Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner "These dreadful new pianists are BLEGHHH!" - Martha Argerich

One hundred years ago people judged pianists through live performances. Someone's chances of hearing a great pianist's performance, however, were limited. All that changed with the arrival of the recording, which created a much larger audience for classical music, but it inevitably changed the standards by which pianists were judged. Perfection in playing and technical facility became factors in judging whether a pianist was good or not. If anything, these two factors today dominate our discussion of pianists. Even the way we listen to someone play has changed. We parse their playing into components. We admire how they bring their technical skills to bear on phrasing, balancing chords against the melodic line, adhering faithfully to the score, understanding the composer's intentions, and so on. The result is standardization of performance, and not helping the situation are conservatory professors who feel their primary role is to help their students win competitions, which leads to a search for the standard performance that will appeal to other professors of music.

Yes, many professors of music help their students achieve or at least reach for performances that are satisfying emotionally, but inevitably emotional impact is stunted by the demand for note-perfect performances, not just in the recording studio (where you have the benefit of editing out errors), but in all public appearances. Is it any wonder, then, that graduates of music conservatories try to convey the emotional element of their performances through facial grimaces and elaborate body motions? It appears even some piano professors are now encouraging this behavior, or even teaching it.

Maybe this was inevitable, a bowing down to or acceptance of the fact that even on a place like the Piano Forum, home to piano enthusiasts, the percentage of us who have heard a public performance by the pianists we talk about here frequently, such as Argerich or Kissin or Lang, is likely quite small. Equally limiting is the fact that the chances of hearing great pianists these days in live performance is limited largely to concerto performances of the top 20 favorite concertos.

What to do in an era where we hear pianists mostly through YouTube, and where even the greatest pianists are not judged by the few individuals who hear them in a recital hall, but by an audience that hears them only through the internet? The only action I recommend we take is to support our local pianists who are looking for an opportunity to perform a recital in public. There are plenty of teachers who hold recitals for their students, and some of them as teenagers can be technically very talented. They are looking to develop a musical voice of their own. Let them know that the occasional wrong note doesn't matter - it's the musical message and the emotion behind it that counts just as much as technical perfection. If you live near a college or university with a music school, there is a full schedule of performances from students - and the music professors - who would love to have an audience. Don't forget amateur piano competitions, and performances submitted here on the Forum. I've heard absolutely unique interpretations from amateurs that change your thinking about certain compositions.

If you want to combat standardization, support live performances, particularly in "safe places" where the pianist can be relaxed and daring in their interpretations.

Taushi, thank you for your beautiful blockbuster of a post. I appreciate what everyone else has written here - it really helps me see where other people are coming from - but I feel like you've managed to put your finger on every tricky point and lay it bare.


I think people are feeling a bit hot under the collar because they don't like to think that they're missing something, musically speaking. This "something so esoteric that it's harder to put into words" makes people feel like they're squarely on one side or the other of a have/have-not dividing line, where the have-nots are just - less. But people have different sensitivities to different stimuli, and I think everyone has significant areas where their system just doesn't trigger - sort of like a sensory blindspot. So someone who is on the have-not side of the aspect you're describing isn't necessarily merely sensing less overall than people on the "have" side of what you're talking about. They just feel/respond to/sense things in a different way.

I think one area where this really becomes clear is the visual arts. Most people have *some* strong response to at least a few paintings and sculptures, and I think the vast majority of people - including artists - don't feel that much when looking at a lot of art. A piece that might elicit an intense response in one person will look merely "nice, but boring" to someone else. And it's very idiosyncratic and unpredictable. I was talking about this very thing w/an artist friend a few years ago - her husband had created a sculpture in his student days that she just loved. It spoke to her. But for me, it was merely nice - well executed and lovely, but it didn't draw me in. Whereas a different work from her husband - an abstract painting - just fascinated me. I didn't want to stop looking at it. For my friend, it was merely nice. This is pretty common, I think. I have another friend who is a sculptor, and although he's happy to sell to whomever wants to pay for his work, he's even happier to sell a piece for much, much less - sometimes even less than the cost of his materials - to someone who really connects to that particular work. He doesn't take it as an insult when people don't feel anything beyond "eh" to a piece of his, because he recognizes that different people are moved by different things.

