horizontal versus vertical and listening vs self-delusion

[nyiregyhazi]

I've started writing on a blog post on these issues, following on from discussion in the topic that was originally about Bach.

Anway, J Menz insists that attention to voicing on a vertical level is a dirty and shameful thing for a pianist to consider, so I recorded a video to illustrate the destructive folly of this attitude.

The start features two segments played with no significant vertical hierarchy- with accompaniment played at around the same volume as bass and melody, as on his own performance. Then I played through to illustrate the difference to the sense of horizontal melody. The first clearly sounds like average amateur piano playing- with little to it but a series of plods. I actually couldn't help but start voicing the accompaniment some of the time, however, and probably should have used my digital with dynamics turned off, to illustrate it fully. The playthrough is by no means an ideal performance (I haven't practised the work but had played through once and then made the recording straight after in one take).  However, I think it's pretty clear which one sounds horizontal and which one sounds vertical.  

Like the first example, this sounds almost entirely vertical in conception- regardless of how strong the horizontal intentions were.

When you don't create and use to your ears to observe the quality of hierarchy between a primary voice and a secondary element, horizontal lines cannot even begin to get off the ground. You don't need to have a go at anyone for listening wrongly when you differentiate musical voices properly, as a foundation upon which to build horizontal phrases. Putting a singing line in the listeners head is something you earn by avoiding the competing sound of heavy accompaniment attacks, not something you earn by telling them they should listen horizontally. The first approach inspires vertical awareness in the listener (no matter how strongly the pianist imagines horizontal lines), the second inspires horizontal awareness. Putting together a pianistic sound is like an animator making a film. Obviously it's about the implied connection between frames, to make a smooth progression. But that doesn't mean you don't have to pay attention to both the inherent qualities of how you draw each character within individual frames, as well as how you imagine the frames might link into a whole. It's not much use if anyone looking at a particular frame can't tell which character is supposed to be donald duck and which one is supposed to be micky mouse.

nb. I'm not posting to this to try and say I'm a great pianist or to compete with anyone- but rather because I care so greatly about the issue of musical voicing in pianism and to proper understanding of how it functions. An ideal performance would feature even better differentiation between the lines than my playthrough. At around 2.24 and at many other momements of crescendo I got carried away in the horizontal motion of the lines and made very little differentiation between left hand bass and accompaniments. The horizontal attention to the main line allowed the accompaniment to become noisy (rather than carefully placed into the texture) and actually makes it sound too vertical. Anyway, the point is that I don't like seeing someone preaching about how awful it is to see the big picture from multiple viewpoints and trying to write off the validity of one of those fundamentally necessary viewpoints outright- and then demonstrating that they fall significantly short of basic musical standards, in a manner that is clearly associated to what they have refuse to make a place for on their musical radar. If such pianists as Cortot and Horowitz had taken such a small-minded attitude about the role of listening to interactions between voices in the moment, they would never have learned to either layer their sounds as they did, or to convey long musical lines as they did. You can't hope to produce multiple layers unless you actually listen to the interactions between voices. And you can't make meaningful horizontal lines in two things or more at once unless you can first tonally differentiate between those layers with complete control. Trying to hear things in an exclusively horizontal way does not inspire an unbiased listener to hear horizontally, if you don't bother to pay more than the faintest shred of attention to differentiation between parts (by using the ears to observe yourself, rather than the imagination to create a throughly innacurate subjective picture for yourself alone).


I'm afraid that the old doctrine that horizontal is good and vertical is bad just doesn't hold an ounce of credibility (and ironically, that which is referred to as too "vertical" in conception often suffers precisely because no attention has been paid to making differentiations between vertical layers). Both elements have constant ongoing role in any half-decent pianism. The attention must be moved around between all kinds of different things, or the results sound like typical piano playing, not like deeper music making. A pianist who cannot yet use his hearing to pick up on serious voicing deficiency on a vertical level is not going to have much luck trying to make sophisticated balancing of multiple voices on a horizontal level.

[brogers70]

You are absolutely right. You have to pay attention to the relative volume of notes you play simultaneously. Also you have to pay attention to the sound you actually make rather than the sound you wish you could make, and you can't blame the listener for not hearing the sounds you only dream of. Seems pretty obvious.

I can't speak for j_menz, but nothing in what I wrote about auditory processing, or the revision of your auditory perceptions contradicts those points that you feel so strongly about.

I gave the example of the cutaneous rabbit illusion. If you didn't read the link what happens is this. Blindfold a subject. With a dull pin or pencil give them six taps evenly spaced in time, two at the wrist, two at the forearm and two at the elbow. They will feel a series of six taps moving up their arm, each tap a little farther up the arm. At first that sounds fine. The brain synthesizes the experience from beginning to end into a smooth progression of taps equally spaced along the arm. But wait. Why do you feel the second tap higher up the arm than the first? At the time of the second tap you haven't felt the third and fourth taps at the forearm or the fifth and sixth at the elbow yet. The brain is not only filling in the blanks of an imagined series of taps up the arm, but is back dating the experience (so to speak) so that you experience the second tap farther up the arm than the first, even though at the true time you felt the second tap, the brain had no basis on which to extrapolate the direction that the series of taps would take, or even that there would be more than two taps. Not only do you not experience what you think you experienced, you don't even experience it at the time you think you experienced it. You must have had a brief experience of the first two taps happening in the same place, but that was written over an backdated and you lose access to it immediately.

