Does honesty have a (quality of) sound?

[m1469]

Do you think it's possible to make an honest vs. dishonest sound at the piano?  I am reading a book, "The Naked Voice: A Wholistic approach to singing" by W. Stephen Smith.  An idea I have become fascinated with is that of the "original source of utterance," meaning the very basic need which causes us to phonate in the first place (clear back to when we are babies just being born, through childhood and forming words, into fully speaking, etc.).  I am thinking of this in relation to piano playing, of course, too, and considering various things along those lines, but especially what is that "original source of utterance" which would cause one/me to "phonate" at the piano.  AND, I accept that we are either being true to that, or not.

If you accept that you can either be true to that "original source of utterance" or not, I mean, if it's possible to be true to it or not, then I wonder if you also believe it could have a sound - Does honesty have a (quality of) sound?  Doesn't it seem like it must?  Vocally, there is supposed to be a difference, and I would imagine there is some parallel pianistically.

[pts1]

Hmmmm...

I think there is an honest sound at the piano, but unlike the voice it cannot be represented by a single sound.

Comparing the voice to the piano in seeking the original source of utterance is difficult (if not impossible) since the human and his/her voice IS the instrument if you look at it through a wholistic prism as you suggest.

Even when singers are asleep, their breath goes in and out, their vocal chords at least have air passing through them, the mouth and soft palate move, all parts remaining oxygenated with blood, sending and recieving nerve responses from brain synapses, and so on.

Every singer I've ever known is almost paranoid about protecting "their instrument" which really means "themselves".

And the one note that a singer sings, should likely be on pitch with support from the diaphragm,  with possible vibrato, crescendo or dimenuendo placed in the roof of the mouth, just so, all the while avoiding unwanted nasality and so on. And even if the sound is perfect, what if there's really no inspiration or emotion in the mind/heart in the "instrument's" origin of utterance? What if it is so well done, out of "mere" practice, that no one but the singer knows her heart was not in the expertly sung C above middle C.

Not so, the poor piano, a hunk of metal, wood, plastic, felt, wire, rubber... dead as dead can be... until some one, perhaps a janitor cleaning a piano studio, accidently thumps a key with his broom handle and the "origin of utterance" -- his broom -- produces a perfectly professional sound.
If the janitor was thinking about making love to his girlfriend when he got home, giddy at the prospect, his broom "carressing" the piano key in respone to his sudden ardor-- could we say this was a passionate sound?

I don't think so.

There are other problems as well. While we could make the assertion that there are really no single piano sounds we can call either honest or dishonest... what do we then mean?

Is a really "honest" effort by the pianist which represent his interpretation of a piece, dishonest if the performance is sylistically completely "wrong"?

What if the pianist's effort is genuine and honest, but his skills are simply not up the the task and the piece suffers since our pianist doesn't have the technical skill to properly execute.

I think for the pianist, the original source of utterance must be the mind and heart, and then the ability to execute faithfully the intentions.

Even so, there is likely to be great variance of opinion among "experts" as to the honestly of the pianist's sound once heard by these "outsiders".

[ajspiano]

If music is an expression of ones own emotion then it could perhaps be described as honest. You could give an honest performance by sharing your true emotions with an audience through music., and i think an audience would be capable of picking up on it. I'm not sure that it has to do with the actual quality of sound though..

[p2u_]

Do you think it's possible to make an honest vs. dishonest sound at the piano?

Oh, yes it is, although this can only be perceived in context of the other sounds in the same piece, of course. There are many, many 'beautiful-ish' so-called interpretations around of people who have no idea of what they should do with a piece. Watching them with their pretentious 'emotional' movements makes things even more insincere.

Paul

[ted]

Yes, for myself I think most certainly such a quality exists, particularly in the creative aspects of improvisation and composition. In fact in those areas the whole exercise would seem to me a waste of time with any drivers except complete honesty. However, I think the quality is purely personal, obvious to the player alone, solipsistic even, and has no universal relevance. In other words listeners could only hazard guesses about its presence or absence, the same as they can only guess whether any performer is thinking of self-transcendence or wind in the digestive tract.

I am not sure about how these things relate to interpretation so I'll let better qualified posters comment on that.

[ceapaire]

I think the heart of piano playing lies in improv and self-composition. Humans first learned to speak and sing through an immense desire to communicate and express themselves; for those of us who began piano outside of childhood it's the same thing. We wanted desperately to just be able to sit and the piano and have music effortlessly float into the air.

The truest sound, the most honest sound, we can make is that which just bubbles up out of us. When you sit at the piano outside of "practise time" and just play whatever it is that pops into your head. Whatever music you want to play so badly that not being near a piano at the time makes you incredibly restless and irritable. It's honest because you want to play it for its own sake, and not because you have to.

This is the difference between mechanical robots like Lang Lang and true musicians who appreciate and adore their music on all levels.

[p2u_]

This is the difference between mechanical robots like [...] and true musicians who appreciate and adore their music on all levels.

What a pity you added that last sentence to an otherwise balanced post, ceapaire. Although Lang Lang is certainly not my favorite pianist, I think it's a little unfair to single him out in this respect, especially since he seems to be developing in the right direction.