On an even more basic level, I see blue-green hues differently than most Americans. I can visually differentiate them more than most people I've met, and because I love blue-green hues, this is a trait that I value. My children seem to have inherited this same trait. On the other hand, they tell me that I perceive brown/grey tones very differently from them. I say something is brown, they laugh at me, tell me it's grey, and that something is wrong with my eyes. That's okay, because I don't care so much about brown and grey tones. They don't do nearly so much for me.

I think it's something similar for music - some people can feel that "something esoteric" more than others, and hence value it more. For me, it wasn't until a few years ago, when I needed to make recordings of my children playing the piano for a Zoom recital (Covid times) that I was sure that my children could feel "it", too. They were twitchy about being recorded, so I told them they could record their pieces as many times as they wanted, listen to each recording, and choose which one to send in. After they made their recordings, I found myself surprisingly nervous about which one they would choose. Because to me, each had made one recording that was clearly far better - I would say it had the "it" factor - but that same recording also had at least a few clearly wrong notes. They each had at least one recording that had no technical mistakes - no wrong notes, good dynamics, good phrasing - but was also missing that "something". My daughter knew immediately after one listen through everything which one she liked best - it was the one with "it". My son, in contrast, immediately pulled out two recordings - the one with "it", and the one that was most technically accurate - and listened through both a second time, before deciding that he preferred the one with "it". To be clear, I was on a different floor out of sight to avoid influencing the children, but I could hear them listening to each piece and talking to themselves. I felt tremendous relief - they had "it", which to me is important - but I imagine there are people who would think that the technically clean recordings were clearly better. I would say that I live in a more blue-green world, and many other people live in a more brown-grey world. I vastly prefer my world, with my perceptions, but I'm guessing that brown-grey people vastly prefer their world, with their perceptions.

Agreed. I think for the people who think in those terms, it's the processes and formulas they love, and the experience and feeling is more secondary. And for the emotional people, it's the feeling and the experience of the feeling they love, and the processes and formulas are more secondary.

There is a connection between the two, but the pay-off, expectation, and cause are different.

I also think there are some musicians/pianists who are more similar to the mathematicians who don't mind that lack of the "extraordinary" thing, and there are some who are more focused on the emotional content and need it.


Thank you for taking the time to try to understand the connection.

I've found this to be very true, and while some like yourself, are able to connect to that musical/emotional thing, some never get the pay off there and find it more in their STEM world.


Thank you for taking the time to read it and fairly evaluate and consider my comment.

I agree that perhaps the response is around the feeling of "missing" something or having that "sensory blindspot". And I agree that both experiences are valid, and both sides need to give space to each other's experience. The emotional side needs to realize the cerebral side gets their joys from something else, and seem to be getting it in great amount these days. Whereas the more cerebral side needs to realize the emotional side *isn't* getting something because the thing they want isn't easily standardized, because because the musical and academic worlds are increasingly about standardization, it means the more emotional side may be less and less touched.

I think your description about the visual arts is a great one. Some see a painting and are moved; others don't. And in some cases two sides can be absolutely made about a painting...yet for totally different reasons.

And I agree that that "it" thing, that connectedness, that transcendent moment, that rhapsodic, cathartic, higher...that emotional moment isn't always technically perfect, but it makes up for it with that "it". And for some, the "it" is what makes the magic. For others the perfection and perfect realization of the process and formula is what makes the magic.

I must say, in a space that typically listen to 40 minute sonatas and concertos, and reads academic biographies, I didn't realize a few paragraphs would be so out of the way.

I don't think anybody said there is a *need* to be in a transcendental state (and it does mean something) or have some "special connection" to the music to be a first class pianist. I think what people are saying is that those things help a person go beyond being merely a "first class pianist" to having that "extraordinary" thing that Argerich and people in this thread are talking about. There are lots of first class pianists, but, going back to the thread topic, there are many who don't feel as if they possess that "extraordinary" thing.

Who can say what professional pianists are thinking of when they play. Unless you do a statistical survey of them and gather the data, then test the data for issues, you can't say for sure what they are thinking, or suggest that that is the standard.

