realize playing it with musicality and with technicality is very difficult.
That's when you start playing insanely difficult pieces, and people start complaining about the lack of musicality, happens all the time.

[opus10no2]

Yeah right ...
Guezz da wat? NO!

If you disagree, then the quality of composition is less important to your enjoyment than the creative input a performer can bring to the table.

Imo technique is the piece of cake aspect of piano playing.
Everything can aquire it given some knowledge on effective practice and consistence.
In fact all the technique one will ever need to play everything can be aquired in a rather short amount of time.

How long would it take, from scratch, to get Hamelin level technical ablity? 


Musicality is innate, you've either got sensetivity, musical ability, creative spark, or u just haven't.


Technique is aquired, it's all just work.
There is no limit to a pianist's technique, but there is a limit to their mechanique.

Technique is the lifelong pursuit of aquiring the physical ability to play anything your own musical and physical perceptions can comprehend and (re)create.

Musicality, talent, as I've said - is individual, and innate ...it can be developed and watered like a flower, and it's taste can be widened by variety of musical 'nutrients', but nothing can change it's genetic potential.

There are some 'difficult choices' to be made in more advanced interpretation, but if you are true to your own musicality - your instinct will dictate where your musical heart should follow, and this can change from moment to moment, and this is what a spontanious musicality is.

[prongated]

If you disagree, then the quality of composition is less important to your enjoyment than the creative input a performer can bring to the table.

...hence 'excellent music' refers to the quality of the composition - the maxima of which requires no extra musical input from the performer. Yes? But is this a hypothetical work, or do you have any specific ones in mind?

Musicality, talent, as I've said - is individual, and innate ...it can be developed and watered like a flower, and it's taste can be widened by variety of musical 'nutrients', but nothing can change it's genetic potential.

There are some 'difficult choices' to be made in more advanced interpretation, but if you are true to your own musicality - your instinct will dictate where your musical heart should follow, and this can change from moment to moment, and this is what a spontanious musicality is.

...I must say, having read some of your posts, I don't expect those words to come from you

If you are technically strong you can be musically strong.

I think it depends on how you define technique and the pieces concerned. Someone playing Schumann's Waldszenen don't need really good finger technique as one would in Rachmaninoff's Corelli Variations. Both do require good sound technique however. And certainly cantabile playing won't come off well without the appropriate sound technique put in place.

...I think we often associate musical playing with performances that are cantabile in style. Here, expressivity is perhaps more naturally obvious. Of course, we mustn't forget that agitato playing can also be expressive. And without good finger technique, you'll only get mud puddles.

At the same time, I think we often associate technique with fast and furious playing. There are people (and I know them personally) who have developed good technique for fast and furious playing, yet have a lot to learn about good sound technique.

Are they unmusical? Or are they lacking the required 'tool'? Either way, their playing are not musical in the cantabile sense. No doubt they get the fire going in works like Dante though.

[invictious]

OK, take some examples

Lang Lang - OMGOMGOMG, TECHNIQUE is DA BEZT! BUT MUSIC IS CRAP!!
Kissin - WOARRRR GOOD SKILLZ, NO MUSIKALLITY!

Horowitz - whoarrrrr wrong notes!!!! but so musical and moving!

[opus10no2]

...hence 'excellent music' refers to the quality of the composition - the maxima of which requires no extra musical input from the performer. Yes? But is this a hypothetical work, or do you have any specific ones in mind?

I mean all music, but some music in particular demands a more 'human' rubato to go along with the style. This is the only major exception, and it's instinctive, rubato shouldn't really be 'practiced' or forced, it should flow naturally from your own innate sense of rhythm.

[danny elfboy]

Musicality is innate, you've either got sensetivity, musical ability, creative spark, or u just haven't.

Technique is aquired, it's all just work.
There is no limit to a pianist's technique, but there is a limit to their mechanique.

Technique is the lifelong pursuit of aquiring the physical ability to play anything your own musical and physical perceptions can comprehend and (re)create.

Musicality, talent, as I've said - is individual, and innate ...it can be developed and watered like a flower, and it's taste can be widened by variety of musical 'nutrients', but nothing can change it's genetic potential.

There are some 'difficult choices' to be made in more advanced interpretation, but if you are true to your own musicality - your instinct will dictate where your musical heart should follow, and this can change from moment to moment, and this is what a spontanious musicality is.

Okay I agree with you
But I don't agree that there's no limit to a pianist technique.
Technique is a matter of coordination and motions all of which are limited and everything you'll ever need to play whatever you want can be learned in a certain span of time.
From that point one (the point in which there's all the coordination possible to do everything in your neurological bank) it's just a matter of choices, interpretation and musicality.

