Is it Ok to KopyKat great pianist's performances?

[leonidas]

Theoretically, after thoroughly analysing the truly great performances of the works you will play in a recital or competition, would it be Ok to perform them virtually identically?

There will be nothing new, of course, but at least it is guaranteed to be a tried and tested true great performance.

How can the judges not let a pianist who plays identically to Richter, Argerich, Horowitz etc. win??

[mcgillcomposer]

How can the judges not let a pianist who plays identically to Richter, Argerich, Horowitz etc. win??

Because no one plays identically to them. If it were attainable by a fair number of people then Horowitz, Richter, and Argerich wouldn't be as great as they are. It is one thing to mimic - but with these three very distinctive pianists, it would be easy to tell a copy from the real thing. That is my opinion at least.

[leonidas]

The thing that stands these pianists apart is their creative musicianship, and to a degree their technical abilities.

I think it is possible to do almost identical performances, if they are studied thoroughly enough.

There would be little point in repainting the mona lisa, or would there?

[mcgillcomposer]

I'm still not sure. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to hear Richter and Horowitz live - but I do know a fair number of people who had the experience. It was unanimously expressed by them that there was something very special in the air when they played - as if they were playing to a hall of several thousand people, but at the same time, were playing just for you ... I suppose a rather sublime sense of intimacy.

In any case, Horowitz and Richter brought many many many people to tears with their playing - this, I firmly believe, is not something that can be duplicated via an in-depth study of their playing.

[term]

Is it Ok to KopyKat great pianist's performances?

No, because what we're looking for in an interpretation is self-revelation of the artist himself, his ideas and his feelings expressed through the music he plays. We've already heard Richter, Argerich, Horowitz.

[bob3.1415926]

I think it would be impossible to pull off convincingly. I doubt Richter, Argerich or Horowitz could convincingly copy one of my (often crappy) performances, as there's just far too much going on on a subconscious level, so I know there's no way I could hope to copy theirs (even on an easy piece).
If you could do it (which I don't think any pianist - amateur or professional - could) then I'd love to come and hear you play, as I'm never going to get to Richter or Horowitz in recital, but a key part of my listening experience is believing the performer, and if you're just copying what you've heard, I think that disingenuity is going to come through.
That said, there's been many a time when I've listened to recordings of pieces I'm learning, and heard the way they end a phrase or play a theme or something, and thought 'magic, I'm having that' and then incorporated something of what they do into my playing, but I don't like to think of this as full out copying, just some sort of direct inspiration.......

[viking]

Bob, you make a really good point about the subconscious.  Most people (including myself) have really no idea what goes on here.  I think the more you can learn to work with your subconscious, the better musician you will be.

[bob3.1415926]

Thank you! 
Although I have no idea what's going on either.
I have the problem that I often let too much get taken by the subconscious, and I end up thinking about problems with work and other nonsense while I'm playing, which results in sloppiness and dull interpretation (with a few exceptions), however when I'm first learning a piece, and lots of the processes are still conscious, and then it feels like there's far too much to cope with, but after a bit of practice, it miraculously gets so much easier, as these processes shift into the subconscious.
I think it's a fascinating subject though.

[nyonyo]

it depends how good you are. If you are not good in interpretation, it is much better that you copy various famous artist. For sure, you cannot get exactly the same. I'd rather listen to a copy of Horowitz than listen to a not good interpretation of somebody.

At least, I can be amazed on how good a person can copy a famous artist. By the way, it is virtually impossible to copy Horowitz's performance....If you can, don't be hesistate to do so you can, at least, be a famous person who can copy Horowitz.  It is such an accomplishment to be able to play like Horowitz!!!!

[term]

It is such an accomplishment to be able to play like Horowitz!!!!

It's more of an accomplishment if you play your own interpretation, on the pianistic level of horowitz.

What remains in the end is originality, not technique and copied interpretations. Nobody will remember the guy who imitated horowitz. Horowitz remains, because he played like horowitz.

[thalberg]

Question--how many of us have ever, ever heard a pianist and thought, "oh, he's just copying Horowitz?"

I can honestly say I have never heard that comment from anyone or about anyone.  What does that mean?  That it's impossible?  That no one ever tries to copy him?  What?

