Harassing PF members

[awesom_o]

No, I'm more critical of myself than anyone else can ever be.

You'd be surprised, how critical I can be.

[faulty_damper]

You'd be surprised, how critical I can be.

Is that why you idolize Horowitz and Rachmaninoff? 

[liszt1022]

This thread sure is useless.

[lazyfingers]

Is that why you idolize Horowitz and Rachmaninoff?  

That is why few like you here. You keep (mis)characterising someone else's feeling/stance/position on a certain topic and in the process degrade them in a condescending manner. It is a form of "strawman" argument and argumentum ad hominem combined together.


Respecting isn't the same as "idolize".

[lazyfingers]

You can criticize what is said, but you shouldn't attack the person saying it.

Great advice (one of the few where you actually make sense) ... perhaps you should consider heeding it yourself.

Remember this?

Your ignorance is showing as well as your naivete but you don't have the experience to know it.

Please ... you sure can dish it out but can't take it. Bah.... coward!

[lazyfingers]

No, I'm more critical of myself than anyone else can ever be.

I must admit... you are being far too modest for a change. Au contraire... You CAN be a lot more critical of yourself... perhaps then you can stop your mindless and condescending chatter that nobody takes seriously.

[lazyfingers]

The proof is in the pudding.

Bah... we want to see the "pudding". Just show us one ... one will do.. exponent of great technique that is better than Horowitz, Rachmaninov, Lisitsa, ..... etc, following your peerless "thin forearmed" technique devoid of co-contractions. Failing that.. it is not surprising that many have asked you to demonstrate this remarkable technique that apparently is effortless, does not need much practice, and will survive till you are 120 years old. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask a peerless teacher to demonstrate his technique? We are not asking you to perform or teach... just to demonstrate!

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

So... you are saying you are a great teacher of technique then! Well ... the "pudding" is simple... even great teachers can demonstrate what they propose. Please demonstrate! The stage is yours....

[pianoman53]

No, I'm more critical of myself than anyone else can ever be.

Your arguments on why you wont post a link grows stronger and stronger every day.

[gyzzzmo]

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?

[dima_76557]

Out of curiosity, i dont like Rachmaninovs and (most of) Horowitz' playing style either, although i'm an absolute fan of playing Rachmaninovs compositions.

Playing style and technique are different things. Faulty's preposterous attacks on Rachmaninoff were about objective parameters of technique/mechanics, not about subjective style or taste.

Do you people think that others may only criticise if you're at least on the same technical level?

Generally, no. This would mean that most of us here (except for two or three really outstanding pianists) would have to keep silent always. This would clearly defeat the purpose of this forum. It would also be beside the point of what the topic is REALLY about.

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" - then you should indeed be forced to either deliver and show what acceptable technique is, or shut up. There should be absolutely zero tolerance from the community in this respect, because accepting that kind of behavior from someone who is not even an owner of the culture is denying your own musical/cultural quality standards; denying your very self if you wish.

[awesom_o]

It's the tone that makes the music.

What utter nonsense, dima.

We all know it's about how the physical technique of playing LOOKS in comparison to faulty_damper's, that really makes the music!

 

[faulty_damper]

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.

[faulty_damper]

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"...

I can hear fine on my own and do not need the masses to tell me what to think.

[pianoman53]

Okay, this is not even funny anymore. Let faulty_technique live in his imaginary world, where he is the greatest musician, and everyone else is wrong.

It was fun to read at first, but now it's nothing bit pathetic.

[mjames]

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.

So you really do think Rachmaninoff and Horowitz had a poor technique.....?

[dima_76557]

I can hear fine on my own and do not need the masses to tell me what to think.

It's not about what you think you hear; it's how you express to a culturally trained audience what you think you hear in a cultural form that is basically alien to you.

Let's say that I listen to Chinese Opera and it makes the impression upon me that they are skinning a cat on the stage. Do I have a right to call it "crap" in a community that receives genuine aesthetic pleasure from that art? I don't think so because I may be missing some essentials to determine what makes it so good. I was told by connoisseurs that the art of Chinese Opera is judged almost exclusively by voice control of a kind that is VERY difficult to master. Even if I argue that the vocal tract is not supposed to be used the way they use it and that a beautiful voice is supposed to sound different, I can do nothing but offend bearers of the culture with my pseudo-scientific arguments and cultural background/training.

[faulty_damper]

So you really do think Rachmaninoff and Horowitz had a poor technique.....?

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.

[pianoman53]

So because you don't understand it, it means that it's a bad thing. It's so incredibly typical for ignorant people to think like that!

[dima_76557]

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.

Let me tell you a secret: neither Rachmaninoff nor Horowitz used truly ISOLATED finger action, ever. Both played from the stomach and their system never revealed its secrets to bystanders by simply looking at what they were doing.

[gyzzzmo]

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.

Sorry Faulty_damper, but i strongly have to disagree with you.
Good teachers know that there are multiple ways of becoming a good pianist, even though they prefer a certain path themselves.
If you listen to Rachmaninovs recordings, then you must admit that -however he is doing it-, it seems to work for him very well.

Saying that Rachmaninov is a bad pianist, or people like Glenn Gould, because they sat differently behind their piano's than most people these days.... Dont you think that is a bit narrow minded yourself?

Gyzzzmo

[faulty_damper]

Because they have the same anatomy as every other human, they can be compared directly to every other pianist.  There are many ways you can play the piano, but only a couple of ways that are most efficient.

When it comes to technique, I just have far higher standards.  It's not good enough to sound good, you also have to make it look easy/effortless.

[pianoman53]

What standards?! You still haven't mentioned any of them! Quit smoking that weed, or whatever your doing to sink to such an unbelieveble ignorance!
You've showed time after time that you probably don't kbow how to play piano, yet to criticise pianist. No, I don't "idolize" them. I just simply have enough understanding to get my personal taste out of the way. If I adore a pianist, o can still manage to find things I'd prefer in a different way. The sane with pianists I don't like; even if I seldom like, for example, sokolov, I still attend his recitals and try to listen with fresh ears.

Your ears are so down the sink that I'm amazed that you still can listen to anything at all. How can you even pretend to be a musician, when you have such a closed mind. How can you listen, when you already made up your mind, EVEN IF IS ONLY FROM A PICTURE OF THEM PLAYING?

Stop being so full of yourself, get your ego aside for a while, and just understand that you're wrong.

[awesom_o]

When it comes to technique, I just have far higher standards.
 

Far higher standards than Horowitz or Rachmaninoff, yet you don't want to share the musical results of these standards to anybody.  How convenient!