to put down the entire 24 etudes that can help any pianist ... is just absurd.
And you agree with this as well?
"I get many requests to play and teach Chopin's Etudes. I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes. In my opinion they are overplayed and overrated and YouTube is already oversaturated with far too many performances of them. In my opinion the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole, which are simply made weaker by most pianists' obsession with speed. They have become pretty much speed contests more than anything, which I will have no part in.
Or in other words "I can't play them".
I don't agree with BachScholar, in fact I think he's an arrogant prick. After correcting his phrasing in a piece (an etude in C or something) he kept accenting thre wrong beat making a 3/4 piece of music filled with semiquavers, sound like a 4/4 piece with triplet quavers. He told me that this is how the composer would have wanted it played (and I find that very unlikely after viewing the music), so after he acted like some high and mighty tosser - I told him to *** off and that if he wanted to be an arrogant snob who can't take a little criticism - then he shouldn't have chosen pianism as a career. The etude wasn't by Chopin or Bach - but he still seemed like an arrogant wanker.
I honestly think he might be mentally ill. He actually seems to believe that a load of seemingly randomly selected calculations about ratios "prove" he employs the "correct" tempos for all the pieces. Also, read his (clearly self-penned) biography on youtube. He's a deluded nutcase, who must as least suffer borderline-autism.
I am having WAY too much fun reading through his profile. "Discoverer of Bach's secret tempo code." What? Did he find the decoder in his box of Cheerios?Though I wish he were here to read all of the things we are saying about him. I almost feel bad...almost...
Ha, after watching his youtube videos I don't mind that he said that comment. If he played like a real master I would be worried.
A pianist on youtube that goes by the name of BachScholar, who has over 5 million views on his videos, and 7 thousand subscribers has a long info on his channel. And at the end he writes...Before reading this, understand, that I understand everyone has personal taste...but to put down the entire 24 etudes that can help any pianist...is just absurd.opinions?"I get many requests to play and teach Chopin's Etudes. I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes. In my opinion they are overplayed and overrated and YouTube is already oversaturated with far too many performances of them. In my opinion the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole, which are simply made weaker by most pianists' obsession with speed. They have become pretty much speed contests more than anything, which I will have no part in. Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better works of music in my opinion.Some have tried to convince me that I am "wrong" and that the Chopin Etudes are great, but fail to understand what personal taste really means. For example, take a food you don't like and imagine all your friends constantly trying to convince you that this food is great and you are wrong for not liking it. Would this annoy you? Now put yourself in my shoes and imagine how annoying it would be if everyone said you really "should" like the Chopin Etudes. In other words, personal taste is personal taste. "
So, if Brendel came to you and told you that Bach's music was all rubbish, you would feel that you had to change your previous opinion to accomodate his?
Bachscholar's opinion regarding the musical and pedagoguic value of the Chopin Etudes doesn't get better or worse on the basis of how well he plays the piano.
At least this offers me some idea of the quality of his work and thus doesn't encourage me to investigate or take his opinions on music technique seriously.
So, if Brendel came to you and told you that Bach's music was all rubbish, you would feel that you had to change your previous opinion to accomodate his?Bachscholar's opinion regarding the musical and pedagoguic value of the Chopin Etudes doesn't get better or worse on the basis of how well he plays the piano. His opinion of their musical value is, for a start, completely subjective and can't be proved either way.As for the pedagoguic value of the Etudes, if you could show that Bachscholar was a bad piano teacher that might indicate something, but of course he could be a bad teacher and this have nothing at all to do with his choice of teaching works.As for the claim that "he's cheating his students out of valuable learning experiences based purely on what he doesn't like", well, there are surely plenty of valuable learning experiences for any student. Are we really at the point that one work is so essential to studying the piano that a student should feel cheated that s/he has not been invited to learn it?I'm surprised that the fact that someone on YouTube dislikes one work by Chopin has so enraged people; pick any opinion you choose and you can find someone on the internet claiming to hold it.
To be honest...If a high class pianist like Brendel, Pollini, or Horowitz said something like that...I would try to listen to their opinion and see why they said that. why? because these pianists have had a life time of experience in the piano so they have a right to make such a claim like that. Not saying that it is right, but when someone devotes their life to the study of piano all their life, I think they can say a negative thing or two. On the other hand, when some unheard of youtube pianist starts babbling about how Chopin etudes are useless...it just looks stupid and no one will take them seriously. But when a high class proffessional comes and says something like that..it would make the audience think twice..
