I was trained on Bach piano literature in technique and theory from the intermediate level onward before being "allowed" to explore the corpus of works of other composers. Most impressive at the time were Gould's recordings of the Bach's harpsichord concertos [¹], esp. the second movements of No. 7 and No. 5. I learned a lot from trying to imitate his style (except for the seating...).
I play piano and watching videos of Gould playing is fascinating. He violates every rule your piano teacher tells you about performance, from his unusually low chair made to accommodate a back injury to his habit of singing along to tunes that was often picked up in his album recordings. I especially like this performance of Beethoven's 32 variations in C minor by him [1].
I think it's also good to point out that Gould did not play the piano with curved fingers, as is mostly taught in the West. He played using a flat-fingered approach, taught to him by his teacher Alberto Guerrero. Interestingly, the tendency to keep one's fingers flat was also taught in the Russian school [1].
When you reach mastery you will usually end up breaking most rules. For starters, rules are meant to be one size fits all, but every body is unique which leads to different biomechanics. I knew a pianist who played Grieg concerto at the BBC Proms but she could barely stretch an octave. How she could play all the Chopin etudes from age 9 blows my mind.
Speaking of Chopin his first teacher wasn't much of a pianist and realised Chopin's ceiling was far greater than his own so left him to his own devices wrt technique. Chopin ended up unlocking new techniques on the keyboard which he crystallised in the etudes. He essentially wrote them for himself.
You will see rule breaking common amongst masters of a skill. In fight sports some of the best boxers have all kinds of bad habits - Inoue Naoya doing massive wind ups and Muhammad Ali dropping his hands. The rules are there to help us reach mastery but they shouldn't shackle you either.
To quote Bruce Lee
"Man is constantly growing, and when he is bound by a set pattern of ideas or ‘Way’ of doing things, that’s when he stops growing."
On the subject of Gould his touch is very fussy (although characteristic) and his humming can be frustrating at times. I prefer Perahia's Bach
> When you reach mastery you will usually end up breaking most rules.
This is so true, and expands wildly beyond the area of mastery. I was in the fortunate position to be able to spend days with numerous world class piano masters, both during rehearsals, dinner & regular daily activities and was always impressed with their "breaking of rules" both on and off stage. Some do this completely natural (Lazar Berman, who picked his performance piano within one minute "You have to understand, picking out a piano is like picking out a partner, you feel within seconds if you like her or not." ) with others it felt more like an act (not going to write her name, but she insisted to have a friend turn the sheet music, who was not able to read music and thus was either too slow or fast and she had to swiftly flip to the correct pages while performing...).
The more mechanical piano players where never really my thing. I love the players with their own style and interpretations & personal particularities (Lazar Berman again: Bring me to some cheap shops, I get tired of all the fancy places people take me all the time."). Critics are often not so much into that, however. So the number of "rule breakers" was always limited to a maximum of something like 20%.
He was so insistent on his own interpretation, that even one of the best regarded conductors in the world couldn't convince him otherwise. After many years the "unusually" slow tempo doesn't sound so extreme, and to me even preferable. Glenn Gould was incredible in terms of his musical understanding. Maybe that's why his Bach was phenomenal because he could bring out the multiple layers as much as he liked, and even improvising new voices in his humming at times.
If anyone is interested in Brahms Piano Concertos, I also recommend Gilels' performances, which remain the best in my mind:
He's an exceptional world class pianist and I have to imagine that the ideas in his book come from a place of deep experience. I only mention this because the LRB critic is pretty savage toward Brendel in the review and one might walk away from the review only thinking that Glenn Gould is some sort of water walker and Brendel is a joke, which is completely unwarranted.
I grew up on Brendel's recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas. I still love his sincere way of playing them, that doesn't try to turn them into show-off pieces. I prefer Brendel's Beethoven to Gould's most of the time. But the limitations of Brendel's techinque are sometimes detectable in his playing. From a technical standpoint Gould is on another planet from Brendel, and I don't think Brendel himself would disagree with this.
On top of his unique approach to everything he played, Gould was one of the most technically adept pianists of all time, in league with Marc-Andre Hamelin, Yuja Wang, and only a few others.
