Is emotional display overrated?

[gerry]

I've read several posts on this forum about performers who are affected in one way or another. LangLang, for instance, seems to wear his heart on his (silk) sleeve, visually expressing such ecstasy that I get the impression he's sitting in rapture listening to someone else (at least as good as he is ) play. Valentina seems to play with such utter ease that she appears almost coldly detached from what her hands are doing, conveying no joy or emotion whatsoever. Others stamp feet and display other extreme emotions, giving the impression that art and beauty is an agonizing, painful, and joyless obsession. In most of these cases, it helps if I close my eyes or just listen to a recording; however, once I've observed these musicians, the image gets stuck in my mind and I find it hard not to transfer perceptions. I'm curious as to how much importance forum members put on emotional display. Is this a sign of the times--narcissism brought on by media exposure, youtube, increased ability to film and photograph our own images of self--or is it natural? Obviously, it helps to display some vital signs while performing, but should performers temper and monitor themselves or just let it all hang out if the spirit moves them? When does it get in the way of the music and when does it help?

[faulty_damper]

Interesting comments.

I think for the lay audience and many pianists alike, they don't understand the art of music-making.  They want to associate visually with what they hear.  If it sounds difficult they want the visual experience to match the auditory one.  They want to see the pianist struggle, sweat, agonize because this would match their auditory senses.  This, of course, would actually prevent good musicianship and make it much harder for a pianist to perform difficult repertoire: pianism over musicianship.

Those who prioritize musicianship over pianism seem calm and relaxed even when it sounds extremely difficult and auditorily impressive.  These musicians are often labelled as boring pianists - the visual experience seems detached with the aural one.  Indeed, as many pianists who have achieved a great level of ability and ease with their instrument are often the most relaxed and calm compared to the hot-heads of competition competitors or when they were much younger.  How many senior citizen concert pianists ever have stage orgasms while performing?

Then there are those pianists/musicians in between these two: those with both excellent ability and musicianship skills who balance out the mastubatory and the music.  They avoid extreme forms of showmanship but give enough impression that they are not bored with what they are doing while maintaining good control of the musical flow.

[faulty_damper]

I remember when I used to masturbate while playing the piano, if only for a very short period of time in my youth.  I can say that it caused my playing to be irregular, uneven, musically exagerated and thus musically inept.  But while I was doing sommersaults with my face and body, I couldn't tell that it caused the music to suffer; I was so focused on the sounds that I couldn't focus of the rhythm or anything else.  And who was listening except myself?  I had no external force that told me the rhythm was wrong, the pulse was being stretched like a deteriorated rubberband, the dynamics fell like a brick in water... I wanted to hear what I wanted to hear, not what I actually sounded like. 

What I actually sounded like was shocking, much like hearing the sound of your own voice on a tape.  "Do I really sound like that?!"  It's such a shock that it's difficult to face it.

But why did I do it?  Because that is what I saw other pianists do, other pianists who were much better pianists than I was at the time - famous ones.  In fact, I didn't contort my body or face before I saw those that performed like a clown in a circus act.  In fact, my teacher's other students rarely ever let any signs of these egotistical strokings out on stage.  I did it because it felt good to do more than just move my fingers; it felt good to gyrate what I could while in a seated position.  And it just seemed to me that I was a better pianist because I was doing it.

It was a humbling experience.  Thankfully, these habits didn't last long.  Part of the reason I stopped was because I looked like an idiot trapped in an insane asylum, and secondly because it impaired my ability to play difficult repertoire.  The result was that my playing improved significantly because I could focus on what was important, and emmulating a monkey in a zoo wasn't one of them.  But monkey see, monkey do - and there are neuroligal reasons why we copy what we see: mirror neurons.  But this is a different topic.

[invictious]

Personally, I feel that displaying emotions is not an essential part of piano playing. I generally don't display that emotion while playing because I am focusing on my piano playing and playing it musically interesting. I just don't naturally move around and make orgasm faces while I play.

People always go 'l0lz!! you don't play with da emotionz1!!' unless they see this person playing like Lang Lang...it's always a pain.

In fact, I find people playing as though they are having orgasms very distracting and  I can't concentrate on the music. It's only a part of showmanship, besides, shouldn't the audience be looking at the fingers instead of the pianist's face?