Bachscholar's opinion regarding the musical and pedagoguic value of the Chopin Etudes doesn't get better or worse on the basis of how well he plays the piano. His opinion of their musical value is, for a start, completely subjective and can't be proved either way.
Something that we miss sometimes is the fact that history is not something static and done: it depends on the reader. We can not confuse facts and the interpretation of the facts (i.e., history). If someone want to write the history of the piano ignoring Chopin, or dismissing him in some way, I think it is possible, although it would demand an enormous ingenuity and a very solid reasoning.
We generally have the same outlook on music, but I must disagree with you on this one. Chopin can be dismissed from history just as easily as the music of Bach and Debussy can be. I believe Chopin to be the most important composer for piano, and his etudes being some of the most important compositions in music. This man single-handedly revolutionized how the piano was to be played. His compositional output paved the way for the rest of the 19th century. Because of this, we MUST take every work as seriously as we can. I have a very big problem with "I don't like this, so it's not important."
Chopin's etudes are overplayed, as they should be. However to dismiss the entire set because "pianists take them too fast" is rubbish. When has it ever been acceptable to take a pianist's interpretation of something, not like it, and then blame the composer? BachScholar has not given sufficient evidence that he can logically dismiss Chopin's etudes. And, as said before, his recordings of him playing do not help his opinion.
He doesn't like the studies, so he doesn't teach them. Period.
. It is a naďve approach to teaching, but most teachers I know base their choices on pure personal taste. Otherwise, why so few do teach atonal music, for instance?
Dear BBS,I read twice your post and I don't follow you. If he is so important, how could he be easily dismissed? I mean, everyone is free to say rubbish, but to write a reasonable history of music without Chopin's figure is kind of a challenge, imho. That is because I agree with you: he was very important. Yet, he is also overplayed.
Now, about taking every work by him as seriously as we can, I agree on the sense that every piece of art deserves a respectful treatment. But Chopin wrote many works that do not stand to his stature as a composer, some etudes included.
Many things. The statement "overplayed as they sould be" is a most interesting one. I don't see things that way, but is important to know that someone else does. To me, overplaying is a problem, in any circumstances.About dismissing Chopin because of his performers...that is quite a mess. Chopin music is one of the most tortured by pianists at least since the recordings can testimony. And the main cause is the rush-rush approach (which is the point I think Bachscholar have in all this): starts slowly, flowing, lyrical (choose the adjective you like), and then, out of nothing, without any indication, without no particular reason, simply start to play fast, and fast, until no discernible phrasing, or touching, or anything is there. The ballades are a traditional mark, but also the etudes in a simplified manner: people love to play it as fast as they can.
When Gould performed Brahms' first piano concerto, he took it at a much slower speed than what was expected. Even in reviews, critics were saying that he played it slow because he couldn't play it faster (apparently they hadn't yet heard his 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations ). We all know that is absolutely ridiculous.
Really? Gould tended to play fingerwork extremely fast. But look at his Beethoven/Liszt symphony, Scriabin sonatas, Prokofiev etc. Particularly telling for me is that early in the 1st movement of Brahms he plays perfectly measured trills yet later he just does a blur. Nothing wrong with a blur, necessarily- but why do the earlier ones so pedantically measured and then do the blur later? It makes no sense- unless he was actually struggling physically. I don't think he sounds like a pianist who was in control. It wasn't the tempo that bothered me about that performance.
Which recording are you referring to? I have his performance with Victor Feldbrill and the Winnipeg Symphony. I sense no discrepancy with the octave trills (though I wouldn't blame any pianist who "fudged", so to speak, those trills in performance). It has been some time since I've heard the Bernstein recording.As a side note, I find very little by Gould more marvelous than his playing of Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's 6th symphony. Truly a masterpiece.Best wishes,
If a pianist chooses a slow tempo then there is always someone ready to accuse him or her of not being able to play at the "proper" speed.
