What is a "good interpretation"?

[qpalqpal]

When the topic of recordings comes up, people argue about different interpretations.

What defines a good interpretion? Is it what you like to hear the best? Is it what represents the score? Is it candid performance?

My conflict is that there are so many recordings nowadays (youtube  ) and that many sound very similar. Why is Rubinstein better than everyone else who posts on Youtube? I can understand Horowitz and Gould, but many pianists sound the same. How can one possibly say "x is the best Chopin player" if he hasn't heard everyone's interpretaiton?

How should I decide on what is the "best" interpretation? Is it all opinion/tastes? Composer's intentions?

Esteban

[faulty_damper]

The difference between a good interpretation and a bad one is one of musicianship, that is, are they making music or are they playing the piano?  Making music requires communicating ideas.  Playing the piano is about making pretty sounds.

As for your understanding of Horowitz or Gould, are you kidding?  These are the two worst piano players in the history of 20th century pianists.  They didn't make music.  Horowitz was a pianist and did his best to make the music he played sound flashy by having his piano modified so that it sounded super bright.  Gould had idiosyncrasies that would force you to focus on his articulation, not the music.  Both of these pianists make it very clear that they are making music on the piano, not making music to communicate the ideas of the composers.

Bad interpretation analogy:
Expressing love = raping a woman

Good interpretation analogy:
Expressing love = Taking care of, and buying flowers for a woman.

Horowitz and Gould were rapists.

[m1469]

Imagine you are a judge in a blind homemade ice cream contest.  The flavor is allllll vanilla.  The very first clue in finding your preferred bowlful starts when your spoonful of it can't be described as tasting just like every other one.  If they all taste the same, even if that flavor is great, then deciding which one is preferred will be completely arbitrary.  

Now imagine you find yourself with a spoonful of vanilla ice cream that, as you let it melt on your tongue, proceeds to stir and change your former concepts of what vanilla ice cream even is.  Do you think that's even possible?  Wouldn't that be something?  And perhaps it turns out it was a very positive experience.  Now imagine this same spoonful continues past changing your concept of what vanilla ice cream is, and embarks on the journey of changing your entire concept of ice cream in general.  Wow, that must be quite an experience!

... But, imagine it doesn't stop there.  Soon, you find yourself lost in this spoonful, and you are now stirring about what it means to even eat anything at all, what does it really mean to taste?  What does it really mean to be a person?  What does it really mean to be alive?

You happily choose your favorite vanilla, you cast your vote, and you head home for the day.  What a nice day of ice cream you've had!  You arrive home, pet your cat and find that there was some special glow about your whole experience of life after your spoonful of ice cream earlier that day.  You eat your dinner, you go about your evening routine, but you have a special kind of lift in your step and your thoughts have an enhanced flavor to them.

You go to sleep and find yourself thinking about that ice cream, its flavor, its texture ... in fact, you can't stop thinking about it.  It just presents itself to you and starts becoming impressed upon your life.  For a time you can't even sleep because you are thinking about it, yet you fall asleep at some point, only to be awoken by thinking about it again.  You fall asleep again and wake the next morning, thinking about this ice cream and everything you experienced as a result of tasting it.

You do your morning routine with a new kind of curiosity about life and living.  You are now seriously asking yourself -even living- the questions that this ice cream enlivened within you.  That day, you find yourself looking at life with this new curiosity, even at work, even in people, even in circumstances that have been the same everyday for years now.  Not only are you curious, but it seems you are actually finding new things in this life, your experience of living is actually a little different than it was before.

If only you could somehow be the ice cream, "well, not be it you know, but live like it lives.  Do what it does," you think to yourself.  "How can I do that?"  Now, with this vital question, your life has taken a turn.  Your life has taken a turn and can't turn back.  Not only do you wish to have this ice cream in your own life, you wish for others to experience such a thing as you experienced!

You run to the rooftop, in fact you've never been up there before, you rip off all of your clothes and exclaim to the world, at the top of your lungs, "I'm freeeee!!  I'm freeeeee!!!  I'm Freeeeeeee!!!!"  Laughing from within.   Power from within.  Greatness from within.   A crowd gathers beneath you ... quickly you put your clothes back on.  They are curious ... "what has caused this outburst?  Surely it is sincere!  How many people do we see screaming such a thing, living such a life from a rooftop?   Surely something magical has touched his life!" they say.  And they look to you, they listen for you.

