Arrogance vs. Humility - qualities as a pianist

[opus10no2]

Which do you think is the quality which makes a finer pianist?

I don't mean all-round personality, just musical.

I think that arrogance is a preferable trait to complete humility.

Humility serves the composer and the audience, and I feel this attitude leads to boring pianism, in most cases.

The ideal would be a healthy balance, of course, but of the 2 extremes, which makes for greater pianism?

[ted]

In playing the music, creating music too, and in regard to nothing else, I would assert that humility has no place whatsoever. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

This, of course, has no bearing on the pianist's or musician's actual interactive personality, and there may not even be any correlation between that and musical effect anyway. Even if there were correlation it doesn't matter. I predict a 90% chance your question will be misunderstood. We'll see.

[opus10no2]

Yes, ted, that's what I mean.

To name a couple - Horowitz, Pogolerich, Argerich, Cziffra - all arrogant musicians!

Often discarding normal ways of playing to play their OWN way, even going against composers indications.

This is what made them all so controversial, and also what made them all so unique!

A pianist who isn't controversial in some way is bound to be boring.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather be loathed my many and loved by few than be liked by everyone.

Great musicians (and pieces of music)are talked about with great vehemence and even vitriol, both positively *and* negatively, that's the way it should be.


Never try to please anybody, only please yourself, and if others are pleased along with it, all the better.

[danny elfboy]

Are you sure you don't mean "self-confidence" instead of "arrogance".
I think you're using humbleness here as pejorative and arrogance as "self-confidence"

I think "self-confidence" is important, including the self-confidence of listen to yourself instead of others, of being controversial and of playing the way that pleases you.

Humbleness is important too becase it allows you to never lack respects for other and this pus things into perspective because the same respect you expect from others (including the respect towards your self-confidence) if the same respect that in turn people (including your audience) expects from you.

[m]

I don't mean all-round personality, just musical.

 

 

Do you understand yourself what you are talking about

Could you explain in more or less intelligent terms how in the world you can separate those two?

Do you realize that in fact, the musicality is an expression of personality?

[invictious]

Let's take Pathetique for example.
Do you think a hyper guy or a quiet girl will play it better?

You can't really compare, you can like one, but not say that one sucks.

Expression of musicality is actually from personality.



So take a personality change now! become very melodramatic@

[counterpoint]

Humility serves the composer and the audience, and I feel this attitude leads to boring pianism, in most cases.

A typical comme-statement 

I think, it's a case of personality. If the pianist has an arrogant personality - that is, in his own view he is such an admirable person and pianist and so much smarter than all these dumb composers and not to forget the dumb audience - he will see the need to "improve" the pieces he plays and he will take them not too serious 

The "boring" pianist, who looks at the compositions with respect (and just tries to make the music sound like the composer wanted it to sound) does not want to make much theater about his person. It's about the music, not about the pianist.

If you don't like music... (ok, I must have said this before  )

[franzliszt2]

I think that beiong arrogant is bad for a musician, becasue it can give them a false sense of self belief. Confidence is the most important thing, but there is a very fine line between confident and arrogant. All the great pianists have very strong opinions, and will argue their case, weaker musicians will just agree with who they thoink is the strongest.

Remember Horowitz suffered from terrible nerves, as do many of the greats. That shows that they aren't arrogant as such, because they still have some doubt. Arrogance acts as a shield, and most arrogant pianists are very self consious and use the arrogant front as a shield.

[opus10no2]

 

Do you understand yourself what you are talking about

Could you explain in more or less intelligent terms how in the world you can separate those two?

Do you realize that in fact, the musicality is an expression of personality?

No, it's perfectly normal for a pianist to have great confidence in their musical ideas, but not in other areas of their life.

A typical comme-statement 

I think, it's a case of personality. If the pianist has an arrogant personality - that is, in his own view he is such an admirable person and pianist and so much smarter than all these dumb composers and not to forget the dumb audience - he will see the need to "improve" the pieces he plays and he will take them not too serious 

Well, it is possible to have a healthy amount of respect for a composer and still have the opinion that it's perfectly possible to play great music in many completely different ways and have it still sound great, but different.


