Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
....and it was said (don't know if it's true) that this etude was the reason Rubinstein would never record the Etudes.
P.S. I did a little searching to see if I could find out about this, one way or the other, and I didn't. But in one of the references that talks about Rubinstein and the Etudes, I did find this:
"Even....Vladimir Horowitz....is quoted as saying that the one in C major, op. 10 no. 1, did not fit his hand...."
(Victor Lederer, A Listener's Guide to the Master of the Piano)
Because he used a very limited repertoire of movements as well as sitting too low, preventing use of those movements. He wasn't a very good pianist even if he sounded decent enough.
Who? Horowitz or Rubinstein?! Either way, you just made the "not to be taken seriously" list.
That doesn't give you a reason to trash their playing either. This reminds me of the Seinfeld quote about Babe Ruth being " nothing but a fat man with little girl legs."
"If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis."
"If life gives you lemonade, make lemons. Life'll be all like whaaaaaat?" - Phil Dunphy
I wasn't trashing his playing. I specifically stated that "he used a very limited repertoire of movements as well as sitting too low, preventing use of those movements. He wasn't a very good pianist even if he sounded decent enough."
This should be understood quite well. However, because he was/is so admired, some people think that he is beyond reproach. This is idol worship. Idol worship allows people to have lower standards for themselves so that if they never achieve what their idols achieved, they can use the "mere mortal" excuse.
Who? Horowitz or Rubinstein?! Either way, you just made the "not to be taken seriously" list.
Don't worship them as idols. They were human, too.
I don't worship anything. You said, and I quote "He wasn't a very good pianist" about a legend. Was Muhammad Ali a mediocre boxer? Was Perlman a mediocre violinist? Did Rainman have trouble counting?
I don't worship anything. You said, and I quote "He wasn't a very good pianist" about a legend. Was Muhammad Ali a mediocre boxer? Was Perlman a mediocre violinist? Did Rainman have trouble counting?
Do not confuse reputation for skill or expertise. And yes, Itzach Perlman is a mediocre violinist. Just listen to his recording of the Paganini Caprices; there are numerous issues with intonation. Further, you can't compare musicians with boxers. One is an art form, the other is a competition.
However, because he [Horowitz] was/is so admired, some people think that he is beyond reproach. This is idol worship. Idol worship allows people to have lower standards for themselves so that if they never achieve what their idols achieved, they can use the "mere mortal" excuse.
I have never seen any experienced member on this board make any claim whatsoever that Horowitz was 'beyond reproach'. Au contraire, many of us have issues with some of Horowitz's recordings!
The rest of your post comes off as a 'cut and paste' from a pop psychology magazine. Thanks anyway.
However, because he [Horowitz] was/is so admired, some people think that he is beyond reproach. This is idol worship. Idol worship allows people to have lower standards for themselves so that if they never achieve what their idols achieved, they can use the "mere mortal" excuse.
I have never seen any experienced member on this board make any claim whatsoever that Horowitz was 'beyond reproach'. Au contraire, many of us have issues with some of Horowitz's recordings!
The rest of your post comes off as a 'cut and paste' from a pop psychology magazine. Thanks anyway.
Don't be so insulting and derisive. Please keep the forum a positive place. And even if the experienced members don't make that claim of Horowitz et al, others do, as this thread has some examples.
Because he used a very limited repertoire of movements as well as sitting too low, preventing use of those movements. He wasn't a very good pianist even if he sounded decent enough.
Dare I ask what you think of Glenn Gould as a pianist?
If you play an etude perfectly you've missed the point.
Completely confused here, care to explain?
So therefore if we play a Czerny etude perfectly (most can be sight-read), the point has been missed?
Does Ashkenazy miss the point?
Hello Jason,
I don't care for Ashkenazy's piano playing, although I do like his conducting. In this recording: too fast. I hear, 'Take me to the grave now, please, I'm done with it all,' or 'The sooner I finish this, the sooner I can get back to that blueberry pie back stage.' Don't get me wrong, it is masterful, and I sense he has good intentions - good for him - but I don't enjoy the music. I feel he has missed the point because he has 'perfected' it.