[gerry]

I remember when I used to masturbate while playing the piano, if only for a very short period of time in my youth. 

Your teacher encouraged hands-separate practice? What a great way to learn some of the great left-hand works in the literature

[matterintospirit]

I remember when I used to masturbate while playing the piano, if only for a very short period of time in my youth.  I can say that it caused my playing to be irregular, uneven, musically exagerated and thus musically inept.  But while I was doing sommersaults with my face and body, I couldn't tell that it caused the music to suffer; I was so focused on the sounds that I couldn't focus of the rhythm or anything else.  And who was listening except myself?  I had no external force that told me the rhythm was wrong, the pulse was being stretched like a deteriorated rubberband, the dynamics fell like a brick in water... I wanted to hear what I wanted to hear, not what I actually sounded like. 

What I actually sounded like was shocking, much like hearing the sound of your own voice on a tape.  "Do I really sound like that?!"  It's such a shock that it's difficult to face it.

But why did I do it?  Because that is what I saw other pianists do, other pianists who were much better pianists than I was at the time - famous ones.  In fact, I didn't contort my body or face before I saw those that performed like a clown in a circus act.  In fact, my teacher's other students rarely ever let any signs of these egotistical strokings out on stage.  I did it because it felt good to do more than just move my fingers; it felt good to gyrate what I could while in a seated position.  And it just seemed to me that I was a better pianist because I was doing it.

It was a humbling experience.  Thankfully, these habits didn't last long.  Part of the reason I stopped was because I looked like an idiot trapped in an insane asylum, and secondly because it impaired my ability to play difficult repertoire.  The result was that my playing improved significantly because I could focus on what was important, and emmulating a monkey in a zoo wasn't one of them.  But monkey see, monkey do - and there are neuroligal reasons why we copy what we see: mirror neurons.  But this is a different topic.

I would have thought the music would have been orgasmic due to the masturbating.

Emotional display is display. I love to watch videos of artists like rubenstein and horowitz---their very deep level of concentration. it's awsome to watch---much more interesting than twisted faces in the name of art. too damn silly. cheap tricks of the trade. a substitute for a brain.

[matterintospirit]

sorry--i wanted to quote,  then comment, and my comment starts with----i thought that---etc--------don't know how to seperate quote from my comment---duh--

[thalberg]

I've had teachers tell me I look too dead while playing--even though my sound was very expressive.  They told me I'd fail as a musician if I didn't give the audience a little something to look at.

I've also read where great concert artists said any movement while playing takes away from the control they have.  I think Rubinstein was superlatively expressive, yet he sat still as a statue.  Same with Argerich and Perahia.

[matterintospirit]

stick with the control. i don't know about failing, but the image of the swooning artist is what many expect---they associate that with the idea--this guy must be good---look at him sway. so sad--- and many pianist are perpetuating this silly show i think often that it is a substitute for real comprehension..

[pianowolfi]

sorry--i wanted to quote,  then comment, and my comment starts with----i thought that---etc--------don't know how to seperate quote from my comment---duh--

use this tag:

[/quote]

Personally, I feel that displaying emotions is not an essential part of piano playing. I generally don't display that emotion while playing because I am focusing on my piano playing and playing it musically interesting. I just don't naturally move around and make orgasm faces while I play.

People always go 'l0lz!! you don't play with da emotionz1!!' unless they see this person playing like Lang Lang...it's always a pain.

In fact, I find people playing as though they are having orgasms very distracting and  I can't concentrate on the music. It's only a part of showmanship, besides, shouldn't the audience be looking at the fingers instead of the pianist's face?

Lol you are very entertaining But how many people in the audience can actually see the fingers?
I agree that it's often showmanship. (Why do I always see Grimaud in my mind? lol) But some people can't do other, obviously, like Brendel.

[thalberg]

stick with the control. i don't know about failing, but the image of the swooning artist is what many expect---they associate that with the idea--this guy must be good---look at him sway. so sad--- and many pianist are perpetuating this silly show i think often that it is a substitute for real comprehension..

Yes I agree.  Perhaps I can give them the best of both worlds by having a friend onstage to swoon for me.  You know, kind of like a page turner, but only a swooner.

[pianowolfi]

Yes I agree.  Perhaps I can give them the best of both worlds by having a friend onstage to swoon for me.  You know, kind of like a page turner, but only a swooner.

