Why is virtuoso playing such a focus here?

[nyiregyhazi]

You're falling into the same trap hardy did, only in the opposite direction.

You are quite right that I can't get my hands to figure out what to do based on my musical goal.  And that applied to my tennis stroke and my golf stroke as well.  

But that doesn't mean everybody else's brain functions the same way mine does.  Quite a lot of people ARE able to have their body automatically figure it out.  And many of them become high level performers in golf, tennis, and yes music.  (and incidentally it's why many of those high performers can't teach at all, though they think they can;  they fail utterly with people like me who need the analysis of technique at a basic level)  

You miss my point. Some people learn better from more subjective approaches, yes. But the evidence of attainment does not match up. He said the hands will figure out what to do if the intent exists for the sound. The videos objectively illustrate that this simply isn't happening. It's like a golfer who hits half of his shots out of bounds insisting that he doesn't need to work on his swing but should merely stay focused on where he intends to hit the ball. Such a person can stick to their guns if they really wish, but an impartial observer cannot be expected to humour any pseudo-profound musings from this person about mind over matter (until that person becomes a high achiever).

The first thing you have to do to have a right to preach that is only about the zen is to actually succeed yourself. Otherwise a person has no right dressing up that which fails them as a thing of profundity. Anyone reading his comments should be sure to watch his videos too, for a balanced perspective.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, the ball is the OT of this thread.  Twist as you might.  Try reading the title - where in the heck op 10 no 1 figures is beyond me.

This is all about the title. Nobody speaks only of virtuoso playing. We speak of the things that would prevent the gaping holes within the lines that exist both in your playing on simple grade 3 repertoire and advanced etudes. It's the same basic technical issue that causes you problems in easy and difficult music alike. Those who have serious ambition within their execution of easy pieces (beyond getting the notes out) must focus on the same qualities required to be able to execute greater difficulties (with neither uncontrolled sounds nor absent notes). It's the basic issue of whether each note can be played with a sense of certainty about the result, or whether poor technical control introduces a wide margin of error and uncertainty as to what will come out. When there is a wide margin of error, no piece of any level will be heard as it was intended within the conception. It's like a painter with severe parkinsons expecting to draw straight line. First you need control over the results.

[gyzzzmo]

The real problem is that musicality isn't there, it must be taught.  Usually when we say someone is musically talented we mean they have an easy natural technique, but technique without musicality isn't music (not as I know it any how).  There are those who catch on easily to musicality but it's still very much a learnt thing.

Technique without musicality indeed isnt music, but its still a requirement.
And 90% of the people cant expres musicality properly because they lack good technique, wich is one of the reasons why technique is discussed here so much (or virtuoso or w/e you call it). Another reason is that musicality is practically almost impossible to learn from somebody on a forum, since the 'teacher' has to hear what the questioner is doing musically wrong.

[awesom_o]

These are all very good points indeed. Technique and musicality are not so easy to separate on the piano.

[hardy_practice]

Another reason is that musicality is practically almost impossible to learn from somebody on a forum, since the 'teacher' has to hear what the questioner is doing musically wrong.

No need to be disheartened!  Lots of writers write about musicality - Neuhaus, Cortot.  At Weimar that's all that Liszt was interested in.  No reason we can't post about it!  To properly discuss technique you have to see the punter after all.  My guess is there's not much knowledge here re musicality.

[awesom_o]

 My guess is there's not much knowledge here re musicality.

None here, I'm afraid. Every time I try to play musically, it only comes off as virtuosic. Every time I try to play virtuosically, it only comes off as musical. 

It's truly very hard to get both.

[hardy_practice]

Here's Stanislavsky:

The producer who takes the inner image for his starting point must concentrate the actor's attention on the most important thing the words he utters expresses.  And provided the actor's entire attention is fixed on that he will forget about himself as a singer, and the correct feeling will produce the correct sound and in this way he will direct his attention on the right road to the given circumstances of his part.

