Unpopular Opinions

[winsto7]

Unpopular opinion: As a barely classical, but more jazz/contemporary pianist, metronomes are overrated and inhibit your ability to truly play freely.

[klavieronin]

Unpopular opinion: As a barely classical, but more jazz/contemporary pianist, metronomes are overrated and inhibit your ability to truly play freely.

I think that applies equally to classical music.

[bwl_13]

I think that applies equally to classical music.

Agreed. I do think the metronome can be a useful tool for building technique or when trying to figure out the exact rhythm of a piece of music, but playing with metronome often does limit freedom

[jimf12]

The whole point of a metronome is to limit freedom.   Being a slave to it I could see being bad, but I would have to disagree with the general premise if I understand correctly.   I even use a metronome on pieces I know will be played rubato, just to get my bearings straight.    At some point in the pieces development I ditch the metronome, for the very reason mentioned.   But starting out, or to just get a checkpoint, I do use it. 

[lelle]

The whole point of a metronome is to limit freedom.   Being a slave to it I could see being bad, but I would have to disagree with the general premise if I understand correctly.   I even use a metronome on pieces I know will be played rubato, just to get my bearings straight.    At some point in the pieces development I ditch the metronome, for the very reason mentioned.   But starting out, or to just get a checkpoint, I do use it.

I think the metronome, used appropriately, is a useful tool. Like, you can use yourself to check that you are steady when it's necessary. But relying on it and playing everything with it I do not think is the quickest way to develop an internal sense of pull. Plus, most music is alive and has constant small fluctuations in pulse.

[iosquiii]

Okay, I'll get the ball rolling. I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion per se but many music examinations insist on playing music from different periods. So, my "unpopular" opinion is this;

You don't need to study music from different periods to become a good pianist.

I agree with that, the problem is that it is difficult to escape some period, they are all important for the construction of the technique

[j_tour]

The Sixto-Clementine Latin Vulgate translation of the New Testament is one of the only translations I can recommend.  As a decided non-theologian, and a non-expert in Latin language....just can read it OK.  I just don't like biblical passages or prayers in English, for reasons.  But don't worry, my koine Gk is much worse.

In Latin, spoken or read, trust me, is much nicer.

The *Nova Vulgata*...since 1979 the official RCC translation/revision...I don't have a print copy, and I don't care. 

[swilliams002]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, so hopefully this has not been said before.

My (relatively) unpopular opinion: Hanon is a great way to build technique and facility at the piano.
The majority of those who criticize Hanon have not thought through things clearly and precisely. This comes from someone who used to trash Hanon, and wasted precious time that could have been spent mastering the exercises. Change my mind on one or both of these points.

[robertus]

My unpopular (but true) opinion is that training of equality and independence of the fingers is the most important aspect of piano technique, which is best developed by means of the exercises of Isidore Philip.

I am also in favor of practicing finger exercises while reading novels at the piano.

[Bob]

I am also in favor of practicing finger exercises while reading novels at the piano.

Bingo.  Watching tv or a movie works too.  It does keep the fingers in shape.

What do you use to hold the book though?  I've been looking for a study boom mic type of stand... for years.

[robertus]

Bingo.  Watching tv or a movie works too.  It does keep the fingers in shape.

What do you use to hold the book though?  I've been looking for a study boom mic type of stand... for years.

I try to find book which will stay open on their own! Or sometimes use other, heavier books to keep the pages open.

I've never tried watching TV or movies, though. Wouldn't the sound of the piano interfere with the other medium?

[klavieronin]

This one came up with a student. Not sure what people here think but my student refused to accept this opinion.

When you're tired or don't feel like practising, doing some practice, even if its mechanical, absentminded or just for a few minutes, is still better than not practising at all.

[transitional]

Chopin's music is just random notes backed by the matching chords despite it "sounding good". Chopin was aware of this, though, if you look at his quotes.

