Blandness in today's pianists?

[omar_roy]

I am disappointed to say that sometimes I am somewhat disenchanted with many of today's pianists.  The reason?

Cautiousness.  I am tired of hearing young pianists and even young professionals saying "My purpose is to convey the intent of the composer" yada yada yada.  Yet we can never distinguish young competition winners from one another because their playing is bland and restrained.  I'm not saying we should disregard what's written on the page of a good score.  What i'm saying is that I want to hear more risks being taken, more personalities being put on stage.

What happened to the likes of Horowitz? Richter? Gould? Rachmaninov?  Every performance I hear today seems like I've heard it a thousand times before simply because everyone is after the same thing: Accuracy.  Whether it's in terms of hitting all the right notes, or following the score verbatim.  Accuracy is the trend and it bores me. 

Interpretations have become so bland as to be devoid of any individuality.  It bothers me to think that bland playing has become the stuff that makes winners in so many competitions, at least here in the States.  Why is everyone so AFRAID? Afraid to take risks, afraid to let their personality get in the way of the composer.  It's not a sinful thing to do.  It's what distinguishes one pianist from another.  It's what makes the great pianists great.

One might argue that Richter was always a forefront for obeying the wishes of the composers, but his playing was never bland.  It was still distinctively Richter. People often said that Horowitz's performances were more Horowitz than Chopin/Rachmaninov/Mozart/Whomever.  But that's what audiences went to hear!!! They went to hear Chopin as interpreted by Horowitz.  Rachmaninov as played by Horowitz.  Would Chopin have played his Ballade in G Minor like Horowitz? Likely not.  Yet people still hold his interpretation in high regard.  And Gould...well, need I say anything about Glenn Gould?

All of these greats took risks and turned the music into something of their own.  Very few pianists today do that.  Everyone is so afraid to break the rules.  I'm not saying we should completely disregard stylistic practices, but throw a little twist here and there.  Throw in a few tempo fluctuations or dynamic fluctuations in Mozart (don't shoot me!) if it seems appropriate to do so! Use a little bit of pedal in Bach!  Play something too soft, too loud, legato, non-legato, if you think it sounds better that way and fits more appropriately!  Why not? Because people tell us that it's "wrong?" We have such an utterly skewed vision of what's "right" and what's "wrong." Let music be governed by the ear, not preconceived notions of how something should sound or be played.

[go12_3]

I'm so glad you mentioned, *use a little bit of pedal in Bach*  because I DO that.  lol
Some of the passages in WTC Book 2 needs something to make it sound better.  And guess what, I may have to play Chopin's Etude 10/1 a bit slower because I like to hear the blend of harmonies of those arpeggios.  Folks, I don't plan to play every piece a tempo because speed isn't of importance to me.  But, hey, I am not a professional pianist either.  Love to play for enjoyment only. 

Anyhow, as I have listened to the varies *greats* on YT, I marvel at the finesse and style and how each have their own uniqueness in performing the same piece.  For me, I think young pianists are trained to play with speed and accuracy to the point that it is driven into them to perform in that manner though.  It's more about the notes rather than finding that individuality though.  Because the famous pieces that has been performed several times throughout the world, the audiences expect a spectacular program, and therefore, the pieces has to be played with much more technique and skills.  And then, the interpretation is from a professional teacher that has been taught in his youth by his teacher and so forth.

I think, those of us, that are mostly self-taught have more freedom and have to do our own interpretation of the pieces we are learning.  I only had over 2 years of formal lessons by a professor.   I learned the art of playing with feeling, not perfection, although playing mostly the correct notes was important.   He was a great instructor and he had his own unique style of playing.  His fingering that he taught me was unique and that purpose was to strike each note in a comfortable manner to bring out the main melody; he expected me to play with feeling and bring out the tone of the piano by sinking into the keys, especially on an adagio piece.  I think as pianists, we have to take on our own individuality into the pieces we learn.  I agree with omar_roy, *let music be governed by ear, not preconceived notions of how something should sound or be played*.  I have my students do that.....     Very good post, omar_roy.

best wishes,

go12_3

[imbetter]

There's a huge difference between blandness and playing the piece as written. For example: Murray perahia's new Beethoven sonata recording is some of the most expressive playing you'll ever hear but he never drifts away from the composers intention.