Cool idea, an onstage swooner claque cheerleader combo

[steinway43]

The public loves a great actor. It is show biz, after all.

A sad fact of the music world is that a lot of the audience has no clue what's really going on when you're playing. I've learned this, to my horror, getting to know people and hearing their comments. I played Ondine for one arrogant snob who was sure he was always right, but watching the confusion on his face told me he was clueless. Anything beyond Tchaikowsky was beyond his ears. For those who know the piece, when I got to the part just beyond the big climax, where the melody starts with A# over b minor, he screamed "Those are wrong notes!" Imagine that. Ravel wrote the wrong notes! Who knew. And that is typical.

So how do they judge you? They go by looks and this acting business. It's all they have, really. It makes me sad to know these things, and causes me no end of grief when oblivious posers bully me with their musically retarded assessments.

[counterpoint]

Yes I agree.  Perhaps I can give them the best of both worlds by having a friend onstage to swoon for me.  You know, kind of like a page turner, but only a swooner.

You know eurhythmics performances...?   

[gerry]

I played Ondine for one arrogant snob who was sure he was always right, ...he screamed "Those are wrong notes!" Imagine that. Ravel wrote the wrong notes! Who knew. And that is typical.

...and causes me no end of grief when oblivious posers bully me with their musically retarded assessments.

Why do you hang around people like this

[thalberg]

You know eurhythmics performances...?   

Sure!  Great idea!

[rc]

The public loves a great actor. It is show biz, after all.

A sad fact of the music world is that a lot of the audience has no clue what's really going on when you're playing...

So how do they judge you? They go by looks and this acting business. It's all they have, really. It makes me sad to know these things, and causes me no end of grief when oblivious posers bully me with their musically retarded assessments.

Gerry was onto this too, but really who do you want to appeal to, the musically retarded or those who are there for the music?

Not many will know enough to COMPLETELY understand everything about a performance, there's a lot I'm ignorant of, but good music can be enjoyed by the average listener without visual help.

OTOH, I don't believe the idea that a performer should feel nothing onstage, and if a feeling results in a little sway then it might take more energy to supress it than allow it.

[pianowolfi]

You know eurhythmics performances...?   

Sure!  Great idea!

I wouldn't recommend that since Eurythmists use to tell you how to play so they can perform like they wish and that might very often not be in congruence with what the music requires. Just my experience Interesting art, though. Might get better in the future.

[counterpoint]

Quote from: counterpoint on Today at 11:07:51
You know eurhythmics performances...?   

Sure!  Great idea!

I didn't expect that reaction   

It will look somewhat like this:

  or like that:

[matterintospirit]

The public loves a great actor. It is show biz, after all.

A sad fact of the music world is that a lot of the audience has no clue what's really going on when you're playing. I've learned this, to my horror, getting to know people and hearing their comments. I played Ondine for one arrogant snob who was sure he was always right, but watching the confusion on his face told me he was clueless. Anything beyond Tchaikowsky was beyond his ears. For those who know the piece, when I got to the part just beyond the big climax, where the melody starts with A# over b minor, he screamed "Those are wrong notes!" Imagine that. Ravel wrote the wrong notes! Who knew. And that is typical.

So how do they judge you? They go by looks and this acting business. It's all they have, really. It makes me sad to know these things, and causes me no end of grief when oblivious posers bully me with their musically retarded assessments.




[/quote]don't dispair steinway---it's not black and white. haven't given recital in long time, but the best audience that i ever played for was a jazz audience. a great jazz musician/composer friend of mine used me to open the program. i asked him why? i'm a classical musician---i play music of the past and this program is entitled "the new music'---he responded to me---"you play it like it's new." i opened with the Mozart fantasia in D----very advanced piece muisically to say the least. when i finished, the audience burst out into thunderous applause i think i felt the "wind" from the clapping no kidding (i may have been high at the time, iwas very young)--- this audience was totally open and came with no preconceived notions as the typical "classical" music audience---it was a real eye opener

[matterintospirit]

will someone please tell me how to quote and then write response. i need computer help, thalberg---where are you when i need you. i'll take help from anybody as i am a computer dummy.

[counterpoint]

will someone please tell me how to quote and then write response. i need computer help, thalberg---where are you when i need you. i'll take help from anybody as i am a computer dummy.