[gyzzzmo]

I dont think theres anybody who is technically able to copy somebody who will actually do it. Everybody has his own opinion about music and will try to show that in his performance.
Also, i dont think its possible to do. To make a copy of someone's performance you have to understand his way of making music, and copy his feelings wich isnt possible.

gyzzzmo

[nyonyo]

It's more of an accomplishment if you play your own interpretation, on the pianistic level of horowitz.

How about if my interpretaton sucks? There are people who have excellent techniques but very bad taste in music. The two do not go hand in hand, unfortunately. In this case, I'd rather try to copy famous pianists than stuck with my ugly interpretation.

[nyonyo]

To make a copy of someone's performance you have to understand his way of making music, and copy his feelings wich isnt possible.

Why do we need to understand his way of making music? As long as we can hear the final result (the sound) and able to imitate the sound, it really does not matter how he made his music. The most important is the result. You can use different fingering as long as the end result the same (nice sound), it is that really counts. Again, it is hard to copy 100% the same, but we can make very similar sound. It is a philosophical question, originality eventhough ugly, or not original but sounds beautiful....You choose what you want to produce.....Both are OK....

[kamike]

Interesting thread here.   Anyone can learn the notes.  How to play them is where the difficulty lies - discovering what it is you want the music to say, and then discovering how you make it say it.   This obviously requres listening to yourself critically and experimentation until you like what you hear.   In my experience, when I focus on "technique," the net result suffers.  But when I focus on what the music means to me, and how do I make it sound that way, somehow amazingly technique improves, and so does the end result.   The fingers tend to follow the mind, not the other way around.
Back to the thread - in my humble opinion the real genious of the great performers is their capacity to understand the music, what it says, and how they want it to sound.  Since you can't be in their mind, you can never make it sound the way they did.   Also, recordings of the same music by the same "great" performer made at different performances yield music of completely different sound and meaning.  Simply, the frame of reference, the ideas, the goals, had changed from one perforance to the next. 
So forget trying to copy anyone - it's a waste of time, and it is dishonest to yourself and anyone who cares to listen.

[gyzzzmo]

Why do we need to understand his way of making music? As long as we can hear the final result (the sound) and able to imitate the sound, it really does not matter how he made his music. The most important is the result. You can use different fingering as long as the end result the same (nice sound), it is that really counts. Again, it is hard to copy 100% the same, but we can make very similar sound. It is a philosophical question, originality eventhough ugly, or not original but sounds beautiful....You choose what you want to produce.....Both are OK....

Because i think you cant make a good copy if you dont know -why- somebody made a certain choise in his performance. Else you would have to remember every single accent or tiny ritenuto/acc. he makes wich is pretty hard i think.

[richard black]

If you are good enough to play like Horowitz/Argerich/etc. - I mean so like them that no one can tell your playing from the 'real thing' - you're a good enough pianist not to need to copy them. Damn silly question in the first place, if you ask me. Do you seriously think this hasn't been tried before? Every no-hope third-rater has tried it and look where it got them. And yes, that's meant to sound harsh.

[nyonyo]

Most of you were talking as if you were talented to come up with good interpretation. If only any of you can come up with 60% of what Horowitz can do, I bet it will sound wonderful.

We are NOT talking about those who are talented. We are talking about people who can play but are not good in interpreting the music. Once again, this thread is discussing for those who can play but lack of the ability to interpret.

For example you know all kinds of words in English, but it does not mean that you can compose a nice paragraph like big authors. The same in music, you can play every single technical aspect of the music, but it does not mean you can put together nicely to make sounds like  REAL concert pianists' performance. So if you cannot, what is wrong with trying to learn or copy what great pianists had done. I bet it sounds better than trying to intrepret yourself. By copying several examples, we can develop our style based on those samples.

[nyonyo]

Because i think you cant make a good copy if you dont know -why- somebody made a certain choise in his performance. Else you would have to remember every single accent or tiny ritenuto/acc. he makes wich is pretty hard i think.

You do not need to know what in the mind of Van Gogh to copy his art work. As long as you have good observation ability and also the ability to execute what you see or hear, you can copy. It is, of course, not easy to copy every single things, but if you practice enough you can get pretty close. And again, for those including me who are not very talented in interpreting the music, it will be much better than not getting any idea at all.