[thalbergmad]

Yet we can never distinguish young competition winners from one another because their playing is bland and restrained.  I'm not saying we should disregard what's written on the page of a good score.  What i'm saying is that I want to hear more risks being taken, more personalities being put on stage.

I am with you on this Sir.

Perhaps there is a tendency nowadays to use the score as a fixed instruction as opposed to an idea.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I am disappointed to say that sometimes I am somewhat disenchanted with many of today's pianists.  The reason?

Cautiousness.  I am tired of hearing young pianists and even young professionals saying "My purpose is to convey the intent of the composer" yada yada yada.

Which usually translates as "what my teacher told me the intent of the composer was, because I've never invested enough thought to come to my own conclusion as to what the composer's intent was".

The other obvious factor surely is that as we are now accustomed to hearing note-perfect studio-edited recordings, the focus of some performers appears to be to act as glorified quasi-musical typewriters and their priority is the avoidance of wrong notes, rather than the communication of musical ideas.

[thalbergmad]

glorified quasi-musical typewriters

 

[ramseytheii]

You make a lot of cogent points but I don't agree with everything.  But I secretly wonder, if your post is part an attempt to free yourself from certain classical cultural restraints, that are powerfully drilled into all of us who study music.

Cautiousness.  I am tired of hearing young pianists and even young professionals saying "My purpose is to convey the intent of the composer" yada yada yada.  Yet we can never distinguish young competition winners from one another because their playing is bland and restrained.  I'm not saying we should disregard what's written on the page of a good score.  What i'm saying is that I want to hear more risks being taken, more personalities being put on stage.

I agree with you about competitions, but I think as a society it is time for us to admit collectively that they have very little credibility.  If we can agree that they have an overwhelming tendency these days to churn out identical pianists, then we can agree that when looking for talent, we should stop looking at competitions.  I think we should push to make them less of a norm, or push to make them different (ie to include elements of individuality beyond programming - improvisation and composition). 

Especially including improvisation and composition - that will make competitions more challenging, and thus more interesting.  As it is now, we know that a lot of sordid things go on with the judges behind the scenes; that they have to play politically to get their picks to advance, or to win a prize; that individuality is often punished because it is an easy way to weed people out.

I think an interesting rift in competitions can be found in the 2001 Van Cliburn, when Ioudenitch and Kern shared the gold medal... by far I. was the more individual artist, and it was almost as if to apologize, that they picked the mechanically superior but conventional Kern.  A schizophrenic decision!

What happened to the likes of Horowitz? Richter? Gould? Rachmaninov?  Every performance I hear today seems like I've heard it a thousand times before simply because everyone is after the same thing: Accuracy.  Whether it's in terms of hitting all the right notes, or following the score verbatim.  Accuracy is the trend and it bores me. 

I can't totally agree with your pessimism here.  Think about this: Gould died in 1980 (or 81 can't remember) at the age of 50; he could still potentially be alive today.  Richter died in the 90's; Horowitz died shortly before that if I recall correctly.  Why do people freak out and say there are no more pianists like them?  They just died for God's sake!  Give it some time.  When Gould starting getting famous, he was most often compared to Busoni - a pianist who had died thirty years before Gould took the stage.

Look at who we do have, that are still great and individual pianists: Argerich, Pletnev, Zimermann, Sokolov, Gavrilov, and I am sure many others.  What is wrong with that crop? 
 

Interpretations have become so bland as to be devoid of any individuality.  It bothers me to think that bland playing has become the stuff that makes winners in so many competitions, at least here in the States.  Why is everyone so AFRAID? Afraid to take risks, afraid to let their personality get in the way of the composer.  It's not a sinful thing to do.  It's what distinguishes one pianist from another.  It's what makes the great pianists great.