[klavieronin]

Chopin's music is just random notes backed by the matching chords despite it "sounding good". Chopin was aware of this, though, if you look at his quotes.

I heard someone the other day play one of Chopin's nocturnes on solo violin (just the melody). It seems to me that if what you are saying is true then this should sound terrible, but it didn't. It sounded wonderful.

I'd love to see some of the quotes you are referring to though. Any chance you could provide some?

[lelle]

Chopin's music is just random notes backed by the matching chords despite it "sounding good". Chopin was aware of this, though, if you look at his quotes.

As somebody who loves Chopin I'm TRIGGERED. Can you give an example of where it's just "random notes" backed by the matching chords?

[themeandvariation]

Well, it would help if there was a little context to this supposed Chopin quote about his music being random notes....
Although Chopin does seem to be a bit self-deprecating, if this quote Was actually said - I would imagine a wry smile ... (he knows very well how meticulously he puts a composition together).
Anywho, Other composer's opinion of themselves run the gamut - and many are in doubt about their own ability.
Bach said: " “I worked hard. Anyone who works as hard as I did can achieve the same results."
Oh, really!!
Ravel, when talking about Bolero said: "that the work had "no form, properly speaking, no development, no or almost no modulation".
It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction, and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving anything different from, or anything more than, it actually does achieve. Before its first performance, I issued a warning to the effect that what I had written was a piece lasting seventeen minutes and consisting wholly of "orchestral tissue without music"

And many other composer as well.  So , ultimately, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Of course.

And now, I'll leave you with some Chopin quotes. Cheerio!

Chopin:
I shall create a new world for myself. Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.

It is dreadful when something weighs on your mind, not to have a soul to unburden yourself to. You know what I mean. I tell my piano the things I used to tell
you.
I wish I could throw off the thoughts which poison my happiness, but I take a kind
of pleasure in indulging
them.

Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as
the crowning reward of art.

I'm a revolutionary, money
means nothing to me.
Man is never always happy, and very often only a brief period of happiness is granted him in this world; so why escape from this dream
which cannot last long?

A long time ago I decided that my universe will be the
soul and heart of man.
Every difficulty slurred over will be a ghost to disturb
your repose later on.
My manuscripts sleep, while I cannot, for I am covered with
poultices.
Nothing is more odious than music without hidden
meaning.
After a rest in Edinburgh, where, passing a music-shop, I heard some blind man
playing a mazurka of mine.
“One needs only to study a certain positioning of the hand in relation to the keys to obtain with ease the most beautiful sounds, to know how to play long notes and short notes and to achieve certain unlimited dexterity. A well formed technique, it seems to me, can control and vary a beautiful sound quality.”

The Official Bulletin declared that the Poles should be as proud of me as the Germans are of Mozart; obvious
nonsense.
Bach is an astronomer, discovering the most marvelous stars. Beethoven challenges the universe. I only try to express the soul
and the heart of man.
Concerts are never real music, you have to give up the idea of hearing in them all the most beautiful things
of art.
My earthly body has been a terrible disappointment to
me.
To die is man's finest action
and what might be his worst?
To be born.
1 don't know how it is, but the Germans are amazed at me and I am amazed at them for finding anything to be
amazed about.
Here, whatever is not boring
is not English.
An arid melancholy has held
me for so long in its grip.
“I have met a great celebrity, Madame Dudevant, known as George Sand. Her appearance is not to my liking. Indeed there is something about her which positively repels me. What an unattractive person La Sand is. Is she really a woman? I’m inclined to doubt it.”
I feel like a violin string E attached to a peasant double
bass.
Put all your soul into it. play
the way you feel!

[transitional]

It's not that I hate Chopin, I just don't see the logic behind his compositions, I suppose. His pieces are super fun to play on piano. I don't want you to be offended by anything said on here as this is an "unpopular opinions" page.

Here you go:

"Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."

"Bach is an astronomer, discovering the most marvellous stars. Beethoven challenges the universe. I only try to express the soul and the heart of man."

