Interpretation And "The Golden Age Of Piano"

[johannesbrahms]

I have been thinking recently about why many people consider the 19th and early 20th centuries to be "The Golden Age Of Piano."  One of the things that I think people like about it is that pianists developed styles that were easily recognizable.  There was more variety in music playing, and pianists didn't follow the score like it was a Bible.  Pianists would add or take away from the score depending on how they felt the piece should be played, and nobody expected them to show evidence to support their conclusions on a piece.  Josef Lhevinne used to say something that I think sums the era up quite neatly:"one of the great beauties of music is that it is not mathematics, where 'two and two' is 'four' and 'five' is wrong."

Unfortunately, in my opinion, that era is over.  Nowadays, the Urtext edition of a piece is the best, and it must be followed to the letter.  Any deviation from the score, unless it is backed up with a ten-page essay showing that it is the way the composer wanted it played, is considered scandalous, and the performer is considered to be an arrogant prick.  And yet the same people who condemn these pianists call Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, Gilels, etc. geniuses and lament that no one is like them in our day.  This, I believe, is one reason classical music is largely unpopular with the newer generations of music listeners.

My first question is: Why does this contradiction exist?

My are other questions are: should we as pianists start to play like the old masters?  Should we give composer's works "color", as Rachmaninoff used to put it?  Why is the composer always right?

I am asking if anyone here is, like me, fed up with the art of interpreting being a mathematical science, instead of true art?  I believe that pianists should experiment with pieces, change things to fit their conception of the piece, and do whatever they want in order to play their own idea of piece.

Do any of you think that we could bring about a second "Golden Age"?  Do you think we could start a sort of "revolution" among classical musicians?

I have been thinking about this for a while, and today I felt I had to see what y'all thought.  Thank you for your time, answers, etc.

[awesom_o]

You know, it's very possible to have an easily recognizable sound without deviating from the musical directions in the score.

I would argue that the more skilled you are, the more freedom you have to work with when recreating music.

I warn you, though... you can't simply 'start to play like the old masters'. You are welcome to try, but you won't all of a sudden start sounding like Francois or Rosenthal.  All true masters, whether they lived back then or today, play with inimitable style. If you want to play like a master, you just need to develop your own style.

But all in all, I like very much the spirit of your post. I support the revolution!

[j_menz]

Unfortunately, in my opinion, that era is over.  Nowadays, the Urtext edition of a piece is the best, and it must be followed to the letter. 

Hello. I am one of those people who will only buy urtext editions of sheet music.

I felt I had to see what y'all thought.  Thank you for your time, answers, etc.

I think you should stop being part of the "problem".

More generally, You are confusing the dewy eyed nostalgia of the few for both fact and the opinion of the many. You then go on to misdiagnose the cause of that and posit a misguided "cure".

There was no golden age, just some good pianists, which is true of this present age as much or more as any other.

[nyiregyhazi]

There was no golden age, just some good pianists, which is true of this present age as much or more as any other.

Not at all. Even the lesser pianists typically played in a STYLE which was totally different back then and which very few play in now. These days, we have some exceptions like Katsaris and Grosvenor. It's just a matter of hoping that the younger generation will exploit the free opportunities of the internet to get acquainted with the stylistic approach of the great pianists. However, there are plenty of clearly great talents like Trifonov, who'd I'd happily hear in concert but who'd I'd never feel truly stunned by. He's a pianist who has phenomenal talent, but he simply doesn't know the stylistic features of making a distinctive piano sound, like Grosvenor does. It's all too square and all too much within a field of limitations that none of the greatest pianists of the past had. It's a real shame when clearly talented musicians sound like good but unremarkable pianists, simply due to being a product of an era that neither teaches nor encourages the things that distinguish the sound world of the great artists from the limited sound of a merely accomplished one.

