Russian technique-underrated in England?

[thompson_321]

I hear so many pianists slating the Russian technique in this country, and I'm getting sick of it. It's not just the power they have, but the sound. It seems very special to me.

[nyiregyhazi]

I hear so many pianists slating the Russian technique in this country, and I'm getting sick of it. It's not just the power they have, but the sound. It seems very special to me.

I'm not sure. A lot of modern Russians have a very ugly and clangorous fortissimo and highly monotonous tone production. Sultanov for example, was a very good pianist, but his sheer dependence on arm pressures gave him a relatively ordinary and one-dimensional sound (at least, compared to an artist like Horowitz). I never heard anything truly special in his tone. The fingers don't create their own sounds so much as get jammed down in blocks. I think there are many good things about the Russian approach, but I do think that the approach seems to be producing a lot of players who are far too dependent on arm thrusting and force instead of distinction between voices. When you compare to sounds of older generation artists like Goldenweiser and Ginsburg, there's something altogether very different compared to what is typical today. Volodos is a notable exception from the crowd.

Gekic's remarkable sound here comes from extremely active use of the hand- rather than the usual Russian approach of bracing the hand and driving the arm.

Still, the Russian style is definitely far better than the flimsy use of the hand among most UK students. Only the most gifted really flourish over here. I don't think many teachers concern themselves with setting rigorous technical foundations.

[omar_roy]

I still hesitate to believe that there is an actual physical difference in the quality of sound based on the way one attacks the keys.

The piano is an entirely mechanical object, and it's main mechanism is just a fancy "lever."  You press the key, the hammer strikes the string.  Strike it faster and you have a louder sound.  Slower attack creates is quieter sound.

The notion of "tone," I think, comes more from how it physically feels to play the keys.  If we are stiff and play a chord very loudly, we perceive it as a "harsh" tone.  If we are loose and "sink" into the keys using a stereotypical "round tone" producing movement, then we perceive a "round" or "full" tone.  If the key descends at the same velocity in both instances, then the resulting sound will be the same.

The effect is the same visually.  What we see can greatly influence the way our minds perceive sound.

Richard_Black recently posted a thread where he included a recording of several pairs of sounded notes, one using an attack to produce a "harsh" tone and one to produce a "warm" tone.  I highly doubt any of us could truly hear a difference in the tones produced.

Do I think these terms are useless?  Certainly not.  I think that the notion of different techniques to produce different tone qualities is very useful in the sense that they can help us think about the music in different ways that help us to shape our playing.

I believe that tone quality cannot exist in a single instance, rather it is the result of several notes in succession with regard to pedaling, volume, release, etc etc.  In that regard, tone makes much more sense, but in the instance of a single chord or note it's, quite simply, a farce that our brains are very willing to accept.

[richard black]

In Eastern Europe there's quite a culture of appreciating a 'big' sound - not just in piano playing, there are some pretty deafening violinists and singers, for instance, also. You'll find plenty of examples of it being done both well and badly.

If there's one quality I really admire in a great many ex-USSR pianists it's the evenness they bring to running passages.

[awesom_o]

I hear so many pianists slating the Russian technique in this country, and I'm getting sick of it. It's not just the power they have, but the sound. It seems very special to me.

What is the Russian technique, and how does one slate it?

[thompson_321]

I still hesitate to believe that there is an actual physical difference in the quality of sound based on the way one attacks the keys.

Thanks. I just sense a more metallic and more 'round' timbre that the Russians seem to use, which sounds very pure to me. I was listening to Alexei Sultanov, and he has a lot of strength and almost bangy sound in his playing. I think they have a lot of control over technique, and they just seem very pianistic to me.

[mike_lang]

I hear so many pianists slating the Russian technique in this country, and I'm getting sick of it. It's not just the power they have, but the sound. It seems very special to me.

It is very special!  (in the best Russian pianists, of course)

[pianisten1989]

Though, back the topic: I agree with N-dog.
The old school Russian was something special! Now, on the other hand, I feel it's very much "professional" but not more than that. The melody is always very clear, and the bass notes as second loudest, and what ever is in the middle is of less importance. It's quite boring after a while. And they have this "Golden tone", as Kissin mention, but they don't know when to turn it off. Everything isn't supposed to be sung, as if it was sung by a really big soprano in Carnegie hall...

[nyiregyhazi]

Though, back the topic: I agree with N-dog.
The old school Russian was something special! Now, on the other hand, I feel it's very much "professional" but not more than that. The melody is always very clear, and the bass notes as second loudest, and what ever is in the middle is of less importance. It's quite boring after a while. And they have this "Golden tone", as Kissin mention, but they don't know when to turn it off. Everything isn't supposed to be sung, as if it was sung by a really big soprano in Carnegie hall...

I think I know what you mean, but I would never describe that as being the "Golden tone" in a million years. It could scarcely be further from what most people mean with that the term. Golden tone has zero to do with banging out the melody loudly all the time. It's about refined balance between parts- not hitting the melody even harder than the rest, which is what so many modern players use. Hear an artist like Volodos in a concert hall and you'll hear something far closer to what that term is supposed to mean.

[mike_lang]

I think I know what you mean, but I would never describe that as being the "Golden tone" in a million years. It could scarcely be further from what most people mean with that the term. Golden tone has zero to do with banging out the melody loudly all the time. It's about refined balance between parts- not hitting the melody even harder than the rest, which is what so many modern players use. Hear an artist like Volodos in a concert hall and you'll hear something far closer to what that term is supposed to mean.

I think one could say that 90% of it has to do with voicing and pedaling . . .

[pianisten1989]

I think I know what you mean, but I would never describe that as being the "Golden tone" in a million years. It could scarcely be further from what most people mean with that the term. Golden tone has zero to do with banging out the melody loudly all the time. It's about refined balance between parts- not hitting the melody even harder than the rest, which is what so many modern players use. Hear an artist like Volodos in a concert hall and you'll hear something far closer to what that term is supposed to mean.

No, but I would. the melody is Always sining, and that's what i mean by golden tone... Volodos (since you mentioned him) has also got a golden tone, but he knows how to use it. That's the different

[nyiregyhazi]

No, but I would. the melody is Always sining, and that's what i mean by golden tone... Volodos (since you mentioned him) has also got a golden tone, but he knows how to use it. That's the different

I think most people would regard knowing how to use it as being part of the "golden tone". That's why very few people who use the term apply it to any but a handful of living pianists. I really wouldn't apply it to the average pianist with a solid technique and the ability to play the melody a lot louder than the accompaniment. The term is traditionally reserved for something truly special- not for your average pianist who "projects" the hell out of melodies with volume rather than balance. That style of tone would be better compared to the stuff that comes out of the back of a dog, than to gold.

[nyiregyhazi]

I still hesitate to believe that there is an actual physical difference in the quality of sound based on the way one attacks the keys.

The piano is an entirely mechanical object, and it's main mechanism is just a fancy "lever."  You press the key, the hammer strikes the string.  Strike it faster and you have a louder sound.  Slower attack creates is quieter sound.

I think you misunderstand my point. While I do believe that a thud into the keybed certainly can affect the resultant sounds, I'm referring largely to the control. Using the arm more inherently reduces the control over each finger. Using the hand more inherently gives more possibilities for voicing and distinction between parts. The arm clumps it all together into one big mass. That's a quality you sometimes want, but when it's the only option the results rapidly become very bland.