[themeandvariation]

Transitional: "I just don't see the logic behind his compositions, I suppose. His pieces are super fun to play on piano. I don't want you to be offended by anything said .."

No, the offense is that you said Chopin said his pieces are a collection of random notes..." Or perhaps you were paraphrasing. But Where is the quote you are referring to?
The quotes you offered were in my previous post, but they say nothing about this "random note" idea.
So, by your last post we understand that You don't see the logic behind his compositions. Perhaps you are conflating Your opinion - and saying it's Chopin's opinion as well.

[keypeg]

Taking "Simplicity is the final achievement ......"

It takes mastery to achieve simplicity, and even greater mastery for that simplicity to work.  Novices to a craft do complicated things, and they also are unable to achieve this simplicity.

Meanwhile, music that is written by formula and especially the formulas we learn and are taught will make it easy for us to grasp the structure and form.  Other music may be beyond our grasp, but that doesn't mean the notes are random - just that we haven't learned to grasp what is there.

[lelle]

It's not that I hate Chopin, I just don't see the logic behind his compositions, I suppose. His pieces are super fun to play on piano. I don't want you to be offended by anything said on here as this is an "unpopular opinions" page.

I was being facetious, I'm not actually offended but I'm still curious if you can clarify, give an example of a composition or part that seems to lack logic/is random notes?

[transitional]

One example that I can pinpoint is his Nocturne in C# Minor, Op. posthumous. It doesn't draw me in, in fact, the first four bars are just a simple C-sharp minor cadence. I don't feel that the first few notes are followed by logic, they are simply producing tones on this scale. Many flourishes are characterized by triplets descending down the C#m scale - the final measures are flourishes on the scale as well. There is no sophisticated development, if there is one much at all. I understand that simplicity is hard to maintain when composing a piece, as many ideas often jump out at once. However, it is easy to refine and achieve a simple form. One argument says that Chopin simply builds on elementary theory, where all apparent innovation is hidden or not present. I don't really have much else to say on the matter, as I'm confused as well and it's stuck at the back of my head at the moment. Sorry if I sound too harsh, I couldn't really find any other way to get it across.

[lelle]

One example that I can pinpoint is his Nocturne in C# Minor, Op. posthumous. It doesn't draw me in, in fact, the first four bars are just a simple C-sharp minor cadence. I don't feel that the first few notes are followed by logic, they are simply producing tones on this scale. Many flourishes are characterized by triplets descending down the C#m scale - the final measures are flourishes on the scale as well. There is no sophisticated development, if there is one much at all. I understand that simplicity is hard to maintain when composing a piece, as many ideas often jump out at once. However, it is easy to refine and achieve a simple form. One argument says that Chopin simply builds on elementary theory, where all apparent innovation is hidden or not present. I don't really have much else to say on the matter, as I'm confused as well and it's stuck at the back of my head at the moment. Sorry if I sound too harsh, I couldn't really find any other way to get it across.

I do not think that Nocturne is the most refined example of his writing, to be honest, though it all sounds beautiful to the ear. It was published posthumously for a reason - Chopin didn't want it published during his life time. That particular piece was written as an exercise for his sister (I think) to prepare her for playing the 2nd piano concerto, and therefore includes some thematic material from that one.

Chopin does build a lot of his compositions on basic theory building blocks that he often decorates in innovative ways - that's what composers did in his time. But he also alternates that with harmonic innovations, and the way he puts it all together is what I think sets him apart as a composer. But I would not bring up that Nocturne as an example of his mastery, more like something like the Ballades.

[transitional]

Thank you! I'll have to think more about that. I haven't really explored all of Chopin yet, so I'll keep that in mind. There are so many great composers out there and sometimes I feel inclined to have to criticize them. (I once heard someone on another forum saying that many people like to criticize certain composers yet they don't write half as good music! lol!) I started composing recently and a lot of things I've been working on sound like Chopin, but my theory is still quite bare. Maybe that's how I feel that Chopin's compositions "lack logic," when I write pieces to sound good as well. To argue from that perspective, I could say the same about anything I've done (though I do feel that exact way.)