Paul

[ceapaire]

What a pity you added that last sentence to an otherwise balanced post, ceapaire. Although Lang Lang is certainly not my favorite pianist, I think it's a little unfair to single him out in this respect, especially since he seems to be developing in the right direction.

Paul

True. I'm a bit biased against him though after seeing his masterclass with Barenboim in which his Appassionata was decidedly flat.

I'll try to be more balanced in future 

[m1469]

Hmmmm...

I think there is an honest sound at the piano, but unlike the voice it cannot be represented by a single sound.

Well, that single sound is either honest or not.

Comparing the voice to the piano in seeking the original source of utterance is difficult (if not impossible) since the human and his/her voice IS the instrument if you look at it through a wholistic prism as you suggest.

There is always a conversation going on within me when I observe other people's thoughts on singing vs. instrument playing.  The basic idea, which was presented in the book and that I have observed in general on the subject, is that singing is our very selves, whereas instrument playing involves a mechanism and is mechanical in a different sense than singing.  And, that singing involves literally every part of who we are as thinking, feeling beings, and that it has a direct affect on our instruments since as singers, we are the instrument itself.  But, how does piano playing *not* involve all of our selves?  It still involves our spirituality, psychology, physical health, all of that.  As pianists, we are still very much involved in the original source of utterance, and in fact the instrument is not that original source, we are.  I have to say that even though I intellectually 'get' why one is perceived as our very selves while the other is perceived as more mechanical, I ultimately believe it is very much rooted in perception alone and that this perception can be altered.  

I think the heart of piano playing lies in improv and self-composition.

I am considering this myself, as this was true for myself to some degree, but I don't think that's necessarily true for all people and that doesn't mean they don't have an original source of utterance.  But, the idea of phonation to meet a need, and that developing into a natural venacular which is organized according to the sounds around us, I wanted to think about what would be considered my own pianistic venacular.  Part of that, according to the book, is in helping singers to develop or find their most natural voices and sounds, vs. just what a person thinks or believes they are supposed to sound like (which involves evaluation).  One is considered right brain, one is considered left brain, and in performance our aim is to be primarily in the creative brain vs. the evaluation brain.  That means we have to be able to 'go with the flow' and, I am considering this in particular as it relates to piano playing.  The idea is that there is a place for evaluation and refinement, but that we must be able to have a naturalness without that evaluation when needed, and that this is ultimately rooted in the venacular speech/phonation.  So, improv. is probably part of that for me (though I also learned small songs/pieces by ear, and that's part of it for me, as well).  

Yes, for myself I think most certainly such a quality exists, particularly in the creative aspects of improvisation and composition. In fact in those areas the whole exercise would seem to me a waste of time with any drivers except complete honesty. However, I think the quality is purely personal, obvious to the player alone, solipsistic even, and has no universal relevance. In other words listeners could only hazard guesses about its presence or absence, the same as they can only guess whether any performer is thinking of self-transcendence or wind in the digestive tract.

I believe that honesty has less to do with what is being thought or said or written, and more with its very self.  I believe honesty is self-existent and ultimately a quality of its own.  Somehow, even on this forum, I can often get some kind of deeper sense of a person through their writing, some kind of feeling of their character, even though there are just words on a screen.  How is that even remotely possible?  In this book I am reading, while I find it very intriguing what he is actually writing about (and, I understand it's not necessarily all new ideas per se), I also just get this kind of clarity about his thought, about his life, and this certain kind of power behind his ability to express what he is writing through his writing.  How is that possible?  I feel an actual connection to that person, an actual stir within me, to the point where I want to meet him, just through ink and paper alone.  I, by all means, do not have that reaction to every (nor almost *any*) set of inks and papers.  There is something completely honest about it.

[pts1]

Hmmmm...

I think there is an honest sound at the piano, but unlike the voice it cannot be represented by a single sound.

Well, that single sound is either honest or not.

That's very interesting.

Can you expound on this a bit with some description of examples and how this honest sound differs from a dishonest sound, if the hearer can tell the difference, etc.?

[m1469]

Hmmmm...

I think there is an honest sound at the piano, but unlike the voice it cannot be represented by a single sound.
 

That's very interesting.

Can you expound on this a bit with some description of examples and how this honest sound differs from a dishonest sound, if the hearer can tell the difference, etc.?

An example of a post built upon a belief and a learned behavior in what it means to teach, to learn, and to express.  That our original source of utterance is built upon pure emotion (and perhaps studied and learned psychological reactions in another) and, more broadly, what is often expressed on the forum, the idea that our vernacular is "about" turning chaos into order and that this is the essence of our desire to phonate, create, and express.  That it is this very thing which makes us musicians and artists.  The purpose in holding to those beliefs as the primary way of teaching is built upon the human experience, some of it scientific, some of it just individually experience-based, but not necessarily hitting precisely your own, unique, vernacular or origiinal source of utterance, but perhaps the best one can do for now with something that is considered and sometimes observed to have satisfactory results (at least in degrees) but can always be improved upon.  But, what about still that very basic need when one is just alone, perceiving for themselves the chaos and turning it into order as a means for effective teaching?  What about just that very basic desire to relate with another, and to share something meaningful?  It's not found in cigarettes, alcohol, food, porn, or in some ways even sound ... somehow there's still some need that is not met by those or by belief systems alone.  There is still a deeper honesty to be inhabited, expressed, learned about, which is outside of human concept, though perhaps not exclusive of all other beings.