PS Almost nobody learns to exploit the piano in a genuinely individual way without experimenting with emulation of the effects used by great artists. I've been convinced of this for years and was extremely pleased when Grosvenor (one of the only living pianists who could ever be mistaken for past greats) proved this to be so. Before you can make the piano truly sing, you need to have some awareness of both how the right manner of spreading chords and slightly dislocating the timing of hands can play a role. If you don't first try to learn the musical techniques by which great artists could float their melodies over the top of a texture (initially by trying to emulate), you'll learn you own LACK of voice, not anything remotely original. It's interesting quite how many little details you can hear lifted directly from Horowitz performances in Grosvenor recordings. The recordings as a whole are totally different interpretations, but he didn't get there by trying to live in a vacuum. He learned from the way masters make their sounds and that remains present in some of the details.

[j_menz]

Not at all. Even the lesser pianists typically played in a STYLE which was totally different back then and which very few play in now.

I don't dispute that. However, different periods have their own aesthetic, and we may have a liking for that or even a preference for it.  However, that is entirely a matter of taste.

Saying pianists were better in that era because they did X says no more than that one prefers pianists who do X.

I like gothic architecture, but it's no argument to say that Corbusier (say) is a lesser architect because he doesn't use enough pointed arches.

[johannesbrahms]

You know, it's very possible to have an easily recognizable sound without deviating from the musical directions in the score.

I would argue that the more skilled you are, the more freedom you have to work with when recreating music.

I warn you, though... you can't simply 'start to play like the old masters'. You are welcome to try, but you won't all of a sudden start sounding like Francois or Rosenthal.  All true masters, whether they lived back then or today, play with inimitable style. If you want to play like a master, you just need to develop your own style.

But all in all, I like very much the spirit of your post. I support the revolution!

I do understand that one's style can be easily recognizable while still following the score.  Two of my favorite pianists, Claudio Arrau and Josef Lhevinne, both preached fidelity to the score, and I can tell the difference between their styles within three measures of music.  I think most performers today, who follow the score to the letter, don't put their personality into their playing, which is why I can't tell the difference between them.  I think personality is what creates a person's style, and I also believe that putting personality into music is what makes it music, not mechanical noise.  I have no problems with Urtext edition and somebody following the score exactly, as long as their own personality is put into the performance.  In fact, I always buy Urtext editions, mainly because I don't like cluttered scores, i.e. Artur Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas.

When I made the statement about starting to play like the masters, I just realized I worded it badly.  I didn't mean to copy their style, but to take their most basic, free, living approach to music and apply it to our own playing.  In other words, to do what they did: make the music come alive again instead of turning it into a museum piece.

Besides being a classical pianist, I also play ragtime.  What I said about making music live is being shown in modern ragtime performance.  The top ragtime players today(Martin Spitznagel, Bryan Wright, Bill Edwards, to name a few) all have their own distinctive style, and this is what makes the music live.  They don't play it like other people do, in an ice-cream truck sort of way, but they change the score, adding to it and injecting their own personalities into it.  I think this is why ragtime is becoming somewhat more popular than it used to be.

Thank you for supporting the revolution and for your comment about liking my post!  It really helped me to hear that, in that it showed me that my opinions are somewhat valuable and that I'm not just an idiot.  Thank you!

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't dispute that. However, different periods have their own aesthetic, and we may have a liking for that or even a preference for it.  However, that is entirely a matter of taste.

Saying pianists were better in that era because they did X says no more than that one prefers pianists who do X.

I like gothic architecture, but it's no argument to say that Corbusier (say) is a lesser architect because he doesn't use enough pointed arches.

Not really though. Because people set their criteria pretty universally- i.e. we need to make the piano sound less like a piano and more like a singer or an orchestra etc. The straight and square style of playing is inherently more limited in terms of the capacity to achieve this. If people merely said they prefer something simplistic, that would be fine. But when the very same people preach the need to make the piano so much more, they are actively undermining their very own ethos. Either they are failing to abide by their ethos that they portray as being important, or they're simply full of hot air- and are regurgitating someone else's words (with no true understanding of what it actually means to make the piano sound like a voice or an orchestra, or how to meaningfully achieve such ideals). Brendel is perhaps the ultimate hypocrite- who preaches of wonderful transcendental things but plays with the most ordinary pianistic sound known to man.