[thorn]

(I once heard someone on another forum saying that many people like to criticize certain composers yet they don't write half as good music! lol!)

Lol if being able to compose yourself were a prerequisite for criticising other composers then forums would be quiet places, not to mention the damage this would do to music journalists and academics (classical and non-classical alike!) 

[resurrectcodeblack]

My unpopular opinion: having never played them, thus only going off of my (rather good) powers of hearing, the Rach 2 is really boring. Compared to the Rach 3,. It makes so little musical sense. Sure, he wrote some beautiful tunes (Eric Carmen), but the intricate interplay between piano and orchestra that we hear in the Rach 3 is missing. I'd love to hear what people have to say on this.

[Bob]

Routines can be good.

Thinking about music technically isn't blasphemy.

If you don't have the technique to play a piece, you can't really play that piece.  You can still play it, some version of it, but it's the not the same as having 100% of the technique to really play it.

I've never tried watching TV or movies, though. Wouldn't the sound of the piano interfere with the other medium?

Earbuds and headphones.  And pick technical things that don't require you listen to them so much.  Although I have noticed if you're not listening as closely, technique can get blurred up.  Like always playing scales fast... I can do that, but the imperfections between the notes go unnoticed.  Or, I can play faster if I normally do that, but not slower or medium.  It needs more concentration if I haven't done that for a long time.

[transitional]

Chopin's music is just random notes backed by the matching chords despite it "sounding good". Chopin was aware of this, though, if you look at his quotes.

Anyone that was giving me beef when I first posted this will be happy to know that I have since changed my mind (kind of). I was definitely exaggerating a bit when I described this, though he's not really my favorite composer. But after listening to his longer works a bit more (Ballades, Scherzi, Sonatas 1 and 2, Barcarolle, Concerto 1), I get the quite evocative feeling people look for in them. The first Chopin piece I played was the Prelude in A Major (Op. 28 No. 7) and then I played the B Minor prelude. I still don't quite like these pieces even though I know simpler is better, because I feel Chopin mastered the longer forms better. Also everyone has different tastes (I think I saw a forum user the other day who didn't care for his waltzes). Please keep in mind that I have nothing against easy music - I love many easy pieces such as the Clementi sonatinas, but if you look at the "easy preludes," they still look to me like simple theory with the matching chords. It all works well together, I think I was just in a "I could write that" mindset and didn't want to see past what else he had to offer. Chopin's still not my favorite composer, but I can still respect his stuff a bit more.

Now, someone, please guide me through Satie's music. In modern culture, apparently I'll just come off as rude and uninsightful if I tell the complete truth. So let me just say that I don't understand Satie's music much - it's good and all, but I don't get how he is just as well known as his contemporaries like Ravel, who I feel did a lot more for harmony and piano technique.

[flyusx]

Schoenberg is great and is definitely worth listening to.
Yes, I'm serious. I listen to Schoenberg in my free time.
Sue me.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

La Campanella is actually good.
Shoot me if you want.

[transitional]

La Campanella is actually good.
Shoot me if you want.

It's pretty good in many parts, you're just referring to how popular it is, I suppose. Liszt wrote lots of better stuff, like the Annees de Pelerinage, but La Campanella's fine. Now, someone really liking Fur Elise I might have a problem with.

[lelle]

I really like Für Elise. It's one of the earliest things I heard that made me want to play the piano. And boy was I happy when I had finally learned the whole thing.

And my present liking of it is not just because of nostalgia, it is a beautiful piece too.

*ducks*

[transitional]

Fair. Let me rephrase that: I might have a problem with people who think Fur Elise is the best thing ever created and don't know any other classical pieces.

[ranjit]

La Campanella is actually good.
Shoot me if you want.

