Topic: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

With the help of MIDI technologies we can now switch off all the reverbs, delays, key press sounds, neutralize imperfections of the piano, make the velocity curve more sensitive so that we could practice for more precise sound quality.

It is obvious that playing "raw" piano is much harder than piano modeled close to reality, you can easily export any of your recordings in midi, and the default Windows midi player will make you realise that your sound is poor.

But is there any real sence to do that, because we will play on public the real pianos anyway and maybe it is better to pay attention on other aspects of playing rather than glaze the velocity of every note to the perfection?

What do you think, do we really have and advantage and is it worth to practice the raw piano with all the additional sounds off?

Last edited by Romariozen (21-11-2020 16:04)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

By dialectical nature all the huge advantages of modern era are perfectly well compensated by no less than tremendous disadvantages presented at the same time. Like on a bigger scale modern classical culture is a perverted joke nowadays compared to previous generations, speaking of both content makers and consumers.

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

AKM wrote:

By dialectical nature all the huge advantages of modern era are perfectly well compensated by no less than tremendous disadvantages presented at the same time. Like on a bigger scale modern classical culture is a perverted joke nowadays compared to previous generations, speaking of both content makers and consumers.


Yes, the winter back then used to be colder and the grass was greener. Kissin, Mazuev, Lugansky, Berezovsky, Lee, Shishkin, Schiff, Pletnev, Sokolov must be the jokers. Not even speaking about the perfect audience of XX's that you used to know

Last edited by Romariozen (21-11-2020 19:06)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

Music today it's trivialized, because it's easily available everywhere. In old days you needed musicians, and money, to have music, or relative or friends  able to play. There were times of advances, discoveries, great compositions, but in general restricted by money.

Today you can download a entire classic music collection, and have music while in elevator, while waiting on phone, or while running on park using headphones.

I remamber a TV Soap Opera that everytime played Clair de La Lune, and a relative here did not miss one single episode. So everyday there was clair de L Lune, again, again and again... for months. Even great compositions can became a anoy, if trivialized. And it was funny, a month before I was in desire to learn Clair de La Lune on piano, but I quit even start cause I didn't wanted someone to hear me playing and comment : "You are playing that music from the soup opera..."

Today, I wish  to learn Clair de La Lune, as it's not in the trivialization fashion anymore. :-)

Last edited by Beto-Music (21-11-2020 20:03)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

@Beto-Music, yes :)

@Romariozen
No, the grass was about the same color. Music - different story. Music was and is very much technology related, it is changing and evolving, that's why it was very much different even just a few decades ago. Music was HARD. Now it is all around much easier. Which is, again, very good thing for all of us. Really it is like never before, you can have a Steinway D grand in your cave just for peanuts (thank you, Modartt), quite arguably even better than the real one in certain aspects, limitless instant free access to all the sheet music, all the recordings, online lessons, books, etc., which is tremendously great, it was never better than now, technically, no sarcasm. However, at the same time like you wrote:

because we will play on public the real pianos anyway and maybe it is better to pay attention on other aspects of playing

You don't really have to, look around. The point is there is a very, very limited number of people, compared to the previous times, who are somehow still left apart from Billie Eilish crowd, interested and willing to listen to classical piano music in general. Out of that limited number most will not go to listen to someone live, it is perfectly fine for them to be entertained by some popular piano acrobats like the ones you mentioned available by a finger snap for free in their phones, car audios, etc. For extremely few still, there is the same way unlimited free access to the greatest of the greatest, like Rachmaninoff archive recordings, Cortot, Richter, Gieseking, etc. It is very hard to imagine nowadays that there was times, almost just recently, when the only(!) way to enjoy music was to actually play it on an instrument, be it yourself or somebody else. And there was really many educated people willing to enjoy it no matter what, even not so good playing. There was a demand, there was traditions, it all was a real thing, part of everyday life for many people. Not a perverted fetish, the appearance of "culture" to pretend to be part of. Also the number of and the quality of the real pianos around was incomparably higher. So the difference in regards of piano music is HUGE now and before. So again, the advantages, as big as they are now, are well compensated by other things. No complains on my side, just stating the obvious. Modern technologies while helping the matter significantly, simultaneously made it obsolete, like why bother? Fascinating stuff to observe.