Similar things happen in auditory perception. Play a crescendo skillfully in a single line on the piano. Just a melody, no accompaniment. If you do it right, most listeners will hear a single crescendo, rather than what really happens, a series of decrescendos each starting from a higher volume. That is the sort of perceptual illusion that pianists exploit all the time. There's no wishful thinking involved and no dumping of an absurd burden on the listener. That doesn't mean that you don't have to pay attention to what is happening vertically, but it does mean that what happens at time = t + 1 influences how you think you perceive what happened at time = t. Painters exploit quirks of the visual processing system and musicians exploit quirks of the auditory processing system; that's not wishful thinking, or delusion, or making ridiculous demands on the audience. It's skill.

[j_menz]

Anway, J Menz insists that attention to voicing on a vertical level is a dirty and shameful thing for a pianist to consider

I never said anything of the sort.

Good to see you dressed up for the video.

[j_menz]

I must say I'm curious why you are going on about this piece.  Being charitable, I'm assuming you believe it is a good example of a polyphonic piece  to demonstrate the importance of a vertical approach (rather than just taking it as one piece I have a pretty dodgy recording of me playing and so being a cheap shot).

Yet it seems to me that this is almost entirely a melody/harmony piece. Ie, pretty much entirely a piece to be approached with vertical considerations.

There are a (very) few, very short moments where there may be considerations of a polyphonic nature, but pretty much all of it is melody/harmony. It is one of the reasons I'm not a great fan of Tchaikovsky's piano works - a real talent for polyphony in his orchestral works appears to desert him when confronted with a keyboard.

So, whatever the (manifest) deficiencies of my own performance of this, the reason is not "horizontal thinking", because I don't think of this horizontally. I would take it as a work where your views on the primacy of the vertical are pretty much self evident. That does not excuse my performance, but neither does your interpretation explain it.

Now, if we can move on to a piece which is actually primarily polyphonic in nature, we may have a proper space for discussion. The fact that you think this particular piece may be one would indicate that you really don't understand polyphony at all.

[lostinidlewonder]

Lol @ choosing to play the Tchaikovsky that was used for the Pianostreet competition earlier in the year. I think you were outplayed by some of the other members here funnily enough. Unfortunately this horizontal/vertical nonsense didn't enhance this particular recording.

I have to agree with j_menz on everything said.

[nyiregyhazi]

Lol @ choosing to play the Tchaikovsky that was used for the Pianostreet competition earlier in the year. I think you were outplayed by some of the other members here funnily enough. Unfortunately this horizontal/vertical nonsense didn't enhance this particular recording.

I have to agree with j_menz on everything said.

thank you for your profoundly detailed and specific criticism of my sight reading. Your post really gets to the heart of the issues and provokes all kinds of avenues for further debate. anyway, rather interesting to know that you agree with J menz about the folly of paying attention to vertical differentiation, an attitude that is to be heard in the first examples of the video and in his recording. A really great example of horizontal lines in those, no, thanks to ignoring the role of vertical listening?


I'll presume that you're simply out to contradict everything I say, as usual, based on your personal dislike. If you'd sooner do that then acknowledge the pronounced musical difference between the sense of line within two examples, fine. it's your reputation as a musician that you place on the line, if you sincerely want to argue that it sounds better without attention to differentiation of voicing than with it, simply to satisfy a personal vendetta.

[brogers70]

I'll presume that you're simply out to contradict everything I say, as usual, based on your personal dislike.

There are a couple of explanations for why you might be getting responses based on personal dislike. It's possible that you're simply telling hard truths to the naive and self-deluded and that they naturally resent that. Nothing much you could do about that but keep up the good fight.

There's another possibility, though. This is what I think goes on. You are constantly thinking about the piano, generating lots of ideas and ways to explain them. Many of them are interesting, particularly some of your exercises. These things are always on your mind. When you see a post that touches on something you're ruminating on, but doesn't line up exactly with your way of expressing your thoughts, you pounce. Instead of responding "Well I agree aith A, B, and C, but I'd de-emphasize D a bit, and I think it's helpful also to consider E." You do something different. You bend the other fellow's post into an exaggerated parody of an error you want to refute, attribute that exaggeration to the other fellow, and then demolish that ridiculous position. Some people get testy when you (seemingly) deliberately twist their words and paint their position in the most ridiculous possible light. And it is absolutely, totally unnecessary. When you have good ideas you don't need to have stupid ideas to batter as a foil. Just present the good ideas.

j_menz never said that thinking vertically was a dirty and shameful thing for a pianist to do. I was talking about subconscious auditory processing, not self-delusion, and even LiIW never said things sounded better when played with no attention to voicing.

You have some good ideas to present; if you'd present them straight up without the unpleasantness, more people would learn something from you.

[nyiregyhazi]

I must say I'm curious why you are going on about this piece.  Being charitable, I'm assuming you believe it is a good example of a polyphonic piece  to demonstrate the importance of a vertical approach (rather than just taking it as one piece I have a pretty dodgy recording of me playing and so being a cheap shot).

