How good is Bernhard at piano?

[opus10no2]

Your basic idea is wrong. I just wrote a reply to that idea. Have you read it?

Explicate.

[m]

Explicate.

Explicate what? Which part is unclear?

I'd prefer to keep it short, though.
You know Opus, I payed attention when I spend time explaining you things, you whether don't answer at all, or write something random and unrelated.
I am not sure if I want to spend my precious time talking to a wall, or to a person who speaks completely different language.

[opus10no2]

I'm hoping to learn something here, teach me 

I read all your posts, I don't see a point I didn't respond to.

[m]

Music is a system. As any system it has it's own rules and own logic. It is exactly like when learning a new language "from ears" it is nearly impossible to catch that logic, all internal processes, all details, and subtleties of the system.

There is much more "objective" and "intellectual" in music than you give credit for. You might be quite surprised, but ANY great artist would be able to explain and analyze from standpoint of logic every little detail of their performance or interpretation.

Music is about telling the story. Its emotional context is only how emphatically you tell this story. Before you start telling the story, you have to know what the story actually is and what you want to say.
And since music is a language, without knowing rules and logic of the language the story is... let's say amateurish, at the best.

[opus10no2]

You sound unmusical.

Yes, you can apply any objective or intellectual consideration to the creation/appreciation of music.

Even EMOTION is in a way extra-musical.

If a person can only appreciate music for it's theoretical details and/or emotional 'story', then they are unmusical.

I'm afraid to say, it seems I am more musical than you.

[m]

I'm afraid to say, it seems I am more musical than you.

Do you have at least any idea what "musical" is?
Do you have at least any idea that "musical" is based on knowledge?
But actually, it doesn't matter.

Good for you! Congratulations!!!

[opus10no2]

Yes, I've been educating you.

Thanks, you may be musical afterall, you just seem to have an intellectual barrier in your way.

[term]

music is not at all intellectual, it's sensual.

I partly agree here.

Your basic idea is wrong.

I don't think he's necessarily wrong (nor is he right^^), but ...what else is there to do than thinking about the music on your own and picking up ideas from others; - and finally putting it together?
Working on a piece without a teacher is not only possible, but valuable since there's much to learn and you can find out things on your own which is also fun.

[opus10no2]

The most valuable thing a student could ever learn is how to teach themselves

[m]

Yes, I've been educating you.

Clever likes to learn, stupid likes to teach.
                                        Anton Chehov

[opus10no2]

Don't put yourself down, you're a pretty good pianist 

[m]

Don't put yourself down...

I think you should seriously consider some medical treatment and checking your IQ along the way.

Ciao, Opus.

[pianowolfi]

There is much more "objective" and "intellectual" in music than you give credit for. You might be quite surprised, but ANY great artist would be able to explain and analyze from standpoint of logic every little detail of their performance or interpretation.

I am sorry if I enter this discussion unexpectedly and maybe out of context but some of these words sting into my mind, so to say, completely besides the discussion between marik and opus. I just have, caused by my own struggle with musical interpretation, certain really burning questions and if I read something like this I somehow react I mean ANY great artist (who wouldn't like to be such an artist) would be able to explain and analyze *every* detail....hmmmm...

music happens in such unmeasurably short timespans, there is no way, if you are playing spontaneously, musically, inspired, lively, to catch up with your intellectual, logical thoughts, at least not at the moment you are playing. *afterwards* everything is to some extent graspable, analyzable, logically understandable, okay. But then the real deal is over, in my book. Because to me the real deal is the event where music happens. Scientists may analyze it afterwards. You yourself as an interpreter may analyze it afterwards. But never you can do this at the same time you are playing, even if you have done a load of analyzis and thinking before, as a preparation for the performance. Everything is spontaneous, in a certain sense unpredictable, intense, indescribable. And true.

[counterpoint]

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way 

I meant that music has no teachable meaning, and no meaning in any traditional sense.

Does playing to bring out the 'emotional meaning' piece produce a different result than playing it for purely musical pleasure?

The former is not necessary for a great performance, our reaction may be emotional even if the performer feels nothing. The one rule for a great musical performance is that the pianist must play the music how they , at that moment, think it would sound best.

You can think of emotion and meaning as a cause and/or a result, but great music always demands an interesting musicality.

Interesting how you confuse musical meaning with emotional issues. The emotional effect of a special piece and a special interpretation can be quite different from listener to listener, but the musical structure is the musical structure - and in a good interpretation you can hear it - in a bad interpretation you can't. You may know it anyway, if you already know the piece. But you can't hear it. That's the point where the discussion is all about. You just say: there is no objective meaning of music. Any musical meaning is only subjective. But there is an objective meaning. You can say: these notes are the melody, these notes are the accompagniment, there is a repetition, this is the same but lower, slower, with different rhythm, articulation etc etc. These things will not be audible, if you only press the right keys and do not care about what's the musical function of it.

I rarely talk about the emotional meaning of music. Thats individual. Everyone is free to fantasize some emotions and images in the music he listens to. I talk about the architecture of music.

The melody of the ocean etude is:

Eb D F Eb D Eb C_____  Eb D F E (!) Ab G E_____

very simple, very slow, but what great effect with the accompagniment of the up and down arpeggios!   

[pianowolfi]

Eb D F Eb D Eb C_____  Eb D F E (!) Ab G E_____

Hmmm that is sorta the intro to me. The main melody follows afterwards: E______E D F E____E  D C E_______ and so on.