You look to them with compassion.  With love.  With tenderness.  You have realized a greater version of yourself and even of the world, and you can only want for these dear ones to find their own version of that same experience.  You come down from the rooftop and sit with the people.  You sit together in the front yard and talk to them in tales and parables.  During this time you are all One.  You are all here for hours, sharing with one another, completely lost in the wonder of a brand new experience.  There is no time ... just nowness.

Soon it is morning, you have talked through the night.  It is time to disperse and your crowd of 23 leaves to go out into the world with new questions.  With new curiosities.  With new vitality and life.  And you have only just begun ...

[awesom_o]

Horowitz and Gould were rapists.

If Horowitz and Gould were rapists, then what are you?

[pianoman53]

The difference between a good interpretation and a bad one is one of musicianship, that is, are they making music or are they playing the piano?  Making music requires communicating ideas.  Playing the piano is about making pretty sounds.

As for your understanding of Horowitz or Gould, are you kidding?  These are the two worst piano players in the history of 20th century pianists.  They didn't make music.  Horowitz was a pianist and did his best to make the music he played sound flashy by having his piano modified so that it sounded super bright.  Gould had idiosyncrasies that would force you to focus on his articulation, not the music.  Both of these pianists make it very clear that they are making music on the piano, not making music to communicate the ideas of the composers.

Bad interpretation analogy:
Expressing love = raping a woman

Good interpretation analogy:
Expressing love = Taking care of, and buying flowers for a woman.

Horowitz and Gould were rapists.

I have to say that they aren't my favorites among pianists. I very much like the way Horowitz play, except when the loud octaves comes into the picture. My intellect is simply not enough to understand Goulds more eccentric recordings, but that's clearly not his fault.

There, I confessed that I'm too stupid to understand everything they do. Why don't you, before it's getting ugly?

[qpalqpal]

I don't think that Horowitz is a bad pianist at all. I think he is different and plays with a certain texture etc. And the ice cream analogy . . .

I feel very stupid to say who is the ice cream taster? me? the listener? I very seldom have experienced such joy from music. And it didn't come from a piece where I listened to different interpretations . . . could you explain.

I personally like Horowitz because his recordings are completely different. The sound is so different, its fresh and alive.

And he has emotions believe it or not. There concerts where he cried.

Also, (completely differnet topic) I love Cortot, but the same goes for old recordings . . . they seem so nice. But then again, is it because it sounds old and authentic and authoratative?

[faulty_damper]

I personally like Horowitz because his recordings are completely different. The sound is so different, its fresh and alive.

Because he only played on his personal piano that was purposely made to sound very bright, hence the punch that you perceive.  That punch is what impresses a lot of people.  If he were to play on a different piano, like ones everyone else played on, he would probably sound much blander.

[qpalqpal]

Even if that is so, it still makes him an impressive artist. And for example his Chopin Scherzo no. 1 is incredible (there, it is opinion  )

I don't know too much about him, but I know that I really like his "Interpretations".

His piano sounds normal to me... can I see a source?

[outin]

Good interpretation analogy:
Expressing love = Taking care of, and buying flowers for a woman.

You really have a lot to learn about women  

Hint: Most are quite capable of taking care of themselves...and quite a few are taking care of not just kids but also grown men...

[outin]

Also, (completely differnet topic) I love Cortot, but the same goes for old recordings . . . they seem so nice. But then again, is it because it sounds old and authentic and authoratative?

I really like historical recordings. I assume it's partly because you can actually hear the piano and the playing in a more "raw" form, while the modern recordings are extremely polished in sound (and edited too, but I don't really mind that). But also the standard of playing the piano has changed. Less freedom with the score and also I think today more pianists are interested in the musicological study of the compositions and look for authenticy.

[nufan]

First of all, ratings "good" or "bad" depend a lot on the baseline. If we are talking about top-notch pianists, then one should observe that people like Rubinstein or Horowitz could play almost any piece the way they preferred. Thus, at a certain level, technique shouldn't play a role in judging an interpretation anymore, technique is simply a prerequisite. If there are recordings of Rubinstein or Horowitz that exhibit technical flaws, these guys were either too lazy or just had a bad day. In summary, technique is fairly unimportant at this level, it's a tool. Further, the piano is one of those instruments that allows the player to produce a vast number of different tones whilst hitting the same keys, which means that one technically be great and still produce terrible sound music. This is were interpretation comes into play.