I can't say for sure how many of them are thiking of what they will have for dinner, but I would find that a rather sad state of affairs to be sitting at that instrument, thinking of anything else than the music.

It seems that, to you, the only thing that makes is merely consistent choices and understanding. But you have to understand that everybody is not the same. Everybody doesn't see the world the way you do, feel the world the way you do, experience the world the way you do. Science demonstrates to us that two different people are capable of experiencing the world is rather significantly different ways that can mean a world of difference to their unique perspective and perception. You may not believe it, because you don't experience it.

But your belief of something is not required for it to exist.

I think that what some people feel is beyond "some form of emotion" or "satisfaction". It's beyond merely "enjoying". And that's *their* experience. It's not hard to allow that to be, without feeling the need to tear it down simply because it's not your experience.

You're also committing a straw man fallacy here by exaggerating my statements to the fantastical or absurd, and responding to things I never said.

I *never* said anything about needing to connect to a "particular essence". You used that word, and that suggests something beyond humanity. I NEVER said anything of the sort. My definition of connectedness was totally centered around emotion and the psyche. I'm not sure where you got anything about an "essence" from.

What is pompous about calling things "transcendental"? "Transcendental" is a mere word, a descriptor. And it has several meanings, many of which are quite reasonable. Merriam-Webster describes "Transcendent" as "exceeding usual limits; extending or lying beyond the normal limits of ordinary experience". The term "transcendent" has been taken by recent movements to have a supernatural meaning, but it doesn't have to, and unless a person speaks in those term, you make a mistake in assuming their use of "transcendental' is anything beyond the reasonable dictionary definition of it. And, for the record, that's what I mean, when I speak of transcendental. Just beyond the ordinary experience experience or limits.

I further never said I entered a "transcendental state". I avoided using that term intentionally, because there are religious/meditative movements that have co-opted the term "transcendental", and I wanted it to be clear that there was no connection to that sense of the word. I used the term only in the context of emotions, verbatim, "transcendental emotions"; that is emotions exceeding usual limits or beyond the normal/ordinary experience. I also never said anything about "magical connection" to a "god of music". Never used those words at all. In fact, I very distinctly said, verbatim, "not something religious, but reflective of our greater capacity to feel as human beings".

So, I'm not sure why you're attempting to take my words and twist them to magic, when I've been very clear that it's distinctly human, a centered around emotions and the psyche. Perhaps it is because you didn't read the entirety of my statement.

You've taken what I wrote, and what I distinctly and intentionally tried to describe in sensible, human terms...and changing it, twisting it into some fantastical story that I never ever said. Either you don't understand that there are higher levels of experience that people can connect to and the mention of it automatically gets thrown in with the fantastical, or you're intentionally exaggerating my words as a means to tear down my part when the simpler and more reasonable thing to do would be to acknowledge that people simply experience the world differently from you.

Again, without statistical data, you can't say what painters or sculptors do when they create, and moreover, because their creation is not real-time in the same way music is done, it's not a particularly fair comparison. However, if they are feeling something more with each brushstroke or each twist of their carving knife, that does mean they have to be on drugs - another strange and some unfair exaggeration.

It's both kinder and more logical to simply acknowledge that we're not all the same and we experience the world in different ways, then go out of your way to desecrate someone else's experience simply because it isn't your own.


Again, I didn't realize a few paragraphs would be such an obstacle here. Also, I never used the term "transcendental state", intentionally to avoid any connections to the religious/meditative movements which also use that term.

But most interesting of all is this:

The people on your side of the discussion say those terms are too vague to have any meaning. That this "special" and "extraordinary" thing that the people on my side are discussing is too esoteric to be understood or solidified into meaning.

Then I write a very long, detailed description, to try to translate it for you and help you understand what those terms mean, at least to me, and to many who are of the same ilk as me.

Your response to that: it's too long.

So, when we speak about it simply, it's too vague, too short. When we go into detail to give a clean and concise understanding, it's too long.

It just begins to feel as if your side of the discussion doesn't *want* to understand.