Yet it seems to me that this is almost entirely a melody/harmony piece. Ie, pretty much entirely a piece to be approached with vertical considerations. There are a (very) few, very short moments where there may be considerations of a polyphonic nature, but pretty much all of it is melody/harmony. It is one of the reasons I'm not a great fan of Tchaikovsky's piano works - a real talent for polyphony in his orchestral works appears to desert him when confronted with a keyboard.

So, whatever the (manifest) deficiencies of my own performance of this, the reason is not "horizontal thinking", because I don't think of this horizontally. I would take it as a work where your views on the primacy of the vertical are pretty much self evident. That does not excuse my performance, but neither does your interpretation explain it.

Now, if we can move on to a piece which is actually primarily polyphonic in nature, we may have a proper space for discussion. The fact that you think this particular piece may be one would indicate that you really don't understand polyphony at all.

I don't see it as a vertical piece in any respect all. if you treat it that way, you're imposing deficiency upon it. I see it as being of phenomenal importance to make it sound fluid and continuous in melody and bass. if that fails in a piece where there are only two significant musical lines, when significant attention is absent from vertical layers, it's only going to become all the more important when you have additional layers to delineate in the listeners ear. arguably, even the accompaniment needs a horizontal logic. it's just that you need to consider what impact it has on other lines, before you can inject an internal logic. no note should ever exist outside of both an meaningful horionztal context and a meaningful vertical context. I neither stated nor implied that vertical issues are primary here. I illustrated that horizontal ones cannot even begin to exist without vertical balance.


I appreciate that you didn't specifically call vertical attention dirty, but your every post either featured outright denial of the need to cross-reference parts against each other on the vertical level or insistence that it's a tiny part that you are not prepared to give more than the tiniest level of consideration to. there was no willingness to open your mind to the fact that detailed consideration of vertical issues COMPLEMENTS proper consideration of horizontal ones- which is why I made the video, to illustrate how. your recording of the Tchaikovsky demonstrates that even two simple lines will fail to have life as a horizontal phrase, should you fail to give the vertical issues adequate attention, within the overall scheme of thought. you can call the Tchaikovsky different, but the same issues will only apply all the more in denser and more complex textures, not less so. the more voices that are competing, the more perceptions of each voice will be altered by the sound of other voices. The Tchaikovsky is merely a very simple example with no more than three elements at a time, not truly different. If you're interested in polyphony it didn't show- as there was little audible sense of independence in the sound of these elements, within your sound. Apologies for the honesty, but you don't project the sound of someone who is interested in either multiple elements or long lines, no matter how you experience the process. I'd expect someone with a serious interest in serious counterpoint to exploit what there is- not to turn a relatively simple three layered piece into but one layer of sound that exists in dollops rather than horionztal connections.


The significant issue that applies both to Tchaikovsky and Bach is that no matter how well the pianist can track horizontal lines in his own listening, they will not be conveyed to a listener unless correctly proportioned against competing voices- so as to attract an unbiased ear to their progressions. No voice can ever be viewed out of context. there is only ever a balance between the logic of the voice and the logic of the whole. This all started because you made unequivocal assertions that only the logic of the voice matters. you explicitly argued that they should not need to be considered in reference to anything but that voice itself- giving little to no credit to the overwhelmingly huge role of listening to the specific balance between parts at any moment in time. I'm an open minded person, but not with regard to thinking that can only see part of a bigger picture and which tries to deny the rest of it.

[nyiregyhazi]

There are a couple of explanations for why you might be getting responses based on personal dislike. It's possible that you're simply telling hard truths to the naive and self-deluded and that they naturally resent that. Nothing much you could do about that but keep up the good fight.

There's another possibility, though. This is what I think goes on. You are constantly thinking about the piano, generating lots of ideas and ways to explain them. Many of them are interesting, particularly some of your exercises. These things are always on your mind. When you see a post that touches on something you're ruminating on, but doesn't line up exactly with your way of expressing your thoughts, you pounce. Instead of responding "Well I agree aith A, B, and C, but I'd de-emphasize D a bit, and I think it's helpful also to consider E." You do something different. You bend the other fellow's post into an exaggerated parody of an error you want to refute, attribute that exaggeration to the other fellow, and then demolish that ridiculous position. Some people get testy when you (seemingly) deliberately twist their words and paint their position in the most ridiculous possible light. And it is absolutely, totally unnecessary. When you have good ideas you don't need to have stupid ideas to batter as a foil. Just present the good ideas.

j_menz never said that thinking vertically was a dirty and shameful thing for a pianist to do. I was talking about subconscious auditory processing, not self-delusion, and even LiIW never said things sounded better when played with no attention to voicing.

You have some good ideas to present; if you'd present them straight up without the unpleasantness, more people would learn something from you.

I lost patience at the point where I was told that I obviously listen too vertically- based on nothing more than the logic that anyone who argues that vertical elements have significance in the whole obviously doesn't recognise the role of horionzontal elements in the same whole. Having spoken about nothing but the interplay between both elements, that was totally uncalled for. If seeing the role of both elements means I obviously listen too vertically (regardless of constant reference to both in one big picture) it's not much of a stretch to deduce quite what poor esteem he holds vertical awareness in.


regarding Liiw, he never even defined a point at all. all he expressed is disagreement- which I can only interpret as meaning that pianists don't need to listen to vertical relationships within their sound. the fact that they do (in order to have any hope of producing meaningful horizontal lines) is the only point I ever made. So if he disagrees with me, I can't see what else he might have disagreed with (unless he'd like to clarify).