Also the great irony, when it comes to freedom of timing between hands, is that those who insist not on taste but that they are "correct" are those who get it completely wrong. Those who do it for reasons of taste are following the historical precedent described by Mozart and Chopin. Those who ban it are not obeying a taste that they were born with but an artificial rulebook (even if it's their teacher's rulebook and not one they ever even consciously knew they were limiting themself by). Again, those who deny taste and make the rules for how piano playing is "supposed" to be are at fault- so it's no good saying that square styles of playing are merely a taste. They are the product of dubious rule making/insufficient imagination to make the piano anything more than a piano. Failing to know how to exploit the most significant tools towards attaining the ideals that you preach is not a taste. It's at best naivety and at worst hypocrisy.

[j_menz]

Because people set their criteria pretty universally- i.e. we need to make the piano sound less like a piano and more like a singer or an orchestra etc.

Transcriptions and impressionistic works aside, I'm quite happy for a piano to sound like a piano. If the composer wanted something to sound sung or orchestrated, most of them were perfectly capable of writing it for more suitable forces.

And on Brendel, perhaps you read into his words your own interpretation of what that would sound like whereas his playing shows he meant something else entirely.

[nyiregyhazi]

Transcriptions and impressionistic works aside, I'm quite happy for a piano to sound like a piano. If the composer wanted something to sound sung or orchestrated, most of them were perfectly capable of writing it for more suitable forces.

And on Brendel, perhaps you read into his words your own interpretation of what that would sound like whereas his playing shows he meant something else entirely.

Nope. I've heard him speak all about orchestration and supposedly making the piano sound like an oboe etc. I don't consider him remotely successful in his attempts. Barenboim too speaks of making implied crescendos, but he's never once implied one to me. That's fine if you're happy with the inherently neutral sound of the piano (with it's thud and then decay) but you're in the exception. Almost all of the square pianists claim to be striving for something more that implies true sustain through a long note and variety of timbres- which is why they are failing not in terms of subjective taste, but on their personally set out terms. All of the great pianists succeed in producing something that goes beyond the innate piano sound. These days, however, even the most respected artists typically milk only a fraction of what it can offer.  

[theholygideons]

some people need an imagination, and perhaps a better stereo system...

[j_menz]

the inherently neutral sound of the piano

Don't put words in my mouth. There is nothing "neutral" about it - it has a wide variety of sounds and timbres and effects. They are aspects of what sounding like a piano entails.

As to the main point you are making, whatever you may personally think of Brendel and Barenboim (and, apparently, pretty much everyone else still alive), they are not short of fans, experienced listeners and musicians amongst them, who do not detect the shortcomings you see (or who do not see them as shortcomings). You may say that they are all wrong, too, but you are starting to dismiss rather a lot people.

[nyiregyhazi]

Don't put words in my mouth. There is nothing "neutral" about it - it has a wide variety of sounds and timbres and effects. They are aspects of what sounding like a piano entails.

As to the main point you are making, whatever you may personally think of Brendel and Barenboim (and, apparently, pretty much everyone else still alive), they are not short of fans, experienced listeners and musicians amongst them, who do not detect the shortcomings you see (or who do not see them as shortcomings). You may say that they are all wrong, too, but you are starting to dismiss rather a lot people.

