# What made the greats what they were?



## Aurelian

A reasonably skilled amateur pianist with enough effort can learn to play the notes and observe the dynamics of a piece from the standard repertoire. Yet, compared with an undisputed great like Rubenstein, the amateur's performance is clearly inferior. What is that "something" that the masters had? I am looking for more than "talent"...can you be more specific?


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

Maybe their location, and something stunningly brilliant about their character. Added to this might be a sense of origniality, where it seems that no one else can interpret the music like him, or play it like him/her. Examples: Glenn Gould with Beethoven, Mozart, Bach. very original interpretations I'd say. But that could be the reason why he is so popular: no one else plays just like Glenn Gould!!!!


----------



## Ukko

Speaking from my valley location, I say that a performance consists of technique +. The + is what the performer can give when his technique has handled the notes. I use Alkan as an example of music that requires so much technique that most performers have nothing left for +.

[That paragraph reads like a creole of a parent language insecurely understood. Valley dwellers don't yodel well.]


----------



## Headphone Hermit

the ability to communicate effectively


----------



## KenOC

Headphone Hermit said:


> the ability to communicate effectively


In addition, having something worth communicating.


----------



## Taggart

It's not just the notes, the dynamics, the timing there is also the phrasing - identifying the musical / harmonic lines in a piece, bringing out the different voices in a piece, the balance between the hands, the use of the pedal - a whole range of things to thing about.

A good amateur will manage two maybe three, a good player four or five, an expert performer six or seven and make it look easy. All too often,as a (rank) amateur you get the notes and the dynamics and then the phrasing goes; or you get the notes and the phrasing but the balance between the hands goes - you lose the tune in the harmonies.; or you get the dynamics and the tune but some of the harmonies or the phrasing goes.


----------



## Ingélou

Now this is definitely a thread where I'm all agog to see what PetrB thinks!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ingélou said:


> Now this is definitely a thread where I'm all agog to see what PetrB thinks!


surely it would need the title of the thread to be changed from past tense to present tense?


----------



## Chordalrock

I'm sceptical that professionals play simpe stuff like slow movements any better than skilled amateurs. I'm similarly sceptical that most of the "greats" (Gilels, Backhaus, etc.) would play such things better than other professionals or skilled amateurs.

It's true that some well-known pianists have interesting recordings compared with many other professionals, but does this mean skilled amateurs can't do interesting renderings? I'd say a lot of professional pianists sound rather boring compared with the greats of the early 20th century because they are trying to please everybody so their performances end up sounding like they were created by some sort of a committee. It's well known that before the era of recordings, pianists were more original sounding because there weren't standardised expectations regarding how a piece should be played. I think amateurs are actually better positioned to do interesting renderings than professionals, because they don't have to worry about what the critics think. And I suppose even professionals sound more interesting privately than in public.


----------



## PetrB

Most of the greats started full and intensive lessons and training between the ages of two to four and never stopped.

That is often what it takes to develop the full technique needed so that technique is barely a consideration for even the most difficult to execute pieces.

A greatly important factor in that early beginning is learning music while the learning of spoken language and the ability to learn to rationally think are simultaneous -- that will make music more a native language for the early beginner vs. a second and learned language, and it has been found that there is an enormous difference between what can happen if started in those earliest of the more formative years vs. even a few years later, say at age five or six.

After that there is still a basic intelligence, and a musical intelligence, which can be developed, but it must be said that not all people are created equal, in innate intelligence or potential ability, an unhappy fact some would love to ignore.

A personality who loves to perform for others, charismatic (at least on stage) who does have remarkable powers to communicate, both through technique and power of personality.

[And yeah, an innate talent, sorry, but that has to be present to be developed. You've already said it in so many words in the OP, some people seem to have just as much technique and training, but little or no music comes out or gets communicated.]


----------



## Ingélou

Roma locuta est; causa finita est. ^^^


----------



## Matsps

So many things in this thread I so thoroughly disagree with...

First of though, I definitely agree with chordalrock. If you're able to play the notes comfortably, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect you might be playing the piece extremely well. There will be many pianists taking only their grade 8 piano exams right now who are playing simple pieces, the Moonlight Sonata 1st Mov for example, just as well as any concert pianist.

Second, it is perfectly reasonable that an amateur pianist can be absolutely world class at playing (supporting evidence: 



). Being professional only means you earn money from doing something, not that you are particularly skilled, so to say or suggest that only professional pianists can be considered for greatness is ridiculous.