[dima_76557]

My guess is there's not much knowledge here re musicality.

Please describe "musicality" for us if you think that it can be separated from technique. Here is my take on it:

Music is first of all a TONAL art, so the primary task of any performer is the work on TONE (high-quality tone, not noise!); in other words: TECHNIQUE.

Besides, probably the most important element in music is RHYTHM. Rhythm is caused by MOVEMENT; high-quality movement. In other words: TECHNIQUE.

P.S.: You speak of Franz Liszt, but have you forgotten how he practised before he went to Weimar? You speak of Alfred Cortot, but have you gone through all of Cortot's torture exercises in his "Rational principles of piano technique"? You speak of Heinrich Neuhaus, but have you read that Neuhaus thinks that by 18, a pianist should have solved all the technical problems in the VIRTUOSO literature?

[dima_76557]

Here's Stanislavsky:quote

Please, read up some more on Stanislavsky. His system, more than any other, proves that an actor with great talent and subtle means and nuances needs MORE TECHNIQUE than others do. He rejected the widespread layman's opinion that a gifted actor does not need any technique at all, and he gives very tangible and conscious means to accomplish what he wants from the actor.

[hardy_practice]

Here's some Cortot:

The Suite Bergamasque tinged softly with the hue of Verlaine, is less individual, and occasionally flavoured with Faurisms, which do not, however, affect its real quality in the smallest degree; yet it comprises already the rather precious melange of modern and antique which characterizes a number of Debussy's later pieces, and conjures up the delicate shades of the writers for the clavichord, his chosen ancestors.

[hardy_practice]

Here's Feinberg:

A secret fear of artistic responsibility may also take on various forms.  Sometimes the student himself may not be aware of it.  But usually this inner timidity, which must be overcome, is apparent in a novice's urge to replace artistic concerns with purely mechanical ones.  He, as it were clings to habits acquired in school and continues devoting many hours to general training exercises, and new pieces are only learned by dint of dry and inartistic hammering out the notes or else by reverting to a large number of mechanically contrived variants.

and Goldenweiser:

Generally speaking, the motto of the performing pianist should be: 'Don't try and teach movement to the body, but learn them from the body.'

[dima_76557]

Here's Feinberg:quote

Let's agree first that nobody here in this thread uses the word "technique" in the sense of pure "mechanics" and "mindless drilling" as your quote by Feinberg suggests. Technique is the material means to express music. Without it, there can be no art, and we simply reduce ourselves to armchair philosophers. Taste, general culture, and imagination are separate elements that should already be present in the student for the teacher to appeal to them.

As for Goldenweiser and other heroes you may quote: you cannot separate his quotes from the VERY high achievements of virtuoso technique his students alread had to be even allowed to the man's lessons. Be real, please.

[gyzzzmo]

Looks like its pretty much everybody vs hardy here, and hardy still has no idea what we're talking about. Maybe it is because hardy hasnt achieved the technique yet to perform a piece in a really musical way

[hardy_practice]

The Feinberg quote suggests the '..urge to replace artistic concerns' is unhealthy however you look at it.

[hardy_practice]

Looks like its pretty much everybody vs hardy here, and hardy still has no idea what we're talking about. Maybe it is because hardy hasnt achieved the technique yet to perform a piece in a really musical way

At least I've read Verlaine! 

[hardy_practice]

As for Goldenweiser and other heroes you may quote: you cannot separate his quotes from the VERY high achievements of virtuoso technique his students alread had to be even allowed to the man's lessons. Be real, please.

So, you have to be a virtuoso for a Goldenweiser quote to apply to you?  Gentleman, I rest my case!

[nyiregyhazi]

So, you have to be a virtuoso for a Goldenweiser quote to apply to you?  Gentleman, I rest my case!

an argument that reminds us all all that you are a pure troll who favours spin over accurate application of reason. You are the one who introduced the quote. Only an imbecile would feel that offering the correct context to your quote might support your original assertion, on any objective level whatsoever. The fact that most forum members are not virtuosos is exactly why nobody but yourself tries to push advice that is exclusively fit for virtuosos upon them, as if it might benefit mere amateurs.