That's hard work too. It's as hard work as it is for a novelist to write the plot of a noval aside for the grammatical and linguistical aspects of his writing. But you're right that it is innate; well not innate ... because musicality too is a product of what we have been exposed in our life and the experience we made ... but for sure musical sensitivity can't be provided by technique I agree with this.

[opus10no2]

There is no reason there should be any limit to 'technique', as the word is defined.

I said there is a limit to mechanique, the raw physical speed and endurance of the pianist's apparatus.

Music is either there or it isn't, I don't see the difficulty - because as I say, it is either innately there, or it isn't - in which case it is not difficult - it is impossible!

Technique on the other hand is a lifelong pursuit, to make dreams a reality, to bring the imagination you are born with to life.

This is why I feel this topic is confusing to some people, and may lead them to spend hours trying to be a creative genius, when their time would be much better spent settling with the imagination they have, and developing their technique to do the best they can with it.

[danny elfboy]

There is no reason there should be any limit to 'technique', as the word is defined.

I said there is a limit to mechanique, the raw physical speed and endurance of the pianist's apparatus.

Music is either there or it isn't, I don't see the difficulty - because as I say, it is either innately there, or it isn't - in which case it is not difficult - it is impossible!

Technique on the other hand is a lifelong pursuit, to make dreams a reality, to bring the imagination you are born with to life.

There's a limit to technique.
The word “technique” means the method or means we use for accomplishing a complex task.  It is usually applied to complex coordinative tasks in the arts (painting, playing a musical instrument), sports (tennis serve, golf swing), and laboratory science (identifying genes, measuring air pollutants).

Now I don't believe that once reached a certain level each new piece will provide a new tecnique to learn. When all the possible technique has been mastered learning is not any longer a matter of learning new technique but of learning note ... in other words building a repertory.

I do know graduated pianist who have all the technique they ever need to make "dreams a reality". So for them it's just a matter of learning and memorizing the "dreams".

[elevateme_returns]

OK, take some examples

Lang Lang - OMGOMGOMG, TECHNIQUE is DA BEZT! BUT MUSIC IS CRAP!!
Kissin - WOARRRR GOOD SKILLZ, NO MUSIKALLITY!

Horowitz - whoarrrrr wrong notes!!!! but so musical and moving!

i dont agree with any of those 3. i think lang lang and kissin are both very musical when they want to be. having said that i hate the facial expressions lang lang makes.

and horowitz is not always wrong notes. and not always musical and moving.

[danny elfboy]

having said that i hate the facial expressions lang lang makes.

It's not just a matter of hating.
The expressiveness of Lang Lang can be considered a technical flaw.
In my Alexander courses I have known many many pianists/students who got pain and injury (to the point of paralysis) because of physically overexpressed emotions while playing.
Some can stand this for a dozen of years but sooner or later pain and injuries will call their name. All that overexpressions just creates a lot of extraneous tension which accumulated to that of playing.

The stereotype of the pianist who bang a virtuoso con fuoco on the piano with the hair ala mad scientist is more than a stereotype, it shows a common flaw in pianistic technique: the belief that you have to express physical anger, pain, sorrow in order to express those emotions musically. Forgetting that it's just accumulation of more muscular tension, tendineous and neuromuscular tension.

[soliloquy]

This thread is idiotic.  Neither is harder than the other.  It's like asking "Which is harder: Math or Science?"  There is no "harder" because there is no limit to how difficult either could be.  There are no finite poles of how difficult a piece can be, technically or musically.  You can continue to perfect a piece technically, note by note.  To execute a rhythm literally "perfectly" would be impossible mathematically, because the amount of time that elapses between "too soon", "correct" and "too late" is infinitely small.  The same goes for the musical difficulty of a piece, not even to bring up the fact that different people like different interpretations of pieces.  Besides, how would you even qualify technical difficulty in relationship to musical/interpretive difficulty?  Is Xenakis Synaphai more technically difficult than Chopin Ballade No. 3 is musically?  It's like saying "Is this spaceship more aerodynamic than this painting is beautiful?"  You would first have to quantify "beauty", and subsequently build a formula that would simultaneously give numerical values to "aerodynamic" and "beautiful".  Not only that, you would have to somehow, even though it would be impossible, quantify "beauty" on scale that would not give advantage to either it nor aerodynamic.


So, how can playing an array of random pieces of piano music be more technically difficult than musically difficult?  There is no way to compare, ergo saying "musical playing is more difficult than technical playing" is, as I said before, idiotic.

[virtuosic1]

Because excellent music sounds great in a midi.