The piano IS inherently neutral, unless played with desire to make it seem to do things it cannot. However, that also takes a lot of skills and understanding. Sorry, but I heard that lack of interest in transcending the innately neutral piano sound on your YouTube films. Melody and accompaniment had one homogenised sound- not the sound of individual differentiated instrumental timbres, that stand apart from each other. To go beyond the neutral sound, you must have a truly burning desire to MAKE that happen. Otherwise pianists just make the regular neutral piano sound, without chance to make anything personal or unique to them alone. People can like Brendel and Barenboim if they wish, bit they wouldn't be able to distinguish them from other similar players. They're way beyond the neutral sound world of average amateurs but way short of the sound world of masters. great artists of the past really can be identified purely on their style, compared to other players. They have more distinctive qualities and features  

PS there's a film on YouTube comparing Grosvenor and trifonov blind in five works. There wasn't a single one where I couldn't distinguish Grosvenor from the polished yet ultimately middle of the road sound of trifonov - and he's supposedly one of the more interesting players.

[j_menz]

The piano IS inherently neutral, unless played with desire to make it seem to do things it cannot. However, that also takes a lot of skills and understanding. Sorry, but I heard that lack of interest in transcending the innately neutral piano sound on your YouTube films. Melody and accompaniment had one homogenised sound- not the sound of individual differentiated instrumental timbres, that stand apart from each other. To go beyond the neutral sound, you must have a truly burning desire to MAKE that happen. Otherwise pianists just make the regular neutral piano sound, without chance to make anything personal or unique to them alone.

Not, I think, make it seem to do things it cannot, but rather make it do as much of what it can as is (in context) required.  As for my own performance, my interest was largely in not transcending a safe neutrality largely because I could not see any avenue of doing so that produced anything I liked better (or, more honestly, disliked less). And I don't understand why you insist on the term "instrumental timbres" when "different piano timbres" would be the same in practice (albeit not in conception).

PS there's a film on YouTube comparing Grosvenor and trifonov blind in five works. There wasn't a single one where I couldn't distinguish Grosvenor from the polished yet ultimately middle of the road sound of trifonov - and he's supposedly one of the more interesting players.

Does that say anything more than "I can tell them apart and prefer Grosvenor"?

It may also be that people find Trifonov interesting for reasons other than a uniqueness of sound.

I'd also observe that as recording techniques progressed, not only pianists but orchestras as well started sounding more similar. I'm not clear on how that relationship operates, but it is curious.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not, I think, make it seem to do things it cannot, but rather make it do as much of what it can as is (in context) required.  As for my own performance, my interest was largely in not transcending a safe neutrality largely because I could not see any avenue of doing so that produced anything I liked better (or, more honestly, disliked less). And I don't understand why you insist on the term "instrumental timbres" when "different piano timbres" would be the same in practice (albeit not in conception).
 
Does that say anything more than "I can tell them apart and prefer Grosvenor"?

It may also be that people find Trifonov interesting for reasons other than a uniqueness of sound.

I'd also observe that as recording techniques progressed, not only pianists but orchestras as well started sounding more similar. I'm not clear on how that relationship operates, but it is curious.

What matters is that something other than the default uninteresting piano sound is expressed. You can think however you like, as long as the result are not monotonous and lumpy. But if they are, then there's nothing better than a model of smoothness and sustain from singers and other instruments, by which to start making amends. As long as the piano sounds lumpy and ordinary, nothing personal or notably musical can be expressed. Honestly, if you cannot imagine a quality of sound that you'd like more, the model of a singer is exactly what you need to explore. It contains all the qualities that were missed. Thinking pianistically is resulting in the deficiencies of the instruments coming to the forefront of your sound, rather than being skillfully hidden from the listener. The lumps that begin each note are not musically interesting if consistently at the forefront. All the masters knew how to disguise them and only used an initial hard edge for special effects. A neutral intent (which is clearly behind your sound) never takes musical lines off the ground and will not exploit what a piano should have to offer.

If people find trifonovs playing more interesting despite greater monotony, it still remains that's they'd have to pick it out as being more interesting compared to the truckloads of other players of a similar sound. I'd like to see anyone pick his sound out from 10 major competition winners. If they can't, they simply don't know what they like and may very well just be swayed by external factors rather than hearing. They are not hearing a voice or a personality or a style- unless it can actually be identified alongside alternatives. Even to say "he makes the composers voice speak", you'd have to be able to distinguish any supposedly superior ability to do so from other performers, for it to be true. If a person can't distinguish his supposedly remarkable ability to do so from other pros, that ability either does not exist at all or that listener has no capacity to detect it and has merely been duped by external issues. I'm not saying he's a terrible pianist, but compared to masters he's a fine talent turned into a relatively ordinary result.