To reply to the original post, the answer is basically practice. I didn't quite realize the scale of practice that was required until I took lessons for a while under a concert pianist. Getting to know his schedule over time, he practiced still for quite a few hours a day when he was at home and had, as a child and younger man, put in truly tremendous hours.


----------



## mtmailey

WELL to me it is the sound of the music happy music with a good melody makes them great.


----------



## hreichgott

I enjoy the performances of skilled amateurs and I love it when they have something to say in their music. I include in that statement my youngest students when they play their Twinkles with brio and panache.

But musicians are always growing, and one's ability to understand and communicate a piece gets better and better with time and experience. Very experienced pianists sound very different from graded exam students, even in simple pieces. Taggart mentioned most of the specifics that I'd mention already.


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> So many things in this thread I so thoroughly disagree with...
> 
> First of though, I definitely agree with chordalrock. If you're able to play the notes comfortably, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect you might be playing the piece extremely well. There will be many pianists taking only their grade 8 piano exams right now who are playing simple pieces, the Moonlight Sonata 1st Mov for example, just as well as any concert pianist.
> 
> Second, it is perfectly reasonable that an amateur pianist can be absolutely world class at playing (supporting evidence:
> 
> 
> 
> ). Being professional only means you earn money from doing something, not that you are particularly skilled, so to say or suggest that only professional pianists can be considered for greatness is ridiculous.
> 
> To reply to the original post, the answer is basically practice. I didn't quite realize the scale of practice that was required until I took lessons for a while under a concert pianist. Getting to know his schedule over time, he practiced still for quite a few hours a day when he was at home and had, as a child and younger man, put in truly tremendous hours.


The playing in your link might get a barely passing grade in conservatory, the slop, the wrong notes, the technical stiffness of the playing goes directly into the sound, and I can only think you are most impressed with anyone who can play a lot of notes fast to the point where you are blinded and deafened as to the other elements which are missing from that rendering in the link you posted.

The pianist in that link is very rough edged and student level, at best, and no where near the level of technique or having the musical elements in place enough to be considered any level of professional classical pianist.

Point is, that pianist is not, by any professional classical concert standards, "playing the piece well."


----------



## Matsps

PetrB said:


> Point is, that pianist is not, by any professional classical concert standards, "playing the piece well."


I don't think I've seen a better attempt by anyone.


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> I don't think I've seen a better attempt by anyone.


Well, here must be news, "attempts" are not what are called for on the professional circuit.


----------



## Taggart

You don't attempt music like that. You master it. That means that you marry first class technique to total security in your playing to total understanding of the musicality of the piece. That's what makes a good concert pianist - the basic mechanics. A great player will be also have their own way of communicating their understanding of the piece as well.


----------



## PetrB

All these comments may sound a bit hard-nose and harsh to you, the OP, but I can account for my own by years of experience as a pianist who trained from early childhood who later made a living accompanying performing and teaching piano. So, this is from that constant striving for true excellence and a universally _expected_ standard of playing ability.

That pianist is a student, and with all efforts commended, there are two things to keep in mind.
1.) until the piece is virtually flawlessly rendered, anything needing correcting will be addressed; praise for any parts already 'right' are not something either the student or teacher spends time with in a lesson -- that is a waste of time while the meter is running and the time is better spent on correcting what needs correcting.

2.) to falsely inform or encourage a student, leading them to believe they are ready when they are not, is to lie, and it will ultimately be more hurtful than the truth; if they walk out the door misinformed they are ready, the moment they audition someplace they will have a very hard bump with the reality they are not ready, and will realize they have been falsely mislead. That is hurtful in finding out someone either lied, or did not prepare them adequately, and it has set up a false high expectation which is then dashed to smithereens.

I am not being brutal, but just reporting the facts of what is expected at a professional level.

This pianist is a student, not nearly as yet adept or fluid in their playing as many a well-prepared entering freshman performance major in music schools and conservatories, and it is against that kind of caliber of student performance level this pianist will be up against if they hope to pursue the playing.

In this particular sphere of music performance, attempts stop getting much praise or attention by the time you are, say, twelve years old, even if the player is more advanced than the one in the link you posted.


----------



## DavidA

The greats have an innate ability from the start in whatever field. You can take a great sportsman - eg a great runner like Usain Bolt. There is a natural talent that most people don't have. Obviously this talent is built upon by training, etc. but it has to be there in the first place. I could never run like him however much I practiced.
Similarly with great pianists like Rubinsyein, Gould, Richter, Horowitz, Argerich, etc.. They just have something no-one else has. That is why they are on the concert platform and the good amateur is not! That is why Bolt is Olympic champion and I'm not!


