Intuition vs intellectualism -- Which reflects more talent/musicianship ?

[m1469]

In thinking today ( ), something dawned on me.  Let's say that on one side we have somebody who does everything by "intuition" and plays this or that (whatever it may be, even improv) completely on "intuition" -- s/he has no idea whatsoever what s/he is doing, s/he is just doing it.

On the other side, we have somebody whom has thought through as much as can be thought through, has learned the "art" and plays/composes based on what s/he has thought through and learned.  This person knows exactly what s/he is doing, what kind of reaction it will get, and has basically mastered the use of balance, timing, so on and so forth.

Both provide an effective performance.

It has been my impression that most people would consider the person within the first scenario to be somehow a "genius" or remarkably talented because s/he just does things on intution (like it's built in and that somehow makes him/her special).  However, I glimpsed today my own opinion on how much more is involved with a person whom actually knows exactly what s/he is doing and knows it so well that s/he knows how to create a piece of art based on this understanding.  The latter is now completely remarkable to me (though, okay, the former is still good, too). 

Please tell me your thoughts on this subject .


Thanks,
m1469

[thalberg]

My thoughts:

Martha Argerich=intuition
Murray Perahia=intellect

I love both.

[leonidas]

I think many people (here) forget that music is primarily a sensual phenomenon.

We listen because it *sounds good*.

Any intellectual stimulation, emotional response, or thoughts provoked by it are bound to be inherently secondary to the primary sensuality.

So, a performance with a primarily intellectual mindset is more likely to produce a musically flaccid end-result.

But sure, it's often interesting when some pianists replace the occasional musical shortcoming with a creative choice founded in the intellect and not the musical instinct.
Did Gould really instinctually think the Beethoven Sonatas should sound like they way he played them?
No, he decided, with the intellectual part of his mind to 're-think' them, and used his musical powers to make them as persuasive and brilliant as they often were.

[pianowolfi]

To me, there is such a thing as "living thinking" which unites both, intellect and intuition. And music is the best example for this, for music is not complete if one of these two is missing.

[pianochick93]

I think a mixture of both is good. Intellect first to learn the notes, and the tempos, and the dynamics, but then intuition to forget all of that but the notes and rough guide of tempo and dynamics, and play as they hear it in their minds.

[invictious]

I feel that intellectualism and intuition are both derived from each other, and of course, how much of each determines what kind of player you are.

Despite being national chess champion, twice, and winning in math competitions and Chemistry Olympiads, for music, i tend to play 'what feels right' and 'what sounds nice' to me, so I play with more intuition.
I play from my inner heart, even though if it outrightly disagrees with the composer's intent, I will still go that way. Sorry if it's disrespectful, but that's the way I find in which I do MYSELF justice.

[term]

To me, there is such a thing as "living thinking" which unites both, intellect and intuition. And music is the best example for this, for music is not complete if one of these two is missing.

*thumbsup*

Despite being national chess champion

Just btw, what country?

I play from my inner heart, even though if it outrightly disagrees with the composer's intent, I will still go that way.

Exactly. 

[counterpoint]

I agree with pianowolfi. One without the other would be a very limited approach. Just doing the right thing without knowing what you do is like a sleepwalker. Doing the right thing just out of calculation will not give you the emotional satisfaction.

The intuition needs to be controlled by the intellect.

The intellect needs to be feeded and controlled by the intuition.

[bob3.1415926]

To try and answer the question, I think intuition reflects more talent, after all by its nature you can't teach it.

Musicianship probably lies in a balance of the two. Intuition is a great starting block, but sometimes truly great interpretations come when the performer deliberately overrides their intuition for a more intellectual choice. This balance is where the real musicianship lies.

That said, I think intuition is a necessity to play (musically) well, and intellectualism is more of an added bonus.

[liszt-essence]

I don't know

[dnephi]

I would rather say that Busoni is intellectualism and Paderewski intuition. 

Paderewski's La Leggeriezza is one of the best recordings of Liszt playing on record.