To return to your question why Rubinstein was so much better than almost everyone else in history: Because he could focus on hitting the tones the way he liked, since he didn't have to worry about playing correctly. What distinguishes a good from a bad interpretation is then simply a matter of taste. Of course, one has to be truthful to the score (which is why I wouldn't call Lang Lang's playing "interpretation").

Let's take an example, Schubert Impromptu op 90 no 4. It's a piece that is neither terribly difficult nor easy. I've picked four recordings from YouTube.

1) Horowitz: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u6IlXMK50
2) Rubinstein: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnETWq7rcY
3) Zimmerman:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZm3JbzFzrQ
4) A young amateur: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuhje4kXKR4

Which one is the best? Considering her age, 4) plays excellent, still there is a big gap between her and the three world-class players. And among these, the impromptu played by Zimmerman and Horowitz sounds so different, yet both recordings are great.

[dima_76557]

[unworthy of being quoted] Horowitz was a pianist and did his best to make the music he played sound flashy by having his piano modified so that it sounded super bright. [unworthy of being quoted]

In the man's defense:

I am famous, but I am not well known.

[faulty_damper]

You really have a lot to learn about women  

Hint: Most are quite capable of taking care of themselves...and quite a few are taking care of not just kids but also grown men...

Aren't you in a Scandinavian country?  Where your government wants to call boys and girls "hens" because it wants to completely demolish the idea of gender?  Where gender equality is so important that gender researchers have ignored biological differences and claimed all differences are due to culture?  Which completely ignores a large body of scientific research?

Women here in America like men who can take care of them and maybe even wipe their butts every now and then. 

[faulty_damper]

His piano sounds normal to me... can I see a source?