Partly the answer is cultural, I think.  It is not in our cultural DNA, to be able to approach the music with the same freedom as previous generations.  We are not so close as those pianists, whose freedom often comes with authority from the source.  We tend to get stuck in dogmas, dogmas which are not even true in the cases they would seem to be the most obvious.

I love the instance of Ravel.  Ravel, we are constantly told in music school, insisted above all else that nothing was added or subtracted from what he wrote on the page, that the performer is a "slave" and that he wrote the music perfectly and it should be played thus.  But listen to recordings of people, who played his music for him, like Cortot, or Perlemuter, or Casadesus.  There are all kinds of liberties.  Cortot adds a bar in Jeux d'eau.  They constantly play with the timing and the inflection; but we are stuck on this dogma.  We can't hear the evidence in front of us.

All of these greats took risks and turned the music into something of their own.  Very few pianists today do that.  Everyone is so afraid to break the rules.  I'm not saying we should completely disregard stylistic practices, but throw a little twist here and there.  Throw in a few tempo fluctuations or dynamic fluctuations in Mozart (don't shoot me!) if it seems appropriate to do so! Use a little bit of pedal in Bach!  Play something too soft, too loud, legato, non-legato, if you think it sounds better that way and fits more appropriately!  Why not? Because people tell us that it's "wrong?" We have such an utterly skewed vision of what's "right" and what's "wrong." Let music be governed by the ear, not preconceived notions of how something should sound or be played.

I think above all else, that you should do what yo upreach, and hold up your playing as an example.  I think in the world, there is more variety than you are confessing, and all pianists need to struggle with how to make their own voice.  I know that's a cliche but it is really true. 

This is a difficult subject to address, I am having a hard time organizing my thoughts on it.
I hope there are more responses to your provocative post.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Another thought: the whole structure of the institutional music world is against individuality, it's not only competitions.  For instance in music school, when you want to try something different, one typically gets the refrain: "Don't you think the composer knew better?"

That's a question designed solely to crush individual expression and exploration.  Rather than encouraging us to expand our knowledge, to expand our experience, to expand our possibilities, it says only: you are not up to the task.  Just follow directions.  Horrible isn't it?

Walter Ramsey

[omar_roy]

Walter,
I apologize for not being more specific with the demographic of pianists I was referring to when I meant "Today's Pianists." As part of a younger generation (I'm 18),  I mean to refer to most pianists under 30, maybe 35.  The crop of Argerich, Sokolov, even Kissin, I consider them part of an older style and another generation of musicians.  I guess what I'm saying is that I am referring to my peers as pianists. 

I will admit, I was aggressive and a bit more dramatic about the situation and made it sound more grave than it actually is.  I made that post at a very late hour (about 3am local time) and I was not fully coherent in my thoughts so I left a lot of things out that I wanted to touch upon, but I agree with you, Walter.  I am not so much trying to free myself from restraints as I am ranting and trying to see how other people feel on the subject.  Above all, in my playing, I strive for creativity.  I ask myself "How can I make this piece my own, a part of my being, but still have it be Bach or Chopin or Rachmaninov." It's never an easy thing to do, and I work very hard at it.  This is not just for the sake of sounding different, but because I truly believe that when you play a piece of music, it should clearly be personal experience.  It should be played in a way that reflects not only the composer, but your insights as well.

Forgive me, I, too, find it difficult to organize my thoughts on this.

[ramseytheii]

Walter,
I apologize for not being more specific with the demographic of pianists I was referring to when I meant "Today's Pianists." As part of a younger generation (I'm 18),  I mean to refer to most pianists under 30, maybe 35.  The crop of Argerich, Sokolov, even Kissin, I consider them part of an older style and another generation of musicians.  I guess what I'm saying is that I am referring to my peers as pianists. 

