My assessment of what constitutes the greatest technique.

[pianowolfi]

MMMAAAchine ... (bless you)

ROFL
                                 

mach 20

Oh he did compose 20 concertos? hmm he must have been a composing machine

[m]

I will try to propound my own, more or less objective theory as to how technique could be measured.

Sorry, but I did not find anything "objective" in your so called "theory".

Technique is really only a method for the achievement of a desired result. In this sense, the pianist with the greatest technique is one that is able to attain the results he or she desired to attain, with the greatest finesse.

False, it is not about what tools, but what ideas and goals one has. The same as in recording engineering one can have the greatest microphones and equipment and make louzy recordings, while somebody else with not so good quality mics and equipment can make great recordings. It is the same as an artist can have the greatest brushes and the best quality paint in the world, and still make louzy paintings.
Something what very much reminds me Duchable--fast and accurate fingers, with no artistic
value, whatsoever. So who needs that "finesse"?

If speed and accuracy is the desired goal, then the pianist should be judged strictly on finger mechanics as they relate to speed/accuracy ratio.

This whole approach is false. First, I don't know a one single pianist of stature (and I know many), for whom speed and accuracy is the desired goal.
Second, While indeed, to some degree mechanics contribute to the technique, the degree of this contribution is very small. In any case, finger mechanics do not relate to speed/accuracy ratio in any way, as it is a function of mental control.

The person with the greatest speed, and least ammount of undesired notes, is the greatest technician.

What an utter nonsense!!!
I knew quite a few fellows who could play some fastest Chopin etudes known to humanity with 100% accuracy. The same folks could not play one single scale or passage in Beethoven or Mozart Sonata EVENLY. The best "compliments" they were getting were some pitfull "Poor guy, such fast fingers, and such poor technique".

Machine, has the greatest technique.

Technique is all about mental control. While machines have control (computer numeric, mechanical, or some other means), it is very far for being "mental". But on the other hand if you like listening to MIDI--by all means enjoy it.

Best wishes, M

[dr suchong]

Sorry, but I did not find anything "objective" in your so called "theory".

My proposition of what constitutes the best technique is presented in my initial posts. I will never the less go over it again.

False, it is not about what tools, but what ideas and goals one has. The same as in recording engineering one can have the greatest microphones and equipment and make louzy recordings, while somebody else with not so good quality mics and equipment can make great recordings. It is the same as an artist can have the greatest brushes and the best quality paint in the world, and still make louzy paintings.
Something what very much reminds me Duchable--fast and accurate fingers, with no artistic
value, whatsoever. So who needs that "finesse"?

You are wrong in that you miss the point of this discussion. Whatever the product, or the particular result in the mind of the subject, is not the subject of this debate. What is the subject is the method that is used in the creation of the product. If the product in mind is speed and accuracy, then the method by which the said product is to be achieved is through mechanical execution. Simply put, a machine will always be faster, and more accurate. Your reference to recording equipment and their relation to musical performance is invalid here, as the topic of discussion is the speed/accuracy aspect of technique.

This whole approach is false. First, I don't know a one single pianist of stature (and I know many), for whom speed and accuracy is the desired goal.
Second, While indeed, to some degree mechanics contribute to the technique, the degree of this contribution is very small. In any case, finger mechanics do not relate to speed/accuracy ratio in any way, as it is a function of mental control.

However much speed/accuracy may contribute to the overall product is a subjective matter, and one that isn't to be discussed here, as topic merits.

[edwardweiss]

Yes-a machine may be faster and more accurate but it will not have a 'soul'. If I think about all the great pianists I have heard over 50+ years, what has made each one unique, different, and special is something beyond their ability to play notes at whatever speed-this quality is not definable-it is certainly not attainable by a machine. Perhaps you should research  Celibidache's ideas about musical performance-these may help you to understand more about music-making in relation to any instrumental technique.