[p2u_]

There is still a deeper honesty to be inhabited, expressed, learned about, which is outside of human concept, though perhaps not exclusive of all other beings.

Sorry, m1469 to interrupt your conversation with pts1, but are you relating to a state of selfoblivion maybe? The state when the artist is just a medium, and the music plays itself through him/her?

Paul

[pts1]

.

[m1469]

Firstly, I will state that the fact that you choose to appear as "anonymous" to me is perceived by me as built upon some of the same and related beliefs as I stated in my post above.  Secondly, "where the rubber meets the road" in terms of this elusive "practically speaking" attempt is something I have come to accept as very individual and not absolute.  The very fact that the first point I brought up, and everything I perceive it to be built upon, exists in this discussion, makes me willing only so much.  I also believe that you bring up my errors in the Appassionata because you would like me to somehow deal with that issue psychologically, as well as pianistically, and are betting based on some perception of my character, that I am willing to do so publicly.  At this point it becomes a decision for me, because most of the things I've stated above wouldn't make me want to meet you (even if I already have), but I know that as a performer, I have no choice but to digest in whatever way is healthy for me, a relationship with the public, so I will procede on the grounds that I am choosing to use this as a form of practicing that ability to digest.

But, I can't answer your question in the simplistic and small dimensions you ask it in.  It's not my fault that your question doesn't address the issue, so, yes, I have to take the scope into larger grounds, which is for me the most practical approach as it deals with the source and not just the symptoms.  The errors in the Appassionata were, at this point, or if they continue past this point, mainly symptoms.  Symptoms of in fact not having a more clear idea first, not symptoms of mechanics, so something I see very clearly in the last couple of days is that I simply can't keep trying to deal with those in mechanics alone, there is something more I am needing to come to terms with which effects the mechanics.

Sorry, m1469 to interrupt your conversation with pts1, but are you relating to a state of selfoblivion maybe? The state when the artist is just a medium, and the music plays itself through him/her?

Paul

In thinking about this idea of singing vs. playing, and the concept that one is more personal than the other, after some deeper thought I came to the conclusion that this is very much a matter of perception, perhaps built upon many factors (such as it being said by somebody who never achieved a certain level of playing but did achieve a certain level of singing), but primarily within the concept of being the creator, and having the actual sensation of resonance in the main cavities within our bodies where we can experience that resonance.  Without that sensation of resonance, a singer wouldn't feel the same way about singing.  In a piano, the resonance of the sound creation takes place in the instrument body vs. our own bodies, and this is, I think, perhaps the main distinguishing factor which affects a person's perception.  Then I started thinking about resonance and what that is, it is vibration, and vibration is movement.  As listeners, no matter what we are listening to, we experience some kind of sympethetic vibration to the sound and to the expression behind it, and that is true for us as listeners when we are performing, whether we are performing as a singer or a pianist.  We will always experience some kind of sympathetic resonance with the sound, and then the difference with singing is that we also experience the direct resonance of the creation of it.  But, again, that resonance is only motion, and in piano playing we do experience motion in our arms, hands, and fingers.  The most ideal technique, I determined, was to perceive these pianistic motions as the very same kind of resonance a singer experiences in creating sound; that our motions at the piano are intrinsic resonance and motion with the sound being created, and in both cases, the original source of utterance is our very need.  And, btw, if we are intrinsically built with the ability to phonate through our bodies, where does the intense desire to phonate through an instrument come from, if not from within our very being on some level that can't be achieved simply by phonating with our voices?  Maybe some people feel personally stunted in their abilities to sing, and could say that's why they play, but what about somebody who can sing but chooses to still play?

The original source of utterance is dealing straight with the whys ... even if a reader doesn't believe in "why" it is dealing with it nonetheless.  The why is based in need.  Is there a need?  Why should I perfect the Appassionata?  So somebody like you can't point out the more obvious imperfections?  Not reason enough for me to spend the time and effort, to put off hiking, bicycling, having children.  It's just not enough.  So, if you would like to talk practicality, please feel free to answer those things on behalf of everything my life means, on behalf of everything I have already overcome, and on behalf of my life's fulfillment.  Afterall, there are plenty of people already playing the Appassionata, I don't know that there is a need from the world that I play it.  In fact, there most likely is not.

So, what is that original source of utterance, that basic need which would make it worth clarifying these places to myself?  If I find that, then I believe my performance will be more honest to myself, or perhaps I have reached somewhere that I simply have no need to reach beyond and maybe that is honest to myself.

[m1469]

haha ... and there's WAY more.

[m1469]

And, btw, "honest to oneself" doesn't necessarily mean "how it's supposed to sound."  In fact, that's the whole point of finding the original source of utterance, it's exactly supposed to be somewhere you allow yourself to exist that is basic and instinctual, and then you work out from there.  I happen to feel, at this point in my life, that I need to find this.  Not necessarily that my end goal is to allow (or rather plan) for errors in my playing, but that I take a moment to find that basic source where I am not trying to be something or somebody "proper," and can find a natural flow which, I believe, will allow me to fix errors if they exist or, ideally, avoid them altogether.  

