Cliburn plays a few scales

[leonidas]

You know, I find it very interesting hearing professional pianists playing technical exercises, there isn't really any music there, just the tone and technique of the pianist, laid bare.

Harshly, I must follow that video with a superior example -

And the end of this

I also found the supervirtuoso footage of Hamelin practicing very interesting, the slow-practicing and the pedalless techniques, and of course the symetrical inversion demonstration.

[counterpoint]

Wow, I'm impressed. Pianists who can play scales 

[invictious]

I've almost given up on scales ages ago, now I can't even play C major scale descending evenly...literally.


Now I can explain my bad technique?

[prongated]

Ooooft machine-gun scales! Da Duch may as well say Cliburn should learn technique off him...

[dnephi]

Hahahaha da DUCH tech approach is da true way. 

In English, Kissin says he used to do some, but now he doesn't need to because he practices/performs so many etudes.

[landru]

Wow - I've never seen many video's of pianists so I don't have a lot to compare to, but geez, Cliburn's hands look like they are tarantulas grafted onto his wrists, his fingers are so long.

I've not seen Duchable (sp?) before (he looks like he has normal non-arachnid hands), but I was impressed with his sound. The Chopin 25 No. 11 was an awesome piece of playing. I was glad to see that normal hands can play that stuff 

[m]

Da Duch may as well say Cliburn should learn technique off him...

On the other hand, Duchable himself could take a lesson or two from G. Sokolov as for how to play that particular passage (or that etude, for that matter).

Along the way he could also take a few lessons from Mr. Cliburn to get some basic knowledge about music imagination and tone production. 

[dnephi]

On the other hand, Duchable himself could take a lesson or two from G. Sokolov as for how to play that particular passage (or that etude, for that matter).

Along the way he could also take a few lessons from Mr. Cliburn to get some basic knowledge about music imagination and tone production.

It's true.  His TE set, while technically unimpeachable, is without soul.

[leonidas]

He has his own style, and with his technical ability, I do not doubt he is happy with his interpretation.

Of course it is a different matter whether his audience is happy, and while this is of great importance to a performer, it is secondary at best to an artist.

[m]

He has his own style, and with his technical ability, I do not doubt he is happy with his interpretation.

It does not say much. For example, I have no doubt, with his technical "abilities" Mr. Richard Kastle is happy with his interpretations, as well. 

[leonidas]

All it says is you cannot really criticise him in the way you have with any influence, you think you could teach him how to want to play differently? 

[mephisto]

On the other hand, Duchable himself could take a lesson or two from G. Sokolov as for how to play that particular passage (or that etude, for that matter).

Along the way he could also take a few lessons from Mr. Cliburn to get some basic knowledge about music imagination and tone production. 

I agree. Other than pure mechanical technic, nothing about Duchable impresses me. And listening to someone play fast scales becomes borig after1 minute or so.

[m]

All it says is you cannot really criticise him in the way you have with any influence, you think you could teach him how to want to play differently? 

All it says I would not pay my money go attend his concerts whether he is happy with his interpretations or not.
And the fact that he seems to be rather happy with himself speaks for itself and would be one of the reasons, as I strongly believe that constant search for new ways of self expression is one of the main attributes of real artists.

As for teaching him to play differently, it is already way too late. The problem is emotional context of music, musical imagination, art of sound, musical intelligence, etc. had to be taught long time ago, when he was a kid or young man. 

But if you enjoy listening to fast scales--by all means, nobody can force you not to.

[leonidas]

You think musical imagination and intelligence(whatever that is) can be taught ..or do you just mean *brought out*?

The thing about self-expression is that it expresses(and can only express) *self*.

Anything else would be fake, are you implying that the confidence he has in his playing and ideas is in itself the barrier to his exploration?

[m]

You think musical imagination and intelligence(whatever that is) can be taught ..or do you just mean *brought out*?

The thing about self-expression is that it expresses(and can only express) *self*.

Anything else would be fake, are you implying that the confidence he has in his playing and ideas is in itself the barrier to his exploration?

Consider music as a language through which we express ourself.

When baby starts learning how to speak, is it taught or brought out?

Then later on in development of personality is that internal world is result of what we learn or what was brought out by the whole system of education?

Do the life experiences teach us something or just bring out some qualities, which we even did not know exist whithin ourself?

If one day we realize that there is another, completely different but beautiful world we even could not imagine exists, would it be what we have learnt or just brought from ourself? 

Answer these questions first, and then the answer for your initial question will be quite obvious.