>Voicing and Regulating: Horowitz's Conception vs the Industry Standard
>
> Imagine driving Mario Andretti's race car if you are a racing
> enthusiast, or swinging Babe Ruth's favorite bat if you are a
> baseball fan.  Pianists all over the country have recently
> experienced the equivalent exhilarating adventure for pianists -
> playing Vladimir Horowitz's personal piano.  This instrument, which
> was a wedding gift from the Steinway piano manufacturing company in
> 1943, has recently been available for pianists to play, while on a
> tour of 75 cities.  It is especially inspiring to play this famous
> piano considering that Horowitz used it on his world tours; he
> allowed no one else to play it while he was alive, other than Murray
> Perahia. As most Clavier readers are aware, Horowitz performed only
> on Sunday afternoons (even at the White House), and there were other
> requirements:  the money had to be enticing, he had to have his own
> piano and piano bench (he always carried a spare), as well as his
> personal piano technician (Franz Mohr).  The world is full of
> industry standards.  For example, most slices of bread fit the
> average toaster and modern automobiles have steering wheels, as
> opposed to some other type of navigational device.  The piano
> manufacturing world is no different.  All manufacturers have voicing
> and regulating standards so that there will be some degree of
> consistency in terms of how their products sound and feel to
> pianists.  The condition of Horowitz's piano reveals that his
> conception was somewhat different than the industry standard. Anyone
> who has played Horowitz's personal piano would have quickly
> discovered why Horowitz insisted on playing only this instrument.
> Even though his technician was also head of Steinway's concert
> artists division, the piano as it was maintained specifically for
> Horowitz defied the industry standards to conform to Horowitz's
> edicts, according to his exacting personal preferences.  How is the
> Horowitz piano different from all others?  It is voiced unusually
> brightly, which enables the pianist to sound absolutely thunderous
> when required.  This instrument is also easy to play softly, however,
> once the pianist becomes accustomed to the possibilities presented by
> precise regulation.  Most pianists are used to bright pianos, but
> generally these instruments are bright due to the fact that hammer
> maintenance has been neglected.  Pianos with hammers which fall into
> this category are uncontrollable at the lower dynamic range; as the
> hammers become flat, not only does the sound become brighter (and the
> tone quality also changes), but the distance to the string becomes
> altered.  The pianist therefore has less control of the hammer.
> This process is so gradual that most pianists aren't conscious of the
> changes.  Horowitz was aware that in order to maintain the voicing
> and the level of control he wanted, constant attention to the hammers
> was necessary.  Consequently, his hammers were kept in excellent
> condition by his technician.  Franz Mohr not only voiced Horowitz's
> piano brightly, but regulated it so precisely, that it was also easy
> to play softly. The Horowitz piano defies the industry standards, as
> well, in terms of how the action "feels," in that it has an extremely
> light action.  Horowitz used to tell his technician that the keys
> should go down, even if he simply blew on them.  In order to achieve
> the desired result, Franz Mohr found it helpful to file down the size
> of the hammers.  Horowitz required precisely 44 grams of key
> resistance and full-size hammers were too heavy to allow the action
> to be weighted easily to this gram-weight (the average Steinway was
> weighted to approximately 57 grams during much of the time Franz Mohr
> worked with Horowitz).  The result is an extremely fast action which
> is difficult for most pianists to control initially, due to the fact
> that other pianos present greater resistance to the fingers.  The
> author's students agreed that after a brief period of getting used to
> the Horowitz concept of how a piano should feel, they would expect to
> be immediately capable of greater technical prowess.  They also
> concurred that their interpretive skill was instantly enhanced by
> this instrument; because of the brightness of the voicing and the
> exacting regulation of the action, the dynamic range is effectively
> extended, thereby presenting increased interpretive possibilities.
> The reader should be reminded at this point that the bulk of the
> standard piano literature was written for instruments which had
> lighter actions than today's pianos.  Earlier instruments
> (harpsichords, clavichords, and fortepianos) generally also had a
> reduced "key dip" when compared with today's pianos.  The evolution
> of the piano during the 19th and 20th centuries, then, has actually
> made this literature more difficult to perform on modern instruments.
> Before the reader draws the obvious conclusion at this point and
> subscribes to the philosophy that piano manufacturers should
> implement the necessary design changes to allow all pianos to conform
> to Horowitz's conception, it must be pointed out that there are
> trade-offs.  In order to maintain the full dynamic range with such
> bright hammers, especially at the lower dynamic level, constant
> regulation and hammer maintenance would be required.  This would not
> only be tremendously expensive, but would also require a first-rate
> piano technician, which is a rare commodity, indeed. Additionally,
> the reality is that smaller hammers, which would be required to
> achieve a lighter action, also render not only a brighter sound but a
> different tone quality.  This "brighter" sound, which is perfectly
> acceptable to most pianists, can quickly become "obnoxious" if proper
> regulation and hammer maintenance is not supported.  Larger hammers
> with more felt are more "forgiving" in this respect.  Most pianists
> don't pay very close attention to tone quality, having become
> accustomed to not listening to the almost universally poorly
> maintained practice pianos available to them as students in homes,
> music departments, and conservatories.  These pianos are generally in
> poor condition, again due to the expense of proper maintenance.
> Sound conception is not only a function of maintenance, however.
> Different manufacturers also have varying concepts of what a piano
> should sound like; for example, American pianos in general, do not
> sound like Asian pianos.  Pianists who become increasingly focused on
> awareness of tone quality will find themselves hearing differences
> between pianos.  "Listening" becomes more enjoyable when a high
> quality, well-maintained instrument is available.  The pianist who
> becomes absorbed with sound in this way, will begin to notice
> differences in pianos, even in sound recordings.  Many recordings
> acknowledge the make of piano used in the performance.  Attention to
> this detail will aid the intelligent pianist in developing awareness
> of differing sound ideals between manufacturers.  It should be noted
> that, even though not all Steinways sound alike (brighter pianos tend
> to be used for concerto performances, for example, and every
> instrument has distinctive quality), most Steinways sound more like
> other Steinways than like Yamahas or Kawais.  The more we become
> focused on listening to tone quality, the better equipped we will
> become to determine what the standard should be in terms of ideal
> sound quality.  Sound does not exist in a vacuum, however, and
> practical elements necessarily enter into the picture, as we have
> seen.  In order to achieve the Horowitz ideal, then, the current
> industry concept in terms of "sound" would have to be sacrificed.
> Our opinions on this matter are influenced by our personal preference
> and by our level of "awareness" of tone quality.  Regardless of our
> preferences, it is unlikely that most pianists will call for a
> substantive change in terms of the industry standard in order to more
> closely approximate Horowitz's ideal piano, if only due to the
> prohibitive pragmatic problems such as the increased expense which
> would necessarily accompany such an alteration. Few pianists have the
> luxury of defying the industry standards and indulging their
> distinctive taste in piano sound.  Horowitz was not only able to
> indulge himself in this way, but he did so with the support and
> cooperation of the piano manufacturing community.
>
>Walden Hughes

https://mail.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/1996-August/008929.html

[nufan]

Women here in America like men who can take care of them and maybe even wipe their butts every now and then. 