[Bob]

The only dishonest element I can think of might be style.  Just something cheap, thrown together... not really sincere, masquerading as something more than the creator put into it.  

For sound, sound is sound.  It's not honest or dishonest.  Unless m1469 meant 'more connected to the performer's mind and attention' as being honest.  Even then, if the quality is there and someone is performing without really paying attention or being in the moment, it's not really 'dishonest.'  And that wouldn't necessarily be something you can hear in the sound.

[m1469]

(...) because most of the things I've stated above wouldn't make me want to meet you (even if I already have),

I'd like to clarify what I mean by this.  This is not to put you down, pts, it is to point out that I believe there is more to feeling drawn to somebody or something than mere emotion, even if you achieve an emotional reaction within another.  That a communication straight from, or honest to, an original source of utterance is a different experience than (complicated) emotions.  AND, that my stating earlier that I feel a certain stir in reading the book that I am reading, and a connection with the author (to the point of wanting to meet him), is more or different than mere emotion.  My perception and experience reading this book is that he aims to communicate about an idea called the "original source of utterance" and also speaks/communicates straight from that same place and I can feel that.  And, the point he tries to make about that is that to speak, communicate, perform, and live from that place is stirring and potentially gives the listener a unique experience, and my experience as a reader, reading these ideas that he is communicating from the original source of utterance, is that I experience a life-altering stir ... that is not mere emotion.  That is something more which helps my entire being and has its own, unique quality in terms of a type of experience.

I think that good intentions can be discerned, even if wrapped up in distractions.  But, I do believe that ultimately, the core of what we do as musicians, we want that to be a direct line to the original source, even if we learn how to refine that.

[p2u_]

@ m1469

Your question goes deeper than I thought. The  only way I can react right now is to tell you a bit about how I experience things (I also happen to be a rather good singer, by the way, but I will limit myself to the piano).

The relationship with my instrument is very intimate. For me it's like being in love. It's like making love (whenever I play). "It's always the same act, but every time it's different". (Arthur Rubinstein) The movements with my fingers are erotic (that's how I sense them) and even if I don't have a piano available, I can call those sensations and they make me feel good. Dishonesty has no place there.

Performing for people, though, ads some dimension, not always positive. The expectations of the audience of "how it's supposed to be" place a very heavy burden upon the player, and that's where insincere elements may slip in, because one doesn't want to stand totally naked and vulnerable before an audience. For me there's only one way to cope with this: master the art of the illusionists we are (because while playing, your mind should not be busy asking such questions) and try not to lose the erotics. It's a bit like telling a good joke; you have to calculate a lot to get the right effect and make people really laugh. If you want to make people cry, then the last thing you do is start crying yourself; this won't work. Now during a concert, it should work all like a tornado: quiet and controlled in the center (where you are) and waves, swirls of emotions circling around you (where the public is). If everyting is OK, they will feel it and perceive every sound as 'honest', although your playing may not be perfect.

Hope that makes sense?

Paul

[Edit: quite to quiet]

[pts1]

.

[m1469]

From the get go, I worried when I read this, your first sentence, that things weren't going to go smoothly.

My wife has said similar things -- "I don't know who you are any more" -- which is the marital equivalent of "you choose to appear anonymous".

Ah HA!
THIS, I think, is the REAL answer to my question, eventhough my question was "simplistic and of small dimension".
 
You must forgive me, I only have a few brain cells remaining, and even they are at war with one another.

BTW, I have officially ended my war with Marik, since I ran out of flaming pianos and my trebuchet caught fire and burned to the ground. I PM'd him extending the olive branch and we shared apologies. So fear not, I plan no hositilities with you... which is my seque to:

Holy Cow!

You have to remember I'm male, and as such, am much more simple than the female of the species, and everything I say or ask is not some covert Machiavellian attempt to chip away at some deeply psychological issue... I mean even Freude said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Since this thread is your thread, I simply made the effort to relate it to something you could personally "relate to" and somewhere in this land mine ridden series of "explanations" I think I have ferreted out the answer I sought and MUCH MUCH MORE!

(remind me not to ask you what time it is, since you may explain to me the history of Cuckoo Clock making in Switzerland!.... bet you've heard something like this before from people who know you.}

Which seques to my last and final point, because I just can't go on:

You wouldn't want to meet me!? (sniffle, sniffle, burp, sniffle)

What did I do now!

(I fear, waxing to some existential dimension of eternal pain, that we may have been married in some past life and this is your way of reminding me of it as the really, really "original utterance"
maybe back in the cave man days when there really were little more than "utterances" ... and grunts.... the women uttered, the men grunted.)

"?" (nyiregyhazi)

I do hold Marik in high regard, though I view him as perfectly capable of taking care of himself.  And I don't necessarily care whether you've given some kind of secret/private apology to him, but rather care how he feels and thinks and I trust that straight from him rather than from anybody else about him.  

[pianowolfi]

You must forgive me, I only have a few brain cells remaining, and even they are at war with one another.