[j_menz]

The significant issue that applies both to Tchaikovsky and Bach

Frankly, if you cannot tell the difference between this Tchaikovsky piece and a Bach fugue in terms of construction and playing considerations, you aren't worth listening to.

[lostinidlewonder]

Frankly, if you cannot tell the difference between this Tchaikovsky piece and a Bach fugue in terms of construction and playing considerations, you aren't worth listening to.

Just listen to the recording above and you will know how much all these paragraphs of hot air is worth.

[lostinidlewonder]

It's possible that you're simply telling hard truths to the naive and self-deluded and that they naturally resent that.

It is possible, like winning the lottery.

[nyiregyhazi]

Frankly, if you cannot tell the difference between this Tchaikovsky piece and a Bach fugue in terms of construction and playing considerations, you aren't worth listening to.

I can tell the difference. I can also tell that both demand projection of horizontal lines.  That requires skill at vertical differentiation to even begin to come into fruition. I referred to the Tchaikovsky because you have no Bach on your youtube account. Sorry, but it's a pretty cheap gesture to have a go at tchaikovsky for failing to provide more counterpoint- while failing to make any notable sense of phrase out of either of two perfectly good lines he made available, never mind both. If you can't make a couple of simple lines into differentiated and logical horizontal progressions, having extra lines doesn't tend to turn it around. Performers should take full responsibility for how they handle a composer's material. Ignaz Friedman made some utter drivel sound wonderful and there's no shortage of horizontal line or interest in this  miniature- should the performer care to perform his job of making it heard. It's all very easy to hide behind extra voices, but a pianist who cannot simultaneously differentiate and sustain horizontal logic in two simple lines is unlikely to be my first choice for the task of four or five- particularly if they try to pass off the blame for what they missed out on to the composer.

I've never heard a truly "vertical" piece in my life. Even chopin's C minor prelude is loaded with horizontal part writing among multiple voices. Horizontal and vertical alike are present in anything and everything in music, by mere definition. The only issue is whether a performer succeeds in reflecting both, or gets lost in a limited viewpoint. Anyone who misses either element will give a poor reflection of the composition. I don't think I've ever heard a performer who cannot differentiate parts vertically, yet who can sustain horizontal lines.  how could they, given that failure to control vertical balance literally means that there is no control over the sounds that the line is made of?

[nyiregyhazi]

Just listen to the recording above and you will know how much all these paragraphs of hot air is worth.

Did you actually read the description? You do know that the start example reflects what NOT to do? If so, you are seriously willing to stake your musical expertise on a claim that the first example in the film sounds better than the one that actually involves vertical differentiation? you are willing to stand by the idea that there is no audible improvement, simply in order to find an opportunity to disagree?


If you want to pretend to disagree, write a single paragraph explaining why you feel the horizontal melodic element fares better with melody played at the same level as accompaniment. Otherwise I'll ignore posts that are clearly not intended to stimulate either thought or topical discussion and which have clearly not been provoked by sincere musical considerations.

[lostinidlewonder]

You do know that the start example reflects what NOT to do?

The entire recording is not impressive.

If so, you are seriously willing to stake your musical expertise .....

Lol!

you are willing to stand by the idea that there is no audible improvement, simply in order to find an opportunity to disagree?

Your video recording highlights how ineffective you are at executing your ideas which are so elaborately put into words.

[j_menz]

I've never heard a truly "vertical" piece in my life. Even chopin's C minor prelude is loaded with horizontal part writing among multiple voices. Horizontal and vertical alike are present in anything and everything in music, by mere definition. The only issue is whether a performer succeeds in reflecting both, or gets lost in a limited viewpoint. Anyone who misses either element will give a poor reflection of the composition. I don't think I've ever heard a performer who cannot differentiate parts vertically, yet who can sustain horizontal lines.  how could they, given that failure to control vertical balance literally means that there is no control over the sounds that the line is made of?

You continue to fail to appreciate how the "part writing" in the Chopin is fundamentally different from part writing in counterpoint and analogous polyphony. Either you actually fail to see it, or you are deliberately trying to blur the distinction to support your case.

There is a difference between technical control over voices and what determines the target of that control. What one aims at is what is under discussion, not whether in a particular instance I hit it.

And for the record, I do not blame Tchaikovsky for the deficiencies in my performance here. I merely express the regret that his piano writing does not evidence those elements I particularly like in his writing for other forces.

[nyiregyhazi]

The entire recording is not impressive.
Lol!
Your video recording highlights how ineffective you are at executing your ideas which are so elaborately put into words.

I made a comparison on the film. If you cannot offer specific comparison of the before and after, there is no scope for discussion. If you cannot tell me why the second example is inferior to the first (as anyone with ears can hear to be untrue) you have made neither made a point nor even clarified what it is you are heckling or upon what basis.

Heckle away. It's your own musical values that you place on the line, when you cannot separate personal issues from musical issues. Also, if you'd like to sightread the piece, as I did, please prove me wrong- by making horizontal lines without creating different levels on a vertical scale. Otherwise, there is literally no scope for discussion (or even a basis for your disagreement) and hence I bid you farewell.