I agree wholeheartedly about Gould's technique (at least in his early years) but whether one appreciates the music he makes will always involve other non-purely-technical criteria. For example, I'd almost always rather listen to Murray Perahia's Goldberg Variations than Gould's. I just love Perahia's sense of musicality and the warmth of it all. Gould's younger Goldbergs are insanely virtuosic/quicksilver but I find myself almost getting beat over the head by it all.
In either event, my point about Brendel was more just that he's worth checking out in his own right and not just some dude who wrote a possibly crappy book. And I still love his Schubert Impromptus even if his technique looks lame to more discerning eyes!
If you haven't already seen it, I'd recommend watching Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould. I'm not familiar enough with Gould's life to comment as to its accuracy as a biopic, but the film is definitely unique and interesting, painting a non-linear mosaic of his accomplishments, quirkiness, and genius.
> After a bizarre incident at Steinway’s in New York in 1959, when one of the senior technicians (whom Gould disliked because of disagreements over piano regulation) greeted him with a rather too hard clap on the shoulder, Gould claimed major physical injury, cancelled all his engagements for six months and (unsuccessfully) sued Steinway’s for $300,000.
Hm... Horowitz's tuner Franz Mohr wrote a book where IIRC he claimed that Gould reacted negatively to his retouching of the action on Gould's piano, complained that he could have been injured by it, and threatened to sue him. I wonder if this is a different version of that same story (Mohr would have been a senior tech at Steinway at that time) or yet another tuner who Gould harassed.
In Gould's defense, when Steinway and their attorneys met with Gould to settle the lawsuit, they were stunned by the fact that he requested only reimbursement of his medical expenses--he made no request for damages of any kind. Steinway paid the bills and Gould continued to be a Steinway artist for many years. [All of this is described in detail in "Wondrous Strange," which is an excellent biography of Gould.]
I've only recently started to come around to liking the piano as an instrument and learning my around it a bit. This article touches on some the things that kept me away from it for so long - the mechanical nature of what is regarded as "good" playing, the focus on training up finger strength. But if I'm being honest, the number one thing that kept me away was that piano just seemed so... uncool.
Watching youtube vids with killer piano covers of songs I actually love (ex, this cover of Toxcity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1g2c2760oM ) has been helpful in disabusing me of that bias though. I watched a few of Glenn Gould's videos and they were pretty great as well, but for whatever reason classical music never seems to do as much for me.
This is a topic about which I am particularly passionate. We teach music so wrong. Classical training is about militaristic precision - the ability to achieve perfect regurgitation of a piece that everyone has heard before.
But this is the least interesting version of music. Still interesting because it requires skill, but, at least for me, not awe inspiring.
Piano is one of the most versatile instruments (like the guitar) in that you can play lots of notes with it (and synthesizers make for a wide array of sounds). It is one of the more powerful tools for speaking the language of music. And that's what it's all about, communicating with the listener. Learning to improvise and compose is a much more rewarding approach to piano than learning to play Fur Elise.
If you'd like some inspiration, check out Jacob Collier, Haywyre, Anomalie, or basically any funk band with a keys player.
I was classically trained on the piano as a child and detested every second of it. I later discovered blues and jazz and it renewed my interest in piano. Even later I dated a woman who played and loved classical piano and I discovered a universe of beautiful music I'd previously dismissed.
So, I'm not so sure it has to do with how we teach music. But rather when we teach what kinds of music.
Thank you recommendations, I will give them a listen.
You sound like an excellent teacher, and you're of course spot-on about how powerful piano is for composing. I always felt that when I tried to compose from string instruments (banjo or guitar mostly) there were just certain left-hand positions that were so awkward to transition between or hold for long periods, that they weren't worth exploring, even if I liked the sound. It's been really fun to sort of be able to run wild with the keyboard, it feels like experimenting is easier so I get more experiments in.
There was one other big thing that surprised me, as someone who was formerly turned off by experiencing the whole "room full of 8-year olds with the cheapest casios learning from one teacher and a workbook"-style of piano instruction. I grew up with one of those cheap digital keyboards with the light up keys and gazillion sounds, and it was never more than a novelty. It wasn't until I went to a friend's house last year and they showed me their piano (a big old yamaha upright they got second-hand) when I realized that the tactile feel from properly weighted keys is amazing.