It's very easy: just press the "Quote"-Button, you get a textfield with the quoted text. It begins with [quote]... and ends with [/quote]

Write your own text after the last [/quote] statement.

[matterintospirit]

thanx!

[leonidas]

Music is exclusively an aural art, but pianism is an art which also touches other senses, namely - sight and touch.

With the increasing popularity and availability of visual performances, it has become more important than ever to be concious of appearance while performing.

Whether it be to attempt to have as minimal a distraction as possible, or to be embraced as a part of the allround experience, it is important.

I never get annoyed, because of course if I am displeased, I can look down, or look away, but part of the fun is seeing the funny/expressive movements a pianist makes.

I think Cziffra is a fantastic pianist to watch, his face and body language express pride and humility at once, strength and vunerability, and always sincerity.

Lang Lang is the most often cited example, and I find most of his visual actions to be exaggerated and entertaining, and if they can detreact from the seriousness of his purpose, it only reveals that his music making isn't the most serious out tyhere, it's primarily about fun, and sharing how fun piano music and playing can be.

[matterintospirit]

he who is the most "entertaining" collects the most $$$. the masses are not known for good taste or awareness of culture, only pop culture. most have no other way to view a recital other than "entertainment"---probably as true today as it was 300 years ago. on the other hand, take an average audience who hears a performance of a Mozart piano concerto preformed by a pianist who is highly technically skilled, polished to the nines with all the right moves----the audience applauds politely---they think they have heard something very good---- then same Mozart piano concerto performed by a pianist with true feeling, insight, and communication with the audience, regardless of facial expressions, movement, etc-------same audience goes wild--they go with their feelings, and "ideas" fly out the window. the situation takes over, and the listener is changed in some small way forever. the performer stands poised with the world spinning in the palm of their hand.

[leonidas]

the masses are not known for good taste

The only objective superior in music is mass appeal.

Take the great Britney Spears song 'Toxic' as an example, it is far more popular than many great symphonies.

Is it therefore better? Not absolutely, but if 'good taste' exists at all, it favours the popular.

[zheer]

Is emotional display overrated?


    Yes,classical music is'nt just entertainment it's an art , the artist only re-creats and commuicates the music to the listner through sound , what he/she does physically to produce sound is of little value from an artistic point of view.

[matterintospirit]

The only objective superior in music is mass appeal.

Take the great Britney Spears song 'Toxic' as an example, it is far more popular than many great symphonies.

Is it therefore better? Not absolutely, but if 'good taste' exists at all, it favours the popular.

an artist should not care what people favor (not that one does not have to consider what to do in order to make money, but the two shouldn't be confused.) consumer societies teach people immediate consumption. that's what they can relate to---land even live for---and it brings in the $$$$. most people are finished learning about life by age 5. pop culture for the most part is a vast cultural wasteland with some exceptions here and there. the powers that be, claim to be giving people what they want, and in reality, deny the fact that they are actively molding people and determining what the WILL want. sucks--- and has always been the case but not in such mass proportions as now. imagine the diffrence in our society if the norm were public tetevision style shows and this is what children were mainly exposed to! i find the culture in general rather depressing which is why as a child i locked into classical music---a bright spot in my life and an anecdote to the drab dreariness of society in general as I know it.

[counterpoint]

what he/she does physically to produce sound is of little value from an artistic point of view.

I wouldn't say that. There are some things in piano playing, that depend more on pantomime than on a real sound difference. For example: you can't play a crescendo on a sustained note. That's physically impossible. But you can make the people hear a crescendo on a sustained note. So facial or body expression is needed in piano playing.

[rc]

Cultural wasteland - I know, there's a lot of crap out there.  A place I used to go to for lunch had MTV on for a while, I never knew it could be that bad  But I think it's up to the individual whether they let that environment affect them, and in the case of children it's up to the parents to teach them what's BS and what's not.

Good taste - it's not so much the tune itself as what's done with it that's artful.  Mass popularity means it's good on the most superficial level, it means even less when there's marketting involved.  Most will rely on connoisseurs judgement, just as I would have to ask what makes architecture good or bad because I have no idea.

Spears vs symphonies isn't a good comparison, I think I see your point though, leo.  Whatever sophistication goes into a buildings architecture, if it makes everybody cringe and uncomfortable then what good is it?  It has to be appealing in the first place.