Instead of bothering to argue against him, I'd suggest that we all watch his videos again and either ignore this blundering, incompetent fool on that basis or (better still) contact the moderators and ask why he has not been banned once again for setting up a sock puppet account after his initial ban. It's nothing but a waste of everybody's time for him to be allowed to post here in any form. If he cared about music in any serious way he'd have bettered himself by now and stopped regurgitating the nonsense that has failed him as a supposed pianist. It's to the extreme detriment of the whole forum that he's being allowed to post unintelligent nonsense again (in a bid to drag others who actually care about pianism down to his level) despite his ban.

[nyiregyhazi]

The Feinberg quote suggests the '..urge to replace artistic concerns' is unhealthy however you look at it.

Not if you have necessary knowledge of the context and if you note the word "continues"- which makes it abundantly clear that these students will have set their foundations previously via this approach. Anyone who knows a thing about the schooling of the day will know that nobody was even offered admittance to the conservatory without passing their hanon exams. That one word clarifies beyond any doubt that the quote is to be applied to those who have already passed their foundation level tests- which you would have no hope of having done, judging by your Bach.

Stop foisting your ignorance upon others, by making fallacious interpretations of sources. It's complete intellectual dishonesty.

[swagmaster420x]

an argument that reminds us all all that you are a pure troll who favours spin over accurate application of reason. You are the one who introduced the quote. Only an imbecile would feel that offering the correct context to your quote might support your original assertion, on any objective level whatsoever. The fact that most forum members are not virtuosos is exactly why nobody but yourself tries to push advice that is exclusively fit for virtuosos upon them, as if it might benefit mere amateurs.

Instead of bothering to argue against him, I'd suggest that we all watch his videos again and either ignore this blundering, incompetent fool on that basis or (better still) contact the moderators and ask why he has not been banned once again for setting up a sock puppet account after his initial ban. It's nothing but a waste of everybody's time for him to be allowed to post here in any form. If he cared about music in any serious way he'd have bettered himself by now and stopped regurgitating the nonsense that has failed him as a supposed pianist. It's to the extreme detriment of the whole forum that he's being allowed to post unintelligent nonsense again (in a bid to drag others who actually care about pianism down to his level) despite his ban.

lol

[swagmaster420x]

Please describe "musicality" for us if you think that it can be separated from technique. Here is my take on it:

Music is first of all a TONAL art, so the primary task of any performer is the work on TONE (high-quality tone, not noise!); in other words: TECHNIQUE.

Besides, probably the most important element in music is RHYTHM. Rhythm is caused by MOVEMENT; high-quality movement. In other words: TECHNIQUE.

P.S.: You speak of Franz Liszt, but have you forgotten how he practised before he went to Weimar? You speak of Alfred Cortot, but have you gone through all of Cortot's torture exercises in his "Rational principles of piano technique"? You speak of Heinrich Neuhaus, but have you read that Neuhaus thinks that by 18, a pianist should have solved all the technical problems in the VIRTUOSO literature?

you seem like an extremely knowledgeable person based on all of your fourm posts (no sarcasm)
do you read like crazy or something? and is english your native language? you write it very well

[dima_76557]

So, you have to be a virtuoso for a Goldenweiser quote to apply to you?  Gentleman, I rest my case!

Your case seems to be to prove that you have something most participants on this forum seem to lack, judging from your post:

My guess is there's not much knowledge here re musicality.

My case is that your guess could easily be taken as an insult, since what most people here seem to lack is the ability to do something really worthwhile with their taste, general cultural development and imagination, that's why we get all those questions of a technical nature. They mostly lack the proper TECHNIQUE to express what their spirit, taste, culture, and precious knowledge dictate.