Playing in complete service of the composer is one way of playing, but often it ends up completely lifeless.

Performing is and should be a recreative process.

[counterpoint]

Well, it is possible to have a healthy amount of respect for a composer and still have the opinion that it's perfectly possible to play great music in many completely different ways and have it still sound great, but different.

I agree here too. There are many different ways to play a piece while being in consense with the composer. It doesn't mean to be noncreative, if you try play a piece as the composer would like it. In contrary: you have to be very creative, because what's notated on the sheet is only a small part of what is really to decide and to work out. If you play only what's notated, the music will sound very lifeless and tedious - fully agree!

But then there are "interpretations", which take the sheet music only as sort of material to create something completely different, something, that was never intended by the composer. Okay, you can do this as well, but you then have to write in your concert program "Arabesques on the themes of ..." That's what Schulz-Evler did with Strauß' Blue Danube, and he did it exceptionally well. In this case much better than the original composer. But in most cases, such autonomous changes of great music do not make it better but destroy the music to a great part.

[arbisley]

Let's take Pathetique for example.
Do you think a hyper guy or a quiet girl will play it better?

You can't really compare, you can like one, but not say that one sucks.

Expression of musicality is actually from personality.



So take a personality change now! become very melodramatic@

First of all it's on obvious stereotype that a guy would be more ferocious than a girl, if maybe even remotely true.  A hyper guy would be great at flinging off the fast passages, but would he necessarily get the meaning of the intense, slower sections? A quiet girl could mean unconfident, but also this person might have a huge reserve of personal emotion which they can express in front of an audience because it is an experience out of the common. I am usually a fairly isolated person, who socialises mostly with people I know well, but when I go on stage I always have a surge of self confidence because I know that I want to put forward my ideas of the music and that no one else is expressing themselves at that moment. And of course there is the fact that on stage, life is drama, so whatever you do is right, anything can happen, you don't need to be your normal self.

I'll give an example of two vastly different players I know, my teacher, who is extremely pompous and arrogant, and a fellow pupil who is an exceptional cellist. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but when they play they have the same amount of intensity to express their feelings

[pianistimo]

it could be a sign of youthfulness and solitude of practice time.  perhaps even the youthful artist is not so arrogant as simply sure of their own ideas.  i don't consider this arrogant if a person has reasons and can explain.  i do - if someone won't take the time to explain why they do what they do (if it is somewhat controversial). 

i think it is far more uncomfortable for an audience to watch someone who is unsure of themselves than a cocky young person who strides up to the piano and bangs it into submission.  on the other hand, there are a few people who play softer and more delicate music better than well-known artists because they are not trying to impress anyone, per se.

agreed about personality being the tie-in.  if you are normally somewhat shy - even if you express yourself well at the piano - you will always struggle to be as bold at your interpretations without practicing stage presence and fooling yourself as to any possible repercussions from 'imperfect' playing.  usually the shy types are also obsessive about getting the notes right.  if you can finally 'let go' and say 'whatever!'  --it's a huge milestone.     

[m]

No, it's perfectly normal for a pianist to have great confidence in their musical ideas, but not in other areas of their life.

What confidence has to do with arrogance?

[debussy symbolism]

Which do you think is the quality which makes a finer pianist?

I don't mean all-round personality, just musical.

I think that arrogance is a preferable trait to complete humility.

Humility serves the composer and the audience, and I feel this attitude leads to boring pianism, in most cases.

The ideal would be a healthy balance, of course, but of the 2 extremes, which makes for greater pianism?

Greetings.

Stevie your comparisons or arrogant musicians and humble musicians makes no sense. A person can be humble and be a good pianist, whilst the other one not be a good one, and vice-versa. I think that what you mean by your post is "which of the two pianists is better, the one that follows the composer's intent as closely as possible, or the one that doesn't." The answer is "both." Only adhering to said rules will turn out boring if done the same a million of times exactly. However a performance which turns a piece upside down and becomes barely recognizable is equally as bad, so a combination of two is required.