I can copy certain part of what Horowitz did, and my teacher was amazed on how I played certain part of the piece. The problem, I just cannot copy every single thing, because I do not have Horowitz' technique.  By the way, I am not a concert pianist. Playing piano is just for fun for me. It is very satisfying for me if only I can play up to certain level of what Horowitz can play. . Maybe the next step when I am technically and musically more mature like most of you here, I will try to do my own interpretation.

[nyonyo]

So forget trying to copy anyone - it's a waste of time, and it is dishonest to yourself and anyone who cares to listen.

I do not agree with dishonesty that you stated. Up to certain degree of every single performance copying is part of the game. When you play Baroque pieces, you try to play like the way a baroque music was played (style wise). It is a copy kat already. Why don't you just play the way you like to play. Totally out of the norms that people expect you play a baroque music. In addition, I do not understand why people keep insisting to play own interpreation eventhough they know that they are not good in interpretation. If you were a concert pianist, you might not want to do this because you want to discern yourself or more embarrassing if people may be able to tell that you copied somebody style. But if you are only an amateur player, I think it really helps your quality of playing. I'd rather play like Horowitz' style or other famous pianists' style whom I like than playing my own style which I do not know whether it is good or not. It is virtually impossible to beat those great artists interpretations, especially you are still lurking in this newsgroup. I do not believe a real concert pianist has time to discuss piano matters in this newsgroup. They are busy with concerts....

[nyonyo]

In any case, Horowitz and Richter brought many many many people to tears with their playing - this, I firmly believe, is not something that can be duplicated via an in-depth study of their playing.

Music people are known to be emotional, so don't take this seriously. Even Beatles could bring thousands of girls into tears. They were emotionally attached to the artist. The music, of course, was beautiful. So the combination brought those people to tear.

In addition, they were watching giants in the piano world so their emotion had been impacted from the beginning. If the performance were recorded using Yamaha Disklavier and the same performance is played once again without the artist there and still can bring people to tears. I will be convinced with the power of their performance.

By the way, I was impressed by The new re-recorded  Glen Gould's 1955 Goldberg variation. It was the best Bach piano performance that I have ever heard. But I still did not cry. 

[gerry]

There is nothing wrong with trying to KopyKat, but while it may be possible to study a recording of a famous musician (a frozen moment in time) enough to mimic it effectively, I think it's a mistake to project this talent into an ability to play an unheard piece as Horowitz, etc. would have played it. In addition, Horowitz played the same piece hundreds (if not thousands) of times during his lifetime--each one uniquely--and in many cases his interpretation evolved quite strikingly from how he played it in his younger years. One may think they're playing "like Horowitz", but it's an intellectual dead-end in that without remarkable psychic powers, you would never be able to move on in your art. I believe the goal here should be to watch the youtubes, listen to recordings, go to concerts with an eye and ear to how each artist plumbs the depths of the compositions, make mental notes of what pleases you and what doesn't, and approach your interpretation with the general (not the specific) feelings gleaned. I think we've all heard amateur concerts where the performers try some feat of bravado or virtuosity that they've heard a great do and it's usually not convincing. This intellectual dishonesty is most often betrayed when they move on to another piece/genre and it just doesn't fit--the unity of the overall concert falls apart. If one was attempting to impress judges, they would hear Schumann ala Horowitz, Chopin ala Argarich, Scarlatti ala Gilels...just wouldn't work.

[soliloquy]

I don't really think comme was talking about trying to replicate ver musicum note-by-note performances.  Perhaps more on the intangible side of things; for instance taking the tempo of Richter's D.960, or the ferocity of Pollini's Op. 48 No. 1 nocturne?  Either way, I think it's risky and it depends on a case-by-case scenario.  Basically, it depends on whether or not you think you can get away with it, or if people will say "he's just doing it because pianist X did it".  I would say in the first example I listed it would not be ok, not necessarily due to any moral or ethical reasons, but just because it would not be in your best interest, and would most-likely not be in the best interest of your career.  That is a "staple" of Richter's, almost "copyrighted" if you will, simply because it is/was so unique.  On the other hand, some emotional discharge into a Chopin Nocturne can still be unique and personal.  So like I said, it depends on the severity of the interpretational facets one wishes to replicate.