[iroveashe]

"But precisely the most important and best thing, namely, that unnoticeable variability of the tempo, of the timbres, simply does not happen in a mechanical way and through rehearsal...
The greatest technical correctness and control one can achieve does not replace the lack of inspiration; but it does have the most fateful consequences for music making as a whole. Excessive technical control, that is, the evenly executed technical perfection of all details, which as such take on a completely different character than intended by their creators, who in their conception always proceeded from the whole. The naturally productive route by which the details are viewed and interpreted by way of the whole, is turned around. The improvisational element is essentially lost, indeed it loses its very concept--this improvisational quality, which does not represent some mere accident, something one can do with or without, but rather is, quite simply, the ultimate source of all great, creative, necessary music-making."

I think what Furtwängler was trying to say is this is a matter of "can't see the forest for the trees", focusing too much on the details can blur out the big picture and the big picture is usually what's more important (to the composers), the details being part of that big picture, not problems to solved on their own. According to you speed and accuracy is the greatest technique, but that alone does not make great music; so how is it possible that it's the best technique if it's not directly related to the quality of the music?

[iroveashe]

Whatever the product, or the particular result in the mind of the subject, is not the subject of this debate. [...] If the product in mind is speed and accuracy, then the method by which the said product is to be achieved is through mechanical execution.

That doesn't make much sense, you're stating that Marik is out of topic because he's mentioning a product or goal to be achieved, while you are doing the same thing by saying "if the product in mind is speed and accuracy"... You can't define what 'technique', let alone 'greatest technique' means by concentrating in just one, very small aspect of piano playing, and ruling out everything else.

[pianowolfi]

I wonder why you all take this guy so seriously. It's just a troll. His first post was how beautiful bella brito is (which I don't deny of course but you get the point I guess) and then he started this thing here. An "academic" version of op 10, 2. But of course, at least he was the cause for a really great post by marik, and a very funny ironical post by Karli, which proves that really capable persons can make the best out of something which would otherwise just be a bunch of sophisticated rubbish.

[m19834]

False, it is not about what tools, but what ideas and goals one has. The same as in recording engineering one can have the greatest microphones and equipment and make louzy recordings, while somebody else with not so good quality mics and equipment can make great recordings. It is the same as an artist can have the greatest brushes and the best quality paint in the world, and still make louzy paintings.

Best wishes, M

I understand even better now this idea of technique being mental, thanks .  I will keep practicing my head off today.

[don largo]

MMMAAAchine ... (bless you)

                                                machINE ...

                                                                              machine envy ...

                                   machinevy ...

                                                            machine phobia... 


If machine envy is absolutely necessary, I choose Schnabel, the king of cantabile.  He was one mean machine.  But seriously folks...  I see the two worst possible elements combined in the majority of the pianists being pumped out by music schools these days. 

The School of Velocity:  Faster is better, and some of these young people are incredibly fast, but I often wonder where they are going in such a hurry.

The Theatrical Piano:  represented by anything from clicking your heels in the air while rockin' down to unnecessary squirming and artsy wrist movements to cue in the audience as to the veracity of the artist's talent.

There has always been a tug-o-war between art and finance, and I think we all know that sacrifices are often made to placate the pocketbook or even the personal ego.  Whether it be the speed demon or the posturing artiste, they all are after one of two things:  money or fame.  The music schools, on their side, are just simply interested in money, I think. 

When I was a kid, a friends father who had a Ph.D in Education (whatever that means) insisted that we (eight-year-olds) refer to him as Dr. (expletive deleted).  Rest assured that he was as competent academically as he was at applying band-aids.  The point being that in my experience, the best musicians have always been the kindest and most supportive people I've ever known while the mediocre musicians are usually mean and pretentious.

I am not going to point any fingers or lay blame.  Draw your own conclusions and play to the best of your ability.

[lostinidlewonder]

How can a machine have technique? Technique is a human thing. A machine merely plays things as it is told to do, it doesn't feel difficult or easy for it, it is indifferent, it just does what it is told to do. A human however uses technique to control their body to produce the desired sound. Improvement in technique improves the efficiency to produce the desired sound. Humans can feel a difference as their tehcnique improves, machines feel no difference, they just feel electricity.

And anyone will say that a piece played perfectly even sounds boring and dull. How one controls the singing tone of a piece improves our enjoyment of music. The only way a computer could ever reproduce it is if the interpretation is given to it by someone who is musical and can measure it and test it by their musical ear until the computer produces what is desired. But the thing is the computer cannot do it themselves, they have to be told what to do, so its just a human using a computer to play the piano instead of a human playing a piano, they are the same thing.