[j_menz]

What matters is that something other than the default uninteresting piano sound is expressed.

Not if it is the lesser of two evils. It does not make for much of an interpretation, I'll grant you, but neither would a series of random choices of that "something other".

If people find trifonovs playing more interesting despite greater monotony, it still remains that's they'd have to pick it out as being more interesting compared to the truckloads of other players of a similar sound.

And they do. It's a bold assertion to state that they must all be dupes.

[outin]

I personally am a big fan of diversity. To me it's just better when I can hear many completely different versions of my favorite pieces. So I welcome all kinds of performances as long as they are enjoyable, whether they follow the score exactly or not. They may not be enjoyable if the pianists is not skillfull enough, but that's another story...

But to my ears the recordings of past pianists often do sound better than the present ones. It must be a combination of playing style, instrument and recording practices and rechnology.

[thalbergmad]

These days, we have some exceptions like Katsaris and Grosvenor. 

Without them, the World of piano which be much more boring.

Perhaps, unlike many other pianists, they realise that the score is a guide book and not an instruction manual.

Thal

[chrisbutch]

I don't think anybody has yet mentioned Kenneth Hamilton's excellent book After the Golden Age which examines at length the questions raised by the OP - and is generally sympathetic to that point of view:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Romantic-Performance-Hamilton-Dec-06-2007-Hardback/dp/B0092I9VP6/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385112065&sr=1-2

[nyiregyhazi]

Not if it is the lesser of two evils. It does not make for much of an interpretation, I'll grant you, but neither would a series of random choices of that "something other".

And they do. It's a bold assertion to state that they must all be dupes.

? In blind listening? Who has done so? If any big trifonov fans feel that they can pick out his sound or quality from a field of bug competition winners, I'd like to see em go ahead and do so. I didn't assert anything. I pointed out what logically follows unless they are a capable of doing so. If something is distinctive or even merely of unusual quality it has to be identifiable via blind listening otherwise it's not distinctive (either in quality or in style) by definition.


Also, Keypeg made a fine singing tone and produced musical levels. It was not a greater evil that she committed than that of aneutral and lifeless sound. If you're only prepared to see what options are immediately obvious to you (and not what others can achieve) then u won't transcend the neutrality of the piano. The reason people aspire to voice and orchestration is that it stops them settling for whatever is immediately obvious and keeps them aspiring to reach out past that and achieve that which may not have seemed possible at first.

The idea that ANY musical composition can only be played with a mundane and neutral piano sound or with some supposedly greater evil is simply ridiculous. Keypeg alone proved otherwise, not to mention the beautiful sounds pletnev extracts from that miniature. Those who don't aspire for more will not achieve it

[j_menz]

The idea that ANY musical composition can only be played with a mundane and neutral piano sound or with some supposedly greater evil is simply ridiculous.

And I have never said that.  You appear to conflate my excuse behind a poor performance with a suggestion that it should be played thus and then go on to take me as saying that everything should be played thus. You really should pay better attention, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

On the more general level, I have said that (subject to the exceptions I mentioned - transcriptions and impressionistic elements) the broad range of sound qualities available on the piano need not be conceived of by reference to outside examples. I have never said that they should not be deployed. If it helps you to pretend you're playing a bassoon, or being a soprano or whatever, then go for it, but you are playing a piano, and music written for a piano. It's (wide range of) qualities are what is at your disposal.