So you're from Alabama? :-)

[faulty_damper]

What distinguishes a good from a bad interpretation is then simply a matter of taste. Of course, one has to be truthful to the score (which is why I wouldn't call Lang Lang's playing "interpretation").

No, it's not just a matter of taste.  That's like comparing Taco Bell tacos to a real taco at a taqueria.  Lots of people would prefer the taste of Taco Bell tacos, (especially the Doritos Locos Taco Supreme - damn these are good!), to one in a taqueria, where authentic tacos can be had.  But is Taco Bell in anyway "authentic" Mexican food?  No, it isn't.  It just tastes good.  But tasting good doesn't mean that's what a real taco should taste like.

This is the difference between musicians and the students learning to become musicians.  And this is also the difference between performing musicians and those who are paid to make pretty sounds.  There are very big difference but these differences can only be heard by those who already know the language, like a native English speaker who can tell if someone is speaking with a foreign accent.

1) Horowitz: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u6IlXMK50
2) Rubinstein: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnETWq7rcY
3) Zimmerman:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZm3JbzFzrQ
4) A young amateur: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuhje4kXKR4

Which one is the best? Considering her age, 4) plays excellent, still there is a big gap between her and the three world-class players. And among these, the impromptu played by Zimmerman and Horowitz sounds so different, yet both recordings are great.

I think Horowitz's interpretation is a bit labored, even though he expresses the tenuto part in A section better than anyone else.  (He actually increases tempo and dynamics to express the anxiousness.  No one else does this.)  But Zimmerman's middle section is by far the best because he rushes in with anticipation, and then slows down to express the lyricism.  The tempo is quite free in this part so the ear is following the music, not the piano.

Also, on a technical note, they all need to learn to use the dampers better.  They all hiccup the chord after the descending line theme.

[dima_76557]

@ faulty_damper

And what makes YOU think that Horowitz' requirements towards control over both keys and hammers as cited by Walden Hughes were not in the service of music? Such an argument sounds much like blaming famous violonists for picking either a Stradivarius or a Guarneri to play on for exactly the same reasons: you can do things on those instruments that cannot be done on any other instruments.

[nufan]

No, it's not just a matter of taste.

When discussing interpretations at this level, I disagree. Comparing the amateur to Horowitz would fit your Taco Bell comparison, but here we're talking about restaurants each of which has received three Michelin stars.

I do agree completely with your judgement of Horowitz vs. Zimmerman. Whose interpretation is better overall? You've provided convincing arguments for both of them, and both contain astonishing passages. I suppose preference is highly subjective then, isn't it?

[faulty_damper]

@ faulty_damper

And what makes YOU think that Horowitz' requirements towards control over both keys and hammers as cited by Walden Hughes were not in the service of music? Such an argument sounds much like blaming famous violonists for picking either a Stradivarius or a Guarneri to play on for exactly the same reasons: you can do things on those instruments that cannot be done on any other instruments.

I never said that.  How could you even interpret that from what I said?  All I said was that HE sounded different because his PIANO sounded different.  To be clear, I don't like Horowitz (in general) because he tends to bombast in a pianistic manner.  I.e. he sounds like a pianist.  There's a point where even though it is written very pianistically, it must still sound like music.  He tends to force the ear into hearing a piano making music instead of the musician making music.

[faulty_damper]

When discussing interpretations at this level, I disagree. Comparing the amateur to Horowitz would fit your Taco Bell comparison, but here we're talking about restaurants each of which has received three Michelin stars.

I do agree completely with your judgement of Horowitz vs. Zimmerman. Whose interpretation is better overall? You've provided convincing arguments for both of them, and both contain astonishing passages. I suppose preference is highly subjective then, isn't it?

But none of those interpretation is one I would consider ideal.  If we were to cut and splice all of the performances together, then we might come close.  But being a musician is supposed to be 100%, not 60% music and 40% piano.  I don't ever want to hear the piano, only music.  Because when the piano gets in the way, it just sounds bad.

[dima_76557]

I never said that.  How could you even interpret that from what I said?