[leonidas]

It's an interesting subject, and I'm interested in languages role apart from communication.

I mean, words float around my head, concepts, and most of the words and strings of thoughts I concieve are never ever uttered, or more specifically communicated.

I don't view art primarily as communicative, that's all, and that's why in many cases, how others percieve it is completely irrelevant.

It only feels nice, to have someone empathise, and to have someone admire, but this has little to do with art, I think.

[ramseytheii]

It's an interesting subject, and I'm interested in languages role apart from communication.

I mean, words float around my head, concepts, and most of the words and strings of thoughts I concieve are never ever uttered, or more specifically communicated.

I don't view art primarily as communicative, that's all, and that's why in many cases, how others percieve it is completely irrelevant.

It only feels nice, to have someone empathise, and to have someone admire, but this has little to do with art, I think.

Interesting!

Walter Ramsey

[m]

I don't view art primarily as communicative...

I don't view it either, at least I give to that aspect of art much less credit than people usually do.

A. Chehov answered the question about why he writes: "Because I cannot not to".

For me this is a primary motivation in art and the communication aspect is much more on the level of relationship between the "written book" and "people who read the book". You like it--you pay for it--you enjoy it, you don't like--you go home and watch TV.

So, coming back to discussion about Mr. Duchable, I just don't see in his art anything from that burning desire "to write a book to say something".
It does not tell me any new story, or opens up new sides of the beauty, or tells about some life passion.

All I see is his "book" has a nice hard cover and is printed on a good paper. Thank you very much--not interested. And to me discussion about his original intentions or if he is happy about his interpretations is irrelevant.

[leonidas]

I'd be interested to hear what he'd think of more creative pianists, I'm sure he'd come up with a reason defending his approach and a criticism for those who take an opposing approach.

Do pianists with somewhat lesser creative input in what they play have their place?

I think they do, because I'm a big fan of Hamelin, and even with the increasing competition he has in the pieces he has recorded, they still stand admirably alongside the others.

There is room for everything in art, I've said it before - if one person likes it, even if it's just the creator, it has value.

[m]

Do pianists with somewhat lesser creative input in what they play have their place?

I think they do, because I'm a big fan of Hamelin, and even with the increasing competition he has in the pieces he has recorded, they still stand admirably alongside the others.

Although I am not a very big fan of Hamelin, I very much respect him as a pianist and musician.
His approach to music is entirely different from Duchable's fluff and in its core is intellectual and educational. I learnt a lot from him.

There is room for everything in art, I've said it before - if one person likes it, even if it's just the creator, it has value.

Sure, and the fact of existance of this very board proves it.
 
It is does not matter how crappy some folks play piano making art, there is always somebody who would enjoy it... grandma, or grandpa, for example.

Many people think that they create the art, very few leave a trace in the art.

[thierry13]

Duchable has great fingers and bad technique IMO.

[minstrel]

It's an interesting subject, and I'm interested in languages role apart from communication.

I mean, words float around my head, concepts, and most of the words and strings of thoughts I concieve are never ever uttered, or more specifically communicated.

I don't view art primarily as communicative, that's all, and that's why in many cases, how others percieve it is completely irrelevant.

It only feels nice, to have someone empathise, and to have someone admire, but this has little to do with art, I think.

So that begs the question.. What is art?

[minstrel]

It is does not matter how crappy some folks play piano making art, there is always somebody who would enjoy it... grandma, or grandpa, for example.

Many people think that they create the art, very few leave a trace in the art.

I'm not sure we can really measure the cumulative effect of the "art" of amateurs, but it might be important to consider that even just one 'unremarkable' person practicing the piano, can have widespreading effects on motivating other people to play, or even forcing people to acknowledge that what they do is still a relevant art.

Consider one teacher, who maybe teaches 500 students over the course of 10 years. Maybe 80% of them do not stay with the piano, and maybe only 1 or 2 go on to take it up professionally or semi-professionally. But can you measure to cumulative effect on art of all those students, and the greater number of people who heard them play?  Maybe not, but I wouldn't underestimate it.

These people may not stretch the art, but there is a lot of value in keeping it alive so that it is possible for future others to stretch it.

[lostinidlewonder]

As Chopin said: No one can hear the inaccuracies in a scale when its played fast. Slow down the recordings you will see his playing is not as even as it sounds No one ever has perfect scales u just have to know how to produce the illusion of eveness which I believe has musical context not something that needs to be repeated mindlessly hours on end.