[m]

In thinking today ( ), something dawned on me.  Let's say that on one side we have somebody who does everything by "intuition" and plays this or that (whatever it may be, even improv) completely on "intuition" -- s/he has no idea whatsoever what s/he is doing, s/he is just doing it.

On the other side, we have somebody whom has thought through as much as can be thought through, has learned the "art" and plays/composes based on what s/he has thought through and learned.

Somehow, I feel those a quite extreme cases, more like black and white.
On the other hand, if the final result is worthwhile it does not really matter how you achieve it, as long as it works.

As they say, the best improvisation is the one, which is well prepared.
Likewise, the "best" intuition is the one, which is fed by intellect and vise versa.

[Derek]

In thinking today ( ), something dawned on me.  Let's say that on one side we have somebody who does everything by "intuition" and plays this or that (whatever it may be, even improv) completely on "intuition" -- s/he has no idea whatsoever what s/he is doing, s/he is just doing it.

On the other side, we have somebody whom has thought through as much as can be thought through, has learned the "art" and plays/composes based on what s/he has thought through and learned.  This person knows exactly what s/he is doing, what kind of reaction it will get, and has basically mastered the use of balance, timing, so on and so forth.

Both provide an effective performance.

It has been my impression that most people would consider the person within the first scenario to be somehow a "genius" or remarkably talented because s/he just does things on intution (like it's built in and that somehow makes him/her special).  However, I glimpsed today my own opinion on how much more is involved with a person whom actually knows exactly what s/he is doing and knows it so well that s/he knows how to create a piece of art based on this understanding.  The latter is now completely remarkable to me (though, okay, the former is still good, too). 

Please tell me your thoughts on this subject .


Thanks,
m1469

It seems to me that if a musician uses a particular sound, likes that sound, and knows it sounds good, they know what they are doing just as well as someone who can put a verbal label on that sound. I would consider myself an intuitive musician, but I am capable of talking verbosely about music theory with my music when I want to. However I find that pursuit completely useless with regards to creating good music.   You know, if thinking about music theory and talking about it verbosely actually did give anyone any real insight into creating music, you would think that modern musicians would have figured out by now precisely what makes people like and listen to music, and modern classical music wouldn't be so marginalized.  In my opinion, the vast majority of discussion out there about music theory is pure self indulgence. The satisfaction of spewing hot air to fuel one's own feeling of superiority. (not saying you are guilty of this of course, you seem a very sincerely creative musician to me)

[leonidas]

I'm agreeing with Derek's post completely.

[ramseytheii]

I would rather say that Busoni is intellectualism and Paderewski intuition. 

Paderewski's La Leggeriezza is one of the best recordings of Liszt playing on record.

That Leggeriezza is actually the mis-labelled work of Benno Moiseiwitch!  Paderewski recorded the same piece, though it is not on his Philipps Great Pianists compilation, and it sounds just as heavy as most everything else he recorded.

For me the greatest Liszt comes from Lhevinne, who recorded an unbelievable Feux follets, at incredible tempo, with the most jaw-dropping pedal effects you will ever hear.  Those secrets are lost to pianists of today, who try and out-do each other for how brilliant they can make the music sound; they don't really explore the possibilities of sonority.  These days, everyone just goes by conventional wisdom.

Conventional wisdom = the cliche of intuition.

I think when a lot of people talk about intuition, what they are really talking about is charisma.  When we hear performers that grip us with the spontanaety of their playing, of course we have the impression they are making it up on the spot.  Sometimes they are, sometimes not, but that can also be a cultivated effect.

Also, intuition is informed by experience.  If you have certain parameters for how you approach the piano, you can access those in suprising ways for the audience, and it comes across as pure inspiration, which it undoubtedly is, though with a foundation of artistic learning.

Horowitz, for instance, was in many ways limited by this kind of playing.  I love Horowitz and don't criticize him generally.  But he could really only play music in a certain way; he had a large palette of effects which he could use in lots of different surprising combinations, and it was his intuition that told him when to use which where, but it wasn't just invented, in the sense that, "Oh, he has never played with that kind of sound before."

