"Express your own vulgarity"

[Rob47]

Why does one - myself, many others on this forum and in the world included - learn works of great technical difficulty? To convey the music the composer intended? To challenge one's self? To develop ones technique further? Because one can? Perhaps...to show off? - be honest -

I think I do to "express my own vulgarity" - to quote the Martha Argerich great pianists of the 20th century CD booklet - (talking about the Rach 3; Argerich's performance in comparison to 'lesser' performers). And I think I need to stop thinking this way if I ever want the slightest of a career in performance. Maybe that's it? My very first post on here I think I said something about how I love standing ovations....mind you I haven't had one since I was 10 or 11. I'm 20.

Think about that question, what are your honest thoughts?

And don't feed me the Hamelin crap about the "great musical worth" of Alkan unless you truly believe that is why you yourself are learning or have learned his sonata for example.

your friend
Rob

p.s. I really do love playing the piano, I'm just blinded by virtuosity a lot of the time which is a shame.

[Motrax]

I speak for myself (it'd probably be difficult for anyone to do differently with this subject) in saying that when musicians are concerned, I rarely play technically difficult pieces. But in casual situations with non-classically oriented audiences, I tend to pull out the dusty old Moonlight 3rd movement, or Rach's G minor prelude.

It's that impulse for getting people to say "wow, you're a good pianist" no matter how badly you played. And we all say we hate that, but we for some reason continue to repeat the same self-desecrating process.

The best way to waddle out of this mire (it's not foolproof, but it's working for me well enough) is to simply say you don't like playing for people. If they don't insist, that's that, they'll assume you're good without having heard you. But if they insist, it gives you the right to play anything you want, and since they insisted, they must comply with anything you choose to play, be it an Etude or a Nocturne.

And as a last resort, remind yourself that if you play something for it's stunning effect as opposed to it's musical beauty, you'll place yourself in the same boat as a million other pianists, in the eyes of your audience. You'll become just "another pianist guy" to others. To leave a lasting impression, you must be unique, and thus must take the time to create something you yourself will be proud of each time you sit at the piano.

Just try it, next time, remind yourself. The worst that will happen is you'll make some people bored with your playing, and so what? Very few people will stop being friendly with you just because they got bored with something you played on the piano.

[DarkWind]

I play pieces that I like.

[Rob47]

I play pieces that I like.

ok ya. Of course. Who doesn't play a piece that they like? I really like playng Robert the Devil and Islamey; I really do!  But do you ever think maybe there's more? An infatuation with difficulty? I play through the whole Italian Opera transcrptions of Liszt book daily? Every day (no jokes) I attempt for the sake of attempting lerning a new concerto.  Today I started work on Brahms 1 and Chaik 2...just parts from recordings I recognized (perfect pitch: it helps, not to consdescend or anything), and this while I'm in the process of learning Rach 3.  Come on, am I the only one blinded by virtuosity?

your friend
Rob

[Rob47]

I play through the whole Italian Opera transcrptions of Liszt book daily?

that should be an "!"

[maxy]

Technicaly hard pieces can be so much fun...
I don't see why they should be avoided, they are quite numerous.

[rhapsody7900]

I speak for myself (it'd probably be difficult for anyone to do differently with this subject) in saying that when musicians are concerned, I rarely play technically difficult pieces. But in casual situations with non-classically oriented audiences, I tend to pull out the dusty old Moonlight 3rd movement, or Rach's G minor prelude.

hrm.. preception of virtuosity largely dependent on audience... so many times i've impressed with the fantasy impromptu or the pathetique sonata and failed to do so with the appassionata.  (and some severe cases, others stealing the spotlight altogether with 'heart and soul'.)

i know that if i am given a chance to perform only one piece, i tend to lean towards crowdpleasers - unfortunately that usually means something fast and loud, bonus points if it's recognizable by the masses.  where is the justice?  (... in the concert hall!)

but to answer your question, i am probably one of those who's a victim of his own ego.  i haven't played any bach lately since no one pays attention to it around here.  i feel like i need to prove to others that i am capable technically first... but therein lies the dilemna, who are the 'others?'

(maybe it's cultural programming... majority prefers to watch meaningless action flicks with every cool effect than a simple film held together by a good story.)

i think once you do become a career pianist, your audience will appreciate anything you choose to play if you play it well.  

[shasta]

Would you rather watch a figure skater show you their triple axel jump or their compulsatory figure-8s?

Would you rather see a scientist show you explosions and bright light (N20 + CS2) or watch water boil?

Would you rather watch a quarterback show you their "Hail Mary" pass or their 3-step drop?

Would you rather watch an equestrian jump a 5 foot fence or watch a collected trot?

Would you rather watch a pianist perform the Ocean Etude or a Czerny etude?


There is nothing wrong with being the person who jumps the triple axel or generates explosions or heaves a Hail Mary.  Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being the person who requests to see a rider and their horse jump a fence or a pianist rip through the Ocean Etude.  Entertainer versus Entertainee; we are all both of these.

Anyone who has worked hard to achieve proficency in their particular field/talent understands that:

1.  In order to execute a triple axel, that skater has put in years of compulsatory figures.

2. In order to perfect an experiment, that scientist has put in years of dose-response curves and accessory experimentation.

3. In order to heave the Hail Mary, that quarterback has put in years of weight and agility training.

4. In order to jump a 5-footer cleanly, that horse and rider have put in years of fundamentals and caveletti work.

5. In order to perform the Ocean Etude, that pianist has put in years of practice and arpeggios.  

The nice thing is, along with the self-satisfaction that comes along with accomplishing all those little personal and private milestones in our training that no one but ourselves know about, as we progress within our individual fields we have an opportunity to share and/or teach what we have worked so hard on.  There is nothing show-off'ish about this if you have earned the right to be there in the first place; it is the sharing of one's efforts and appreciating the efforts of others.

[DarkWind]

If I were to play something like the Rachmaninoff Concertos, it would be because of the music, not because they are difficult. I love difficult stuff, it's amazing what Sorabji can write. But after seeing works like Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, nothing really looks difficult at all, so I just play whatever pleases my ear. I like difficult stuff, but I never try to play it.

[liszmaninopin]

Well, I enjoy technically difficult music for a number of reasons.  I never play a piece just because it's difficult, however, I think difficulty does add a measure of challenge to learning a worthwhile piece of music.  Also, there is a bit of show off in there, I admit.  But that's not the only reason.  I'll use as an example the Violette Sixth Sonata.  It is by far the most difficult piece of music I've ever attempted to learn.  I chose to learn the piece because it's exciting, powerful, and a definite challenge.  The intensity of the music makes it musically worthwhile.  Difficulty can serve musical purposes, it isn't something to be shunned as "show-offish."  Who doesn't get pleasure from working at a challenging piece of excellent music, and performing it well?  The difficulties in much music are necessary to the musical fabric.  Could you imagine the Rach 3 without it's cadenza, and the entire thing being, say, around grade 5 difficulty?  Some musical ideas find their best expression in a difficult form, it's nothing to be ashamed of.