I agree. Like with most of Liszt's output, I find that a majority of it is the player, as opposed to Chopin, which even a mediocre player can make sound good.

[kosulin]

I admire Liszt as transcriber and arranger, but most of the original Liszt is not to my taste. He pushes virtuosity ahead of music itself too much IMO.

[transitional]

I agree. Like with most of Liszt's output, I find that a majority of it is the player, as opposed to Chopin, which even a mediocre player can make sound good.

I'd say the same thing about Mozart. Lots of people find him too happy, but hearing Wurtz play K 576 the first time was revelatory.

[transitional]

The Wanderer Fantasy is so darn overrated, I'd say it's one of the worst piano works by Schubert. Sure, there are great melodies, but ironically, I don't feel the longing, WANDERING atmosphere that almost all Schubert encapsulates. Go listen to his D 605A fantasy, it's full of textures and has a much stronger Schubertian quality than this outwardly virtuosic piece that I feel is largely experimental. Even better are the D 958-959-960 sonatas, D 946 impromptus, two piano trios, the Reliquie, Gasteiner, Fantasie sonatas, and even D 568, 575, and some other middle-era (if we can consider this as one, with the little years he had) pieces. Schubert has so much to offer and if you care for big arpeggios go listen to Liszt or something. This piece, while good, is not something I'd yell out loud about.

That being said, I do really love the use of variations in the main motif in the 3rd movement, as well as the connection with the 2nd motif.

This is an unpopular opinions page, so here's a reminder: keep this discussion civil. Even if you don't agree with what I'm saying.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

La Campanella is actually good.
Shoot me if you want.

Sorry, forgot to clarify. I was referring to the original version from 1838, not the more recent one (1852 I think).

[essence]

Somebody else may have already said it, but...

I really don;t like Mozart.

To play, you have to be perfect, anything less makes it sound horrible.

To listen.....never does anything for me.

Magic flute I find ridiculous.

Don Giovanni - yes the overture is good.

Aha - yes, some others have the same opinion.

Maybe the problem is that we were given Mozart early in our piano journey, and couldn;t play it very well.

With rare exceptions, I never go back to anything I was taught before I was 18. Things I taught myself, yes, things my teachers gave me to learn, no.

[psipsi8]

Somebody else may have already said it, but...

I really don;t like Mozart.

I agree. One exception is the very beautiful Requiem. But the piano music is BORING, whether to play or to listen to.
Also: Liszt, Chopin are very overrated in my opinion.
Edit: also Mozart's symphony no.40 in g minor is beautiful. I'm sure there are other exceptions.

[transitional]

Mozart's K 499 Quartet, the G Minor Quintet, Prussian Quartets, Jupiter Symphony, and K 511 rondo are all magnificent. If you aren't familiar with any of those you should give them a listen.

[essence]

Yes, I like a lot of Mozart, but not the piano music.

I find the problem is that a good performance is excruciating, only a performance by a top pianist is satisfying, and then I am not listening to the music, but to the performance.

In most other music, a performance by a good amateur has something to say.

[pianistavt]

Yes, I like a lot of Mozart, but not the piano music.

I find the problem is that a good performance is excruciating, only a performance by a top pianist is satisfying, and then I am not listening to the music, but to the performance.

In most other music, a performance by a good amateur has something to say.

Yes, my sentiment toward Mozart solo piano as well.  You hit the nail on the head.  I just wonder why that is - - Mozart was so naturally perfect?

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I'm adding to my previous statement now that I've listened to (nearly) all of the Liszt Etudes.
ALL of the 1837/8 Etudes (S. 137, 138, 140) are good, and some are better than the 1851/2 versions (S. 139 and 141).

[thorn]

Yes, I like a lot of Mozart, but not the piano music.

I find the problem is that a good performance is excruciating, only a performance by a top pianist is satisfying, and then I am not listening to the music, but to the performance.

In most other music, a performance by a good amateur has something to say.