[lostinidlewonder]

I made a comparison on the film. If you cannot offer specific comparison of the before and after, there is no scope for discussion. If you cannot tell me why the second example is inferior to the first (as anyone with ears can hear to be untrue) you have made neither made a point nor even clarified what it is you are heckling or upon what basis.

I don't need to give a detailed analysis of your recording, I am not obliged to donate my time for that.

The first is bad, the 2nd might be better but it is still bad. So it is like we are comparing one shade of mud to another. Whoopty doo.

I am also sorry I cannot sight read this piece for you as I have it memorized after being an adjudicator for the Pianostreet competition earlier this year.

It is also quite noticeable that you are using the term sightreading as a way to perhaps excuse your bad playing. Unfortunately this piece is not of a high level and a piano teacher should be able to read this much better.

[nyiregyhazi]

You continue to fail to appreciate how the "part writing" in the Chopin is fundamentally different from part writing in counterpoint and analogous polyphony. Either you actually fail to see it, or you are deliberately trying to blur the distinction to support your case.

There is a difference between technical control over voices and what determines the target of that control. What one aims at is what is under discussion, not whether in a particular instance I hit it.

And for the record, I do not blame Tchaikovsky for the deficiencies in my performance here. I merely express the regret that his piano writing does not evidence those elements I particularly like in his writing for other forces.

if a footballer kicks the ball as hard as he can in the direction of the goal , every time he receives it, his attitude explains why he yields few goals- not his technique.

If you cannot appreciate that ignoring dynamic differences in parts does not allow a pianist to convey horizontal lines, your attitude is faulty. You can go on all you like about the difference between chopin and bach. But the point remains that ALL music needs to be about horizontal lines. It's just that kicking the ball as hard as you can at the goal every time (rather than sometimes taking the less obvious step of passing it backwards to a suitably placed team mate) isn't the answer. when a pianist who says he has been practising Alkan cannot distinguish between two voices in a miniature written for children, the issue is clearly of musical attitude, not technique. An attitude that doesn't allow you to control lines in that work is not going to bear fruit in the difficulty of Bach- and evidently needs a rethink. In my opinion, you simply aren't listening enough in the moment, in order to contextualise notes in a longer phrase.

[j_menz]

if a footballer kicks the ball as hard as he can in the direction of the goal , every time he receives it, his attitude explains why he yields few goals- not his technique.

Oh goody, we've descended into farce. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't need to give a detailed analysis of your recording, I am not obliged to donate my time for that.

The first is bad, the 2nd might be better but it is still bad. So it is like we are comparing one shade of mud to another. Whoopty doo.

I am also sorry I cannot sight read this piece for you as I have it memorized after being an adjudicator for the Pianostreet competition earlier this year.

It is also quite noticeable that you are using the term sightreading as a way to perhaps excuse your bad playing. Unfortunately this piece is not of a high level and any piano teacher would be able to read this much better.

all the better. Make a recording without vertical differentiation but with a good sense of horizontal line. Or make an exact criticism. Perhaps you only have the balls to do so unprompted to a  teenage girl, as I recall you did in the competition?  There was no problem with being specific to her, in your condemnation.

We're done unless you contribute specifics. Anyone can be generically negative (a classic hallmark of unqualified criticism) but all too few can put interesting substance to it (except when the target is an amateur teenage girl, of course).

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh goody, we've descended into farce. 

Fine, you have the technique to be making a serious stab at alkan and bach but not at pieces tchaikovsky wrote for kids (despite exemplary musical attitude).

Clearly that makes a lot more sense than idea that appreciating the relationships between both horizontal AND vertical might be beneficial to any pianist. After all, that second possibility seems  a lot harder to believe than the first, right?

[lostinidlewonder]

all the better. Make a recording without vertical differentiation and a good sense of horizontal line. Or make an exact criticism. ...

I think I have made my point to others clear enough without having to jump through any of your hoops. I am sorry to expect to hear a better playing standard from someone who is only so ready to critique others perspectives as to how to play the piano.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think I have made my point to others clear enough without having to jump through any of your hoops. I am sorry to expect to hear a better playing standard from someone who is only so ready to critique others perspectives as to how to play the piano.

My apologies for presenting such an outrageous hoop as the one where you're supposed to provide substance to vague unsubstantiated criticism, on a forum where posts are supposed to be geared towards scope for discussion.  I should have remembered that you only offer specifics to such easy victims as teenage amateurs and apologise profusely for expecting you to put any meat on the bones of your criticisms of anyone else.

[j_menz]

Surprised to find I'm quoting Maggie with approval, btw.

[nyiregyhazi]

Surprised to find I'm quoting Maggie with approval, btw.

I'm not attacking you but your attitude and the results of it. Specifically, I'm attacking fallacious polarisation between horizontal and vertical and refusal to objectively consider how vital both are in all music, be it bach or chopin. All music has texture. All texture is dependent on both horizontal issues and vertical balancing on intensity. all compositions are based on both factors, without exception.