----------



## Matsps

PetrB said:


> Well, here must be news, "attempts" are not what are called for on the professional circuit.





> You don't attempt music like that. You master it.


Well Jack Gibbons seemed to think it was fine to make an attempt at this piece too. Furthermore, this piece is one of the most difficult technically in the entire repertoire. It's folly to say this guy lacks musicality. At his level, there is no-one lacking musicality, it is only technique that is of concern.



> That is why Bolt is Olympic champion and I'm not!


100m running is one of the worst examples you can possibly use here. It is recognized by science as one of the skills in which talent (i.e. Genetic makeup) is a very strong factor, if not probably the strongest. When it comes to more intellectual skills, such as piano playing, the small amount of science there is suggests talent is not very important. In fact, many studies show that the initially most promising and fastest improving individuals do not become the best.



> Sloboda, Davidson, Howe & Moore (1996; see also Sloboda, 1996) found no significant differences between highly successful young musicians and other children in the amount of practice time they required in order to make a given amount of progress between succesive grades in the British musical board examinations. Group differences in average progress were no greater than would have been expected from the differences in the amount of time spent practising. Consistent with these results, Hayes (1981; Simonton, 1991: see also Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Howe, 1996a; 1996b; in press) found that that all major composers had needed long periods of training





> A body of findings hard to reconcile with the talent account comes from experiments on ordinary adults who are given large amounts of training at skills that make heavy demands on memory (Chase & Ericsson, 1981; Ceci, Baker & Bronfenbrenner, 1988) or perception (Ericsson & Faivre, 1988). In some instances, the trained subjects achieved performance levels far higher than what most people (including experts in the psychology of learning and memory) had believed possible.


Taken from here: http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm and you can look up the studies if you want (some of them are very interesting!)


----------



## DavidA

Matsps said:


> .
> 
> 100m running is one of the worst examples you can possibly use here. It is recognized by science as one of the skills in which talent (i.e. Genetic makeup) is a very strong factor, if not probably the strongest. When it comes to more intellectual skills, such as piano playing, the small amount of science there is suggests talent is not very important. In fact, many studies show that the initially most promising and fastest improving individuals do not become the best.
> )


With respect, if the 'science' suggests that talent is not important, then the 'science' is bunk, because common sense tells us that talent is hugely important. I play the piano and could improve with practice. But I could never play like Argerich, Hamelin or Horowitz if I practiced for the next 100 years non-stop (if that were possible). Of course talent is huge. Same as when I taught science and maths. Some kids had a natural aptitude and some did not. Of course, everyone improves by study. But innate talent is a major factor.


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> Well Jack Gibbons seemed to think it was fine to make an attempt at this piece too. Furthermore, this piece is one of the most difficult technically in the entire repertoire. It's folly to say this guy lacks musicality. At his level, there is no-one lacking musicality, it is only technique that is of concern.
> 
> 100m running is one of the worst examples you can possibly use here. It is recognized by science as one of the skills in which talent (i.e. Genetic makeup) is a very strong factor, if not probably the strongest. When it comes to more intellectual skills, such as piano playing, the small amount of science there is suggests talent is not very important. In fact, many studies show that the initially most promising and fastest improving individuals do not become the best.
> 
> Taken from here: http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm and you can look up the studies if you want (some of them are very interesting!)


Hmmm. Lets look at this, a self-serving business apart from and not at all officially connected to legitimate higher level music schools. A self-serving business whose 'credentials do not automatically open any doors to music schools or conservatories if you pass grade level x with such and so a grade, and a study which shows that Talent Is Not Any Sort Of Important factor?

You do know that behind closed doors many a known British professional classical pianist puts little or no value of import on those graded lessons as touted in the U.K.? They think it is pretty much a racket, where maybe a few talented students learn to play well enough to go on to get admitted to music schools and make some kind of go of it, but for the most part they think of it as a less than great way to learn how to play and more a set up to guarantee a lot of teachers within that system some sort of job security....

So, Wow. the results of that study must be wildly popular, and boost business hugely. People will think, "It does not matter if I have no talent, working hard is enough."

Ha haaa haaaaaa -- What a candy sweet bunch of hooey that is.

I wonder how many new clients it brings, and how many old clients who might have figured "this won't happen, even with a ton more work," are lured into continuing anyway.