I think we should not be insecure about gaining knowledge, and not be insecure about knowledge we don't have.  Many who push the idea of the intuitive over the intellectual are insecure about gaining knowledge - they are afraid it will make them change the way they do things.  Many who are affected by this pressure are insecure about knowledge they don't have, and think they lack in intuition.

We should never, ever, be afraid to learn more, and to apply it to what we do.  We should also profoundly distrust anyone who advises us not to learn about what we do.

As models, we should take the great composers of history, those whose work is organic, surprising, innovative, intuitive, but grounded most strongly in a deep and passionate search for knowledge in music.  All the great composers have in common that they improved vastly over the course of their careers; they always were searching for ways in which they could express more strongly, more powerfully with their music.  We should emulate them and do the same thing.

Walter Ramsey

[viking]

Walter you are a true musician.  Every so often I think of a few words to type here, but I'm far too lazy to structure them into a convincing argument.  I'm so glad that someone like you takes the time to set the record straight for the hundreds of others reading here that learn so much from the posts.  I wish people would stop spreading their uneducated opinions around here.  It's dangerous. 

[cygnusdei]

At the risk of painting with broad brushes; you can play Chopin by intuition alone and it would sound good, but with Beethoven it would be a disaster.

[invictious]

Just to elaborate on my post, what I meant is if I am not sure if 'more of' intuition or intellect is required in a piece, i tend to lean towards intuition.

Obviously having both is important, it's just all up to how much of each.

[m]

For me the greatest Liszt comes from Lhevinne, who recorded an unbelievable Feux follets, at incredible tempo, with the most jaw-dropping pedal effects you will ever hear. 

Walter,

I don't know this recording. Where did you hear it?

[jakev2.0]

That Leggeriezza is actually the mis-labelled work of Benno Moiseiwitch!  Paderewski recorded the same piece, though it is not on his Philipps Great Pianists compilation, and it sounds just as heavy as most everything else he recorded.

Agreed.

I think when a lot of people talk about intuition, what they are really talking about is charisma.  When we hear performers that grip us with the spontanaety of their playing, of course we have the impression they are making it up on the spot.  Sometimes they are, sometimes not, but that can also be a cultivated effect.

Also, intuition is informed by experience.  If you have certain parameters for how you approach the piano, you can access those in suprising ways for the audience, and it comes across as pure inspiration, which it undoubtedly is, though with a foundation of artistic learning.

There are exceptions. Not only was Hofmann a prodigy in the sense of technical mastery of the instrument at an early age, but he also possessed a truly mature interpretational style (i.e., by the age of 7 or . Obviously, his playing matured further through basic learning-by-doing and by virtue of contact with other great musicians. There is no doubt, however, that some things simply come more naturally to some than others.   Mendelssohn`s Octet is far more than a mastery of technical forms at an early age.

Horowitz, for instance, was in many ways limited by this kind of playing.  I love Horowitz and don't criticize him generally.  But he could really only play music in a certain way; he had a large palette of effects which he could use in lots of different surprising combinations, and it was his intuition that told him when to use which where, but it wasn't just invented, in the sense that, "Oh, he has never played with that kind of sound before."

It`s all a question of natural comparative advantage.  Nobody has mastered coloristic effects to the degree that Horowitz did. This is something that pianists can develop, but in the case of Horowitz, it is a peculiar talent that he had, and developed through fairly conventional means. I doubt that any amount of trying would have enabled Medtner - himself a marvelous pianist - to play his own A major Fairy Tale with the same independence of lines and coloristic effects as Horowitz. Then again, I doubt Horowitz could have composed the piece for the life of him! Different talents lead to different kinds of musical mastery.

I think we should not be insecure about gaining knowledge, and not be insecure about knowledge we don't have.  Many who push the idea of the intuitive over the intellectual are insecure about gaining knowledge - they are afraid it will make them change the way they do things.  Many who are affected by this pressure are insecure about knowledge they don't have, and think they lack in intuition.

Absolutely. But my point is, no amount of soul searching or score studying will help Kissin to play like Horowitz, even if his fingers are already much more accurate.