With all due respect, Sir, but that has been out of question anyway, ever since you're posting on this board, I think  

[pts1]

"?" (nyiregyhazi)
I do hold Marik in high regard, though I view him as perfectly capable of taking care of himself.  And I don't necessarily care whether you've given some kind of secret/private apology to him, but rather care how he feels and thinks and I trust that straight from him rather than from anybody else about him.

Are you suggesting your entire dialogue with me been wrapped in a cloak of suspicion and dislike, and therefore full of "dishonest utterances"?

Since you brought it up, caring how Marik feels and thinks (presumably about my secret apology) check with him and hear whatever he has to say straight from him.

So do you or do you not wish to carry on what I thought was a sincere dialogue about "honest piano sounds".

Just say the word.

[pts1]

With all due respect, Sir, but that has been out of question anyway, ever since you're posting on this board, I think 

So is the forum, perhaps, a bit like religion: Full of tolerance and forgiveness on Sundays... but not so much in actual practice?

[thalbergmad]

Reading this thread, I find myself in a state of bewilderment.

Thal

[Bob]

https://www.wstephensmith.com/bio.html

This guy's a voice teacher.  But he's explaining the psychology of an infant, their motivations for speaking?  Unless he's got a lot of research I don't buy that at all. Use of the voice could just be "because it's there" and not based on an emotional need.  You could also say the use of anything is based on an emotional then too -- Babies move because they have an emotional need to control their environment. Babies eat because they have an emotional need to control the hunger pangs... Later as an adult are they going to eat honestly or dishonest based on how connected they are with their original inspiration for eating?   You could have honest or dishonest everything... If honesty is how connected the action is with the original source of need. 

Plus... Some music isn't meant to have any expression.  If you are tying production of sound to an emotion, would it be dishonest to the music if you added in expression that wasn't meant to be there? 

[pts1]

You could have honest or dishonest everything... If honesty is how connected the action is with the original source of need.

Right.

I was trying to get to a point with m1469 of showing -- via her own performance, so she could relate to the issue on a really personal basis -- that something may well have honest intent but not be communicated "honestly" to the audience due to errors, interpretation, what have you.

As well, things may be communicated to the audience moving them profoundly, and an expert performer may be thinking about what he's going to have for dinner as he performs.

[p2u_]

I was trying to get to a point with m1469 of showing -- via her own performance, so she could relate to the issue on a really personal basis -- that something may well have honest intent but not be communicated "honestly" to the audience due to errors, interpretation, what have you.

Ouch. That's a very unfortunate word choice and a very unfortunate idea in itself in the light of who m1469 is and what she does. I've listened to virtually everything she does (forced by this topic that left me just as bewildered as anybody else) and I must say: I believe her. I think she realizes better than anybody else what needs to be improved and where. No personal grudge against you, pts1, but you had no right to make it so personal, especially since in this case it is completely misplaced. Dishonesty (or insincerity) in the art of performing is when a person is DELIBERATELY untrue to him/herself and/or to the composer, most likely in a vain attempt to "please" the public or whatever. With m1469 this is NEVER the case.

Paul

[pts1]

Ouch. That's a very unfortunate word choice and a very unfortunate idea in itself in the light of who Maya is and what she does

Well then, I apologize.

I didn't realize she was this sensitive? Is that a fair way of characterizing what you're trying to tell me?

In fact, I was not being critical of her playing at all, and tried to broach the issue with "kid gloves".

(as a side note; when I was young, teachers (post WWII immigrant Europeans) and other piano students were just brutal. No holds barred harsh criticism and very little praise. If you weren't tough enough to take it, then too bad, you didn't have what it takes to be a pianist.)

And unlike you, I don't "know" who m1469 is other than what she types on this board, and she seems like a pretty "robust" personality.

But since you see it as "so personal", then I'll accept this and apologize to her directly, if she shows back up.

I think, through unintended consequences, you're saying dishonesty in performance with "m1469 ... is never the case."

So the conclusion has to be that errors in performance have nothing to do with a dishonest sound.

Therefore, for the listener, there is really no way to assess an honest sound from a dishonest sound.

[p2u_]

So the conclusion has to be that errors in performance have nothing to do with a dishonest sound.

Correct.

Therefore, for the listener, there is really no way to assess an honest sound from a dishonest sound.

I'm pretty sure it *can* be perceived when something is "fake", especially by people who are also "in the business". The only problem is: you don't talk about those things, and you certainly don't give specific examples/names in public. You just don't attend any other concerts by such a person.

Paul

[pts1]

The only problem is: you don't talk about those things, and you certainly don't give specific examples/names in public. You just don't attend any other concerts by such a person.

Are you talking about m1469 and others on this forum?

If you're talking about professional pianists, they are regularly savaged by critics and people on this forum.... Lang Lang, for instance, the subject of much criticism and outright derision.

And I would call a good deal of what he does "dishonest".

I certainly prefer to be polite and gentle -- and would like the same in return -- but political correctness is one of my real hatreds. More and more society has turned everything into mush for fear of offending anyone about anything.

It is no longer OK to tell the truth (your truth) and call a spade a spade.

It has even been adopted by countries, for pity's sake.

France for instance will no longer be France at the rate its going. Other ethnicities have really started to take over instead of assimilate. Will the Eiffel Tower one day be just
another mosque?

I've heard from some Brits that they are dismayed with the direction their country is headed. England too is becoming a little less English over time.