Hi Jay,I meant it to be sarcastic. "Easily dismissed from history just as we can easily dismiss Bach and Debussy." My opinion is that it cannot be done, as music as a whole and the art of composition would not be the same without these individuals. Of course I'm leaving out other important names. I more than respect the fact that you may disagree with me.I think this could be true about every composer (even our most sacred Bach ). I will elaborate a little more in my next section.Because I find Chopin's etudes to be so vital, I feel every serious pianist should study ALL of them. Not necessarily learn and perform, but have an extensive knowledge on their form and Chopin's style. He wrote these when he was fairly young, the timeline is just as important. Now, I have to admit to you, if I have to hear another performance of Op. 25 No. 5, I'm going to throw my chair at the pianist. Because these works are indeed overplayed I find their place on the concert stage unnecessary, but I do not believe that we should prohibit others or ourselves from learning from them. Because other pianists play them so fast is irrelevant to me, as nothing is stopping anyone (despite one's own obsessiveness with being accepted by society) from taking it at the desired tempo. As a performer, I am relaying MY message to my audience. There is a very very very fine line from playing a work at a slower tempo because you can't play it faster and playing slower because you want to. The only way we can know this is based on how familiar we are with the artist. BachScholar is clearly not a virtuosic pianist, but that does not mean his opinion is worthless. Richter was heavily criticized for his tempo choice with the 1st movement of Schubert's D. 960 sonata. Can he play it faster than the snail speed he chose compared to the rest of recordings? Of course he can! When Gould performed Brahms' first piano concerto, he took it at a much slower speed than what was expected. Even in reviews, critics were saying that he played it slow because he couldn't play it faster (apparently they hadn't yet heard his 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations ). We all know that is absolutely ridiculous. However, that is something I embrace: to go against the expected normality of how music should be interpreted. Chopin's etudes are no different. My theory teacher told me something I won't forget: "You will know a true Chopin artist based on their effectiveness of rubato." I find this to be the most important respect in Chopin's music, as it is the most butchered and misconstrued musical term in western music. This is no fault of Chopin, but our own misguided beliefs on his music. He is the most misunderstood composer in the history of music, and dismissing a set of works based on how others interpret them is lazy and ignorant in my opinion.I think most of us can agree that BachScholar's opinions, while justified by his rights as a human being, are only said to be rubbish simply because he will not elaborate on them. If there was a logical attempt to fortify his opinion, I would take him seriously whether I agreed or not. I find music to be a simple thing: A collection of different opinions. And as such, we must take each one with care.Best wishes,
I'm talking about the Bernstein one. He starts with exceedingly measured ones. Just very odd to start that way but then change. I'm a big fan of Gould- but he's no Cyprien Katsaris when it comes to Beethoven-Liszt. I don't believe it's a mere coincidence that his crazy tempos were almost unfailingly in finger work- rather than in thick chordal writing. I don't think Schonberg's comment is entirely unreasonable. The performance doesn't sound like a pianist who is entirely comfortable with the work. I don't think that thick chordal writing was really a strength of Gould's.
Dear BBS,I wrote my previous post before reading this insightful lines of yours, and I now understand you. And I agree, by the way. Gould example is a most important one, because he played as he thought he should in every aspect, not only speed. The discussion about whether he did hit the spot or not is irrelevant, since his countless hours of recordings attest that he was serious and consistent about his musical beliefs. This commitment is the mark of a great artist, and something I try to pursue as much as I can.Best regards,Jay.
"Michael, I respect your opinion, but you are a nobody and cannot get away with this. Gould could do it, because he's Glenn Gould. Change the music when you graduate." It was interesting because I had never really thought about it. In my efforts to be "different" I was telling my audience that I didn't know what I was doing, whereas Gould, Richter, Argerich, etc. can do just about anything they want and it's OK. There are ways to be different without changing the music.I came to a realization about myself: I was trying to immulate Glenn Gould. I was trying to be Glenn Gould. Obviously, I failed, but within that failure, I found my niche in performance. Through our failures to be other people, we find who we truly are. Though I guess that's more of a psychological discussion than musical.
Gould could do it, because he's Glenn Gould.
Glenn Gould did what he did based on his research and his personal beliefs of what the music was intended to be. You are right you should not try and immulate Glenn Gould but gain knowledge so you can make your own choices. I think it is not a good idea to listen to one pianist to emulate them but muliple pianist so your ideas on interpretation will be more broad. I don't think you failed. You succeeded in emulating him but playing like Glenn Gould is not the goal because Glenn Gould was trying to play as the music was intended to be.
Glenn Gould cared nothing about what it was intended to be. This might be viewed as shameful by many (not myself) but he simply didn't think that way. He played as HE intended it to go. In some cases that may well correspond very closely with an educated guess about what was intended, but frequently it's not even close to that.