[a-sharp]

I'm not convined either *makes* the pianist [or any other technician or artist or athlete or whatever, for that matter] ~

these are descriptors for human qualities.

I personally despise arrogance [not to be confused with confidence]...

OTOH, does anyone really have *complete* humility? Ghandi maybe?

I just like genuine people, not too arrogant - a certain amount of confidence should be a given with someone of great skill and artistry - and but if I am going to pay to see someone more than once, it is usually someone who has a little bit of humility I suppose. I want to at least like the person - or, what's the point?

Argerich, arrogant??? I've never heard that before. Pogorelich - OK. NMS. Won't likely pay to see him again, even though he's a fine pianist. Perahia - I'll pay to see him any time he is in town. jmnsho

[m1469]

It seems to me that the more a person knows, the more they realize they don't know.  Truly grasping some measure of how much one does not know is married to some kind of humility.  However, it must be noted that a person who sees how much they don't know in the face of what there is to be known, in fact knows "a lot."

In my observation, those people whom by human standards would deserve to be arrogant because they know so much, are the exact ones who know enough to know better than to be arrogant about what they know.

Humility comes with the territory of *emmense* and profound experience and knowledge.

 

[opus10no2]

That's true in general, but I think music making is less to do with knowledge and more to do with instinct and impulse.

And relevant to what you're saying is that the nature of overanalysis is to rob us of the basic pleasure of doing without thinking.

Having trust in instinct is what this thread is really about, perhaps.

[pianowolfi]

Having trust in instinct is what this thread is really about, perhaps.

There might be a difference between "basic instinct" and intuition.

[m1469]

That's true in general, but I think music making is less to do with knowledge and more to do with instinct and impulse.

And relevant to what you're saying is that the nature of overanalysis is to rob us of the basic pleasure of doing without thinking.

Having trust in instinct is what this thread is really about, perhaps.

I have been observing it a bit over the years, and I am very aware that my knowledge will often directly affect my sense of "instict" or "intuition" and "impulse".  It's very possible for a person to learn things that become instinctual.  And, just as a note, we do not become a different person as a pianist than who we already are, at least in part.  So, what I said in my post above is relevant in my mind and can serve as a foundation for anything anybody does in life -- including piano playing.

Now, even if that were NOT true, for me, following instinct or trusting that particular part of my life-experience really has nothing to do with how we "call" it.  So, why not just ask :  'in piano playing, is it preferrable to follow instinct or to analyze ?' if that's what this thread is really about ?

Sometimes I follow instinct out of curiousity and interest... or sometimes out of sheer survival (yes, in my piano playing, too) -- and actually, sometimes out of complete and utter humility (as far as I can see it).  Why do we call it arrogance vs humility ?

Perhaps this thread is about something else then ?  Maybe justifying a certain characteristic that you feel needs justifying ? 

[a-sharp]

To a large degree - piano playing is a skill that we combine with our emotions and ok, thoughts, and use as a way in which we express ourselves. I believe that the emotional aspect is mostly intuitive, but the skill aspect - what we work so hard at so much of the time [speaking for myself here ], I don't understand having an arrogant attitude about that - I don't think one should be criticised for being proud of what we can do, our accomplishments or whatever - I think pride goes well with the confidence necessary in order to play well - but arrogance is something else and it is a huge turn-off for me regardless of the person, their profession or set of skills ... I think one might be able to reach more people with humility than arrogance - assuming that was the goal ... to connect with people...

m1469 - I agree that intinct can be learned - in the sense that we can practice something enough times for it to become second nature - this is evident all over the place ... and yet the physical response to an impulse or feeling or instinct is still a learned skill ... yeah - I guess I'm not sure why arrogance/humility has anything to do really with piano playing per se - for me, it is just something that is a factor in whether or not I care much for someone or not as a person ... which inevitably does affect whether or not I will pay money to see them play or buy their CD's... But neither makes them either better or worse as a musician [or anything else for that matter], just likeable, or not.