----------



## Taggart

I'd put the same point slightly differently. British graded exams are a good way to get started. But even by the time you get to the "top" of the system, you're barely competent. You might be able to fumble your way through one of the 48 or a Beethoven Sonata but you will only be barely able to start with Chopin's Etudes. Your sight reading is barely adequate. You are beginning to develop a sense or tonality but your sight singing is equally basic; In other words, you're like a child getting out of infant school with basic reading and writing. No wonder you don't need talent to progress through the grades. Getting on beyond that is going to take real work, dedication and talent.


----------



## DavidA

Taggart said:


> I'd put the same point slightly differently. British graded exams are a good way to get started. But even by the time you get to the "top" of the system, you're barely competent. You might be able to fumble your way through one of the 48 or a Beethoven Sonata but you will only be barely able to start with Chopin's Etudes. Your sight reading is barely adequate. You are beginning to develop a sense or tonality but your sight singing is equally basic; In other words, you're like a child getting out of infant school with basic reading and writing. No wonder you don't need talent to progress through the grades. Getting on beyond that is going to take real work, dedication and talent.


When one thinks of Argerich learning Gaspard in 5 days - that sorts out the men from the boys - sorry, girls!


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> When one thinks of Argerich learning Gaspard in 5 days - that sorts out the men from the boys - sorry, girls!


That's all right. We all know Martha as one tremendously powerful and gifted _Lady Pianist_


----------



## senza sordino

My simple answer is that it takes supreme skill plus something extra. I can't define what that extra is. 

I can say that touring soloists must be able to withstand the extreme pressure of performing night after night at the super human level. I can only speculate, but I would think that some extremely talented musicians will take an easier route in their career and perform as part of an orchestra.


----------



## Matsps

> Same as when I taught science and maths. Some kids had a natural aptitude and some did not. Of course, everyone improves by study. But innate talent is a major factor.


Yet time after time, studies find that although some people initially learn more quickly, after some amount of time, the playing field definitely seems to level.

From personal experience too, I've reached a decent level in several skills and been fortunate to meet many people of world class in near world class level in them. I've also been part of their "communities" for a while. Never in this time have I seen someone or heard of someone kind of 'magically' get good. Everyone at the higher or highest levels that I have personally spoken to about this has done tremendous hours of practice or training. I haven't yet met that kid who did just an hour a day and is suddenly better than 99.9% of us.


----------



## Rhythm

senza sordino said:


> My simple answer is that it takes supreme skill plus something extra. I can't define what that extra is. …


I think part of Taggart's sig line describes "that extra" as, "Music expresses the inexpressible," to which I would add the inexpressible is the "it." Others call it "the zone" or "the zoom." When some pianists, for example, have so accomplished a repertoire for public performances, "it" might be heard-it shows up yet not in every performance, either. The experience-happening depends on many factors, and I think that's leaving the door open for physicists and neuroscientists, if any one of them were able to hear and share with another researcher such a thing in the first place.

Those performing artists who experience the same are able to hear "it" when others play, too. The experiences of "it" are not emotional, f-e-e-l good experiences during the performance, nor is "it" to be viewed when a listener observes someone who is playing proficiently. "It" strangely draws a listener in to an experience that's without time, words, explanations, or physical expressions of such, although a square-in-the-eye from one who hears to another who hears the same might be expressed. Then, those particular listeners may lean back, relax and trust the performer and performance for several moments or an entire piece. The experience cannot be anticipated by the performer or listener, however, during some instances, a listener may not know "it" occurred until after "it" slipped away.

When it comes to the inexpressible experience, some visual artists are capable of experiencing the very same thing as some performing artists: painters by physical strokes with fingers holding brushes spreading paint across a canvass can certainly experience "it."

In today's world, not all rigorously prepared concert pianists experience what we're talking about, or sometimes they won't admit to experiencing what we're talking about, because it's frequently something the pianist can't bank on. By which I mean, most algorithmic-oriented CEOs, managers, producers, or handlers as I call them, probably couldn't hear it if their lives depended on it, and I'm presumptuous by saying that. So, there's no fuss about "it." And that's okay. Actually, it's seemingly better I suppose not to have spoken of it, but there you have it as a point of reference while listening.

R.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I must throw in my hat here with PetrB. I'm not overly familiar with Alkan... but I am familiar enough with world class piano performances to recognize that this is far from being such. Honestly, I found the performance nearly unlistenable.

Yet time after time, studies find that although some people initially learn more quickly, after some amount of time, the playing field definitely seems to level.