As to musicality. I already posted the means to express that here: The craft of Musical Communication, but everything there also seems to come down to TECHNIQUE. It is not enough to have beautiful ideas in one's head and emotions in one's heart. One needs to be able to convey something to the listener, otherwise the rendition will not be accepted as intended. If I want to make people cry, I will have to know (in the sense of be able to apply) the means to do that - TECHNIQUE. Simply start crying myself will make me look like a clown.

And in general: information is not yet knowledge, and knowledge is not yet ability. Until a person has ability, information and knowledge are merely empty words and hollow phrases.

[outin]

And in general: information is not yet knowledge, and knowledge is not yet ability. Until a person has ability, information and knowledge are merely empty words and hollow phrases.

Words of wisdom, but often wasted on the young (and even some not so young) 

[hardy_practice]

My case is that your guess could easily be taken as an insult, since what most people here seem to lack is the ability to do something really worthwhile with their taste, general cultural development and imagination, that's why we get all those questions of a technical nature. They mostly lack the proper TECHNIQUE to express what their spirit, taste, culture, and precious knowledge dictate.

My argument is that most posters do not come here with an 'artistic concerns' perspective rather a technical one.  You say they all have 'artistic concerns' and just lack the technique?  I say a) 'artistic concerns' are harder to learn and b) once learned the body will carry them out - remember Gould's 45 minutes.  Can't quite see what's insulting about that.

And I still can't see how Goldenweiser's advice is only addressed to virtuosos.

[j_menz]

And in general: information is not yet knowledge, and knowledge is not yet ability. Until a person has ability, information and knowledge are merely empty words and hollow phrases.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[ted]

And from the same wonderful mind:

"And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one."

Surely among the most splendidly powerful mystical lines in all literature. They describe exactly what I am after in my music, and in life too.

[dima_76557]

My argument is that most posters do not come here with an 'artistic concerns' perspective rather a technical one.  You say they all have 'artistic concerns' and just lack the technique?  I say a) 'artistic concerns' are harder to learn and b) once learned the body will carry them out - remember Gould's 45 minutes.  Can't quite see what's insulting about that.

The ones with genuine artistic concerns wouldn't ask about technique; they'd ask about artistic solutions, although I don't think that genuine artistic concerns would be something to solve on an Internet forum with an anonymous crowd. There are masterclasses available for that purpose, even on the Internet. Or one could simply go to conservatory and find out that "art" cannot be learned if the necessary prerequisites (very broad cultural baggage + impeccable technique) are not present yet.

I did my best to help solve any artistic concerns that may occur in any of the participants here with the only topic I created (I'll just repeat the link): The craft of Musical Communication, but it seems to me that this is all far above the head of those who can't even do a regular scale properly. The problem is: the people who come here for advice know that themselves better than anybody else. It hurts to tell someone with a disability that he/she is disabled, you see? That's the insulting part of your "guess".

P.S.: Glen Gould could say whatever he wanted (geniuses have such privileges). He would, of course, not be able to teach anyone the mechanics of playing the piano in 45 minutes, and you and I know that very well. Schnabel said that to be able to play the piano, it is enough to open the lid. Cortot said that in order to become a good pianist, one should eat well and sleep enough, etc. People would be better served with something that can actually be applied at their own levels of development, instead of listening to advice by people who are beyond comparison.

EDIT: Goldenweiser's words are not meant for people who can hardly do "Twinkle twinkle little star". His words are for people with a broad cultural background and an already phenomenal technique. What he says is necessary to free the artistic potential in already full-grown craftsmen.

[nanabush]

If you look at the age demographic on the forum, you'll understand why a lot of the comments are based on rankings or "what is the most difficult".. the amount of 'seasoned artists' or even post-secondary music students who frequent this forum probably isn't as much as we'd think.