[ramseytheii]

Music is exclusively an aural art, but pianism is an art which also touches other senses, namely - sight and touch.

With the increasing popularity and availability of visual performances, it has become more important than ever to be concious of appearance while performing.

Even though today we have recordings and music playing everywhere you go, I challenge your statement that music is exclusively an aural art.  No music is possible without physical involvement.  Music doesn't exist, except that we make it, the cosmic B-flat notwithstanding.  No music is possible without physical involvement, therefore there is always something to look at.

What do you mean, "the increasing popularity and availability of visual performances?"  Do you mean that people have never been able to see performers b efore somehow until now?  Please clarify.

I object when performers try and make a physical drama out of the music, because the drama they express through bodily gesture and facial expression can never compare to the kind of drama we get through movies or television.  It will always look weak and ineffectual, because of what we have to compare it with.  maybe it was effective in Liszt's day, as we can see from those caricatures of him playing with the utmost physical expression.  But it can no longer be effective.  People should instead focus 100% of the drama into the sound of the music itself, and keep it totally out of their bodily gestures. 

I saw Pletnev do this in concert in Carnegie Hall - through the whole program he seemed to sit completely still, until one climactic moment in the second half, where he actually leaned forward, and the audience collectively shivered.

Walter Ramsey

[leonidas]

I meant that there has always been an exclusivewly stay-at-home audience for all music.

Most musical experience is through media, and with the advent of DVD and youtube etc., it has become expected of every new pianist to have a few videos out there.

I remember just a few years ago when piano videos were hard to come by, and it is sad to think that some may take the visual thing for granted, it really adds a whole new exciting element to the enjoyment of pianism.

[faulty_damper]

Performance has changed so much through the centuries.  In the baroque era, keyboardists were expected to remain "proper" and polite in performance (except singes, they were the first virtuosos).  Keyboard technique was even written down which details proper execution, posture, etc.  We have written testament that Clementi, Couperin, Mozart, Cramer, et al of the finger equalization school all sat still while their fingers chopped away at the keys.  Then came Beethoven with his Fortes and emotional inflections which he could afford due to the development of the piano in his time.  His music marked the beginning of the new era of the piano.

And when the development of the piano reached a new point of evolution, we have Chopin, Thalberg, Liszt, Alkan.  Particularly Liszt in his stage mannerisms, but he was not alone in his visual pianistic appeal.  But Liszt's music allows great freedom of movement of the other body parts as anyone who has played his works can attest.  And this freedom has been abused for more than a century in pianistic showmanship.  This showmanship was a direct result of the better pianos of the 19th century.

Into the 20th century, when the piano evolved to its peak, and thus new piano technique began to wane, we entered an area were there was nothing left to say musically.  Composers could not write for a better piano because there was none - the piano could do virtually everything with two hands.  And hence, the career concert pianist who had no necessity to write music but peform the works of others.

Brahms said he liked to hear his compositions peformed differently each time because he would be bored if they weren't.  Perhaps recently, with so much emphasis on the music and less on pianism, performes had to make the same pieces of music attract the audience.  But how could they do that?  They do it with their faces!   And bodies.  This visual attraction changes our perceptions of music events even if it were performed exactly the same way by two different pianists.  And they do get the attention.

Does Lang Lang deserve the popularity he recieves when there are many better musicians or does his popularity depend on his showmanship?  And Helene Grimaud: why does she perform like a man in her affects and why is she so much more well-known than other better musicians?  She certainly is attractive, which sells CDs and tickets (she even posed like a pornstar on one album cover.)

[matterintospirit]

wasn't being so literal. expressive movement, facial expressions happen naturally. what i am talking about is when it is made the focus. i don't like the phoniness. don't care for phoniness period no matter what the situation is.

[ramseytheii]

Performance has changed so much through the centuries.  In the baroque era, keyboardists were expected to remain "proper" and polite in performance (except singes, they were the first virtuosos).  Keyboard technique was even written down which details proper execution, posture, etc.  We have written testament that Clementi, Couperin, Mozart, Cramer, et al of the finger equalization school all sat still while their fingers chopped away at the keys.  Then came Beethoven with his Fortes and emotional inflections which he could afford due to the development of the piano in his time.  His music marked the beginning of the new era of the piano.