[m]

An "academic" version of op 10, 2.

In fact, I would not be surprised they are the same person. The same silly obsession with speed, the same style of writing, the same words to use, the same stubborn inability to listen, the same uneducated amateurish ignorance when things come to the technique matters...

Best, M   

[michel dvorsky]

Marik's posts make me happy.   

[opus10no2]

Marik's posts make me happy.   

In a way they make me feel happy too, but part of me wants to find an equal, and that part remains unhappy.

[opus10no2]

In fact, I would not be surprised they are the same person. The same silly obsession with speed, the same style of writing, the same words to use, the same stubborn inability to listen, the same uneducated amateurish ignorance when things come to the technique matters...

Best, M   

I don't agree with him on a few things. I like his focus on speed and mechanism.. it's correct what he says - speed of mechanics is the only way to be objective.

[opus10no2]

I knew quite a few fellows who could play some fastest Chopin etudes known to humanity with 100% accuracy. The same folks could not play one single scale or passage in Beethoven or Mozart Sonata EVENLY. The best "compliments" they were getting were some pitfull "Poor guy, such fast fingers, and such poor technique".

This makes no sense.

Fast fingers are the no1 potent ingredient in the even execution of scales at rapid tempo.

They must be too lazy to bother with the scales.

[pianowolfi]

Marik's posts make me happy.   

I think they make you happy because everyone who has a real access to the essence of music will after all make people happy...

[m]

... part of me wants to find an equal, and that part remains unhappy.

Since you mentioned it yourself, actually, that part is not that hard to fulfill. First, learn. Find some really good teachers, educate yourself--practice, read, listen to people (not to yourself), think, talk, and experiment a lot. Learn lots of history of music, theory, psychology. Then learn history of pianism, different schools and ways of thinking and approaches to technique and interpretation. Complete your education. And then come back as an equal, happy and sound, so we can resume.

Best of luck on that path, M

[schubertiad]

Musically, the machine has quite a bit to offer also.

With certain music I prefer a MIDI to any existing recording.


The main problem with discussions like this is that the dictionary definition of technique isn't known by all, and the word is misused.

Pianists play fast because they have faster fingers, and by and large everyone can learn the technique of moving them efficiently in minutes.

I will address this comment directly since it is obvious that he and the OP are one and the same poster. It appears that it is you who have misunderstood the definition of "technique", and have been misusing it throughout the thread.

Technique is derived from the Greek word "techne" which (to your surprise and bewilderment, I'm sure) means "art". Inseperable from the idea of "art" (and therefore "technique") are the notions of intent, emotion, expression etc which other posters have rightly pointed out in previous posts. Machines can do a lot of things (many of which far outstrip the ablities of humans) but unfortunately art ain't one of them.
Schubertiad

[opus10no2]

A technique is a procedure used to accomplish a specific activity or task

OP and I are not the same.

Obviously machines/computers are the primary technique used in current popular chart music.
Humans will always be the artists, but I find it funny that those who claim to have purely musical interests in mind aren't open minded to the possibilities technology can provide...they cling to the piano as a physical attachment.

Since you mentioned it yourself, actually, that part is not that hard to fulfill. First, learn. Find some really good teachers, educate yourself--practice, read, listen to people (not to yourself), think, talk, and experiment a lot. Learn lots of history of music, theory, psychology. Then learn history of pianism, different schools and ways of thinking and approaches to technique and interpretation. Complete your education. And then come back as an equal, happy and sound, so we can resume.

Best of luck on that path, M

Ha  ha

Yes, I'm aware of plenty history and schools of pianism, have experimented with methods, I just have different views, and whats more; different goals.

[m19834]

Humans will always be the artists, but I find it funny that those who claim to have purely musical interests in mind aren't open minded to the possibilities technology can provide...they cling to the piano as a physical attachment.

I wouldn't assume that you actually know what people are "clinging" or not to.

I just have different (...) goals.

Which are what, exactly ?