I don't think we will see eye to eye here - and don't get too overexcited by this statement - because, no pianist disgusts me more than Argerich. Too fast, way too loud, grotesque. She rapes and pillages.
Originally Posted by faulty_Damper
Originally Posted by Parks
If you play an etude perfectly you've missed the point.
You're asserting that the purpose of an etude is that it is supposed to be difficult. In actuality, the purpose of an etude is to learn it so that it's easy to play.
This comes from a person who wants an easy life, or otherwise feels entitled to one. Art does not make life easy, it makes it possible. Etudes are not supposed to be difficult - and in fact, not all of them are - but, cannot one be taught something that is 'not difficult'?
It's up to each of us what we want to learn from an etude. Ashkenazy missed the point, because he did not learn what I would like to take from the piece, nor does he have to. (He's missed my point - arrogant of me, right?) His playing is fantastic! Fantasy is what he wanted, what he succeeded in achieving, and people respond to that. He has given to the world, and everyone wins. Me? I don't want fantasy life. I want to taste reality. Incidentally, I lead a fantastic life (in my view,) but I know there is more.
Fantasy is merely a color. What is Ashkenazy 'fantasizing'? Coloring? Nothing. I hear nothing, in any case. Now, he's not a robot, there is something, I just mean it doesn't interest me, doesn't nourish me, and doesn't' resemble reality - my reality.
Do any of you believe in 'objective art'?
I envision a sound for Op.10, no.1, that I cannot achieve yet. That sound is a feeling; that feeling a sound. Ashkenazy's sound does not correspond to a feeling - an emotion - I've experienced, and does not inspire me to such.
I shall not dismiss anyone's efforts. I just mean to explain my comment. I want more from life.
Michael
"Genius is nothing more than an extraordinary capacity for patience." Leonardo da Vinci
... and it is because of ridiculous threads like this one that I haven't been around in a long time. Just one too many idiots seem to pop up far too often. And out...
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
You get an inspirational teacher who knows what they're doing and (finally?) your playing takes off. It's tempting to believe that their way - now your way - is the only way. Bad way to think! There are patently many ways that work.
As bad, is deciding what you want from a piece and that anything different falls short. That is a closed mindedness which, amongst other things ties music down and diminishes it. It's probably better to accept that you're not the centre of the universe and that other perspectives can be just as valid.
You get an inspirational teacher who knows what they're doing and (finally?) your playing takes off. It's tempting to believe that their way - now your way - is the only way. Bad way to think! There are patently many ways that work.
As bad, is deciding what you want from a piece and that anything different falls short. That is a closed mindedness which, amongst other things ties music down and diminishes it. It's probably better to accept that you're not the centre of the universe and that other perspectives can be just as valid.
John
I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with having a conviction about how you wish to interpret a piece. I think, in fact, that one must believe what they're doing to such a degree that they can pull it off effectively. So I get what Parks was saying, I think. When I have a specific idea of how I want to interpret a piece, that is what I want to hear. Not that I can't enjoy something else, but if it differs too much from how I feel the music speaks to me, I may not choose to listen beyond once or twice. It somehow doesn't satisfy.
Still, I can get lots of ideas from other's interpretations when I'm not sure, or if I want to change things up a bit and look at something with fresh "ears".
You get an inspirational teacher who knows what they're doing and (finally?) your playing takes off. It's tempting to believe that their way - now your way - is the only way. Bad way to think! There are patently many ways that work.
As bad, is deciding what you want from a piece and that anything different falls short. That is a closed mindedness which, amongst other things ties music down and diminishes it. It's probably better to accept that you're not the centre of the universe and that other perspectives can be just as valid.
John
I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with having a conviction about how you wish to interpret a piece. I think, in fact, that one must believe what they're doing to such a degree that they can pull it off effectively. So I get what Parks was saying, I think. When I have a specific idea of how I want to interpret a piece, that is what I want to hear. Not that I can't enjoy something else, but if it differs too much from how I feel the music speaks to me, I may not choose to listen beyond once or twice. It somehow doesn't satisfy.
Still, I can get lots of ideas from other's interpretations when I'm not sure, or if I want to change things up a bit and look at something with fresh "ears".
![[Linked Image]](http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/gallery/42/thumbs/2529.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/medium/9342.png)