As said above, I never used the term "transcendental state", specifically to avoid any connotation to the religious movements or ideas. I also went into great detail to describe the sense of connectedness as one totally limited to emotions and the psyche, and said, verbatim, "not something religious, but reflective of our greater capacity to feel as human beings".

"The Emotional Intelligence of Music" - interview with Jacob Collier



I find the interviewer annoying, but Collier's responses are interesting and relevant to several lines of discussion in this thread.

I quoted the place where you used "transcendental" and when I pointed that out to another poster she agreed with me. If you want to distinguish between transcendental state and transcendental level, I can only say that I think that kind of thinking is not the way most would approach things. I think you've written some excellent posts, but the one me and another poster said was overly long was by no stretch of the imagination just a few paragraphs but closer to the outlier level for lengths of PW posts(just like your post I just quoted which is something like 20 paragraphs long). When you go on and on, I and I think many or even most readers don't read the entire post and find it, to be frank, somewhat egotistical.

I'm sorry, I got irritated because it was being talked about by Sidokar as if it were something ridiculous. I somehow missed the word in your post, but I agreed with everything you wrote.

I think many people study STEM subjects for the beauty of it. Physics and maths are amongst the most profoundly beautiful human endeavours.

I have always experienced classical music emotionally. It never even occurred to me that there were people who love classical music and don't feel it emotionally but rather mainly intellectually. I love classical music because, for me, it not only contains quite a bit of the intellectual, but also quite a bit of the emotional. I suppose that's why I'm drawn to performers like Argerich and Horowitz, two highly emotional performers, and have less connection with many of today's pianists whose performances, while technically extraordinary, seem to lack finesse and musicality.

I suppose it's also why my musical preferences are for Romantic-era composers, most of whom wrote highly emotional (but also technical complex) music. And I suppose it also explains why I have little or negative responses to serial composers like Boulez, Elliott Carter, et al. who seemed to work very hard at eliminating all emotion from music (and they succeeded, IMO).

I also sometimes get quite emotionally overwhelmed at live performances, becoming so swept away by the beauty of the nexus between the music and the performer that tears form from pure joy.

But I realize that is just how I'm put together and that others have different, sometimes vastly different, experiences with classical music. It's all good and all valid.

Agree - but I'm an advocate for STEAM, which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics. The arts include visual arts, language arts, physical arts, music etc. STEAM focuses on sparking imagination and creativity through the arts in ways that naturally align with STEM learning.

It's probably my age (I'm old enough to be everyone's great-grandfather here), but I thought a STEM was part of a plant. You know, the bit that leaves grow out from, to provide the planet with good ol' O2 via photosynthesis (and may even suck up CO2 in the process).

But if it has something to do with science - especially controlled nuclear fusion, which may (or may not) save our planet -, I'm all for it........

As said above, I never used the term "transcendental state", specifically to avoid any connotation to the religious movements or ideas. I also went into great detail to describe the sense of connectedness as one totally limited to emotions and the psyche, and said, verbatim, "not something religious, but reflective of our greater capacity to feel as human beings".[/quote]

I'm sorry, I got irritated because it was being talked about by Sidokar as if it were something ridiculous. I somehow missed the word in your post, but I agreed with everything you wrote.[/quote]

No problem. And thanks for considering the context in which I used it.


What you did was isolate a sentence I used, and highlight the word "transcendental", without consideration for the exact phrase I used, the wording I chose, and the overall context of how I used it versus the context exaggerated misrepresentation of it presented by Sidokar, which was contradictory to my statement. And based on the most recent reply, after clarification, it appears Josephine doesn't agree with you, but rather agreed with my statement. (I also think we have a different definition of paragraphs. But that's semantics.)

Ultimately, though, and most importantly, I think it's important that we read what people write in entirety. If we can't do that or if it's overly-long to us, then perhaps we shouldn't respond to it. One can't give a fair, balanced, or considerate reply or retort to a person when you only isolate parts of what they say, and worse yet, exaggerate it. You run the risk of missing out on important points. My post has been made out to be fantastical, spiritual, and magical by you and Sidokar, when, if it's read in full, you would see I go out of my way to specify, verbatim, that it's not about any religious/spiritual, supernatural, or beyond-human ideas, but that it's strictly about the very human concepts of emotion and psyche.