You bring up a good point that I have never really thought of, nor have I heard Katsari's Beethoven. I'll look into it. Thank you!I couldn't agree with you more. It reminds me of a couple of moments I had recently with my piano teacher (who, let's just say, really knows what he's talking about). I really like to add things in Bach; ornaments, rolling chords, added notes to chords etc. He started to get a little impatient with me and said something along the lines of "Michael, I respect your opinion, but you are a nobody and cannot get away with this. Gould could do it, because he's Glenn Gould. Change the music when you graduate." It was interesting because I had never really thought about it. In my efforts to be "different" I was telling my audience that I didn't know what I was doing, whereas Gould, Richter, Argerich, etc. can do just about anything they want and it's OK. There are ways to be different without changing the music.I came to a realization about myself: I was trying to immulate Glenn Gould. I was trying to be Glenn Gould. Obviously, I failed, but within that failure, I found my niche in performance. Through our failures to be other people, we find who we truly are. Though I guess that's more of a psychological discussion than musical.Anyone, back on topic. That BachScholar really grinds my gears! Best wishes,
This is an odd assertion, since Gould's interpretations were always subject to severe adverse criticism and, even today, I doubt that he would be the preferred performer of Bach amongst people who listen to a lot of Bach. To take one example, was it alright for Gould to sing along with his performances "because he's Glenn Gould"? Not really ... I just think that his interpretations were so interesting that we tend to put up with the singing.With Lang Lang, do we say that he can get away with hammering the keyboard "because he's Lang Lang"? Some do say that, certainly, but I would have thought that a bad performance is just as bad whether it is given by a star pianist or a novice.I'm sure that there are student pianists out there using too much ornamentation, and a teacher is right to try to rein that in, but it's always worth remembering that there was a time when Glenn Gould wasn't "Glenn Gould", and I bet he had plenty of arguments with people over his ornamentation at that time.
It reminds me of a couple of moments I had recently with my piano teacher (who, let's just say, really knows what he's talking about). I really like to add things in Bach; ornaments, rolling chords, added notes to chords etc. He started to get a little impatient with me and said something along the lines of "Michael, I respect your opinion, but you are a nobody and cannot get away with this. Gould could do it, because he's Glenn Gould. Change the music when you graduate." It was interesting because I had never really thought about it. In my efforts to be "different" I was telling my audience that I didn't know what I was doing, whereas Gould, Richter, Argerich, etc. can do just about anything they want and it's OK. There are ways to be different without changing the music.
I think you may be severely underestimating just how good Gould truly was, opinions on his interpretations aside.
Well lsiten to this interview especially around 2:11. He speaks about structure in Back music and displays a wealth of knowledge about not only Back but other composers and how it fits in the scheme of music. His depth of knowledge indicates his playing is a lot more than "an educated guess" but is based on intense study of music and music history and coming up with his own conclusions.
Dear Mike,there are three points that I'd like to comment. Please, notice I don't know your teacher, thus is nothing even remotely personal. But his view of the process is a clear example of the traditional way.1. When your teacher say "He's Glenn Gould", he thinks he is ending the discussion, but this is only an evasion, the old and good fallacy of appeal to authority. It happens a lot in the academic life, because everybody is very much concerned about having someone to quote, and to respect the scientific method. I'm fine with that, I have my articles published and the like, but when it comes to the creative process, is actual non sense, because the greatest creative minds in art history disregarded rules and tradition as much as they wanted to.Notice that I don't talk about avant-garde necessarily: Bach is one of the most conservative composers of all time in the sense of innovations (because he did not innovate a single day in his life), but his rules of counterpoint are just that: his. The fact that he turned out to be The Law after his death is beyond his own control. But it is important to know that in his own time, he was not given any importance. Furthermore, in the famous contest to the Leipzig post, his talent was considered mediocre.2. That leads me to the second interesting point. Why Glenn Gould is, today, Gleen Gould? Because he observed the boundaries of piano as an instrument? Because he respected the boundaries of academic interpretation? Because he was afraid of being misunderstood or not being commercially accepted? Quite the contrary, in all aspects! He had have a deep respect for his own musical view, and developed an exquisite art that is highly influential. Today, if you like or dislike his interpretations, you can't disregard them.3. Finally, the "wait to graduation" phrase is a most common one. I listen to that in both sides, as a student and then as a teacher, and I never accepted it as a reasonable argument. First, and foremost, I think the undergraduate in particular but also the graduate studies are the best possible moment to experiment freely. As a teacher I also did encourage my pupils to try anything, to push the limits, to explore. It is another discussion, but again the question is the same: finding a spot under the sun is not about respecting the rules, but of understanding them and breaking the ones you must to.Re-reading the above, there is a last thing to consider. I'm not in the self-help business, but you are not nobody, and the fact that Richter or Gould are names do not change anything. They were great pianists and artists because they were putting their efforts on their recordings/recitals/etc everyday. Gould never thought, on the start of a new day of work: "I'm Glenn Gould, I can do whatever I want and people will accept because, well, I'm Glenn Gould!" This is not a basis for anything, this is mere lunatic reasoning. Or no reasoning at all...Best regards,Jay.