[nyiregyhazi]

And I have never said that.  You appear to conflate my excuse behind a poor performance with a suggestion that it should be played thus and then go on to take me as saying that everything should be played thus. You really should pay better attention, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

On the more general level, I have said that (subject to the exceptions I mentioned - transcriptions and impressionistic elements) the broad range of sound qualities available on the piano need not be conceived of by reference to outside examples. I have never said that they should not be deployed. If it helps you to pretend you're playing a bassoon, or being a soprano or whatever, then go for it, but you are playing a piano, and music written for a piano. It's (wide range of) qualities are what is at your disposal.

Really, it's impossible to separate a person's success from their opinions though- particularly when we're discussing the level of the "golden age"- rather than talking about whether an amateur child has a relatively "nice" sound or not. The issue is not whether you actively preach neutrality of sound, but whether your attitude gets you beyond that. From what I heard, it doesn't, sorry. If a person who runs a marathon in 6-8 hours said you don't "need" to eat a healthy diet to perform to a peak level, it would be impossible to take their stance seriously in the light of the result. If your performance made the piano "sing" and "speak" with shape and colour and I'd say fine, but it's impossible to separate the ordinary pianistic sound from your attitude that you supposedly don't need to think beyond the piano itself. You really do. Einstein defined madness as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result. You need to try something different if you want to make your sound more than that which is typically expected from the crop of amateur pianists.

The only way to say that a composer wrote in a way that is absolutely tailor made to the piano is to assume that they wanted a "musical" effect of every note starting with a lump and immediately beginning to decay with progressively less sustaining power. Not one of the great composers wrote a piece of music where they didn't want you to create illusions of transcending that. The piano itself is not a remotely good model for that- as it can't do it. Only by picturing the instruments that literally can (and being self-critical in comparisons to what they can do) can a pianist develop an ear for whether they are succeeding in the illusions, or making sounds that could never even begin to trick the ear of their listeners.

If you achieved such illusions in your recordings then I'd say fine. But it's impossible to treat the view seriously when the results are the standard amateur pianistic sound of heavy attacks followed by sagging- with no significant illusions of anything more. In particular there is no sense of transcending the expected lumpiness that is heard from most pianists. You need to compare yourself to instruments which CAN do a literal legato line if you are going to become self-critical enough to get beyond that.

[j_menz]

The only way to say that a composer wrote in a way that is absolutely tailor made to the piano is to assume that they wanted a "musical" effect of every note starting with a lump and immediately beginning to decay with progressively less sustaining power. Not one of the great composers wrote a piece of music where they didn't want you to create illusions of transcending that.

I agree that composers intended one to transcend your rather limited view of a piano sound. I also agree that experience of a range of other sounds, including instruments, provide "inspiration" or examples. However, whatever may be the abstract musical idea, it must be realised on a piano, and it was expected by the composer that it would and could be.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have been thinking recently about why many people consider the 19th and early 20th centuries to be "The Golden Age Of Piano."  One of the things that I think people like about it is that pianists developed styles that were easily recognizable.  

I think also the development of recordings pushed the fame of these early pianists much more than what we see in todays pianists. They were not any better than we are today, in fact I would bet all I have that the pianists these days are in general MUUUUCHHH better than in the past.

There was more variety in music playing, and pianists didn't follow the score like it was a Bible.  Pianists would add or take away from the score depending on how they felt the piece should be played, and nobody expected them to show evidence to support their conclusions on a piece.  Josef Lhevinne used to say something that I think sums the era up quite neatly:"one of the great beauties of music is that it is not mathematics, where 'two and two' is 'four' and 'five' is wrong."

You can still hear people stylize pieces they play and effect it to make it uniquely their own. Adding notes or improvising on a piece, this skill still exists and people are still doing it eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriela_Montero
And they are doing better than those in the past imo.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, that era is over.  Nowadays, the Urtext edition of a piece is the best, and it must be followed to the letter.  Any deviation from the score, unless it is backed up with a ten-page essay showing that it is the way the composer wanted it played, is considered scandalous, and the performer is considered to be an arrogant prick.

Maybe in competitions but if you did your own solo concert I doubt people would recoil in such disgust.