[m]

music happens in such unmeasurably short timespans, there is no way, if you are playing spontaneously, musically, inspired, lively, to catch up with your intellectual, logical thoughts, at least not at the moment you are playing. *afterwards* everything is to some extent graspable, analyzable, logically understandable, okay. But then the real deal is over, in my book. Because to me the real deal is the event where music happens. Scientists may analyze it afterwards. You yourself as an interpreter may analyze it afterwards. But never you can do this at the same time you are playing, even if you have done a load of analyzis and thinking before, as a preparation for the performance. Everything is spontaneous, in a certain sense unpredictable, intense, indescribable. And true.

Wolfi,

It is a very interesting question and will require some time to think and word things the right way.

In the mean time I'd suggest to find an Abram Chasins essay about his studying with J. Hofmann. He goes into considerable depth on this very subject.

Best, M

[counterpoint]

Hmmm that is sorta the intro to me. The main melody follows afterwards: E______E D F E____E  D C E_______ and so on.

 

(there's a wrong note in it  )

[opus10no2]

But you can't hear it.

If it can't be heard, it isn't musical.

Musical instinct should dictate which notes are to be brought out and accented more.

It demands no intellectual understanding, all that is musical can be heard.

I never said knowing theory doesn't help with pianism, especially with regards to memorisation..

Consider musical savants, they appreciate and 'understand' music better than virtually all of us, yet their IQ is very minimal.

Note that their playing is emotionally stunted, they play the way it sounds best to them.
Because their emotional mind is underdeveloped, they tend to play jolly music, which is interesting.

[pianowolfi]

(there's a wrong note in it  )

yeah should be D argh

Wolfi,

It is a very interesting question and will require some time to think and word things the right way.

In the mean time I'd suggest to find an Abram Chasins essay about his studying with J. Hofmann. He goes into considerable depth on this very subject.

Best, M

Ohh okay thank you I am really looking forward to this and I will look for the essay

[counterpoint]

yeah should be D argh

Oh, I didn't saw that.   
Then there is a second wrong note in it 

[counterpoint]

If it can't be heard, it isn't musical.

So finally, we agree 100 % - wow! (serious, no sarcasm)

[pianowolfi]

Oh, I didn't saw that.   
Then there is a second wrong note in it 

"didn't see that" it should say   nope now I don't agree, it's (from M.15) E____E D F E_____E D C D_______D C A C_____ or do I need glasses?

[counterpoint]

"didn't see that" it should say   nope now I don't agree, it's (from M.15) E____E D F E_____E D C D_______D C A C_____ or do I need glasses?

What an important discussion 

(the 4th note should be a G)

[opus10no2]

So finally, we agree 100 % - wow! (serious, no sarcasm)

Unless you are reading me wrong.

I don't understand how something cannot be heard and still considered a musical element...explain that one.

[pianowolfi]

What an important discussion 

(the 4th note should be a G)

I use Paderewsky edition and this one has the accent on the F before, so it might be a matter of which edition you use.

[counterpoint]

Unless you are reading me wrong.

I don't understand how something cannot be heard and still considered a musical element...explain that one.

It cannot be heard, because the musician doesn't  play it in a way it can be heard

The pianist is responsible for making the elements of a piece audible!

In many cases, this is not a simple task!

[counterpoint]

I use Paderewsky edition and this one has the accent on the F before, so it might be a matter of which edition you use.

I have Paderewski and two other editions. The accentuation is different in all three 

So we're both right 

[jinfiesto]

I still don't understand how you can think that a teacher needs to be able to play faster than you can. It's just idiocy in my opinion. Just because they can't play faster than you doesn't mean they don't have valuable musical input. Something that you wouldn't have thought up on your own. I understand where you come from, and I by no means am suggesting that you should accept your teachers word unquestioningly, but musically, they may have lots of things to teach you. Having someone tell you something, often saves you the trouble of failing and finding it out yourself. Also, there are lots of intellectual components of interpretation that need to be taught. Lets take some basic theory. Tonic resolves to dominant. If you know this, you can spot tension and resolution, and interpret accordingly. If you don't know that, there are lots of times when you simply won't notice. Pedaling is another part of interpretation that needs to be taught, because pedaling is tied technically to how it affects the music, but is still part of interpretation. Ie how to use the pedal to color tones rather than using it simply to cover your own inadequacies. There are lots of things that need to be taught that simply can't be found out by listening. Sure listening can help you in the context of the piece you're listening to, but as far as principles of interpretation that can applied universally, those are much easier taught than discovered. For example lets take Bach. Interpretation of Bach, and any music really, has stylistic associations tied to it. Is it possible to listen and find these? I'm sure it is. It's just a waste of time, and you probably won't get as much out of it as listening to someone that really knows what they're talking about. Back to Bach. In Bach, there are lots of interpretive rules that you need to know to play the piece as Bach meant it to be played. I don't think you could discover all of those simply by listening to recordings of Bach. And of course, those rules are just guidelines, but it certainly helps to know them doesn't it? It seems to me that your technical fascination has it's roots in arrogance, that you seem to believe that no one has anything to teach you musically. Let me ask you then. Those recordings you take ideas from. The artist is teaching you. Indirectly of course, but they are still teaching you. Wouldn't it be more beneficial if say you had been able to ask the artist about their musical ideas? Wouldn't you have more insight as to why they do it, and be able to apply those ideas as principles again and again? That certainly seems much more valuable than only being able to apply the idea in the piece you're listening to because you don't understand the idea behind the musical action. At any rate, I think you need to get off the high horse as it were, and understand that there are more musical people in the universe. Of course, you should never just be your teacher's clone, but that doesn't mean that musical things can't be taught. Oh... Technique and Musicality are highly interdependent. One cannot exist without the other. You are right about technique in that regard. But technical faculty does not guarantee musicality, and musicality certainly does not guarantee technical faculty. I think your logic is fundamentally flawed.