What is left to blame for the absence of coherent horizontal lines in the tchaikovsky if it's neither your technique nor your attitude? Give me one other possible explanation. In order to begin a coherent musical line in that style of texture, a pianist must listen well enough to hear when the line has been spoiled by an overload of the texture. Fail to do so routinely in practise and you will never progress beyond a series of thunks. Do you appreciate how many hours great pianists spend listening to sounds and immediately going back to look for solutions- if just one note pokes out of the texture with an unplanned accent? Obviously you've never used this practise technique for such pieces but great pianists typically practise stopping and listening to balance of sounds in a single moment in time. they dont just knock out the next chord without listening to both the context of sound it goes into and the resulting change to the overall balance of sound after playing it.it's when that balance is drastically altered without prior intent that any sensitive musician appreciates that a note was played inappropriately and stops to make amends before a bad habit is learned. There's no profound mystery. Those who control their lines start by listening critically to the interplay of sounds. They don't blame their technical control over a piece for children, yet expect the same attitude to fare well in a more difficult fugue. They listen to themself and learn how to develop suitable technique to differentiate.

You can look for anything under the sun to blame it on, but only a fault in the musical attitude can explain why an advanced pianist should fail to produce a basic sense of independence within lines in a piece aimed at children. If you're not happy with what you produced, why not open your mind enough to actually try the listening exercise I proposed, and then stop to see if your lines become more fluid and meaningful on a horizontal level? Alternatively, you can keep on doing the same and keep falling back on the chance to blame your technique whenever exclusively horizontal thinking fails to create a horizontal sound. Don't forget what Einstein said about doing the same over and over but expecting a different result.

[j_menz]

[nyiregyhazi]

Fine. Ultimately what it comes down to is whether a pianist has the innate desire to learn how to make the piano sound like more than a piano. If you get bored by consideration of how to make a  children's piece into something more, you can go down the route that Einstein warned about- of expecting to achieve new results without changing anything. Personally, I'll continue crossreferencing horizontal and vertical in a variety of different ways, so I'm never getting stuck in a single musical viewpoint.

[pianoman53]

Why do you try to prove a point with a piece you clearly can't play? I'm not saying you're a bad pianist, but proving that you should think in lines, when your playing completely lacks that specific feature, is a strange thing for me.

And that video seems awfully lot like a tv-shop commercial to me.
"Are you tired of sounding like this? Have you done everything in your power to improve your playing? Well, we have the answer: Vertical thinking!" And suddenly everything becomes colorful and great..?!

What would really that one word make for difference? It's not like it's a revolutionary thought to think in lines instead of single notes.

[nyiregyhazi]

Why do you try to prove a point with a piece you clearly can't play? I'm not saying you're a bad pianist, but proving that you should think in lines, when your playing completely lacks that specific feature, is a strange thing for me.

And that video seems awfully lot like a tv-shop commercial to me.
"Are you tired of sounding like this? Have you done everything in your power to improve your playing? Well, we have the answer: Vertical thinking!" And suddenly everything becomes colorful and great..?!

What would really that one word make for difference? It's not like it's a revolutionary thought to think in lines instead of single notes.

? who used but one word without defining it, or said it  gives the entire answer? did you read the detailed description of the effect and how to execute it? it was more than one word long. I neither argued for purely vertical nor horizontal thinking and I certainly didn't say that thinking in lines is revolutionary. the point stemmed in response to a poster who expects to make horizontal lines without any consideration of a vertical hierarchy in dynamic levels. without referencing horizontal lines to the interactions between sounds at the moment, there is no chance to make horizontal lines heard. it should already go without saying that horizontal lines are a goal, in literally all compositions. the post was about a necessary aspect for achieving that.


you're welcome to criticise my sight reading against professional standards (although I'd appreciate such specifics as I gave in my own criticism of my playing, in order to contribute to the discussion on a meaningful level) but the point was to offer a comparison between equal versus differentiated accompaniment and the effect on the melody. compare both J menz's recording and my first example in the video to the runthrough and the difference to the projection of horizontal phrases should be perfectly clear. I recorded it show the effect on the result (and prove that how any line is heard is related to competition from other notes and not merely the isolated manner in which the line itself is played) not as a model of pianism. Do you deny that effect? why not upload a recording of your own of something, to illustrate what you disagree on?

[pianoman53]

Did you read what I wrote?

I just wrote, I don't criticize you as a pianist, just the way you try to prove a point. And to point out words is also a strange thing. What is so wrong with seeing things differently? There will always be personal opinions, but to always try to prove that you're right is just very strange.

[nyiregyhazi]

Did you read what I wrote?

I just wrote, I don't criticize you as a pianist, just the way you try to prove a point. And to point out words is also a strange thing. What is so wrong with seeing things differently? There will always be personal opinions, but to always try to prove that you're right is just very strange.

if you fail to recognise that the sound of one voice influences how a listener hears the others, you won't convey your intentions to them. they'll hear a different performance to that in your head. so any personal opinion that ignores this is plain wrong. it's like arguing that the human eye sees colours as absolutes and not in reference to other colours. there's a popular image that proves otherwise- where the human eye sees a single colour in a single image as brown in one place and orange in another, if I remember correctly. People who refuse to acknowledge that the human ear hears elements based on surrounding context are as objectively wrong as those who claim that the eye perceives colours as absolutes. it's not a matter of opinion. it's a matter of whether you understand the mechanisms by which pianistic illusions are created, or whether you have an idealised but factually inaccurate belief system.