You imply that with your post (Reply no. 1):

He was first of all "not a musician" (your words) and he was also a "rapist" (your words). The only elements you mention there are his requirements towards the instrument he played on, and you imply that his ONLY reason for doing so was his wish to make it all sound "flashy" (your words).

[nufan]

But none of those interpretation is one I would consider ideal.  If we were to cut and splice all of the performances together, then we might come close.  But being a musician is supposed to be 100%, not 60% music and 40% piano.  I don't ever want to hear the piano, only music.  Because when the piano gets in the way, it just sounds bad.

Have you ever come across an interpretation that was 100% satisfying (not limited to the Schubert impromptu)? I know only two performances that I consider superior (without discussion) to any other interpretation I've heard: That's Perlemuter playing Gaspard de la Nuit and Ginzburg with Un Sospiro.

[pianoman53]

I never said that.  How could you even interpret that from what I said?  All I said was that HE sounded different because his PIANO sounded different.  To be clear, I don't like Horowitz (in general) because he tends to bombast in a pianistic manner.  I.e. he sounds like a pianist.  There's a point where even though it is written very pianistically, it must still sound like music.  He tends to force the ear into hearing a piano making music instead of the musician making music.

There are many pianists who travels with their own instruments, who sounds nothing like him. There are also many people who've played on his piano, and sounds nothing like him.

To me, you sound like one of those who first knows what to think, and then adjust their arguments to fit their idea. Like picking a political party, and then agreeing on what they stand for.

[pianoman53]

Aren't you in a Scandinavian country?  Where your government wants to call boys and girls "hens" because it wants to completely demolish the idea of gender?  Where gender equality is so important that gender researchers have ignored biological differences and claimed all differences are due to culture?  Which completely ignores a large body of scientific research?

Women here in America like men who can take care of them and maybe even wipe their butts every now and then. 

What has that even to do with anything? You said "Love is when the man gives the woman flowers". Who the Fck wants a husband who gives them flowers. Be a bit more superficial and shallow, please!

[faulty_damper]

Have you ever come across an interpretation that was 100% satisfying (not limited to the Schubert impromptu)? I know only two performances that I consider superior (without discussion) to any other interpretation I've heard: That's Perlemuter playing Gaspard de la Nuit and Ginzburg with Un Sospiro.

No, not that I can recall ATM.  Although Volodos' Liszt recording was phenomenal.  Very good sound and it was recorded in a studio.  That's probably my favorite CD in my collection simply because it was very good music making.

[outin]

Aren't you in a Scandinavian country?  Where your government wants to call boys and girls "hens" because it wants to completely demolish the idea of gender?  Where gender equality is so important that gender researchers have ignored biological differences and claimed all differences are due to culture?  Which completely ignores a large body of scientific research?

Women here in America like men who can take care of them and maybe even wipe their butts every now and then. 

You also have a lot to learn about foreign countries  

And no, I am not really in a Scandinavian country...our goverment doesn't want us to call people "hens". I think that would be a bit rude?  

Funny that you would think biology is so important for gender specific behaviour, while not important at all in forming skills...or it is just males that are all equally talented?

[faulty_damper]

There are many pianists who travels with their own instruments, who sounds nothing like him. There are also many people who've played on his piano, and sounds nothing like him.

There are very few pianists who travel with their own instruments and they aren't very good to start with.  And the only person to ever play on Horowitz' piano while he was alive was Murray Perahia.  And Perahia was/is no Horowitz.

[faulty_damper]

You also have a lot to learn about foreign countries  

And no, I am not really in a Scandinavian country...our goverment doesn't want us to call people "hens". I think that would be a bit rude?  

What country are you from?

Funny that you would think biology is so important for gender specific behaviour, while not important at all in forming skills...or it is just males that are all equally talented?

I never said it's not important at all.  The ability to learn far outweighs biological tendencies.  That's what the brain is for, to learn and make better decisions in the future.

[outin]

What country are you from?

Finland

I never said it's not important at all.  The ability to learn far outweighs biological tendencies.  That's what the brain is for, to learn and make better decisions in the future.

So I guess in some parts of the world women have learned to take care of themselves and take better decisions. So why focus on whether someone has b...s or not?

[faulty_damper]

Finland

You should know that I'm American.  That means I don't know anything about the rest of the world. Isn't Finland a scandinavian country?  