I ended up getting an alesis with weighted keys, 16 voices, and pretty much no bells and whistles - but the experience of playing it is just night and day compared to the stuff I had been exposed to before that.
Have you seen Valentina Lisista on YT? She is incredible and may hook you into Classical piano being cool, her videos are very well made and her playing is beastly.
- he hosted a music show on CBC radio for decades. (I was fortunate to live in downtown Toronto and received 3 classical FM stations at any time on an audiophile receiver.)
- although idiosyncratic in style, if you don't like certain performances, you will find others absolutely stunning
- the heir to Gould is Angela Hewitt, who is one of the greatest Bach players in history. She grew up nearby Toronto in London, Ontario. She mainly lives in Italy now, but visits her parents in San Jose perodically and does a performance when in the SF Bay Area:
> It’s unfashionable these days to play Bach on the piano.
According to who? I've played Bach to all sorts of different people, and all have appreciated it and enjoyed it. Sure, they might not listen to it in the car on the way to work (like I might) but that doesn't mean it is "unfashionable" to treat somebody to a live performance of a technically challenging piece by a master composer.
I think what’s meant is that playing Bach on an “authentic” period instrument (harpsichord, organ, etc.) is more the fashion. Bach didn’t write for the modern piano, although his music sounds pretty good on it.
Bach wrote for “Klavier” which is a generic definition that may or may not include the piano. We know that early in his life he hated pianos, but later on he changed his mind and even started selling them (he worked as an agent for a piano maker). So, at least for his later works, we could argue that indeed he did write for piano.
I think the point the author is not that "It's unfashionable these days to play Bach". They are saying that "It's unfashionable these days to play Bach on the piano."
The modern fashion is to play Bach on a period-appropriate instrument like a harpsichord or clavichord. The piano wasn't invented until much later so it is anachronistic to play Bach on a piano. But the disadvantage of Bach on period-appropriate instruments is that the modern piano is really quite an incredible instrument with a much better ability to produce subtle changes in dynamics. So what you gain in historical authenticity you may lose in emotional expression.
I think you are getting confused between the piano in general, which existed already, and the piano in its contemporary form, which was developed later.
Bach had a side job that consisted in selling pianos to rich people.
> Even more damning against the “Bach hated pianos” claim is the fact that Bach went on to become an agent for Silbermann, selling his pianos in Leipzig. There’s even a receipt signed by Bach on May 9, 1749, selling a “Piano et Forte” to a Polish count, Jan Casimir von Branitzky.
It's true that the predecessor of the modern piano existed during Bach's time (and that Bach helped to sell a few). But I would argue that it was more of a curiosity at the time. It certainly was nowhere as widespread as the harpsichord or clavichord.
At any rate the pianoforte of Bach's day sounded very different from the modern piano, so playing Bach on a modern piano is still an anachronism. (Whether that's a problem is a separate issue.)
Bach is definitely unfashionable. Compared to Bach written for other instruments (Chaconne for violin or Cello Suites for cello), his solo keyboard works---Two- and Three-part Inventions or his WTC fugues---have a reputation for being polyphonal rather than emotionally moving, because piano is uniquely positioned as the instrument that allows an individual performer to exhibit counterpoint. Compared to other composers such as Chopin or Debussy, the difference in emotional response is stark.
Unless they are trained in music, the average listener has listened to monophonic music their entire life and isn't capable of appreciating the nuances of polyphonic music, so it takes a talented pianist to make Bach's music leave an impression on the listener. Absent the appeal to emotion, one must appeal to the listener at an intellectual level. I've heard the Two- and Three-Part Inventions referred to as music that would appeal to a music professor, which is not exactly drawing room fare. These two factors: (1) monophonic style used in pop music, and (2) Bach's solo keyboard works being predominantly contrapuntal rather than emotionally moving compared to his other solo instrumental work might give Bach for solo keyboard (amongst casual music audiences) a reputation for being "boring" and "unfashionable" (which I think is completely undeserved).
Exceptions of course exist such as WTC preludes, which might appeal more to an untrained listener.
Funny anecdote: Freeman Dyson wrote an excellent essay about Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, playing this piece. It's included in his collection of essays, Disturbing the Universe, which I'd highly recommend.