Also, it's just fun conversation.  Sometimes it's fun to speculate on what constitutes difficulty and virtuoso technique.  The problem though is that a lot of people end up posting shoddy recordings of the Revolutionary Etude thinking they are god  

I find it's a mini right of passage when a piano student fully realizes that applying the technique and thinking of musical/artistic interpretation of a piece is more beneficial than seeking out the "omgz hardest piece ever".  A lot of young students want to show off and play something fast, and a fast encore is awesome, and I guess it is easier to put into words the reaction from a fast piece than something more obscure like emotions drawn from a more intimate piece.

I dunno, it's late here and I wanted to chime in.  I've been on this forum for nearly 10 years, and I was a really dumb grade 9 kid who wanted to play HR2 so I joined the forum haha.  I've seen people come and go, and I find that the people obsessed with speed don't last on this forum too long.  I would have never chosen to play some late Brahms or Bach by choice, but I did both this past year, and didn't have to worry about the stress of making them flashy; it was a new stress, but stimulated a more creative process to get a good sound and make the pieces engaging - something I never thought about years ago when I would be bashing through a piece way beyond my level.


Just for the laughs, I dug out my first post on this forum, and I have to say I'm a little embarrassed!  The spelling mistakes make me cringe, and I'm 100% sure that I only mentioned the Beethoven because apparently it was his "hardest Sonata" haha!


======

(from 2005)

MY FAV PIECES ARE

-Ravel Toccata from Tombeau de Couperin
go to www.classicalmusicarchives.com to listen to it, it's so fast paced and awesome

-Liszt Campanella and Gnomenriegen

-Chopin Etude in C major, the hard one that covers the whole piano lol

-Schumann Estrella from Carnaval, easy and sounds awesome

-Beethoven Hammerklavier

-Once again Liszt, Frisak from Hungarian Rhapsody #2

-Again Liszt, Feux Follets, kinda wacky and near impossible


====

So there you have it; compare that with any of the posts mentioning difficulty; I was 14 at the time, and I can probably name about 15 people on this forum who are likely around this age, just based on the content of their threads lol.

[j_menz]

A lot of young students want to show off and play something fast, and a fast encore is awesome, and I guess it is easier to put into words the reaction from a fast piece than something more obscure like emotions drawn from a more intimate piece.

I think you've stumbled on something here.

Certainly there's a level of interest in technical pyrotechnics from a certain (significant) demographic here, which will always generate some discussion. But then, it is also a lot easier to put into words ways of achieving those pyrotechnics that it is to either describe in words emotional profundity or how to achieve it. 

Words are the medium of this forum (audition room aside). And words are good for "use your first finger", "count to three", "it's a flat", "rotate your wrist a bit", "practice slowly and build up speed gradually" and such like.

But how does one explain, in words, how to play a piece so as to make the listener joyous, excited or cry.

If technique (mechanique) is more prominent here than warranted, it is probably because we have an instrument other than the internet with which to express the rest.

[dima_76557]

So there you have it; compare that with any of the posts mentioning difficulty; I was 14 at the time, and I can probably name about 15 people on this forum who are likely around this age, just based on the content of their threads lol.

Of course. Young people simply want action, not what they think is "sentimental drivel". It's as simple as that. Life will teach them the rest. Sermons about what is actually important fall on deaf ears (what a nice expression in this context, don't you think?).

[ted]

But then, it is also a lot easier to put into words ways of achieving those pyrotechnics that it is to either describe in words emotional profundity or how to achieve it. 

And even then, all one can describe are the visible components. The internal haptic sensations are inaccessible. Someone could tell me to move my fingers in a certain way and I could do it, but whether or not I actually perceive the sensations of doing so even remotely like the instructor himself feels them seems to be largely a matter of luck.  

But how does one explain, in words, how to play a piece so as to make the listener joyous, excited or cry.

How indeed ? Metaphor, simile perhaps ? Again, music is whatever the listener's mind imposes on sounds; a total quale at the best of times. I do not consider music a language of syntactical communication, even emotional, at all now, but simply one of mystical expression. The same sound might render one person joyous and another sad, bore one and thrill another. It has taken me sixty years to work out my own responses, and most of them are so eccentric I would not mention them here or anywhere.  