[stringoverstrung]

>Question--how many of us have ever, ever heard a pianist and thought, "oh, he's just >copying Horowitz?"

>I can honestly say I have never heard that comment from anyone or about anyone.  What >does that mean?  That it's impossible?  That no one ever tries to copy him?  What?

Now Thal that is a very good question.

I have no idea but what pops up in my mind is:

- somebody who is that good that he can kopycat will not do it because this is by definition a great musician.
- if you can mimick it purely motorically (= without deep musical feelings) and the listener is not able to tell the difference then this would mean that it would be impossible to acknowledge true deep musicianship. I think most people think that authenticity / genuine performance is one true discriminator to distinguish between a great musician/ performer and the rest.
- In my opinion it is easier to copy a great painting because you only need technique: the genius of the painter is visible in the composition / colors etc while for music one is not able to see immediately the creative "picture" (mindmap, ...) that the performer has of the work (it develops over time of the performance + is not visible).

[nyonyo]

>Question--how many of us have ever, ever heard a pianist and thought, "oh, he's just >copying Horowitz?"

>I can honestly say I have never heard that comment from anyone or about anyone.  What >does that mean?  That it's impossible?  That no one ever tries to copy him?  What?

One of the reason people never said that is that when a person tries copy something, one will blend what one's copy with other things. One will start picking and choosing to come up with the best performance according to one's taste. I can copy certain thing from artist X, but I do not like the middle part so I use my own plus some copy from artist Y. This is the reason so hard to tell whether somebody was copying other people performance.

[slobone]

At every competition you hear young pianists who have technique to burn -- that's why they're there. I'm sure most of them could do a pretty passable imitation of the performers you mention. But it wouldn't fly with the judges -- they'd recognize it right away.

For students, I actually do think there's an advantage to listening to recordings and trying to copy what you hear. That's how I finally cracked rubato in Chopin. But I know a lot of teachers don't approve of that.

And incidentally, may I take this opportunity to say I think there's way too much emphasis on technique in the piano world. It's understandable that performers are preoccupied with it, since it takes more practice time than anything else. But as a listener, I'm bored to death with pianists who have great technique but no poetry or imagination. I won't name names for now...

[richard black]

But it wouldn't fly with the judges -- they'd recognize it right away.

Oh yeah? I just want to say - 'Joyce Hatto'.

[bob3.1415926]

When they drew in the Int. Tchaikowsky Comp, John Ogdon was so impressed with how Ashkenazy played Chopin Op.10 No.1 (RH quiet, LH loud) that he played it in that fashion for the rest of his career.
I'm not advocating trying to exactly copy someone, but surely borrowing ideas is ok?

[dmc]

Is it Ok to KopyKat great pianist's performances?

Of course its OK.  But why would you want to ?  What make Richter, Horowitz, Argerich et al great is their uniqueness (including their mistakes).  Wouldn't you rather be celebrated on your own creative merits rather than merely cloning someone else's ?    While you're pondering that, here's a quote that is particularly relevant to this discussion:

It's better to make your own mistakes than to copy someone else's.

 

 - Vladimir Horowitz

[dmc]

I'm not advocating trying to exactly copy someone, but surely borrowing ideas is ok?

bob, I missed your post before I added my last comment.  Nothing wrong with lifting certain ideas at all.   The most unique interpretations are usually a combination of other approaches.  But my understanding was that the original post was referring to an identical verbatim reading.  To me that just aint gonna git 'er done !

[slobone]

Oh yeah? I just want to say - 'Joyce Hatto'.

Thanks for making me Google, that's an amazing story. So who knows? Maybe it's not that hard to pull the wool over people's eyes.

[bob3.1415926]

dmc, I agree! I know the original post was about copying exactly, and I think that's impossible, but I was just going off on a tangent.
The Joyce Hatto thing wasn't about copying the performance, it was about copying the actual recording. Anyone can do that. I could rip a famous recording and post it in audition room saying 'this is me,' but I doubt I'd fool one person on here.
Barrington-Coupe was fairly sneaky in that he'd blend multiple recordings and choose obscure (but good) pianists. But it was a feat of technology, not pianism.

[m]

Theoretically, after thoroughly analysing the truly great performances of the works you will play in a recital or competition, would it be Ok to perform them virtually identically?