In any event, it is a perfect example of how, when an individual is aiming at a specific target, there will obviously be a certain path to it.  The paths differ as the targets differ.  Personally speaking, my aim in "expressiveness" is not to get from the beginning of a piece of music to the end as quickly and as note-perfectly as possible.  If it were, there would be no reason under the sun why I would not do what machine-Kevin is doing, for example. 

However, there are indeed other goals that I have where I do in fact aim to be as quick and accurate at achieving them as I possibly can be, originating in and pertaining to my innermost workings, and expressed in no better way than at the tip of my finger, live and in person.

[communist]

Obviously a machine has the best technique but that is because it can not mess up.

[scottmcc]

Obviously a machine has the best technique but that is because it can not mess up.

clearly you've never seen the blue screen of death, nor had a fatal exception error.

but anyway, this whole thread is pure silliness.  I'm surprised it's generated any serious responses.  sure, a computer can generate a sequence of tones exactly as notated on a page, completely mechanically correctly.  but the confusion is the word technique, which some people are equating solely with playing the right notes in the right order (although not necessarily at the right tempo), and others are sayingimplies that the notes must also be turned into music.  for those that are in the first camp, I hope this implies a distinction between "technique" and "musicality," and for those in the second, the two seem to be one and the same.

I for one would rather listen to a bad human rendition of a piece than a mechanically perfect machine "performance."  of course, I'd prefer a performance that not only has all the notes, but also all the soul and musical essence that transform something from a series of tones into a work of art.  but that's probably asking a bit much. 

[opus10no2]

I for one would rather listen to a bad human rendition of a piece than a mechanically perfect machine "performance." 

Why?

[scottmcc]

Why?

because music is, as beethoven famously said, "more feeling than tone-painting" (mehr Empfindung als Toenmahlereise). 

[opus10no2]

Even as that may be, technology and machines are very capable of being malleable to our expressive desires. With increasing technology we are becomng able to produce satisfying and moving music without touching an instrument.
Pianos are machines too..afterall.

Is it for purely musical reasons that a concertgoer would prefer to hear a mediocre live performance than a playback of a cd of great performances in a hall...

[opus10no2]

Personally speaking, my aim in "expressiveness" is not to get from the beginning of a piece of music to the end as quickly and as note-perfectly as possible.  If it were, there would be no reason under the sun why I would not do what machine-Kevin is doing, for example. 

Is that what you think he is doing? He could playback the recordings at ANY speed, resulting in a 1 second performance.

In his particular case, he wants the music to sound the best it can. He has a limited mechanique and chooses to record at a lower tempo to ensure clarity and expressive detail, then he speeds up the recording to suit his taste/the composer's intent.

Do you have a problem with an interest in speed? Is that at the heart of your argument?

[m19834]

Is that at the heart of your argument?

Well, I have given many times what the heart of my ideas are.  Some of it is not easy to put into words, as it actually probably should be the case, since, if I could sum up everything I intend to do at the piano in words (or in a painting, or what have you), there would be no reason to go to the piano. 

We could go 'round and 'round about this, but the only reason I am sitting here at the precise moment is because I am tired/sleepy and procrastinating other things.  At the end of the day, what matters to me, is that my current concept of music and the piano does not lead me to the computer as a means of expressing myself musically (at least not in the same way as it does Machine-Kevin).  Different people have different concepts, so I am not even anymore trying to argue what is good/best, so on and so forth.  It's just not *my* concept, and I don't need you to understand the ins and outs of why that is. 

I get it, times, they are changin'.  There are new tools available to us that we did not have before and yes, that does create new expressive possibilities.  In some sense, that is always the case (for example, prepared pianos to get new sounds).  People often like to equate 'new' with 'better' (which is, of course, not always the case in any field), and often times in the process of trying to break through the "market" (whatever that is, exactly), will put down the "old" in order to justify the new.  Yawn. 

One interesting point has come up for me in my own private thoughts though.  Just yesterday, as a matter of fact.  I was pondering the advancement of technology, the fact that Haydn's music, for one example, was not necessarily written with the modern day piano in mind.  Similarly with JS Bach's music, for another example.  Different people feel different things about that, and some individuals do even go so far as to play only period instruments for the corresponding music.  Interestingly, I had the opportunity a few years ago to talk with an individual whom has chosen to concertize on a pianoforte, and I asked him why he chose to do that when he had been raised on a modern day piano.  I loved his answer.  He said (to paraphrase), "at some point, his concept of the music just demanded it."  I think that is very interesting.  At this point, my concept does not demand that, but who knows, maybe at some point it will ?