My point is that no music is possible without physical involvement, not that no music is possible without people gyrating at the keyboard making funny faces.  The physical element is essential to music, no matter what: it is not exclusive to the ears.

Keyboard technique of the 18th century, incidentally, had nothing to say about what we think it means: how to play the piano.  C.P.E. Bach never said how to sit; he never said what kind of touches to apply; he never gave any advice on hand position.  For them, keyboard technique was exclusively the realization of figured bass, and playing counterpoint.  What we think of as application of mechanical things to the keyboard, was a foreign concept to them.  There was hardly any mention of mechanical execution in their times.

Into the 20th century, when the piano evolved to its peak, and thus new piano technique began to wane, we entered an area were there was nothing left to say musically.  Composers could not write for a better piano because there was none - the piano could do virtually everything with two hands.  And hence, the career concert pianist who had no necessity to write music but peform the works of others.

I don't understand where that comes from.  Rachmaninoff died in the mid-century, and he contributed wildly to the piano technique, musically and mechanically.  The same for Godowsky, whose contribution was so complex that we are only just beginning to understnad it today (he meant it for pianists as well as composers).  Bartok, Messiaen, Ligeti, all contributed great things to the piano and music.  What do you mean, nothing left to say musically?  Then why do people still write music?

Walter Ramsey

[faulty_damper]

Keyboard technique of the 18th century, incidentally, had nothing to say about what we think it means: how to play the piano.  C.P.E. Bach never said how to sit; he never said what kind of touches to apply; he never gave any advice on hand position.  For them, keyboard technique was exclusively the realization of figured bass, and playing counterpoint.  What we think of as application of mechanical things to the keyboard, was a foreign concept to them.  There was hardly any mention of mechanical execution in their times.

He mentions many things that are still pertinent today both as musicians and pianists, though many things are now considered outdated.  Even before CPE Bach, the harpsichord was the summit of keyboard technique and expression hence a rather large repertory written for the instrument.  We had Scarlatti's very physically involved exercises and Couperin's musically diverse orders.  The keyboard didn't have the accompanimental purposes as simple as figure bass or just counterpoint; this description better describes the music by J.S. Bach but to use Bach as the summit of the Baroque era is clearly displaying one's ignorance, especially considering how much was going on and changed in his lifetime.

I don't understand where that comes from.  Rachmaninoff died in the mid-century, and he contributed wildly to the piano technique, musically and mechanically.  The same for Godowsky, whose contribution was so complex that we are only just beginning to understnad it today (he meant it for pianists as well as composers).  Bartok, Messiaen, Ligeti, all contributed great things to the piano and music.  What do you mean, nothing left to say musically?  Then why do people still write music?

This period, the "golden age", is the summit with composers exploiting the pianos capabilities.  Afterwards, you had the exploration of modern tonalities, entirely due to the equal temperament system of the piano but nothing changed in the way it was played (with the exception of string plucking, tinkering, etc.) because nothing changed with the piano. 

The piano has been pretty much stagnanted for the past century or so.  There hasn't been any breakthrough innovations like the double-escapement or the iron frame had.  Hence, there wasn't anything new composers could write for the instrument in terms of new musical ideas from
innovations.

I don't consider the music of Rachmaninoff ground-breaking in terms of piano technique nor the music of Ligeti or Messiaen.  Of Crumb and the other 'pluckers', they were interesting when they experimented with the tones and some music is actually very interesting using these techniques but interest in plucking has since faded, perhaps because these fancies have not endured the test of time.

The last great innovator of the modern piano is Debussy in his exploits of piano tone.  This has endured even through the changes in tonal systems and continues to be used to great effect and can be used to enhance music written prior.  Prior to Debussy was Godowsky in his remarkable extension of the technique set by Chopin but has any composer since used his exploits?  And Bartok with the idea that the piano is a percussion instrument and this idea has continued to pervade music written even now.

[gerry]

I don't understand where that comes from.  Rachmaninoff died in the mid-century, and he contributed wildly to the piano technique, musically and mechanically.  The same for Godowsky, whose contribution was so complex that we are only just beginning to understnad it today (he meant it for pianists as well as composers).  Bartok, Messiaen, Ligeti, all contributed great things to the piano and music.  What do you mean, nothing left to say musically?  Then why do people still write music?