[timothy42b]

 did you read the detailed description of the effect and how to execute it? it was more than one word long.

It may have been more than a thousand words long.

I think even if you stepped back from your argumentativeness I'd still have trouble with the sheer length of your posts.

There are possibly some good ideas buried somewhere, but it's a figure/ground thing, and the ground is acres too big. 

[pianoman53]

if you fail to recognise that the sound of one voice influences how a listener hears the others, you won't convey your intentions to them. they'll hear a different performance to that in your head. so any personal opinion that ignores this is plain wrong. it's like arguing that the human eye sees colours as absolutes and not in reference to other colours. there's a popular image that proves otherwise- where the human eye sees a single colour in a single image as brown in one place and orange in another, if I remember correctly. People who refuse to acknowledge that the human ear hears elements based on surrounding context are as objectively wrong as those who claim that the eye perceives colours as absolutes. it's not a matter of opinion. it's a matter of whether you understand the mechanisms by which pianistic illusions are created, or whether you have an idealised but factually inaccurate belief system.

And when, exactly, did I say whatever you're claiming that I said? You can't win an argument simply by long answers that answers questions no one has asked.
What I meant by personal opinions was simply the use of musical taste, and type of music, and use of words. But fine, if you want to create an argument about colors in the human eye, that's your problem.

[nyiregyhazi]

And when, exactly, did I say whatever you're claiming that I said? You can't win an argument simply by long answers that answers questions no one has asked.
What I meant by personal opinions was simply the use of musical taste, and type of music, and use of words. But fine, if you want to create an argument about colors in the human eye, that's your problem.

my argument is about the analogous equivalent in sound - which is not a matter of opinion either. if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with objective facts about how human listening is shaped not merely by absolutes but by context. the simplest version is the objectively indisputable fact that a quiet sound alone is heard clearly whereas a quiet sound accompanied by the noise of a car crash is not heard clearly. This is where the mechanism lies for the pianistic illusion of notes that either seem to sing out for their full length or seem to vanish almost without trace after sounding. the issue of dynamic competition defines a huge proportion of which sounds an unbiased listener is drawn to, and how their brain tries to assembles them into connected lines. This is not a mere "opinion" about a subjective issue. if you're not disagreeing on these objective facts, please state what you do disagree with and define what supposedly valid opinions I have argued against.

[pianoman53]

Nothing no one ever discusses with you is subjective, clearly. Again, I didn't even disagree with you, and you yet find how I'm wrong. Sooo, meh. Enjoy knowing everything. Seems like it helps a lot.

[nyiregyhazi]

Nothing no one ever discusses with you is subjective, clearly. Again, I didn't even disagree with you, and you yet find how I'm wrong. Sooo, meh. Enjoy knowing everything. Seems like it helps a lot.

I'm not interested unless you have a specific point to make. The issues I pointed to about how the brain perceives sound are not open to mere "opinion" but are founded in facts about how humans perceive stimulus- so your point about accepting alternative opinions (that conflict with such facts) is not relevant to any issue. And if you are claiming that an "opinion" that contradicts these facts is valid and ought to be accepted, you yourself are denying the facts that objectively falsify it.

Regardless,  if you're not prepared to make a more specific topical point, there is no scope for interesting discussion here.I didn't start this thread to argue about the difference between valid opinion and falsifiable belief.

[timothy42b]

I'm not interested unless you have a specific point to make.

What if............what if............just for the sake of argument maybe consider a .......what if.......? 

What if you have specific points to make, but your delivery makes it impossible for anyone to listen? 

What if your points consistently fall on deaf ears, because your communication style deafens them?

What if pianoman53 does not understand the nuances of vertical vs horizontal lines, but has deep insight into how you could communicate better?

Would you be open to thinking about it?

Is music related to communication?  Even slightly? 

Frankly the evidence (your 2910 posts in a short time) suggest no openness.  But people do keep trying with you. 

[pianoman53]

I'm not interested unless you have a specific point to make. The issues I pointed to about how the brain perceives sound are not open to mere "opinion" but are founded in facts about how humans perceive stimulus- so your point about accepting alternative opinions (that conflict with such facts) is not relevant to any issue. And if you are claiming that an "opinion" that contradicts these facts is valid and ought to be accepted, you yourself are denying the facts that objectively falsify it.

Regardless,  if you're not prepared to make a more specific topical point, there is no scope for interesting discussion here.I didn't start this thread to argue about the difference between valid opinion and falsifiable belief.

So okay, let me try to figure this out.
You claim that what you're saying isn't up to discussion, because there is simply only one correct option. Still, you put it up for discussion. When people ask either about the point or the way your trying to prove it, you simply say that they are wrong, and that there is no point in discussing it, because your way is the only right way.

Then, eeh... you know, I frankly don't get it.

[nyiregyhazi]

_t

So okay, let me try to figure this out.
You claim that what you're saying isn't up to discussion, because there is simply only one correct option. Still, you put it up for discussion. When people ask either about the point or the way your trying to prove it, you simply say that they are wrong, and that there is no point in discussing it, because your way is the only right way.

Then, eeh... you know, I frankly don't get it.