There will be nothing new, of course, but at least it is guaranteed to be a tried and tested true great performance.

How can the judges not let a pianist who plays identically to Richter, Argerich, Horowitz etc. win??

Before talking about Richter, Argerich, or Horowitz, first, try to "perform" something and then repeat it exactly the way you just did it after yourself.
Then we can resume the discussion...

[leonidas]

OK, now what?

[m]

OK, now what?

I guess, nothing... untill you perform the task.

[leonidas]

OK, I just did it twice. Now what?

[m]

OK, I just did it twice. Now what?

Post it here, so we can deside as for the results.

[leonidas]

Nice try, noone gets this kind of quality playing for free.

[m]

Nice try, noone gets this kind of quality playing for free.

Nice try, noone who is ABLE to give that kind of quality aks that kind of questions, first thing.
But for sure you realize it yourself.

[leonidas]

Questions are asked to provoke the thoughts of those less wise than I.

A question often allows one to learn more than an answer ever could.

[slobone]

When they drew in the Int. Tchaikowsky Comp, John Ogdon was so impressed with how Ashkenazy played Chopin Op.10 No.1 (RH quiet, LH loud) that he played it in that fashion for the rest of his career.
I'm not advocating trying to exactly copy someone, but surely borrowing ideas is ok?

Hmm, well I think you have to be careful if you really want to have a professional career. It sounds like Ogdon pre-empted criticism by acknowledging publicly that he borrowed an idea from Ashkenazy.  That can be viewed as an homage from one pro to another. As long as he only does it once.

But if you showed up at a competition and played, say, the whole Goldberg Variations exactly like Glenn Gould -- that wouldn't fly.

[bob3.1415926]

I intend to have a professional career, but it definitely doesn't involve the piano 
I didn't start seriously practicing until comfortably into my twenties (much too late). As an amateur, I see no shame in borrowing ideas. It's never a whole piece, just fragments here and there, and I don't try to mimic them precisely, just incorporate the general idea.
If I ever show up at a competition, I'll be spectating 

[richard black]

Borrowing - OK, nicking - a couple of ideas from somebody is a world apart from trying to play a carbon-copy of their entire performance.

[m]

Questions are asked to provoke the thoughts of those less wise than I.

A question often allows one to learn more than an answer ever could.

Well, you asked for it.

With all due respect to your alledged wisdom (although very questionable, on a close examination), could you kindly explain what one could possibly learn from your question, which is dumb by its nature, to start with?

[leonidas]

There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.

I often question your intelligence.

[m]

I often question your intelligence.

We live in free countries where any idiot is entitled to question whatever he pleased. Of course, I cannot take this right from you.

It is however quite amusing to see that when I answered your initial question, hinting in a most strightforward way that there would be a problem to "KopyKat" even your own performance, you started mumbling something about "quality of playing for free" .

Give me a break, Sir. Post at least one worthwhile recording of yours, then we will talk about wisdom and intelligence.

[pianogeek_cz]

There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.

Let's see...
leonidas, how long is it since you stopped asking dumb questions?

[pianogeek_cz]

To the original topic: well, I'd like to see anyone able to do it.
To the question this naturally puts forward: to accept that a copy would be possible is to accept that there is no more to performance than the acoustical aspect (or perhaps visual). Which is questionable - and (fortunately?) beyond the realm of scientific proof. So far.

[m]

To the original topic: well, I'd like to see anyone able to do it.
To the question this naturally puts forward: to accept that a copy would be possible is to accept that there is no more to performance than the acoustical aspect (or perhaps visual). Which is questionable - and (fortunately?) beyond the realm of scientific proof. So far.

In fact, there is one scientific proof of acoustical aspect of "virtually identical performance". I however highly doubt the original poster knows or has even a faintest idea as for what it would be (despite all his self-proclaimed narcisistic "wisdom" and "intelligence" allegations).

In fact, he had a choice to chose words more carefully in order not to show himself as a complete fool, alas he failed to do so. But it is not big news.

[dan101]

We were always taught in college that it is dangerous to copy performances from recordings. If you're having trouble formulating your own interpretation, study the history of the composer and the structure of the piece. Eventually, you will most likely make a connection with the composer's intent. Good luck.