I will admit, I was aggressive and a bit more dramatic about the situation and made it sound more grave than it actually is.  I made that post at a very late hour (about 3am local time) and I was not fully coherent in my thoughts so I left a lot of things out that I wanted to touch upon, but I agree with you, Walter.  I am not so much trying to free myself from restraints as I am ranting and trying to see how other people feel on the subject.  Above all, in my playing, I strive for creativity.  I ask myself "How can I make this piece my own, a part of my being, but still have it be Bach or Chopin or Rachmaninov." It's never an easy thing to do, and I work very hard at it.  This is not just for the sake of sounding different, but because I truly believe that when you play a piece of music, it should clearly be personal experience.  It should be played in a way that reflects not only the composer, but your insights as well.

Forgive me, I, too, find it difficult to organize my thoughts on this.

Thanks for the reply.  Someone started a related thread, quoting your paragrpah here, and I was able to respond I think coherently to the issues. 

here is the link:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,34334.msg398546.html#msg398546

The main thrust of it is that pianists of the past did not have to choose between objective and personal playing.  They played the way they knew how to.  They were not crushed under dogmas like never change anything in Ravel (listen to Cortot, who knew Ravel and studied his music with him); they did not consider some mannerisms like arpeggiating chords or anticipating the melody with the bass as an exception to objective playing; they saw character more in terms of literature and drama of the time, then in frozen models that we have today.

While lots of thought went into what they do, at a fundamental level, they played the way they played, and the culture supported them.  By contrast, today people cannot just play in an individual way: all education, and all institutions, discourage it.  Today's institutional musical values are: follow directions.  You can never know as much as the composer of this hallowed music, therefore, do not try.  It's designed in particular to destroy creativity and individuality.

Our culture in general will not support those who are the most individualistic, as it once did in the past.  When I say culture, I don't refer to the customer, the one engaging in commerce.  I refer to the competition juries, the music professors, the music critics, the peers and elders of the profession, who in a large way can act as gates to the profession.  Not exclusively (I'm not a conspiracy theorist after all), but often in a large way.

However this is not a new problem to us.  Brahms faced this problem.  His culture desired a tangible successor to Beethoven; in fact you might say the culture demanded it.  Composers had to make a conscious choice, to compose with classical values of balance, thematic counterpoint, and structured harmony, or with "modern" values of subjectivity, wandering, descriptive harmony, and free counterpoint if at all.  This is very difficult for creativity.

In fact, I would gander that the institutions at the time strangled creativity by teaching people to follow directions in certain molds, especially in composing.  So a conservatory in Vienna might say, this is the way Mozart constructed sonata forms in string quartets, and so that is what we are supposed to do.  We are not alone in this slave mentality.

Brahms glory is of course that he did in fact start with these models, in some instances copying structures out exactly (the finale of Beethoven c minor became phrase for phrase the finale of Brahms d minor concerto) or as paraphrase (most variations, if not all, of op9 Schumann variations are freely based on actual Schumann pieces).  But he transcended them personally, without being mannered, willful or eccentric.  It's a huge challenge.

As part of the prescription for solution, I propose changing the values of what we teach in music school.  I think improvisation and composition should be as important as instrumental study.  Competitions should feature those things; you will weed out so many unworthy participants so fast.  They will be come more interesting for the audience, more challenging for the artist, and more credible all around. 

We should fundmaentally strive to find our voices in music we create, not to invent voices in music of other composers.  Then when we go to those composers, we can approach them freshly, without the desire to oppose or contrast what we think of as immutable laws.

Hope that's helpful!

Walter Ramsey

[cloches_de_geneve]

Look at who we do have, that are still great and individual pianists: Argerich, Pletnev, Zimermann, Sokolov, Gavrilov, and I am sure many others.  What is wrong with that crop? 

I have to agree that today's pianists have little to offer compared to pianists of an earlier generation.
The key point is that they lack imagination and are risk-averse. Of those you mention, the only true imaginative risk-taker is Pletnev; and Sokolov is a pianistic genius no doubt.

Still -- given the choice, I'd prefer a good recording by Kempff or Myra Hess over these almost anytime.

[thracozaag]

I'm reminded of Sandor's highly cynical (yet sadly often accurate) assessment to me of what usually wins piano competitions: "Not too loud, not too soft; not too fast, not too slow".