Anyway, what actually struck me as I pondered all of this stuff was whether or not playing a Bach work, say, the Goldberg variations (which I once saw a woman perform the complete set TWICE in one concert, first half on modern day piano, second half on harpsichord (btw, one of the most truly fascinating and outstanding concerts I have ever been to)), on a period instrument vs. a modern instrument, actually makes the music itself any more or less musical ?

ha ha ... suddenly I am finding that I could go on and on and on about all of this.  Don't worry, I won't  .  Bye !

[edit]  I realized that I am not sitting here ONLY because I am tired and sleepy and procrastinating.  It's actually the regular old reason :  I love music and piano !!

[opus10no2]

  People often like to equate 'new' with 'better' (which is, of course, not always the case in any field), and often times in the process of trying to break through the "market" (whatever that is, exactly), will put down the "old" in order to justify the new.  Yawn. 

Obviously the existing tradition has provided amazing results, I wouldn't flat-out say that new methods are better, just different.

One thing is for sure though, it allows people who can't play the piano to interpret piano music and hear their ideas realised without having to grapple with the physical difficulties pianists encounter.

Again, it's different, but I think it can produce musical results that could change many a mind on this subject.

[opus10no2]

Which are what, exactly ?

One of them is to expand the possibilities of the playing mechanism, specifically regarding velocity.

I've limited work on repertoire and have put complete focus on speed.

I'll continue this until I reach a peak, at which time I will focus more on musical matters.

I honestly think maximum human potential in this area hasn't yet been reached.

[m19834]

Obviously the existing tradition has provided amazing results, I wouldn't flat-out say that new methods are better, just different.

One thing is for sure though, it allows people who can't play the piano to interpret piano music and hear their ideas realised without having to grapple with the physical difficulties pianists encounter.

Again, it's different, but I think it can produce musical results that could change many a mind on this subject.

Well, I don't doubt that you could influence people regarding whatever your desires are.  Take Lang Lang for example, he is "changing people's mind" with regard to Classical music and the piano by the millions.  People will feel very different things about all of this, depending on many factors, of course.  

I think that one thing that can be bothersome to individuals of another "school" of thought regarding music, is that those whom are trying to influence others may talk about other schools of thought regarding music as though they know the ins and outs of those schools, of that way of thinking, and I think more than not, it just isn't true.  I read through machine-Kevin's webpage and what he posts as his thoughts regarding why he is doing what he is doing, and why it is better than what has been done before.  I can tell he is missing the point of what some of the greatest artists have done before, he is missing the actual essence of the interpretation as some schools of thought may have produced in particular individuals.  He talks as though he understands it though, and it is obvious that he does not.  

Those whom are apt to further influence on the subject may be readily influenced, but it will be based on a lack of knowledge both on their part as well as the individual whom feels the need to speak about things that s/he doesn't actually understand.

That issue is not just related to music, of course, but to ethics in general, humanity in general, evolution (or what appears as "evolution"), and a common gap of understanding between the equivalence of 'generations' on earth.

I am personally of the mind that I would like to try my best to not just experiment with, not even just understand, but to actually 'master' various "methods" before I decide they are not serving my purpose.  Reading about the history of pianism and somehow getting as much as possible into the minds of all those individuals, even if I decide it's worthless, to actually truly grasp it, I at least truly know what I am discarding.  At the same time, in that process I think we naturally begin to become pointed in a direction that is cooperative with our highest sense of purpose, and that will induce a kind of focus in direction past phases of certain types of experimentation.

[richard black]

I've limited work on repertoire and have put complete focus on speed.

I'll continue this until I reach a peak, at which time I will focus more on musical matters.

I honestly think maximum human potential in this area hasn't yet been reached.

Your last statement is almost certainly true. But who gives a monkey's cuss? Why is it important? Mieczyslaw Horszowski in his late 90s had less speed than many a well-trained 13-year-old but his playing was found deeply satisfying my many people.