Preserving and being proud of one's ethnicity and strengths is somehow viewed as "anti someone else" these days.

So far, little Switzerland has managed to quietly keep out "undesirables" and maintained their "Swissness" quite nicely. So too have the Scandinavian countries, I think.

In the US, people -- thinking people -- are really fed up with it. The Boy Scouts gets sued and attacked for "discriminating against girls". Private Clubs are disparaged for being private and not "all inclusive". Blacks are no longer blacks, American Indians are no longer American Indians, Mexicans are no longer Mexicans -- they've all been renamed something less offensive.

 Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc are intolerant hateful religions while Muslim is the religion of peace (never mind those guys in the planes on 9/11, the beheadings., etc)...and oh yes, and Christmas scenes and Christmas songs during Christmas are discriminatory and anti-Muslim and anti-every-other-religion-sect-cult on the planet.

Yes, one day we'll truly be One World and everything will be smooth, characterless, easily digested pap.

Hmmmmm.... Beethoven and Bach may well be discriminatory against somebody, now that I think of it.

[p2u_]

The only problem is: you don't talk about those things, and you certainly don't give specific examples/names in public. You just don't attend any other concerts by such a person.

Are you talking about m1469 and others on this forum?

No, I wouldn't dare because I don't know anybody here. "Big names" only.

If you're talking about professional pianists, they are regularly savaged by critics and people on this forum.... Lang Lang, for instance, the subject of much criticism and outright derision.

And I would call a good deal of what he does "dishonest".

Lang Lang deserves to be forgiven. He has been making efforts in the right direction lately.

I certainly prefer to be polite and gentle -- and would like the same in return -- but political correctness is one of my real hatreds. More and more society has turned everything into mush for fear of offending anyone about anything.

It is no longer OK to tell the truth (your truth) and call a spade a spade.

I don't do politics, let alone political correctness. "Honesty" and "Dishonesty" in art is of a higher, may I say spiritual, order. Art is supposed to reveal a certain "truth", something that is hard to find in our physical world/society. It is an obligation for musicians to be true to themselves, true to the composers whose works they perform and true to the audience that is supposed to be part of the experience. That's all I want to say for now. Words cannot express what I mean anyway.

P.S.: Gotta go. It's bedtime here.

Paul

[m1469]

[pts1]

A hopeful sign.... to see you have a sense of humor.

[m1469]

A hopeful sign.... to see you have a sense of humor.

You are not my teacher, you are not my peer, so far there is very little and almost nothing about your posts which I find myself feeling a response to, and I generally find your attitude and approach towards me to be based upon something I can't accept as part of my learning experience in the ways you declare yourself to be aiming at.  I never asked anybody to help me understand my own thoughts, but rather asked what other's thought about what I brought up, and I believe that if you would like to use somebody's playing as an example in this particular context (especially in the light of none other than to point out mistakes), you might do very well to put your own on the platform, especially considering that it's presumable you understand yourself and your own musicianship to a much higher degree than anybody else's inner workings along those lines.  Afterall, I am not in a lesson with you nor have I asked you for your advice about my playing and person.  This doesn't mean I rule out the possibility of having a more meaningful interaction and conversation with you, it just hasn't really hit home for me yet.

[m1469]

https://www.wstephensmith.com/bio.html

This guy's a voice teacher.  But he's explaining the psychology of an infant, their motivations for speaking?  Unless he's got a lot of research I don't buy that at all. Use of the voice could just be "because it's there" and not based on an emotional need.  You could also say the use of anything is based on an emotional then too -- Babies move because they have an emotional need to control their environment. Babies eat because they have an emotional need to control the hunger pangs... Later as an adult are they going to eat honestly or dishonest based on how connected they are with their original inspiration for eating?   You could have honest or dishonest everything... If honesty is how connected the action is with the original source of need.  

Plus... Some music isn't meant to have any expression.  If you are tying production of sound to an emotion, would it be dishonest to the music if you added in expression that wasn't meant to be there?  

One of the things that strikes me about his writing is the very fact that he has a pretty impressive biography/resume, yet his communication is not about that.  Its essence is about ideas and clarity.  I imagine it can be tricky for people who have been in the field for quite awhile, and perhaps when they have acquired experiences which can nearly speak for them, or in some ways instead of them, and in many ways experiences or jobs which seem to speak entirely for themselves (for example, if you use the word Julliard many people don't need/want to hear anything more), to maintain a sense of clarity in their own, personal truth.

I think, along the lines of this thread of substance that is somewhere in this topic, that even before a performer gets 'into' thinking about being true to a composer, one must be true to themselves.  To me that isn't yet on the level of "I'm going to crescendo here even though it says diminuendo, because that's the way I see, feel, and hear it."  No, I mean something more fundamental than that.  I am not yet fascinated by the psychology of infants, nor am I necessarily concerned with the correctness nor ability of W. Stephen Smith's to assess what the psychology of infants is; what I connect with is the idea of there being an original source of utterance based on need.  What I 'get' is that there is some basic desire which causes a person to phonate, and I believe there is a basic desire which would cause a person to phonate at an instrument, and I feel it's beneficial, as an artist, to have a sense of what that is.  Even if what that is changes over time, it's important to be aware of the deep source, and I think that source and the awareness of it, is more powerful than anything else we could communicate.  That's what I believe, and I believe that based on experience, but also instinct, and I want to find out more about it as a basic idea to work from, not about whether or not somebody's interpretation of a piece is correct or likeable.

