No, I'm more critical of myself than anyone else can ever be.
You'd be surprised, how critical I can be.
Is that why you idolize Horowitz and Rachmaninoff?
You can criticize what is said, but you shouldn't attack the person saying it.
Your ignorance is showing as well as your naivete but you don't have the experience to know it.
The proof is in the pudding.
I had a well-known concert pianist for a teacher once. He was admired not just by many of the piano students but also by some of the piano staff (in-fighting aside.) Whenever he held a concert, they would all go because he was such a marvelous performer. Many of my classmates wanted to take lessons from him because they wanted to be able to play like him. But on the contrary, since I was his student, I would never have recommended him (kicking me out of his studio, aside.) But it seemed that everyone was so enchanted by him that they overlooked the necessary qualifications of a good teacher: their own outcomes. None of his students improved significantly over the course of their studies and many of his students came out with piano-related injuries. As good as a performer he was on stage, in a lesson, he just didn't have the knowledge to teach. They were all so blissfully ignorant just to say that they were his student.The point is that I could be a concert pianist but that doesn't guarantee that I would be able to transfer my knowledge to my students. I could be a competition winner, but that still doesn't mean I'm a good teacher. A good teacher should be able to bring about drastic changes and improvements over a short time. A bad one may bring about changes over a long time, and sometimes, those changes can be damaging.For any of you who thinks "slow practice" and "no pedal" is good enough instruction, then follow it. I'll even offer you that advice for free. Don't be fooled by anyone who happens to be performer, even ones you admire with big names. Performing and teaching are two entirely different skill-sets that simply don't transfer to one another.Buyer beware - the proof is in the pudding
Out of curiosity, i dont like Rachmaninovs and (most of) Horowitz' playing style either, although i'm an absolute fan of playing Rachmaninovs compositions.
Do you people think that others may only criticise if you're at least on the same technical level?
It's the tone that makes the music.
If you criticise UNJUSTLY - as in Faulty's attacks on Rachmaninoff (generally accepted as one of the greatest pianists who ever lived), whose technique was supposedly "crappy"...
Yes, that's correct, Awesom_o, you can quickly glean the competence of a pianist simply by how they look, not by how they sound. This sounds preposterous to most people, which is why so many of you are offended by it, but it's true. Compare two pianists playing the same work, one looks like he's sweating and another who looks like he's accompanying Sunday choir - who's more competent? Most people would think the accompanist but it's also rare to see anyone accompanying Sunday choir.And this point has been brought up before but it so important to differentiate: Do not confuse good musicianship with good technique. You can sound good because simply because you are a good musician and will do anything to achieve the desired sound even with a poor technique.
I can hear fine on my own and do not need the masses to tell me what to think.
So you really do think Rachmaninoff and Horowitz had a poor technique.....?
I think most teachers agree with this as few would ever recommend sitting so low, playing flat-fingered, or use so much isolated finger movements.
Yes, I do. They were both decent musicians, but from a technical point of view, I cannot endorse the manner in which they played. I think most teachers agree with this as few would ever recommend sitting so low, playing flat-fingered, or use so much isolated finger movements.
When it comes to technique, I just have far higher standards.
Topic: Harassing PF members 