If it is not excellent music, it needs alot of expressive input from the performer to sound good.

https://www.keithjarrett.org/transcriptions/

midi file part 1

VS.

https://www.amazon.com/K%C3%B6ln-Concert-Keith-Jarrett/dp/B0000262WI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2609448-7052931?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1175989721&sr=8-1

part 1A

[virtuosic1]

i dont agree with any of those 3. i think lang lang and kissin are both very musical when they want to be. having said that i hate the facial expressions lang lang makes.

and horowitz is not always wrong notes. and not always musical and moving.

Horowitz made great faces too, but unless you focused on his nose, you'd miss all his subtle facial nuances, all done by flaring his ample nostrils! 

[soliloquy]

https://www.keithjarrett.org/transcriptions/

midi file part 1

VS.

https://www.amazon.com/K%C3%B6ln-Concert-Keith-Jarrett/dp/B0000262WI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2609448-7052931?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1175989721&sr=8-1

part 1A

Yeah... you probably should have used music that actually didn't suck balls if you didn't just want to reiterate comme.

[debussy symbolism]

Thank you guys for your responces.

[opus10no2]

https://www.keithjarrett.org/transcriptions/

midi file part 1

VS.

https://www.amazon.com/K%C3%B6ln-Concert-Keith-Jarrett/dp/B0000262WI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2609448-7052931?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1175989721&sr=8-1

part 1A

Exactly...

[virtuosic1]

Yeah... you probably should have used music that actually didn't suck balls if you didn't just want to reiterate comme.

The point was that the midi files sound lifeless, missing the ambience and nuances imparted by the pianist, compared to the live performance.

[opus10no2]

The ambience and nuance imparted by the pianist has nothing to do with the quality of the spontanious composition though.

That was the point.

[virtuosic1]

Yeah... you probably should have used music that actually didn't suck balls if you didn't just want to reiterate comme.

I've got to ask. Don't you ENJOY music? Does everything have to be a race? 35 years ago, I too believed that if you weren't racing the Devil, pushing the extreme settings of the metronome in everything you played, it was sh*t. At that time, all I heard from listeners was, "I never heard anything played that fast and with such complexity, but wouldn't it be a little better if you thinned it out and slowed it down a little so not only the robots and computers would understand it, but us humans can appreciate it also".  

Of course you'll say, "no way", but I was so hardcore as far as technique went that I would practice upwards of 12 hours a day, always having one of two dummy keyboards on my lap when not feasible to be behind the piano. I built one from scratch with 6 wooden white keys with HD springs under each key, and another that I cannabalized from an old Magnus or Estey organ, compacting the keyboard only into a new flat assembly that could be kept on the lap, with the springs beefed up from underneath.

I went through a 2 year phase where I was determined to hone the fastest chops ever heard, and many who heard me felt that I'd accomplished that, and you know what it got me? Tendonitis and CTS so severe that it kept me away from the keyboard for over a year!

35 years later, I have a completely different outlook. Technique is still king, but it's not the only thing. Music is about a lot more. And technical speed is only one small part of a much larger equation that determines all around musical virtuosity.

Here's Keith Jarrett (one of Jazz's greatest improvising musicians) on something else:

[virtuosic1]

The ambience and nuance imparted by the pianist has nothing to do with the quality of the spontanious composition though.

That was the point.

Yes it does. Some pianists with a gift for phrasing can do more with the "spin" (the envelope and dynamics) given 3 notes than others can do with streams of 30 notes!

Maybe you don't understand jazz, and I don't mean that as a put down. Jazz isn't different music from classical. It's just "breathed" differently. It's the same language but a different dialect. Like Portuguese and Spanish. Same basic words, different inflections.

They're the same 12 notes, the same harmonies, etc., etc., just the "spin", the push, the way the lines are "spoken" are different.

Listen to these two tracks and you'll hear lines very similar to those in Bach and other classical composers. The difference is that on these recordings, Tristano imparts a different life to each not in his lines. The note aren't played as if he's trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible to mae room for more notes. Each note has it's own dynamic and pops out differently from others that are adjacent, giving the lines a tmendous propulsion in the jazz idiom. A midi of this would sound lifeless by comparison:

https://www.amazon.com/Lennie-Tristano-New/dp/B00000337V/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2609448-7052931?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1176003368&sr=8-1

Tracks 1 and 4

The notes within the line don't have a dynamic profile indicative of classical music, like:

8-5-5-5-5-5-5-5 8-5-5-5-5-5-5-5 8-5-5-5-5-5-5-5, etc.

They are more like:

8-5-2-9-2-4-4-4-6-9-3-2-5-8-2-2-2-10, etc.