For me, reading this book has created, as I have mentioned, a life-altering stir, and therefore I find myself assessing my entire outlook on life in a whole new way.  In some of my posts above, my ideas were still too big to get fully communicated.  Perhaps as I learn and grow more, I will get better at it.

[pts1]

.

[m1469]

Now, if you'll work on this much and dig deep and tell me what you are REALLY thinking, so we can all understand, then I'll be more than happy to continue and get to the other parts of your post

But I find that I have no desire to make myself clear to you in the ways that you act as though I should, and I don't feel it's even possible to do if I aim to do so based on your questions and mentality as presented.  I also don't believe that you truly speak for all possible readers.  

There is another point in the book that I would like to bring up and which I was aiming to get to further up in response to p2u, but it will have to wait until I am done running errands.

[pianowolfi]

What exactly IS my attitude and approach?
What exactly IS it based on?

Perhaps on those few remaining brain cells that you mentioned above?  
Don't slap me, I'm just guessing...

[Bob]

So honest here is the impulse to make a sound come from the original source of motivation, either from being an infant or from where ever it began?

In that case, I'd say no, you can't hear that in the sound.  If there were something about the sound like that a professional sound be able to create whatever effect they want, ie fake it. 

[j_menz]

I think that a "sound", or if you prefer, a musical interpretation, can have an honest source or a calculated false one.  In order for that sound to become manifest, however, the singer or pianist needs to have sufficient technical skill to produce it. If they have that, they also have the technical skill to fake it. If they don't, the sound will be false to the intent irrespective of whether the original intent was honest or not.

[m1469]

So honest here is the impulse to make a sound come from the original source of motivation, either from being an infant or from where ever it began?

I don't think of it as the original impulse from the beginning of time (or from the beginning of our individual time on earth), but rather that of being a natural, human reaction to life, which we experience throughout our entire lives, and even as newborn babies (as well as breath).  To me there is a sense of nowness to it.  Part of W. Stephen Smith's teaching practice is to undress the voice from whatever it's been "taught" to be, and to find what is its natural state, and I think there is a parallel to his live-teaching and his ability to communicate with purpose through his book.  I think there is a psychological purpose to bringing it up in the book, purposefully aiming to tap into the reader's natural state.  There is more to it all and I believe any musician and performer could benefit from reading it themselves, but it might be one of those things where it also needs to be at a point of receptivity within the reader.

One of the very interesting points that he brought up was that a person's vernacular can become contaminated or altered (while growing up, but later in life, too), in some particular cases where there may have been/be pressure to behave in certain ways.  That a person's speech patterns can become complicated, and part of what is so stirring for me is that I believe there is a direct link to my own vernacular speech patterns and my vernacular at the piano (maybe that's true for everybody, without everybody necessarily knowing it?).  That might sound strange, but I think it's true, and if it's not true as I state it, I think it's at least interesting to consider the idea of a contaminated pianistic vernacular and how a pianist was raised (as a pianist) or trained.  A pianist's vernacular, it would seem, and free-flow of pianistic/musical thought could be just as susceptible to contamination as speech could be.

[Bob]

So the honest part is whether the performer feels like they're saying something to the audience?  Or whether they feel the need to say something to audience and then follow through with that?

I'd still say that could be faked.

[m1469]

So the honest part is whether the performer feels like they're saying something to the audience?  Or whether they feel the need to say something to audience and then follow through with that

Yes, I think that is along the lines, but if you go back to a baby crying when s/he first arrives at the scene, it's not necessarily because s/he thinks "I'm going to communicate" but it is rather a natural and instinctual reaction to being born.  Later, as baby learns that cries get reactions from others, then it becomes more of a communication based on more specific needs.  I think that there first just needs to be an impulse within us to make this sound, to phonate as a means of expression and I think "communication" is a second impulse, though perhaps nearly simultaneous (and probably perceivable as simultaneous).  

I think part of the "contamination" if a person's speech patterns start to include a stutter, for example, is precisely rooted in an inability (based on a psychological whatever) to follow through with a communication.  This in particular is very pertinent for me, it seems.  There isn't a section specifically about stuttering in the book, but he does talk about the need to follow through with plans (in the act of music-making), and here I realized some things about myself.  There's more that I want to get to and it's related, but I can't quite articulate it yet.  My thoughts as I reacted to what I was reading are about an idea of perpetual motion, and the things I started posting about regarding motion and resonance, and then related to breath and technique.  Agh, there's too many ideas attached to one another ... swimming is in there, too ... haha ... and the concept/perception of good and evil ... haha ... and there being a blueprint of the universe which matches the blueprint of our soul ... all of existence being in motion ... etc..

Yesterday I immersed myself in bathwater just to listen underwater and I loved it.  I haven't done that in a long time but used to relish it as a child ... in pools, lakes, the ocean ... it instantly filled me with memories and deep joy.

[Bob]

I would think stuttering is more physical, not something learned.  Some kind of nervous tick.