44 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 80.5 ms ] thread--- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_concertos_by_Johann_S...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoWXRlw9vBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQ_6r8EvUw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eru9FDvUfz4
Speaking of Chopin his first teacher wasn't much of a pianist and realised Chopin's ceiling was far greater than his own so left him to his own devices wrt technique. Chopin ended up unlocking new techniques on the keyboard which he crystallised in the etudes. He essentially wrote them for himself.
You will see rule breaking common amongst masters of a skill. In fight sports some of the best boxers have all kinds of bad habits - Inoue Naoya doing massive wind ups and Muhammad Ali dropping his hands. The rules are there to help us reach mastery but they shouldn't shackle you either.
To quote Bruce Lee
"Man is constantly growing, and when he is bound by a set pattern of ideas or ‘Way’ of doing things, that’s when he stops growing."
On the subject of Gould his touch is very fussy (although characteristic) and his humming can be frustrating at times. I prefer Perahia's Bach
This is so true, and expands wildly beyond the area of mastery. I was in the fortunate position to be able to spend days with numerous world class piano masters, both during rehearsals, dinner & regular daily activities and was always impressed with their "breaking of rules" both on and off stage. Some do this completely natural (Lazar Berman, who picked his performance piano within one minute "You have to understand, picking out a piano is like picking out a partner, you feel within seconds if you like her or not." ) with others it felt more like an act (not going to write her name, but she insisted to have a friend turn the sheet music, who was not able to read music and thus was either too slow or fast and she had to swiftly flip to the correct pages while performing...).
The more mechanical piano players where never really my thing. I love the players with their own style and interpretations & personal particularities (Lazar Berman again: Bring me to some cheap shops, I get tired of all the fancy places people take me all the time."). Critics are often not so much into that, however. So the number of "rule breakers" was always limited to a maximum of something like 20%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvWPM783TOE
He was so insistent on his own interpretation, that even one of the best regarded conductors in the world couldn't convince him otherwise. After many years the "unusually" slow tempo doesn't sound so extreme, and to me even preferable. Glenn Gould was incredible in terms of his musical understanding. Maybe that's why his Bach was phenomenal because he could bring out the multiple layers as much as he liked, and even improvising new voices in his humming at times.
If anyone is interested in Brahms Piano Concertos, I also recommend Gilels' performances, which remain the best in my mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqYzBCk_tm4
https://www.curtis.edu/academics/library/tureck-bach-researc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yaUxihBZXs
He's an exceptional world class pianist and I have to imagine that the ideas in his book come from a place of deep experience. I only mention this because the LRB critic is pretty savage toward Brendel in the review and one might walk away from the review only thinking that Glenn Gould is some sort of water walker and Brendel is a joke, which is completely unwarranted.
On top of his unique approach to everything he played, Gould was one of the most technically adept pianists of all time, in league with Marc-Andre Hamelin, Yuja Wang, and only a few others.
In either event, my point about Brendel was more just that he's worth checking out in his own right and not just some dude who wrote a possibly crappy book. And I still love his Schubert Impromptus even if his technique looks lame to more discerning eyes!
Hm... Horowitz's tuner Franz Mohr wrote a book where IIRC he claimed that Gould reacted negatively to his retouching of the action on Gould's piano, complained that he could have been injured by it, and threatened to sue him. I wonder if this is a different version of that same story (Mohr would have been a senior tech at Steinway at that time) or yet another tuner who Gould harassed.
Besides being a genius, Gould was also a notorious hypochondriac.
http://www.torontoplaques.com/Pages/Glenn_Gould4.html
43.644327 -79.387790
Watching youtube vids with killer piano covers of songs I actually love (ex, this cover of Toxcity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1g2c2760oM ) has been helpful in disabusing me of that bias though. I watched a few of Glenn Gould's videos and they were pretty great as well, but for whatever reason classical music never seems to do as much for me.
But this is the least interesting version of music. Still interesting because it requires skill, but, at least for me, not awe inspiring.
Piano is one of the most versatile instruments (like the guitar) in that you can play lots of notes with it (and synthesizers make for a wide array of sounds). It is one of the more powerful tools for speaking the language of music. And that's what it's all about, communicating with the listener. Learning to improvise and compose is a much more rewarding approach to piano than learning to play Fur Elise.
If you'd like some inspiration, check out Jacob Collier, Haywyre, Anomalie, or basically any funk band with a keys player.