I'm interested in informed opinions that do not exist in contradiction to the basic facts. there's a whole load of scope for discussion. Any idealised viewpoint however, that hinges on the false belief that our awareness of any one musical line is not greatly affected by the dynamic balance of simultaneously occurring sounds, however, is simply wrong. there's enormous scope for discussion- provided that it is based on acceptance of that proven fact, rather than upon ignorance to it.


this is not remotely interesting. If you want to accuse me of refusing to accept the validity of a factually inaccurate opinion, then I openly state that I do. if you want to accuse me of refusing not wanting to consider potential opinions that are congruent with known facts, then you're missing the point. Regardless, I'm not going to waste any more time on this musically irrelevant issue. You haven't put forth a single topical opinion, so unless you are intending to then I'll ignore any future comments from you.

[awesom_o]

I think there is perhaps too much scope for discussion in the world, and not enough great playing...

but then I suppose one COULD argue that that is the purpose of a discussion forum..... to have endless discussions that distract everybody from the true task at hand.....that of becoming a greater artist...... instead of spending far too much time at the wrong type of keyboard altogether!

 

[pianoman53]

_t
Regardless, I'm not going to waste any more time on this musically irrelevant issue. You haven't put forth a single topical opinion, so unless you are intending to then I'll ignore any future comments from you.

Well, everything you do, even the time you spent on that video, is musically irrelevant. The only way your post are relevant is if you want to see how many words you can use without saying anything anything of interest.

[lostinidlewonder]

Just feel sorry those who can only communicate with disagreement and delusions of grandeur.

[timothy42b]

_t

If you want to accuse me of refusing to accept the validity of a factually inaccurate opinion, then I openly state that I do.

I'm not sure that is the accusation (or perhaps "observation" would be more accurate and less inflammatory).

I think the actual opinion would have to be that in 2912 posts you haven't considered the validity of anybody's opinion.  

It is possible that everybody but you has always been wrong.  However I would think it might be worth considering other possibilities as well.  

Just saying.  

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not sure that is the accusation (or perhaps "observation" would be more accurate and less inflammatory).

I think the actual opinion would have to be that in 2912 posts you haven't considered the validity of anybody's opinion.  

It is possible that everybody but you has always been wrong.  However I would think it might be worth considering other possibilities as well.  

Just saying.  

If anyone would care to post a video in which they feel that a long melodic line sings out through competing notes of equal volume, I'll happily consider listening to it. Given that I've done plenty of listening and personal experimentation yet not uncovered a single example of this occurence, it's not unreasonable to expect musical evidence that this supposed phenomenon can occur.

If anyone prefers to put personal issues before musical ones to the point where they are compelled to deny this objective truth about how listeners listen, they are welcome. My only request is that go ahead and prove me wrong, with at least a single counterexample.

[pianoman53]

If anyone would care to post a video in which they feel that a long melodic line sings out through competing notes of equal volume, I'll happily consider listening to it. Given that I've done plenty of listening and personal experimentation yet not uncovered a single example of this occurence, it's not unreasonable to expect musical evidence that this supposed phenomenon can occur.

If anyone prefers to put personal issues before musical ones to the point where they are compelled to deny this objective truth about how listeners listen, they are welcome. My only request is that go ahead and prove me wrong, with at least a single counterexample.

I didn't even say you're wrong?! Seriously, what's wrong with you? Of course the melody has to stand out! You're just stupid if you think you have to prove it. I only questioned the way you did it. To first use a very romantic piece that you can't play, and to then write a 1000 word long essay, and expect everyone to read it.

Damn, you're an idiot..!

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't even say you're wrong?! Seriously, what's wrong with you? Of course the melody has to stand out! You're just stupid if you think you have to prove it. I only questioned the way you did it. To first use a very romantic piece that you can't play, and to then write a 1000 word long essay, and expect everyone to read it.

Damn, you're an idiot..!

sure, attack away on irrelevant off topic issues.  my point was not exclusive to melody. It applies to projection of any horizontal line into a listener's ear. Success depends on segregating lines from each other via contrasted levels of tone- otherwise the ear mixes lines and jumps from one to another without hearing them through. And you told me that I should recognise "opinions" that run contrary to accepted facts about how we hear. if you accept those facts, then don't tell me to accept "opinions" that are fully falsified by their truth.

[pianoman53]

sure, attack away on irrelevant off topic issues.  my point was not exclusive to melody. It applies to projection of any horizontal line. And you told me that I should recognise "opinions" that run contrary to accepted facts about how we hear. if you accept those facts, then don't ask me to accept "opinions" that are falsified by them.

Please be quiet. Unlike you, I'm practicing.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please be quiet. Unlike you, I'm practicing.

? I've done a good four hours so far. If you have no topical opinions to contribute to this thread (but only personal attacks and inaccurate summaries of my points) please stop posting in it. All I have learned from your posts is that you would like to disagree with me on an emotional level, yet have no rational basis on which you can refute a single point made.

[okanaganmusician]

The horizontal vs vertical debate is so similar to the diet vs exercise argument that rages on - everyone seems to have a polarizing opinion that one is better than the other.

Why not simply agree that in order to lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle that diet and exercise are BOTH important and should be practiced, and that horizontal and vertical voicings are BOTH critical to achieving the desired colours and sound on the piano?