And yet the same people who condemn these pianists call Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, Gilels, etc. geniuses and lament that no one is like them in our day.  This, I believe, is one reason classical music is largely unpopular with the newer generations of music listeners.

In all honesty I think this is a fantasy that no one plays like "them". Of course no one plays exactly like them because everyone plays uniquely, but the exponents of these masters are just as brilliant as they should be, they are not lacking! Classical music is more popular than ever, more accessible to the general public, go back 100 odd years and you will see only the rich and upper class could enjoy it, now everyone can.

...should we as pianists start to play like the old masters?  Should we give composer's works "color", as Rachmaninoff used to put it?  Why is the composer always right?

I feel that the notes themselves unmistakably cause you to play in the style of the masters. There is no magical thinking or special technique to bring it out, the notes themselves imply the language of the composer.

I am asking if anyone here is, like me, fed up with the art of interpreting being a mathematical science, instead of true art?  I believe that pianists should experiment with pieces, change things to fit their conception of the piece, and do whatever they want in order to play their own idea of piece.

Personally I enjoy hearing pristine recordings which have been engineered so that the performance reflect an ideal. I also enjoy listening to live playing, raw and unedited. Both provide us with enjoyment and insight into the music and musician.

Do any of you think that we could bring about a second "Golden Age"?  Do you think we could start a sort of "revolution" among classical musicians?

The idea of perfection in playing is becoming more and more a target for aspiring pianists, to the detriment of many unfortunately. Many will not perform because they do not play as well as "so and so's" recording and thus never perform. We are seeing a new age in music nowadays and it is living on the internet much more exciting than the old fuddy duddy days imo.

[nyiregyhazi]

I agree that composers intended one to transcend your rather limited view of a piano sound. I also agree that experience of a range of other sounds, including instruments, provide "inspiration" or examples. However, whatever may be the abstract musical idea, it must be realised on a piano, and it was expected by the composer that it would and could be.

Given that nobody suggested choosing another instrument to play it on, that's irrelevant. The point being made is that if you do not compare this type of sound:

 
to that of a singer who can sustain their lines (without a sense of an attack followed by a fade on virtually every individual melody note) you have no basis upon which to begin making amends. Think in terms of the standard piano sound and it's neither especially good nor bad. Compare to a singer and you start to realise how much more must be desired if you are to even begin to exploit what a piano can do. By not having a greater concept than the piano itself, you cannot hope to reach even the basics of what the piano really can do, never mind the limits. The descending interval at 12 seconds in is a SIGH that ends a phrase. You have no sense of easing out the last of the breath, no dynamic differentiation, no sigh. Nothing but two equally timbred hammer blows. You cannot seriously expect to credibly argue that a pianist does not need to emulate the voice when you fall quite so far short of basic musicianship and phrasing and produce such an ordinary pianistic sound, that evokes nothing but the most expected sound of a piano.

(PS. It is on a pianistic level that you need to appreciate quite how impossible it to evoke a singing line when your accompaniment is so close in volume and timbre to the melodic line, rather than on a different level (like another instrument). However, it's only by comparing to the literal sustained sound of a sustained line that you could appreciate quite how far short that falls of how golden age pianists were able to create the illusion of sustain. The line does not carry. If you don't consider outside of the piano itself, you won't realise quite how much work there is to be done on your sound production in order to get beyond the inherently mundane sound of a piano. Also, if you stopped to imagine a singer plus a piano accompanist, you might actually notice that your "pianist" almost unfailingly plays the minimally interesting off-beat chords substantially louder than the "singer". If you're not interested in looking beyond the piano, don't expect to understand quite how many basic musical principles you are contravening.)