So, I'm not so sure it has to do with how we teach music. But rather when we teach what kinds of music.
You sound like an excellent teacher, and you're of course spot-on about how powerful piano is for composing. I always felt that when I tried to compose from string instruments (banjo or guitar mostly) there were just certain left-hand positions that were so awkward to transition between or hold for long periods, that they weren't worth exploring, even if I liked the sound. It's been really fun to sort of be able to run wild with the keyboard, it feels like experimenting is easier so I get more experiments in.
There was one other big thing that surprised me, as someone who was formerly turned off by experiencing the whole "room full of 8-year olds with the cheapest casios learning from one teacher and a workbook"-style of piano instruction. I grew up with one of those cheap digital keyboards with the light up keys and gazillion sounds, and it was never more than a novelty. It wasn't until I went to a friend's house last year and they showed me their piano (a big old yamaha upright they got second-hand) when I realized that the tactile feel from properly weighted keys is amazing.
I ended up getting an alesis with weighted keys, 16 voices, and pretty much no bells and whistles - but the experience of playing it is just night and day compared to the stuff I had been exposed to before that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JllD47HIees
To my ear it is a practical failure-- when he cross-fades to the rear of the hall it simply sounds like the mic is further away. :)
Regardless of my hearing, the conception is fascinating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7AQtLnNZOY
Here is a comparison on BWV 974 (Adagio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2gVYB5oZ7o (Víkingur Ólafsson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2zix8yTY_Y (Gould)
- he hosted a music show on CBC radio for decades. (I was fortunate to live in downtown Toronto and received 3 classical FM stations at any time on an audiophile receiver.)
- although idiosyncratic in style, if you don't like certain performances, you will find others absolutely stunning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Gould
- the heir to Gould is Angela Hewitt, who is one of the greatest Bach players in history. She grew up nearby Toronto in London, Ontario. She mainly lives in Italy now, but visits her parents in San Jose perodically and does a performance when in the SF Bay Area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Hewitt
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWwKwNdxsTsnNauAblBafLg
According to who? I've played Bach to all sorts of different people, and all have appreciated it and enjoyed it. Sure, they might not listen to it in the car on the way to work (like I might) but that doesn't mean it is "unfashionable" to treat somebody to a live performance of a technically challenging piece by a master composer.
I think we actually agree :)
The modern fashion is to play Bach on a period-appropriate instrument like a harpsichord or clavichord. The piano wasn't invented until much later so it is anachronistic to play Bach on a piano. But the disadvantage of Bach on period-appropriate instruments is that the modern piano is really quite an incredible instrument with a much better ability to produce subtle changes in dynamics. So what you gain in historical authenticity you may lose in emotional expression.
Bach had a side job that consisted in selling pianos to rich people.
> Even more damning against the “Bach hated pianos” claim is the fact that Bach went on to become an agent for Silbermann, selling his pianos in Leipzig. There’s even a receipt signed by Bach on May 9, 1749, selling a “Piano et Forte” to a Polish count, Jan Casimir von Branitzky.
Source https://notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com/2016/07/di...
At any rate the pianoforte of Bach's day sounded very different from the modern piano, so playing Bach on a modern piano is still an anachronism. (Whether that's a problem is a separate issue.)
Unless they are trained in music, the average listener has listened to monophonic music their entire life and isn't capable of appreciating the nuances of polyphonic music, so it takes a talented pianist to make Bach's music leave an impression on the listener. Absent the appeal to emotion, one must appeal to the listener at an intellectual level. I've heard the Two- and Three-Part Inventions referred to as music that would appeal to a music professor, which is not exactly drawing room fare. These two factors: (1) monophonic style used in pop music, and (2) Bach's solo keyboard works being predominantly contrapuntal rather than emotionally moving compared to his other solo instrumental work might give Bach for solo keyboard (amongst casual music audiences) a reputation for being "boring" and "unfashionable" (which I think is completely undeserved).
Exceptions of course exist such as WTC preludes, which might appeal more to an untrained listener.
For example, Prelude 8 from Book 1 WTC (one of my favourites): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTvjRpaU38
Funny anecdote: Freeman Dyson wrote an excellent essay about Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, playing this piece. It's included in his collection of essays, Disturbing the Universe, which I'd highly recommend.