Walter Ramsey

I agree. However, there are those (not me - I'm an incurable romantic) who would challenge the importance of some of the above-mentioned composers as neo-romantic and not writing in the progressive style of their time like Stravinsky for instance. I had a professor in college who maintained a composer rating system of 1-5 (1 being neo, 3 was mainstream, 5 was progressive) and he tended to be rather dismissive of anyone he considered below a 4! But it was Stravinsky himself who said (to paraphrase) "there is still a lot of great music to be written in the key of C."

[counterpoint]

Keyboard technique of the 18th century, incidentally, had nothing to say about what we think it means: how to play the piano.  C.P.E. Bach never said how to sit; he never said what kind of touches to apply; he never gave any advice on hand position. 

Ein Clavierist muß mitten vor der Tastatur sitzen, damit er mit gleicher Leichtigkeit so wohl die höchsten als tiefsten Töne anschlagen könne. Hängt der Vordertheil des Armes etwas weniges nach dem Griffbrette herunter, so ist man in der gehörigen Höhe. Man spielt mit gebogenen Fingern und schlaffen Nerven...
Die Steiffe ist aller Bewegung hinderlich, besonders dem Vermögen, die Hände geschwind auszudehnen und zusammenzuziehen. ...  Wer mit ausgestreckten Fingern und steifen Nerven spielt, erfähret außer der natürlich erfolgenden Ungeschicklichkeit, noch einen Hauptschaden, nehmlich er entfernt die übrigen Finger wegen ihrer Länge zu weit von dem Daumen, welcher doch so nahe als möglich beständig bei der Hand sein muß.

"Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen"  (Seite 18)



A keyboard player has to sit in the middle of the keyboard, so he can strike with the same ease the highest as well as the lowest notes.
If the forearm hangs a little bit downwards to the keyboard, one is in the right position.
One plays with curved fingers and relaxed nerves... [ he means muscles  ]
The stiffness is a hindrance to all movement, especially to the ability to stretch and contract the hands...  The one who plays with flat fingers, experiences - besides the clumsiness he will get - another main disadvantage: he moves the fingers because of their length too much from the thumb, which has to be as close as possible by the hand.

"Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen"  (page 18)

[counterpoint]

Another one:   

Indem der Musickus nicht anders rühren kann, er sey denn selbst gerühret, so muß er notwendig sich selbst in alle Affeckten setzen können, welche er bey seinen Zuhörern erregen will... Bey matten und traurigen Stellen wird er matt und traurig. Man sieht und hört es ihm an. Dies geschiehet ebenfalls bey heftigen, lustigen und andern Arten von Gedancken, wo er sich alsdenn in diese Affeckten setzet... Daß alles dieses ohne die geringsten Geberden abgehen könne, wird derjenige bloß läugnen, welcher durch seine Unempfindlichkeit benöthigt ist, wie ein geschnitztes Bild vor dem Instrumente zu sitzen.

"Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen"  (Seite 122)


Because the musickus can't touch the emotions of his audience other than he is emotionally touched himself, he has to be able to set himself in all affects, he wants to arouse from his listeners... In tired and sad parts he will turn tired and sad. He looks and sounds like that. That's the case also in passionate, funny and other sorts of musical ideas, where he sets himself in these affects as well. ... That all this will be possible without the slightest gestures, will be denied only by him, who is strained by his lack of sensibility to sit at the instrument like a wood carving.

"Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen"  (page 122)

[term]

Daß alles dieses ohne die geringsten Geberden abgehen könne, wird derjenige bloß läugnen, welcher durch seine Unempfindlichkeit benöthigt ist, wie ein geschnitztes Bild vor dem Instrumente zu sitzen.

Haha i like him 
But he's wrong (he says a pianist should reflect the emotions of the music). That depends on the individual person, and some may have very strong emotions but don't show anything.

[gerry]

Wer mit ausgestreckten Fingern und steifen Nerven spielt, erfähret außer der natürlich erfolgenden Ungeschicklichkeit, noch einen Hauptschaden, nehmlich er entfernt die übrigen Finger wegen ihrer Länge zu weit von dem Daumen, welcher doch so nahe als möglich beständig bei der Hand sein muß.

Gee, I guess Horowitz had it all wrong... 