The envelope, the attack and durational proportion to each space of each beat as well!

In jazz phrasing, it's the notes and nuances imparted on each individual note that shape and contour the lines that are paramount. This process can take place at slow or fast tempos. The greater your control of all these parameters, the more capabilities the pianist has.

[jakev2.0]

Oscar Peterson could play Jarett under the table, imo.

[virtuosic1]

Oscar Peterson could play Jarett under the table, imo.

Yes he can, technically speaking, but comparing Jarrett to Oscar is illogical on a syntax level. They both do different things. They both are master musicians. Jarrett is by far the superior composer, Oscar more of an arranger and adaptor of musical applications to the piano. This is what I meant about enjoying ALL types of music rather than in a sense of absolutism.

Jarrett has composed, improvised, and recorded albums of a symphonic nature, music for organ (pipe organ), and many various permutations and combinations of instruments and instrumentalists. His music is always well written, lyrical, and highly tasteful.

Jarrett has a strong footing in the middle ground of music that Oscar lacks, although Oscar blows away Jarrett, and most other mainstream jazz players from a purely technical, bebop/stride standpoint.

Then there's Martial Solal, the French/Algerian pianist. Ever hear him? Most haven't. Tatum and peterson's chops + a completely different approach, far more harmonically advanced:

Solal is present here on this recording and is playing rather laid back on it since it is a jazz / blues session. Martial's technique is as good as anyone's, and as you can tell from his solo, his approach amazingly unique:

[m]

Technical playing is alot easier than "musical" paying.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this statement, something contradictory, which defeats technique's and music's whole purpose and relationship.

The short answer is they are inseparable and go together, and only together.

Taking technique away from musical context is a dead end. Unfortunately, many even very talented pianists got trapped in there, just to realize once you are there you never get out, which means not only the end of pianistic career, but even remote chance of becoming a "pianist".

The main point is there are no strictly "technical" problems, as we understand it. Most of the technical problems are in fact whether musical ones, or as simple as a question of physical relaxation (which BTW, also works in conjunction with musical ideas).

Once you understand the musical meaning of the passage, sound, phrasing, dynamic shape, etc., 'i.e. the IDEA of this passage, you can play it pefectly well. If you cannot play it perfectly well, it means only one thing--you don't understand something, or missing some musical context.
I explain to my students that music is exactly like our speech. With musical piece we tell a story. Once we know the story well and understand its idea, we put it into words and it is very easy to tell and follow. Now, let's try instead of telling this idea just start spelling every word this idea consists of. The idea will be lost after the first spelled word. It is much easier to say a word, rather than spell it. It is much easier to play one melodic line, than to play 10 notes it consists of.
 
The technique is not in the fingers, but in ones head and is a very hard analizing, creative, inspired mental process of putting it to serve music.
Of course, from this standpoint it is much easier to play without thinking, but it is exactly the same as to be ignorant is much easier (and for some much more enjoable  ) than educate yourself.

Hopefully it was helpful.

Best regards, M

[ramseytheii]

Once you understand the musical meaning of the passage, sound, phrasing, dynamic shape, etc., 'i.e. the IDEA of this passage, you can play it pefectly well. If you cannot play it perfectly well, it means only one thing--you don't understand something, or missing some musical context.


Hopefully it was helpful.

Best regards, M

For the most part very much so!  But I think you over-simpify just a little bit.  Because: listeners, who don't play the piano, can very well understand all the elements of a passage which you mention, but still have major barriers in playing it.  Whether relaxed or not; some just cannot do it.  Theorists also, can sometimes understand these passages better than the performers, but can't play them.

I would never undervalue the amount of labor that goes into achieving these goals.  Identifying them is only the first step, and the next is work, applying all of the technical tools to reach the solution.  I think it is mystical otherwise, to say that to understand, is to have ability.  Understanding only represents the potential, which has to be achieved by a person.

A small complaint from a quality post!

Walter Ramsey

[m]

For the most part very much so!  But I think you over-simpify just a little bit.  Because: listeners, who don't play the piano, can very well understand all the elements of a passage which you mention, but still have major barriers in playing it.  Whether relaxed or not; some just cannot do it.  Theorists also, can sometimes understand these passages better than the performers, but can't play them.

I would never undervalue the amount of labor that goes into achieving these goals.  Identifying them is only the first step, and the next is work, applying all of the technical tools to reach the solution.  I think it is mystical otherwise, to say that to understand, is to have ability.  Understanding only represents the potential, which has to be achieved by a person.

Thank you for pointing it out. Of course, you are right and I should not assume people will know exactly what I mean.