I don't really think Mozart himself had much to say. Most child prodigies just have incredible brains. I'm not hating on child prodigies btw, Liszt writing the main melody of Ricordanza at 14 blows my mind. But Mozart, for me, lacks that emotional intelligence to supplement the intellectual genius which is what creates something worth listening to.

[transitional]

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. But I'll just leave you with Schnabel's words of wisdom -

"I am attracted only to music which I consider to be better than it can be performed. Therefore I feel (rightly or wrongly) that unless a piece of music presents a problem to me, a never-ending problem, it doesn't interest me too much. For instance, Chopin's studies are lovely pieces, perfect pieces, but I simply can't spend time on them. I believe I know these pieces, but playing a Mozart sonata, I am not so sure that I do know it, inside and out."

[pianistavt]

"I am attracted only to music which I consider to be better than it can be performed. Therefore I feel (rightly or wrongly) that unless a piece of music presents a problem to me, a never-ending problem, it doesn't interest me too much. For instance, Chopin's studies are lovely pieces, perfect pieces, but I simply can't spend time on them. I believe I know these pieces, but playing a Mozart sonata, I am not so sure that I do know it, inside and out."

I think the same quote could be said switching the two composers around and it would sound just as plausible, if not more.  Isn't the music of the Enlightenment the epitome of understanding?

[thorn]

I'd also add that someone trained in Vienna saying such a thing about a Wiener Klassik composer is as noteworthy as Rubinstein singing the praises of Chopin, or Ravel featuring in the Paris Olympics opening. Everyone loves their own.

[transitional]

I think the same quote could be said switching the two composers around and it would sound just as plausible, if not more.  Isn't the music of the Enlightenment the epitome of understanding?

I agree that it is completely subjective. I think the thing about Mozart is that he can be well understood just as well, but is often taken very shallow as a means of conveying a "light" feeling. While this is the ultimate goal, many pianists don't offer the subtle melancholy, singing lines, etc. that Mozart has to offer. Perhaps I simply resonate with the quote more as I find Chopin's music to be quite direct myself but have trouble with clarity and meaning in Mozart.

I'd also add that someone trained in Vienna saying such a thing about a Wiener Klassik composer is as noteworthy as Rubinstein singing the praises of Chopin, or Ravel featuring in the Paris Olympics opening. Everyone loves their own.

Exactly.

There are some composers that you just don't "get". I think after many listens with the important repertoire, you have a right not to enjoy it if you truly don't enjoy it. For me I could say this about Grieg, who wrote nice melodies but emotionally very shallow imo. Hearing / not hearing things in music is up to the listener's ear, and it's great that everyone interprets what they hear differently!

[thorn]

I've always found it interesting how conservative music echoes the rhetoric of contemporary (visual) art. That a piece should be difficult to understand, not liking something means you don't "get" it, and so on.

Anyway, leaving Mozart aside I don't know how unpopular this opinion is but the idea of the "three Bs" has never worked for me. I think it's another example of everyone loving their own, as I mentioned above. Bach and Beethoven I don't question. But it's very difficult to pinpoint a Romantic composer who was on that level. From a purely pianistic perspective I'd go with Liszt because regardless of subjective taste, he was involved with the development of the modern piano and the compositional styles of the 20th c. big guns, France and Russia. But if you look outside 'just' piano for a composer that impacted music on a holistic level to the extent of Bach and Beethoven? To me the Romantic composers just elevated late Beethoven to longer forms, greater technical feats, and so on. To me you have to look at the 20th c. to find the same kind of innovation on a fundamental level- Debussy perhaps.

[psipsi8]

To me the Romantic composers just elevated late Beethoven to longer forms, greater technical feats, and so on. To me you have to look at the 20th c. to find the same kind of innovation on a fundamental level- Debussy perhaps.

Very well put. Taking it further, later 20th century music did not amount to any real revolution. Like atonality? Incorporation of popular or folk idioms? Big deal.