[totallyclassics]

I do not think emotional display  is overrated.   I think it can be forced and unnatural, and get in the way of the music in some intances, however, it is for the most part a helper!

We want to reach as many people as we can.  Inspire many!  Allow the music to live again, breathe again and to allow others to feel the joy we ourselves feel, and the composers must have felt creating a particular piece.    In order to do this, in order to help others understand, it is OKAY to allow natural display of emotion because many are visual learners!  Some are truly gifted and able to hear the emotion without a visual clue.  When I listen to a CD, I can picuture in my mind the body movements, or facial expressions and that is how I learn!    Faces say so much, because that is how we are brought up as children about emotion.  I think therefore, it is more natural to equate a particular face or body gesture with a feeling......not that it is not automatically heard anyway, but the facial expressions help when there is any question as to mood.....especially for the beginner pianist.   Creating the visual pictures and associating them with a sound, can aid in our own ability to create the sound with our touch.   "If we can see it, we can play it!"    The moment we imagine making a sound "like a.....", it happens!  It is natural to expect SOME visual with the sound! 

Having said this.......It is totally possible to overdue the theatrics!   The natural can be very distasteful and distracting and even hindering to the music.  I have had this issue personally!  When I first started out, I "felt" Chopin nocturnes and LOVED them!  They made me "move" naturally and swoon!   However, I was playing Chopin Nocturnes only a year after beginning piano........You guessed it!    The feeling in NO WAY matched the sound that was coming out!  No amount of visualization could help me out!   My ear had to mature and learn to HEAR the difference!   

There must be balance!  I think technical issues must come first!  Then we can let go and be free!   The problem with that is that, often when we work SO HARD on HOW TO DO THINGS PERFECTLY.......WE FORGET HOW TO BE FREE!!  WE FORGET TO VISUALIZE AND TO ALLOW THE MUSIC TO TAKE OVER!   

[maxy]

ah! J-P Sevilla, former teacher of Angela Hewitt used to say to some students : stop masturbating on my piano.  I find that quite funny, and ironical.

[gerry]

In order to reach as many as possible with our music, we must develop the ability to make our music-making appear as effortless as possible. This requires a certain amount of what may seem to the early learner to be extra-musical gesturing. However, the technical security that comes with age and application can free us from the tyranny of overthinking what the fingers are doing and allow us to define phrases through subtle hand gestures and body movement, to slightly move the head, close the eyes, display expressions of delight or sadness--the combination of which puts our listeners at ease to form their own emotional reactions. To me the most gratifying compliment would be how easy I made a piece seem rather than how difficult it must have been to learn. In otherwords, I personally don't endorse the cultivation of gestures that make pieces seem more difficult just to impress an audience. The question I ask myself is, am I trying to sell myself (ego) or the music?

[totallyclassics]

Gerry,

I do agree with you!  I remember when I first started piano!  I remember "feeling" without a doubt, and equating what I saw with what must be and what was okay in order to convince!

Well! Fortunately I had a GREAT teacher who told me "one must really know what they are doing before they start moving all over the place!"    She reigned me in just a bit, but a little TOO much!  I felt like I was in a box!   Stifled!  My teacher now, allows some of my natural need for freedom and expression, but is careful to monitor my technique!
Tells me how to get the most out of what I am trying to express, with proper body movement if I must move!   My natural tendency for example when playing "Passion" was to tense!  I felt tension in the passion, and so the body tensed to produce the sound!  My teacher showed me that relaxing  the body will produce a larger sound of "passion."   I have heard in Master classes before, that sometimes what we want to happen, and think we are hearing, are actually being halted by improperly carrying out the gesture with our bodies.  Not because we are trying to "show off " or "over do it", but because we simply just naturally do the wrong things sometimes because that is how OUR body responds to OUR emotions!   I think a healthy balance of proper technique AND proper free expression should be encouraged!  However, free expression should be just that FREE, unforced and NATURAL!  If the music makes you want to close your eyes because you feel that at the time, then it is okay.  Facial expressions, if they are natural, OKAY!  Forced for EGO sake....NO WAY! 

My fear is that people will think I am TRYING to show off or TRYING to ACT.  Trying to BE something I am not!  (not that I AM what I play either!)  Just because I play with force doesn't mean I'm an angry person!   Anyway.....balance and honesty is the key!