I fail to see how length of a post can translate to egotism. What is egotistical about going out of one's way to to provide a clear, detailed, and concise explanation of something to people who are repeatedly saying they don't get it and it's to vague to have meaning. At the same time, I advocate for a consideration of both sides' perception, and WHY we feel the way we do. Where is the egotism is that?

You say most readers don't read the entire post and find it to be egotistical, but several readers have agreed with me and expressed thanks to me for stating it. Is their opinion not valid?

When we describe our stance in simple terms, it's too vague. When we go into detail, it's too long, it's pompous, it's magical/religious/supernatural, it's egotistical.

I don't agree that it's either of those things. It just seems some of you don't want to understand or make space for others' experience.

I and I think most don't read posts as if they were legal briefs where every phrase has to be minutely and carefully considered.This is especially true when a post is very, very long. Just spending many words describing what you mean doesn't necessarily make things clearer. It could easily raise even more questions.

I and I think most don't read posts as if they were legal briefs where every phrase has to be minutely and carefully considered.This is especially true when a post is very, very long. Just spending many words describing what you mean doesn't necessarily make things clearer. It could easily raise even more questions.

Well, I do. I think not doing so is laziness. There is no point of having a discussion with excellent, intelligent pianists if they are asked to simplify their points to nothingness. One might as well check piano social media at that point. Nuanced, thoughtful discussion requires lengthy posts.

You understand what the person has written and disagree with that, instead of shooting from the hip. I'm surprised this even has to be said.

If that is news on a classical piano forum (a genre which requires serious delayed gratification), it makes me wonder what the internet has come to.

I hope everyone feels they’ve expressed themselves sufficiently. Can we veer back to the main topic?

(I for one am fine with super short, super long, any type of posts, so long as it’s about the topic )

The thread to end all threads. Insightful replies from everyone. Everyone, emotional or not, and every way, transcendent or not, inspired or not, has something to offer, don't you think? That is, music can be enjoyable no matter how it's served up.

There is another category of musical experience that isn't either emotional or intellectual. I don't think finesse and musicality are necessarily related to emotion.

Well what I - and it is my opinion obviously just like you write is yours so this is just 2 different points of view - think is that there isnt any extraordinary special connection. Just intelligent people who make smart and artistic choices sometimes by using their technical abilities at best. But not always. Argerich has not recorded only top music, some is average too.


Why, there arent thoughts that are suitable and others that are not. THere are a lot of thoughts that pass by when I play. It sounds like thinking about anything but music is sacrilageous.


You dont need to make a long post to lecture and explain something so obvious. Yes WE ALL know everybody is different. But you are missing my point. I am not denying that different people experience different things at the piano. You can put any descriptive you want arount it, but it is one of those things that cant be described. We are reaching the limit of human communication here.

My point is that whatever it is that you feel when you play is not helping you in any way to play any better nor worse. That is just your illusion. And of course it is my opinion which you are free to disagree with. And yes I confirm that for me this is just a set of pompous in the sense of inflating a perfectly normal and human experience. Yes some would like or believe our piano or artistic experience has a "magical" connotation, and for me it does not. But that does not prevent music to be a great joy and have a special place in my life. For others it can something else like cooking or climbing (I do both and I confirm that i did not reach any transcendental state nor level when reaching some high peaks, Bennevis maybe you did ?).

Okay, I'll try. Argerich was talking about interesting personalities, and waxing nostalgic for a "golden era".

To me, part of the problem (if it even is one) is not the lack of pianists with that kind of personality, but the ways in which we become aware of them. Commercial promotion in our electronic age is a LOT different than it used to be. The proliferation of the competition as a means towards fame is anti-musical, in my opinion.

The 24/7 availability of recordings (including ones by the pianists Argerich mentioned) has done some pretty weird things to our perception. Back in the days she was talking about, hearing the Diabellit Variations played by a world class pianist would have been a pretty special event. Now, there are many recordings to pick from, instantly. Not so special anymore, even if those recordings are not the live experience.

There is much more that could be said about why "it is different now", but I'll leave it at that for now.