So I guess in some parts of the world women have learned to take care of themselves and take better decisions. So why focus on whether someone has b...s or not?

You mean women don't like flowers?  They don't enjoy being given gifts?  They don't enjoy attention?  In my experience, women who are interested enjoy all of these things and more.  If they aren't interested, they'll accuse you of stalking.

[pianoman53]

You mean women don't like flowers?  They don't enjoy being given gifts?  They don't enjoy attention?  In my experience, women who are interested enjoy all of these things and more.  If they aren't interested, they'll accuse you of stalking.

Yes, All women loves flowers. As long as you give them a flower, they will be happy. Preferably, they should be stuck in the kitchen (or stuck... They obviously know that that's their place). They also like being pinched in the butt, since it shows appreciation. And they know their place, that they should argue. They enjoy a smaller salary, and they want to stay home most of the day. They also vote for whatever the man votes on. Why would they have to bother to make up their own mind, when there is a man around, who, according to science, simply is more intelligent. Once in a while, it's also okay to beat them, if they did something wrong.
AS LONG AS YOU GIVE THEM FLOWERS!!!!!

[outin]

You should know that I'm American.  That means I don't know anything about the rest of the world. Isn't Finland a scandinavian country?  

No.
Wikipedia:
"Scandinavia is a historical and cultural-linguistic region in Northern Europe characterized by a common ethno-cultural Germanic heritage and related languages that includes the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden."

Our language is not related and we are a republic. Russia freed us from the Swedes 1809.

You mean women don't like flowers?  They don't enjoy being given gifts?  They don't enjoy attention?  In my experience, women who are interested enjoy all of these things and more.  If they aren't interested, they'll accuse you of stalking.

Well, I can only speak for myself: I don't like flowers. Nor do I care for random gifts, because they are usually worthless to me. When I need attention, I'll take it

In my experience most men and women like gifts (the right kind of course) and attention (unless very introvert). Some more, some less, but it's definitely not gender specific. But traditional courting rituals are rather outdated in my part of the world.

[pianoman53]

Our language is not related and we are a republic. Russia freed us from the Swedes 1809.

Damn those Russians! With Finland, we would be so good! Now we're just a random stop on the make, who happens to have Ikea... WE COULD HAVE HAD NOKIA DAMMIT!

[outin]

Damn those Russians! With Finland, we would be so good! Now we're just a random stop on the make, who happens to have Ikea... WE COULD HAVE HAD NOKIA DAMMIT!

Well, at the moment I think Ikea is doing far better...

My former boss used to say that when we fought the Russians and went broke, Swedes took care of their lawns...so no complaining! 

[qpalqpal]

Also, on a technical note, they all need to learn to use the dampers better.  They all hiccup the chord after the descending line theme.

Your're saying they haven't perfected that, being  top notch concert pianists? Let's see your rendition.

To me, you sound like one of those who first knows what to think, and then adjust their arguments to fit their idea. Like picking a political party, and then agreeing on what they stand for.

I'm not gonna attack you, but I think you might be mistaken (faulty_damper). That you don't like Horowitz doesn't mean that his modified piano constituted his greatness.

You do make some excelent points though, so thanks.

Esteban

[mikeowski]

If Horowitz and Gould were rapists, then what are you?

I think you value Gould too highly. He was a rapist, as evidenced by this video:

(Secret message: This is just a joke. I love Glenn Gould.)

[qpalqpal]

I'm beginning to sense immaturity in this forum.

But anyways, it's not all about being a pianist, it's about being an artist, in Horowitz and Gould's case

[faulty_damper]

I'm beginning to sense immaturity in this forum.

But anyways, it's not all about being a pianist, it's about being an artist, in Horowitz and Gould's case

That's pretty bad art, especially in Gould's case.  At least Horowitz was able to make music without bastardizing it.  Gould chose his "personal" interpretation that made the music very weird sounding.  No one in their right mind would ever say that Gould was a master interpreter.  He did come up with some "unique" ones, however. 

[faulty_damper]

Your're saying they haven't perfected that, being  top notch concert pianists? Let's see your rendition.

You can hear them all failing to connect the line with the chord.  Many pianists do this because they aren't aware of pedal legato: strike the chord then use the dampers; not damper before striking the chord.  (Hamelin is also guilty of this.)  Pedal legato is exactly the same as finger legato: strike the next key before releasing the previous note.