I don't buy it.  The original need to communciate part.  I think a performer could "speak" to an audience, but they don't have to in order to be effective.  If this author is basing things off developmental theories I don't think he's got the background for it, unless he's done a lot of studying that isn't apparent.

I don't know if there is motivation in a baby.  They cry because they're wired up to cry to get attention.  I don't think their brain is finished develping yet.  I'm not an expert, but I don't think they're feeling motivated to cry.  They just cry.  Who knows...?

[p2u_]

I don't know if there is motivation in a baby.  They cry because they're wired up to cry to get attention.  I don't think their brain is finished develping yet.  I'm not an expert, but I don't think they're feeling motivated to cry.  They just cry.  Who knows...?

Let's see... Imagine having lived in the womb for 9 months (it's much like in m1469's bathwater experience). You may hear mummy's heartbeat, you may hear mummy's music "under water" and you may even like it all. Above all: it's cosy, you're protected... And then BANG! Red alert. You're being pushed out rather violently. Being born is a very traumatic experience - suddenly all that pressure, all that pain, all that light, all those people in white around you doing stuff with you without your consent, people wanting to hold you, kiss you while the only thing you want to do is sleep, eat maybe near Mummy's breast. Wouldn't you call that motivation enough to communicate the idea of "Leave me alone", "I wanna go back"?

Paul

[Bob]

Is there an urge though?  Or do they just cry?  Just a reaction? 

They don't have much memory, or most people don't.  I don't think they're consciously thinking.

What's the motivation then?  Feed me?  Keep me warm? (Look out I'm going to... ah....)  What are we supposed to take from that to connect with for a performance? 

A baby's motivation would be me, me, me.  A performance is about giving something to the audience or communicating/telling them something.  Or not -- It's just presenting the piece.

[p2u_]

Is there an urge though?  Or do they just cry?  Just a reaction?  

They don't have much memory, or most people don't.  I don't think they're consciously thinking.

What's the motivation then?  Feed me?  Keep me warm? (Look out I'm going to... ah....)  What are we supposed to take from that to connect with for a performance?

Well, crying may be a bad example, but I'm pretty sure they are programmed to communicate. A mother will recognize her own child even blindfolded in a crowd of I-don't-know-how-many other babies by the sound her baby's voice produces. I also remember we used a "babyphone" to monitor in another room how the baby was doing. It sometimes sounded as if the baby was talking to himself. And what about smiling (also a form of communication) without ever having learned that behavior, without knowing what muscles to move to do that, etc.?

As to the value of all this for "performance": unfortunately, we are systematically taught NOT to show our emotions, to eliminate spontaneity from our behavior. "Men don't cry", "Don't laugh in church", and a whole bunch of other "cultural" nonsense. The voice (one of the mirrors of our soul) suffers from that and can become quite timid, dishonest if you wish (trying to express something we don't really feel), because the threat of punishment is greater than the wish to communicate something truthfully. There may well be a connection with the problems people experience while playing and the emotional inhibition we are taught "for our own good". As I understand it, the author of that article is talking about retrieving that natural ability for sincere expression we have lost so long ago. The voice is just one means to express ourselves, to communicate something; the fingertips is another, our posture yet another, etc. I see (and hear) nothing but similar problems in people in that area...

Paul

[Bob]

So honest is actually feeling the expression of the music?

But not all music is meant to have expression.  Some is just sound.  It's great if the performer feels it and you can hear that or sense it.  But it can be faked too.  Maybe there are subtle signs of it, but it could all be acted.

Part of the performer's role I think is to lull/trick the the audience into a certain mindset.  If they can do that, it's a better performance.  That would be something like keeping the audience focused on what the performer wants instead of having them focus on mistakes or having their minds wander.  If the piece of music has expression, then it might include having the performer convince the audience that they're actually feeling that expression, whether they really are or not.   If they connect with something deep inside themselves and actually feel it, great.  If they build it up and create it in rehearsal, great. Either way works.

[p2u_]

So honest is actually feeling the expression of the music?

Hmmm... yes, but not during performance; this could paralyze you as a performer. I gave the example earlier that if you want to make the audience cry, you don't start crying yourself, otherwise you will look like a fool and they'll start laughing. You have to have a good command of what the intended emotion is and how to evoke it in the audience with the means given by the composer and a couple of tricks of the trade (intonation, timing to name a few). But at the same time the chosen image should be appropriate for the situation. In Prokofieff, for example, it would be a big mistake to always strive for "beautiful-ish" sound because the topic is often about not so beautiful things. The most difficult pieces in honesty/dishonesty are the slow ones, of course. It very easily becomes kitsch (tasteless junk) with an air of "emotion"... Besides, you cannot play an andante or adagio by Haydn in the first person ("I"); it should be in the third (more as a narrator). You cannot make the sound in Mozart too thick (too much arm), or it won't be Mozart, etc. The very first intonation of even one tone (sound) in such works is enough to reveal everything; it's either right or wrong.

And of course, the task in music is not always emotion; sometimes it's just painting a landscape, but people who don't have a sense of style may still try to "put some emotion into it" to "please" the public and then it becomes a lie. That's one of those moments when I leave a concert hall immediately...

Paul