There are always those who early on have the "talent" or inclination... or as suggested by Gardiner's studies on intelligence, their brain is wired in such a manner that they more rapidly grasp and master certain skills/concepts, etc... Educators will point out that a considerable number of these individuals become "lazy" or rather fail to develop a drive or self-motivation because things (at the early stages) came so easily, while other far more motivated students may eventually equal and surpass them. This in no way should be taken to suggest that all one needs to master art is a solid Protestant work ethic. The greatest performers and artists combine an unwavering drive, with the self-discipline, as well as talent... even "genius" if you will.


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> Yet time after time, studies find that although some people initially learn more quickly, after some amount of time, the playing field definitely seems to level.
> 
> From personal experience too, I've reached a decent level in several skills and been fortunate to meet many people of world class in near world class level in them. I've also been part of their "communities" for a while. Never in this time have I seen someone or heard of someone kind of 'magically' get good. Everyone at the higher or highest levels that I have personally spoken to about this has done tremendous hours of practice or training. I haven't yet met that kid who did just an hour a day and is suddenly better than 99.9% of us.


Certainly, that well over 10,000 hours put in -- with maximum mental concentration -- is one factual element. However, there are plenty who do that who still lack 'that something' which makes the greats "great."


----------



## DavidA

Matsps said:


> Yet time after time, studies find that although some people initially learn more quickly, after some amount of time, the playing field definitely seems to level.
> 
> From personal experience too, I've reached a decent level in several skills and been fortunate to meet many people of world class in near world class level in them. I've also been part of their "communities" for a while. Never in this time have I seen someone or heard of someone kind of 'magically' get good. Everyone at the higher or highest levels that I have personally spoken to about this has done tremendous hours of practice or training. I haven't yet met that kid who did just an hour a day and is suddenly better than 99.9% of us.


May I say that these 'studies' appear to me, like many other educational studies have proved in the past, to be bunk. The simple reason is my own observation as a teacher for quite a number of years. The other is my own observation of people at a high level. I observed there are certain people who are way above my own ability. Now one thing that confuses the issue is that these sort of people tend to work very hard on what they do. One reason is that they are good at it and it is not nearly so difficult to work hard at something you're good at than something you're not good at. So if I have the ability of a great pianist and then there is a vastly greater incentive for me to work hard at it than I now have, as I know that however hard I work I will not be able to produce a very good standard. Hence I have tended to look on music as a pastime rather than a career.
I know that if you put me up against someone like Argerich, Hamelin or Pollini, however hard I tried the playing field would never level!


----------



## PetrB

I think those studies may be only half-bunk, i.e. there is a lot of truth to diligent application and hard work bringing results, and I would include a zealous interest / passion for the subject worked at.

As me Mum used to say, she had an average intelligence but a love of her subject (I'd would call what 'got her there' and kept her there was something akin to "diligent zeal") which became her career, that within her field she became known as exceptional, outstanding.

That was not a career in the arts, though. And me Mum and many others recognize there is still a thing called innate talent which comes in to play as part of the formula _on top of all the diligently adhered to hard work and study_ which distinguishes "the great" artists from people who write well, paint well, perform or compose music well.

ADD P.s. 
This may seem obvious to those baby boomers born around the end of WWII, but since then, in America and elsewhere, a sort of "Wish upon a Star" mentality has crept in to the population... i.e. if you have a dream, that is enough to bring the dream to you, or if you work hard enough that is enough to guarantee high levels of achievement and success.

Somewhere, the common sense of diligently applied study and hard work pushing you somewhere forward (if not to high artistic greatness) got somewhat faded if not lost -- Ergo, I believe that is the reason for the appearance of all those studies showing that steady work and concentration can and do lead you more to some level of success... i.e. the obvious needed re-saying.


----------



## Matsps

I guess it gets very difficult to show in studies how much talent affects people in abilities requiring mental faculty when you are looking at the most skilled of all in a skill. =/ 

All I can say is that studies following people in early stages find that talent is either not a factor, or a very insignificant factor, with it's significance diminishing as the general skill level increases. I like to conjecture this trend continues, but I guess everyone else here disagrees. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one until some study actually follows a bunch of people from nothing to world class...


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Matsps said:


> It's folly to say this guy lacks musicality. At his level, there is no-one lacking musicality, it is only technique that is of concern. QUOTE]
> 
> sorry, I disagree. I think the person playing DOES lack musicality. If it were simply a question of hitting the 'right' notes, surely a computer would be able to do it far more accurately than a person.
> 
> I think the quality of a performer is not just technique, it is also the ability to communicate and the capability of having something worthwhile to say (as has been said earlier!)


----------