I'm not gonna attack you, but I think you might be mistaken (faulty_damper). That you don't like Horowitz doesn't mean that his modified piano constituted his greatness.

I never said that his personal piano made him great.  I am saying that his style of playing, the contrasts from pianissimo to fortissimo is harsh.  This harsh contrast is what gave him "pop" which is what a lot of people are impressed with... initially.  But, that "pop" is also what annoys me to no end; it becomes irritating after repeated hearings.  I don't want to hear banging on the piano.

[qpalqpal]

Is there such thing as bad art (objectively)?

Glenn Gould is not my favorite Bach interpreter, but I look to him for yet another interpretation

[qpalqpal]

Horowitz on a different piano, not his!

[pianoman53]

@Faulty_diaper
It's very clear that you have your way, and you can't accept any other. If they don't connect the left hand with pedal, it's obviously because they don't want to. They are on that level, so it's not about what they can and can't, but about what they want.

It's also clear that you're simply not intelligent enough to understand Gould. When every great musician says that Gould was a genius, you simply have to back down. It's different when it's a bunch of teenagers who calls Maxim (or whatever his name is) the new Mozart.

Have you, for some reason, missed the Beethoven transcription or the Gouldberg variations?


Be a bit less american, please, and accept that you're wrong.

[qpalqpal]

I am also American...

Well, I am actually first-generation, descended from Spaniards (my parents)

[outin]

I am also American...

With hard work you can overcome any obstacle! 

[qpalqpal]

With hard work you can overcome any obstacle! 

I don't understand how that is an obstacle. I live the American Dream, whatever that means.

[j_menz]

Women here in America like men who can .....

Reasons I'm guessing you're single -  number 47.

[faulty_damper]

@Faulty_diaper
It's very clear that you have your way, and you can't accept any other. If they don't connect the left hand with pedal, it's obviously because they don't want to. They are on that level, so it's not about what they can and can't, but about what they want.

It's also clear that you're simply not intelligent enough to understand Gould. When every great musician says that Gould was a genius, you simply have to back down. It's different when it's a bunch of teenagers who calls Maxim (or whatever his name is) the new Mozart.

Have you, for some reason, missed the Beethoven transcription or the Gouldberg variations?


Be a bit less american, please, and accept that you're wrong.

Actually, it seems that you and others can't accept that I don't like Horowitz or Gould.  I never attacked anyone but I have been on the receiving end of all of these attacks by you and others.  I provided specific reasons why I don't like these pianists.  All everyone else says is how great and "genius" they were.

I don't know who these "great musicians" are that you assert exists but their opinions do not influence mine.  But, the fact that you need to hide behind these "great musicians" to assert that they were "genius"... maybe you need to listen with your own ears and understand with your own mind?  Come up with your own thoughts and opinions.  Then get back without attacking me.

[pianoman53]

Actually, it seems that you and others can't accept that I don't like Horowitz or Gould.  I never attacked anyone but I have been on the receiving end of all of these attacks by you and others.  I provided specific reasons why I don't like these pianists.  All everyone else says is how great and "genius" they were.

I don't know who these "great musicians" are that you assert exists but their opinions do not influence mine.  But, the fact that you need to hide behind these "great musicians" to assert that they were "genius"... maybe you need to listen with your own ears and understand with your own mind?  Come up with your own thoughts and opinions.  Then get back without attacking me.

Why would I care about what you do and don't like? Im not super fond of H myself, but that doesn't make him a rapist or a bad musician..
At first I didn't like neither of them at all, but then I listened to what educated musicians had to say about them, and what one should listen for. I then listened to, for example, the colors from H, and started to appreciate it more than before. It's called learning, but maybe you haven't heard about it yet, since you know everything already.

[faulty_damper]

Why would I care about what you do and don't like? Im not super fond of H myself, but that doesn't make him a rapist or a bad musician..
At first I didn't like neither of them at all, but then I listened to what educated musicians had to say about them, and what one should listen for. I then listened to, for example, the colors from H, and started to appreciate it more than before. It's called learning, but maybe you haven't heard about it yet, since you know everything already.

And yet you continue to use veiled attacks.

Anyway, it is still MY OPINION that they were bad musicians.  You don't have to agree but don't attack me because YOU DISAGREE!

[johnmar78]

If Horowitz and Gould were rapists, then what are you?

funny indeed, I reckon a serial killer...