Of course the distinction between man and machine is somewhat arbitrary - a piano is a machine, in the broadest sense, and a pianist is simply a highly skilled machine operator. A manual-played pianola is only slightly more of a machine than a piano played by human fingers, so to that extent the fastest piano playing is that contained in some of Nancarrow's Studies for Player Piano, and you physically cannot match that with only 10 fingers on two hands.

What is interesting, continuing this man/machine train of thought, is that while current machines are only capable - at best - of giving an imperfect form to human thoughts, one day it may be possible that machines will have their own 'musical' thoughts which may transcend those of humans. There's no reason why not.

But it still won't give any credence to the hypothesis that speed and accuracy are the only important facets of technique.

[opus10no2]

But it still won't give any credence to the hypothesis that speed and accuracy are the only important facets of technique.

Importance is subjective, but I'd agree.

The OP focussed on the objective. Since art/music is subjective, musical factors in technique are also, so that leaves mechanique - the raw physical ability of the pianist - as the remaining factor that can be objectively calculated.

This is why it's so attractive to the scientifically minded, and the sporting competitive people out there.
In music there is no clear 'best' or 'winner', music is about expressing individuality whereas competition is about dominating the masses.

[m19834]

But it still won't give any credence to the hypothesis that speed and accuracy are the only important facets of technique.

Well, in some respect it is, at least in my mind  .  What changes matters the most is what the target is in having any form of motion at all.  Which is what I have been trying to express in one form or another throughout the entire thread.  This is an imperfect example, but it's the main thing that comes to mind for me at the time :

If you have two targets to be hit by a person OR machine aiming an arrow with a bow, one target being 30 feet away, the other being on the moon, speed and accuracy matter just as much in either case, since the point is in hitting the target.  The point of my scenario is that the two targets are in much different places and there are much different things to consider in hitting it.  The problem with my analogy is the difference in spatial relationship from the point of release of the arrow from the bow, to the targets in one case vs. the other.  Obviously one will take more time.  But, let's say the point of "speed" here is, sure, measured by velocity, but more importantly, that the arrow arrive at the bulls eye at precisely the time it's needed to.

Speed and accuracy in the ability to hit musical targets are very important, in fact, nearly of the most importance (since without it, music isn't being made).  Speed and accuracy from point A to point B.  The only thing that matters more than speed and accuracy alone are what, exactly, point A and B are.

[opus10no2]

Why is it important?

Sportsmen are respected and admired the world-round.

It's often debated which is the more worthy pursuit, art or sports/the endeavour of physical excellence.

Who is to say either is unimportant?

[m19834]

the remaining factor that can be objectively calculated.

This is why it's so attractive to the scientifically minded, and the sporting competitive people out there.

In music there is no clear 'best' or 'winner', music is about expressing individuality whereas competition is about dominating the masses.

Also, I just have to point out that physical speed and accuracy are not the only things that can be objectively measured in piano playing.  Dynamics and articulations can be, too.  As a matter of fact, anything that is expressed physically can be measured.  Focusing on how fast somebody moves their fingers as a sole means of measuring some form of the effectiveness of a pianist is like measuring how many decibels a person's forte or pianissimo are, and for whatever reason competing on that level.  Any of that though is nothing with regard to the actual music without the right context. 

Of course, loud and fast are common draws for individuals when it comes to piano playing.  I think we should start a whole school of piano playing where we take big cranes, hoist giant rocks up into the air hovering above a grand piano, drop the rock onto the piano, measure how fast it travels and how loud the crash is when it hits.  That could also really open up new expressive possibilities !

[m19834]

Yeah, I was just thinking.  My fortissimos are really not what I think Liszt was going for when he put those in the music.  And, since my mechanique is pretty limited along those lines, I have decided to get a stick of dynamite, take it to the other side of the ridge where I am camping, drop it in the canyon, have it blow up a bunch of rock, record that, then when I go back home, I am going to record Orage and, when I see a fortissimo in the score, I will dub in the recorded sound of the dynamite blowing up the rock in the canyon instead of being technically limited to the laborious sound of anything else I can think of.