[thracozaag]

.

[communist]

Pianists do not realize that they are artists, not just pianists. You are trying to show the composers art through your perception of it.

P.S. I agree Perahia's new Beethoven recording is fantastic. His pastorale sonata is out of this world.

[perfect_pitch]

.

Good to see you contributed a lot to this thread...   

[lostinidlewonder]

I would have to say that following the score more often than not leads to the best interpretation. It is just that some people follow the score and the way in which they deal with these indications are done so in a mediocre, uninteresting way. But this is not to say that following the score is a bland or safe approach. Those with good musical ability to go in hand with their technical will produce interesting expressions. They will not make things sound routine or contrived, but done so in context to a musical understanding of the piece as a whole.

Good interpretors of music know what to look out for, they know how parts sound different and similar to one another and know how to present this in their playing. They know when the climaxes come up and how to deal with each one individually, they know where the "sweetest" climax of them all are in the piece and know how to direct listeners to this point. A good interpretor allows listeners to follow the entire piece logically, understandably, well presented so that they can hear all voices used. A master interpetor will reveal to listeners parts of the music which are indeed very interesting but easily heard in a lesser way (eg: middle voices of Scriabin pieces or the use of contrast in Beethoven). Master interpretations change the way in which you used to listen to a piece and does so in a way which is enjoyable for your own listening experience. Some find Gould a genius, others see him just as a mad scientist!

Music is like a story book, it has a plot, characters, themes, climaxes etc. Good interpretors make the story interesting, bad ones just recite it out or deform what the characters are like, rush the plot, or over do certain parts of the plot which makes us feel annoyed (Like when slow parts are played so slow that you want to sleep or so fast or insensitively, that you miss out on the effects of the slowness.)

Young pianists these days who play in exams/competitions are trained in such a way that their playing does not entertain only certain desires. They learn to play a "safe" way free of excessive personal musical alterations to the score. They are of course encouraged to bring out what they believe should be brought out, but not so much that it makes your playing tangent the path most taken. Unfortunately those who play in competitions will not go far if their playing is very individualistic, this may appeal to some judges and not the others. This might be true for practical examinations as well, an individual approach may be distasteful in one examiners mouth but sweet in another. So these students learn to play in a safe way which echoes the traidtional approach. This is not altogether bad it sets the grounds for these musicians to then form their own path later on. If you cannot do it the normal way how can you ever imagine to do it in your own?

I believe that all piano recordings sound unique. Blandness is always coupled with inferior technique or expression ability. If the performer follow the score and expresses all elements as written they are more often than not, not bland. There are certain pieces I have heard just too many times to want to listen to someone play it, thus anything they do will sound bland to me since my listening expereince of that piece is saturated beyond recognition.

[m]

...we can never distinguish young competition winners from one another...

Modern times, my friend, modern times...
Can you tell one Hollywood chick from another? Why would you expect modern pianists be any different? 

Best, M

[rc]

Reminds me of something I came across in Stephen Hough's blog:

"A conductor learning a Beethoven Symphony in 1922 had to sit down at a desk or piano and ... learn the score. The danger now is that we've become lazy and can merely absorb other people's 'Beethoven Experience' rather than living through our own. It's much harder work to draw the map ourselves, but I'm convinced we learn more about the inner topography that way - even if the first draft can send us on a false path or two. And it's from this study that we can go on to have original ideas which are not either copied or merely capricious. I'm sure that the frequently-heard claim that many young pianists today sound the same has a lot to do with the fact that they have not been allowed the time to make mistakes, and the leisure to correct them, in their hurry to claim the first prize in this or that competition. The fruit is picked and packaged and sold (and discarded) before the ripening process is complete. One of the most important things my teacher, Gordon Green, said to me was: "I don't really care how you play now [aged 15]. It's how you will play in ten years which interests me". In other words don't look for instant, artificial grooming. Let the manure do its job."

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/stephen_hough/blog/2009/06/01/dont_listen_to_recordings