When I write "understand" I mean not only hypotetically know some general phrasing and dynamics, but also how all internal music processes correlate with specific pianistic motions. Specific sound, all musical curves, every intonation, every phrase, every dynamic change, etc, all of that dictate that unique pianistical motion, when your physical senses "understand" and respond absolutely adequately to musical content, when whole your body identifies itself with specific passage.

And of course, you are absolutely right, very hard labor is the only way I know of to achieve that goal.

Best, M

 

[counterpoint]

Only one addition to what Marik wrote, and to what I agree 99 %

I don't think, that playing bad is "easier" than playing good.

Just the contrary. It's very hard to play against the musical sense of a composition,
because if it doesn't make any sense, you don't have the inner line, which normally holds the composition together. Music is composed in a way, that it has an immanent stress curve (I'm not sure if that's the correct translation of "Spannungskurve"), which helps a lot in holding all together and to carry the musician forward. If this stress curve is ignored, the only connection between the notes is the time that passes by. But the better and nearer to the message of the music you play, the easer it will get and the "technical" difficulties will disappear by themselves. So there's no reason to be hostile against "pure technicians". They are trying hard - even too hard, to get what they want. But they are driving in the wrong direction.

[_dhj_]

I agree in particular with counterpoint's view on the "Spannungskurve".

From a personal point of view though, I find the technical barriers of performance more difficult to overcome than the musical barriers. That may be down to practise, but I do believe that pianists can be technically gifted as a natural disposition as well as musically gifted, so the former isn't a mere rote element. This conclusion is made easier given that some have suggested technical playing as "a piece of cake". Perhaps spending the greater part of their days practising amounts to a "piece of cake", aided of course by their motivation. It's most likely the case that they are "technically gifted" in that they are born with great coordination and motor mechnics (conversely for example, I am born with very poor coordination!).

[arensky]

Then there's Martial Solal, the French/Algerian pianist. Ever hear him? Most haven't. Tatum and peterson's chops + a completely different approach, far more harmonically advanced:

Solal is present here on this recording and is playing rather laid back on it since it is a jazz / blues session. Martial's technique is as good as anyone's, and as you can tell from his solo, his approach amazingly unique:

I grew up with one of his records from the 50's. I always enjoyed that rec and wondered why I could not find more of him when I went to college. Thanks for posting that! 


@ DS's original question; some people have a natural technical facility and often those people will rely on that in their playing and neglect their "musical" side, because they can. And then there are others who play with natural musical expression but have a faulty technique. The good news is that both "musicality" and technical mastery can be learned. For the "musical" person discipline is usually required, as this personality type is often willful and tempermental; they need to learn to harness that temperment and use it to serve the music, not merely use the music as an emotional outlet, which is inartistic if the expression is not focused and refined. The technician on the other hand has to learn how to let go and let the music be flexible and "breathe" otherwise their music will not be actual music, but a plastic copy of the real thing. I have had both types of students. I find it easier to bring discipline to the musical; I have not yet found a reliable way to infuse the "robots" with feeeling and soul. Evantually most of them do become more expressive after I show them that it's actually easier and more comfortable to play expressively, and that they don't have to sacrifice their control to acheive that. Some never get that concept, though... 

Of course the ideal is to have both soul and technique. It's all about balance. Horowitz said "Without heart you are a machine; withou hands you are an amateur; without brains you are a fiasco!" These three elements must work in harmony equally to create integrated, balanced music.

                            

[danny elfboy]

It's most likely the case that they are "technically gifted" in that they are born with great coordination and motor mechnics (conversely for example, I am born with very poor coordination!).

No one is born with great coordination and motor mechanics ... it's absolutely impossible since they're developed later in life and are universally identical and neutral at the moment of born.
Coordination is especially influenced by coordinative experiences like taking up a sport, or playing with origami and videogames or riding horses and so on.

I do believe the great teacher Lateiner Grosz when she says that technique and coordination at the piano are learned skills and not inborn gifts.

[arensky]

No one is born with great coordination and motor mechanics ... it's absolutely impossible since they're developed later in life and are universally identical and neutral at the moment of born.
Coordination is especially influenced by coordinative experiences like taking up a sport, or playing with origami and videogames or riding horses and so on.

I do believe the great teacher Lateiner Grosz when she says that technique and coordination at the piano are learned skills and not inborn gifts.

No one is born playing the piano but some people have a knack or predisposition for activities requiring extreme motor coordination. These skills can be learned, but some people have a natural edge in matters technical and mechanical. I believe a lot of this advantage has to do with correct mental process, because without the brain the most superbly built hands are useless...