Remarkable insight into Horowitz: "I'm still a musician."

[mrcreosote]

He said this in the documentary filmed at his home when he was playing something and someone asked, "What is that?"  H replied, "It's an improvisation - I'm still a musician."

So H thought to be a musician you have to know your instrument enough to improvise.

I wonder what he would have called a virtuoso that couldn't improvise?

He was very disappointed with himself because he always wanted to compose but didn't have the talent, so he played.

I doubt if he would have considered himself an artist which would seem ironic these days.

[nightwindsonata]

Personally I think the ability to improvise is absolutely critical for all musicians, especially pianists, who far too often are not asked too in the classical genre--just because there's a whole repertoire of masterpieces doesn't mean one can't make up a new one on the spot! In my opinion, it shows a thorough knowledge of the repertoire and the styles, and the ability to think creatively and access the diverse capabilities of the instrument. I recently underwent a temporary teacher change, and my piano instructor for this term started off the first studio class by having us all get up on stage to take turns improvising, after he found that few people had pieces ready to play in class (it was week 1, so of course everyone was still working on their pieces). It was very enlightening--many of the 'virtuosi' in the studio played quite conservatively in their improvisation, while the people who have struggled a bit more to constantly put out repertoire at a high level really shined when given the opportunity to improvise.

Somehow, I think it follows one's musical personality--if one is more inclined to a judging, analytical approach to life (including music), repertoire will be easier, but it will be very tricky to get truly comfortable playing on stage without a predetermined plan; on the other hand, someone who is very spontaneous in life and in music often has great difficulty in playing a piece consistently well, since they can "get a wild hair" on the performance stage and occasionally make mistakes that would be avoided by more calculated preparation and performance; but in improvisation, this "wild hair," also known as inspiration, or even 'genius,' is the very essence of the music, and it fits around the pianist's own technical preferences and musical tastes, rather than the composer's.

[timtim]

While I play for like 30 year and consider myself at level 4-5 more or less (not those children ABRSM etc levels but general 1-10 provided by Henle and others), I really can't improvise. Well, I can do, but it sounds horrid.

In order to be able to improvise one does need only to play well (actualy doesn't need to play well at all), but need to have other qualities like:

Music understanding
Chord progression understanding
Scales understanding
Have imagination to build works that sound good

I personally feel very bad becuase I cannot improvise even a simple song, and often I se eoeply playing 5 months and doing better imrovisations than me, while they general playing ability sucks.

It maybe also becuase I was never interested in chord progressions and playing songs and finding patterns on the keybord, but you also need have some talent into it. My brother who can play a piano very little can sit at keyboard and figure a song melody and chords within 10 minut, for me it would take one week of frustrations, considering it would be possible at all.

But maybe playing Scriabin and Beethoven makes us thinking in unnecessary complicated ways?

When I see how all the improvisation courses made I just smile to myself as this is THAT easy. Three cords two patterns and boom. But one have to start there in order to go to higher levels.

Well, that's my attitude, becuse I struggle a lot in that area.

[nightwindsonata]

While I play for like 30 year and consider myself at level 4-5 more or less (not those children ABRSM etc levels but general 1-10 provided by Henle and others), I really can't improvise. Well, I can do, but it sounds horrid.

In order to be able to improvise one does need only to play well (actualy doesn't need to play well at all), but need to have other qualities like:

Music understanding
Chord progression understanding
Scales understanding
Have imagination to build works that sound good

I personally feel very bad becuase I cannot improvise even a simple song, and often I se eoeply playing 5 months and doing better imrovisations than me, while they general playing ability sucks.

It maybe also becuase I was never interested in chord progressions and playing songs and finding patterns on the keybord, but you also need have some talent into it. My brother who can play a piano very little can sit at keyboard and figure a song melody and chords within 10 minut, for me it would take one week of frustrations, considering it would be possible at all.

But maybe playing Scriabin and Beethoven makes us thinking in unnecessary complicated ways?

When I see how all the improvisation courses made I just smile to myself as this is THAT easy. Three cords two patterns and boom. But one have to start there in order to go to higher levels.

Well, that's my attitude, becuse I struggle a lot in that area.

It's only horrid if you say it is! What are you comparing your own improvisation to? A finished work that a composer spent years polishing and organizing? One of Schubert's so-called 'Impromptus?' A Baroque toccata? The most important part of improvising is letting go of that inner-critic and playing whatever comes--thinking ahead, not behind.

[mrcreosote]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned "playing by ear" which might be the most important talent regarding mastery of an instrument.   

As far as "simple" improvisation, it's not so simple when you aspire to be equally fluent in all the keys.  Complex in all is quite the achievement/talent.

Accompanists regularly sightread, transpose, improvise and arrange/accompany singers all at once for auditions.  Also studio musicians are highly skilled.  The act of "recital" is almost the starting point of instrument mastery.

Complexity has come up and this affects for improvisation and memorization.

As far as complexity, I'm surprised Scriabin and Beethoven would appear equal.  Beethoven's music is simple as far as patterns go.  Sciabin is maybe 2-5x more complex (and Ligeti 10-20x more complex - sometimes to the point of seeming randomness without pattern.) 

I digress and whenever complexity is brought up, I go to 2 of my favorites:  Prokofiev and Ligeti.  The former started it and the latter finished it, that is introduction of complexity/chaos if you will.  Prokofiev attacked the classical patterns by convoluting them and creating new ones which are not unlike music that can't physically be played on a violin - his Concerto #3 is impressive - Example (Philipp):  Movement 1, Sections 35-36, 36, 38, 39-40   

You might define complexity by the size of the "compressed file".

[mrcreosote]

Thinking about what Horowitz meant by "improvising."

Improvising might mean 2 things:  1) reading or knowing a piece of music and then improvising on it, or 2) "freestyle it" meaning making it up as your go along.  2) might be "composing" and "improvising" combined but one thing if for certain, you have to "hear/create something" in your mind to do this.

So not being able to identify what H was playing (as his guest was also wondering what it was) I don't know if H was doing 1) or 2).

I think the discussion so far has been the 1) definition. 

[anacrusis]

I think Horowitz is doing the "freestyle it meaning making it up as your go along". If you are well versed in music theory and skilled technically - Horowitz was both - you already have a ton of patterns and knowledge about how to fit them together that you can use to create something competent on the spot.