[dima_76557]

And I still can't see how Goldenweiser's advice is only addressed to virtuosos.

To understand that, you should know what level of playing was expected before one could enter Goldenweiser's class and talk (or rather: receive a monologue) about "artistic concerns", "learning from the body" and other hot topics. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate recordings by young Lazar Berman (a famous Goldenweiser student), but i did find 18-year old Emil Gilels, a Neuhaus student, playing Chopin's ballade no 1:

Note: This level of playing coincides with Gilels entering the Odessa Conservatory. For Moscow, it wasn't good enough yet. He would go to Neuhaus 5 years later only.

Before entering the Odessa Conservatory, Gilels (from a family with no direct musical background) had studied with Yakov Tkatch for 13 years in a row, starting when he was 5. Tkatch was a disciplinarian of the worst kind who emphasized scales and technical studies, thus establishing the foundation of Gilels' technique.

[hardy_practice]

Well, we'll just have to disagree.

Generally speaking, the motto of the performing pianist should be: 'Don't try and teach movement to the body, but learn them from the body.'

is good advice to anybody looking for technique.  The body knows what to do - problem is everyone keeps telling it!

[dima_76557]

Well, we'll just have to disagree.

Generally speaking, the motto of the performing pianist should be: 'Don't try and teach movement to the body, but learn them from the body.'

is good advice to anybody looking for technique.  The body knows what to do - problem is everyone keeps telling it!

For the already performing pianist with the right reflexes in-built this is true, yes, but certainly not up to the level of the simply "advanced" student (that is to say: advanced according to the good old Soviet standards).

P.S.: Did you hear the intimacy in young Gilel's playing, by the way? Straight lines to Chopin himself. Tkatch studied with Raoul Pugno, who in turn studied with Georges Mathias, himself one of Chopin's students. Believe it or not (and notwithstanding the romanticized stories about the Old Masters), but they were all maniacs in the technique department. Liszt was even worse, I'm pretty sure about that.

[hardy_practice]

As for Stanislavsky, here's David Margarshack:

Stanislavsky's 'system' is therefore an attempt to apply certain natural laws of acting for the purpose of bringing the ctor's sub-conscious powers of expression into play.  These laws, Stanislavsky claims, are sufficiently well-defined to be studied and put into practice with the help of psycho-tehnique, which consists of a large number of 'elements', ten of which-'if' given circumstances imagination, attention, relaxation of muscles, pieces and problems, truth and believe, emotional memory communication and extraneous aids - form the ore of the famous 'system'.

Some techniques eh?

[hardy_practice]

P.S.: Did you hear the intimacy in young Gilel's playing, by the way? Straight lines to Chopin himself. Tkatch studied with Raoul Pugno, who in turn studied with Georges Mathias, himself one of Chopin's students. Believe it or not (and notwithstanding the romanticized stories about the Old Masters), but they were all maniacs in the technique department. Liszt was even worse, I'm pretty sure about that.

Enough with the virtuosos already.

[dima_76557]

As for Stanislavsky, here's David Margarshack:
[...]
Some techniques eh?

What do you want to say? The same rules as for Goldenweiser apply - he only accepted already full-grown craftspeople as his students. "Artistic truth" was his motto and his method was in the service of that idea against the standardized methods of his time.

[hardy_practice]

Then again we'll just have to disagree.  I know of no better education for a performer, at any level, than Stanislavsky.

[hardy_practice]

You'll have to pardon me if I round off with a bit more Stan:

'I exaggerated more or less skilfully, I imitated the external manifestations of feelings and actions, but at the same time I did not experience any feelings or any real need for actions.  As the performances went on  I acquired the mechanical habit of going through the once and for all established gymnastic exercises, which were firmly fixed as my stage habits by my muscular memory which is so strong in actors.'

That's something Feinberg says about students in general.