[dima_76557]

@ johannesbrahms

In a "market"

1) where most bearers of the Spiritual Culture have given up the battle, greatly "helped" by people with pseudo-scientific principles (beautiful touch does not exist, our forefathers had a "wrong", "inefficient" technique, etc.)

and

2) that is dominated by

* surrogate listening experience in both audience and contemporary performers (listening to digital recordings can NEVER reflect or replace the listening experience in a concert hall);
* people with only $$ in their eyes who abuse the Culture as a "commodity";
* people who try very hard but are still NOT bearers of the Spiritual Culture,

your wish sounds like Utopia. At home or in musical events we organize ourselves virtually for free, we can do whatever we want, of course, but the "Golden Age" is gone and we have only ourselves to blame for that. It's something we will have to live with.

[kevin69]

Nowadays, the Urtext edition of a piece is the best, and it must be followed to the letter.

As it says in this article from a publisher of urtext editions:
https://www.henle.com/us/urtext-editions/what-is-urtext.html
"There is no such thing as the one valid Urtext version of a musical composition,..."

So the publishers or urtext disagree with you here.

 Any deviation from the score, unless it is backed up with a ten-page essay showing that it is the way the composer wanted it played, is considered scandalous, and the performer is considered to be an arrogant prick. 

Can you supply any actual examples of reviews that back up your claim here?

I believe that pianists should experiment with pieces, change things to fit their conception of the piece, and do whatever they want in order to play their own idea of piece.

Sure, go ahead, this is how people play in the rock, pop, jazz and folk traditions.
The classical tradition is to stick closely to the score, but if the music you are making is enjoyable, it'll be popular. It probably won't be labelled 'classical' though, especially if you experiment in public by improvising.

I think you are setting up a bit of  straw man here: if popular pianists stick closely to a score, then its probably because they and their audiences enjoy that, rather than some great conspiracy. Who knows how long current tastes will last? Perhaps in 20 years time the urtext will be out of fashion.

[chicoscalco]

Not really though. Because people set their criteria pretty universally- i.e. we need to make the piano sound less like a piano and more like a singer or an orchestra etc. The straight and square style of playing is inherently more limited in terms of the capacity to achieve this. If people merely said they prefer something simplistic, that would be fine. But when the very same people preach the need to make the piano so much more, they are actively undermining their very own ethos. Either they are failing to abide by their ethos that they portray as being important, or they're simply full of hot air- and are regurgitating someone else's words (with no true understanding of what it actually means to make the piano sound like a voice or an orchestra, or how to meaningfully achieve such ideals). Brendel is perhaps the ultimate hypocrite- who preaches of wonderful transcendental things but plays with the most ordinary pianistic sound known to man.

Also the great irony, when it comes to freedom of timing between hands, is that those who insist not on taste but that they are "correct" are those who get it completely wrong. Those who do it for reasons of taste are following the historical precedent described by Mozart and Chopin. Those who ban it are not obeying a taste that they were born with but an artificial rulebook (even if it's their teacher's rulebook and not one they ever even consciously knew they were limiting themself by). Again, those who deny taste and make the rules for how piano playing is "supposed" to be are at fault- so it's no good saying that square styles of playing are merely a taste. They are the product of dubious rule making/insufficient imagination to make the piano anything more than a piano. Failing to know how to exploit the most significant tools towards attaining the ideals that you preach is not a taste. It's at best naivety and at worst hypocrisy.

I agree 100%.

[chicoscalco]

Not, I think, make it seem to do things it cannot, but rather make it do as much of what it can as is (in context) required.  As for my own performance, my interest was largely in not transcending a safe neutrality largely because I could not see any avenue of doing so that produced anything I liked better (or, more honestly, disliked less). And I don't understand why you insist on the term "instrumental timbres" when "different piano timbres" would be the same in practice (albeit not in conception).
 
Does that say anything more than "I can tell them apart and prefer Grosvenor"?

It may also be that people find Trifonov interesting for reasons other than a uniqueness of sound.

I'd also observe that as recording techniques progressed, not only pianists but orchestras as well started sounding more similar. I'm not clear on how that relationship operates, but it is curious.

This is very curious indeed. I don't think people take recording issues into account as much as they should be.