What is interesting, is that he very rarely stifles my creativity, though when he strongly feels about something, and I strongly feel the exact opposite, we butt heads. An example that happened this year that I will keep short: I had the great honor of playing in a master class with Menahem Pressler; I prepared Beethoven's 32 Variations in C minor. My interpretation used little pedal, sharp shifts in dynamics and a much different interpretation of "allegretto." I often times didn't follow what Beethoven wrote, because that's not what I felt in the music. For example, Variations 10 and 11 are marked "sempre forte", well, I decided to ignore that. His argument was that Beethoven was so strict on his guidelines in the music, he has earned the respect that we follow them as a performer. My argument is that I really don't care, and Beethoven himself broke just about every rule in the book; I mean, c'mon, the guy started his first symphony on V7/IV! It's important to note that I didn't do these things for the sake of being different, but because this is what I felt in my heart.
After I finished playing for Mr. Pressler, he said something that will always stay with me, "Your creativity is overwhelming. I do not yet know if I want to stand and applaud, or walk out and never return. But if I could play these again, I would choose your tempo." This, to me, is the greatest compliment. Not his tempo remark, but because I made him think. For 12 minutes and 8 seconds, he questioned himself, my playing, the music, Beethoven...everything. And that is my sole purpose as a performer: to force my audience to sit on the edge of their chair, either in love, or getting ready to charge the stage to tear me away from the piano. And it is this belief that I feel is the only purpose for giving a performance.
This is clearly the Glenn Gould mentality. I'm no longer trying to be like Glenn Gould, however I've found my way of taking his beliefs and employing them into my own playing. Just as I take a piece of music and interpret it with my own mind. I find this to be the most important quality as any musician. Is this person playing the way their teacher or the composer told them to, or do they truly feel in their heart that this is the way the music has to be?
I'd also like to add that my teacher and I get along very well, and while we sometimes have our minor differences, there is no teacher I'd rather be studying with.
And by the way, jay, he is also an advocate of the Chopin etudes. Though you'll be happy to know he despises Hanon.
Finding a good teacher and having a good relationship with s/he is something to rejoice.
Dear BBS,I think the role of a teacher - as far as conservatoire/undergraduate is concerned - is to make his students to think. And to stand for their own positions in an articulated way. I guess your teacher would agree with that. The fundamental aspect is very simple: you are in the just and precise moment to feel the way you do about Beethoven. It is more than sympathetic, it is sheer necessity in the development of a creative mind. Let me give you a piece of advice, that you will find most interesting in the years to come: take notes of this kind of reasoning, of opinions, record your playing often...I mean, have a more or less documented diary of your process. Because one thing is sure: you will stick with many things, and change your mind in others. I always did find it cool to notice how I changed and how I stuck, and to learn and relearn with my own process.A final comment: some great ideas come with rupture. When you decided to ignore a Beethoven direction, you may discover something that was hidden there. Or you just figure out, sometime later, that you behaved like an ass. But this courage is a primary requisite of our profession.Fantastic comment by Mr. Pressler. And I agree with you: music is communication. If you can't make your audience think and feel, you are useless as an artist. Please notice that I don't think it is mandatory to provoke, but if you have nothing beyond the previous knowledge of your audience, why bother playing at all? This can be something simple as your idea of not following the sempre forte, or something quite dare as playing Beethoven's opus 111 at first sight, improvising as much as reading. The thing is: if I will find in a recital exactly what I have at home, in my CDs and DVDs (not a bluray guy yet), I rather prefer staying at home. Self indulgence based on common sense reasoning is not among my current interests.Gould epitomizes that in every recording I know by him. And I think you already noticed the difference of influence and imitation. The later is easy, nice and quite boring. The former is a challenge, or the way you create your own challenges. An influence is something you deal with, sometimes in happiness, sometimes in struggle. For instance, how difficult is to abandon a most dear recording when you figure out you don't feel your own playing that way? But this is what art making is all about.Finding a good teacher and having a good relationship with s/he is something to rejoice.I swear I don't have a target mark with Hanon's picture in my studio!Best regards,Jay.
Topic: Big youtube "Pianist" bashes the chopin etudes? 