As a matter of fact, when I see something like this fffff, I will use five sticks of dynamite and maybe I will throw a few grand pianos in the mix of rock, just for dramatic affect in the tone quality .  That's gotta be the sound Liszt was actually after !

[opus10no2]

Dynamics and articulations can be, too. 

Yes, but they are too intwined in musicmaking to be a seperable factor which could be judged competitively.

Also, yes, the ability to play loudly demands power, an admirable trait, but this has been proven to be less interesting than speed partially because there is an upper limit at which the mechanism would break. Also because of volume knobs

Your last paragraph is amusing..

[opus10no2]

That's gotta be the sound Liszt was actually after !

Or this?

[m19834]

Yes, but they are too intwined in musicmaking to be a seperable factor which could be judged competitively.

Well, the point is, speed and accuracy are, too.

[m19834]

Or this?

Yeah, seen it ... maybe once fully, not even a half again now . 

[opus10no2]

Well, the point is, speed and accuracy are, too.

Fail.

[m19834]

Fail.

  

Then how, to put it in some form of your own words, does developing a system of speed and note-accuracy that is unfaltering and, supposedly, what the composers 'truly' intended (okay, those last words are mostly machine-kevin's), how does that open up new musically expressive possibilities if they are not actually intertwined ?  If I recall, that was part of your own argument on the matter.  Do you mean to tell me that tempo doesn't matter in expressing musicality ?

[opus10no2]

No.

Firstly the musical application of having faster mech is... the ability to play faster than others have/can. That this may not be the intent of he composer is irrelevant, it opens up new expressive avenues. As does speeding up recordings.

Secondly, mankind's interest in bigger better faster stronger has gone on for eons.

This interest isn't related to music, so why do it on the piano?

The piano is physically perfect for displays of speed and agility, it has it's own thrill to many..

https://www.extremesportdrumming.com/

This is becoming accepted as a sport, so why shouldn't piano playing?

[m19834]

Well, as is usual, you are the hero of your own one-sided conversation.  Different goals, different paths to get there.  I do wonder what it is that you think a big portion of well-trained musicians can't see when it comes to you stating your same opinion over and over.  Showmanship at the piano, as some form of athleticism is nothing new, either.  Also been happening for ages.  Somebody else trying to break a speed record ?  What's new ?  yawn.

Anyway, I actually have some work to do !  Cheers !

[richard black]

Secondly, mankind's interest in bigger better faster stronger has gone on for eons.

Oh, well, fair enough, there's no reason why you can't institute some Society for the Furthering of Extreme Piano-playing Speed, and a Society for the Furthering of Extreme Viola-Hurling and lots of other organisations that have nothing to do with art. Just don't expect musicians to take much interest.

[opus10no2]

I do wonder what it is that you think a big portion of well-trained musicians can't see when it comes to you stating your same opinion over and over. 

I think there are many who appreciate the piano as more than a musical instrument.

Showmanship at the piano, as some form of athleticism is nothing new, either.  Also been happening for ages. 

Yes, but rarely in as pure a form as the ideas proposed by me and the WFD are.

This proves there is an interest in it.

Where would Lang Lang be today if he couldn't play fast? Part of his fame is dependant on this athletic prowess.

[opus10no2]

Oh, well, fair enough, there's no reason why you can't institute some Society for the Furthering of Extreme Piano-playing Speed, and a Society for the Furthering of Extreme Viola-Hurling and lots of other organisations that have nothing to do with art. Just don't expect musicians to take much interest.

I have more faith in musicians than that. Extreme sport drumming is an established field already.

[opus10no2]

Somebody else trying to break a speed record ?  What's new ?  yawn.

Uh...how many people watched the olympics?

How many people watch live televised 'classical concerts'?

Quit the immaturity, grow up, and give remarkable athletes the respect they deserve.

[m19834]

Uh...how many people watched the olympics?

Not me  (okay, that's a lie, I did a little).  Anyway, actually, still two different things, in my opinion. 

How many people watch live televised 'classical concerts'?

Not me, either  .

Quit the immaturity, grow up, and give remarkable athletes the respect they deserve.

hee hee.  Sorry, but you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. 

[opus10no2]

hee hee.  Sorry, but you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. 

...enlighten me.

You expressed boredom and apathy at something worthy of respect.