[dima_76557]

Then again we'll just have to disagree.  I know of no better education for a performer, at any level, than Stanislavsky.

Are you sure we are talking about the same system? It is for mature artists only because it relies heavily upon the actor's personal life experience. The external training (physical and vocal approach) in the system is also far from child's play.

[hardy_practice]

Are we? Catch the quote above.

[gyzzzmo]

You'll have to pardon me if I round off with a bit more Stan:

'I exaggerated more or less skilfully, I imitated the external manifestations of feelings and actions, but at the same time I did not experience any feelings or any real need for actions.  As the performances went on  I acquired the mechanical habit of going through the once and for all established gymnastic exercises, which were firmly fixed as my stage habits by my muscular memory which is so strong in actors.'

That's something Feinberg says about students in general.

You're (often wrongly) quoting lots of people here, probably because you lack quality and experience yourself

[awesom_o]

Why are we being so mean to hardly_practice?

I listened to his playing on the clavichord and quite enjoyed it myself.

[dima_76557]

Are we? Catch the quote above.

That quote is one of the explanations of why Stanislavsky created his own method of "artistic truth"; a reaction to the standardized approach towards acting in his time which was in conflict with Stanislavsky's inner self, up to the point that his body started doing things he did not feel as truthful emotions.

It is still unclear to me, though, what that quote does for your crusade against virtuosity. You have to be a true super-virtuoso to be able to go through the Stanislavsky system successfully. Acting is one of the most profound art forms I can imagine. While at the piano you can lie without being unmasked, an actor doesn't have that convenience. Nowhere to hide. "I don't believe you" says Stanislavsky at your audition and there is the door.

[hardy_practice]

You're (often wrongly) quoting lots of people here, probably because you lack quality and experience yourself

I fail to get your point.  The quotes are authentic.

[hardy_practice]

It is still unclear to me, though, what that quote does for your crusade against virtuosity.

'I acquired the mechanical habit of going through the once and for all established gymnastic exercises'  doesn't that ring bells?

[dima_76557]

'I acquired the mechanical habit of going through the once and for all established gymnastic exercises'  doesn't that ring bells?

So? He replaced those exercises with his own. They're still exercises, right? The mind (and body) doesn't simply execute what the actor thinks without proper physical training. You would have to go through some of the super-heavy external training in the system to understand what I am talking about.

[hardy_practice]

So?

No bells rung then?  It's what Feinberg talks about playing your technique (exercises) instead of the actual work written by the composer.

Anyhow, as you seem able to say - 'No, no, this advice is only for virtuosos' to anything I quote, we're at a bit of a stalemate.

[dima_76557]

No bells rung then?  It's what Feinberg talks about playing your technique (exercises) instead of the actual work written by the composer.

As N. already pointed out, you should read the CONTEXT in which things were said. Feinberg uses the word "continue", referring to the mandatory rigid training pianists got before they were allowed to Conservatory.

Feinberg had nothing against that system, by the way. He simply believed that at the level of a full-grown craftsman, the regimen was no longer justified, and it was time to forget about it and start with a more individual approach to technique to develop unique personal artistic features.

I have given this link to Rachmaninov's article more than once, but here it is again:
Ten Important Attributes Of Beautiful Pianoforte Playing.
Under the heading "TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY". I cannot word the reasons for that technical regimen better than the Master himself, so I'll just keep silent.

[hardy_practice]

Yeh, well I don't read posts of those whose only interest is in personal attacks. 

[dima_76557]

Yeh, well I don't read posts of those whose only interest is in personal attacks.

You may want to read Rachmaninov's article about the technical regime, though, and simply accept that Feinberg agreed with Rachmaninov. Feinberg was very much part of the system himself (also one of Goldenweiser's students), and no student was allowed entrance if he/she could not pass the standardized tests. From there on, a new life began of search for the artistic "self". Part of that process was the development of a highly individualized technique, which is what Feinberg is talking about in your quote.