-added-
Here is a brougham for a reference. Sure we have an advantage in technologies, and can make them much better than what was possible in XIX century. And I'm pretty sure there is still quite some demand for specific needs, but, you know...

Last edited by AKM (21-11-2020 23:11)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

AKM wrote:

@Beto-Music, yes.

@Romariozen
No, the grass was about the same color. Music - different story. Music was and is very much technology related, that's why it was very much different even just a few decades ago. Music was HARD. Now it is all around much easier. Which is, again, very good thing for all of us. Really it is like never before, you can have a Steinway D grand in your cave just for peanuts (thank you, Modartt), quite arguably even better than the real one in certain aspects, limitless instant free access to all the sheet music, all the recordings, online lessons, books, etc., which is tremendously great, it was never better than now, technically, no sarcasm. However, at the same time like you wrote:

because we will play on public the real pianos anyway and maybe it is better to pay attention on other aspects of playing

You don't really have to, look around. The point is there is a very, very limited number of people, compared to the previous times, who are somehow still left apart from Billie Eilish crowd, interested and willing to listen to classical piano music in general. Out of that limited number most will not go to listen to someone live, it is perfectly fine for them to be entertained by some popular piano acrobats like the ones you mentioned available by a finger snap for free in their phones, car audios, etc. For extremely few still, there is the same way unlimited free access to the greatest of the greatest, like Rachmaninoff archive recordings, Cortot, Richter, Gieseking, etc. It is very hard to imagine nowadays that there was times, almost just recently, when the only(!) way to enjoy music was to actually play it on an instrument, be it yourself or somebody else. And there was really many educated people willing to enjoy it no matter what, even not so good playing. There was a demand, there was traditions, it all was a real thing, part of everyday life for many people. Not a perverted fetish, the appearance of "culture" to pretend to be part of. Also the number of and the quality of the real pianos around was incomparably higher. So the difference in regards of piano music is HUGE now and before. So again, the advantages, as big as they are now, are well compensated by other things. No complains on my side, just stating the obvious. Modern technologies while helping the matter significantly, simultaneously made it obsolete, like why bother? Fascinating stuff to observe.

We didn't understand each other from the beginning. I didn't mention pop music at all, all I wanted to find out is how to practice better, wasn't going to go into history.

As I assume, the times before were absolutely the same and people were the same, as 100 years ago, as 2000 years ago. There were always a few people listening to classical and a lot less educated people who could read sheet music and play classical then nowadays and the same time there was always pop music even at the time of Renaissance, when even composers liked and sang public songs and composed canons and professional madrigals on pop song themes like Jacob Obrecht, Josquin des Prez and even Bach with Hendel (Baroque ofc). So I don't really think that it was better yesterday, there are just more possibilities for the people to create nowadays thus there is more ordinary content

Last edited by Romariozen (21-11-2020 23:45)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

Beto-Music wrote:

There were times of advances, discoveries, great compositions, but in general restricted by money.

I can say absolutely the same about XXI. There is also now a lot of possibilities to compose. If it was easy to compose something new, it wouldn't be that hard and we wouldn't need genius composers for that.

Last edited by Romariozen (21-11-2020 23:43)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

As I assume, the times before were absolutely the same and people were the same, as 100 years ago, as 2000 years ago.

Too strong of a statement I would argue.

There were "..." a lot less educated people who could read sheet music and play classical then nowadays

Same, not obvious at all to me, source?

the same time there was always pop music even at the time of Renaissance

Folk [not equal] Pop. Quote from Wikipedia:

"Pop is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom. The terms popular music and pop music are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular and includes many disparate styles. During the 1950s and 1960s, pop encompassed rock and roll and the youth-oriented styles it influenced. Rock and pop remained roughly synonymous until the late 1960s, after which pop became associated with music that was more commercial, ephemeral, and accessible."

So I don't really think that it was better yesterday

I also don't. It was different, something was better, something not.

there are just more possibilities for the people to create nowadays thus there is more ordinary content

Agree.

Last edited by AKM (21-11-2020 23:48)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

There were "..." a lot less educated people who could read sheet music and play classical then nowadays
Same, not obvious at to me, source?

There are more schools today and a lot of people attend musical schools or learn theory via internet, it doesn’t cost a lot so you don’t have to be in a noble family for that and can afford an instrument at least electrical. I would better ask how do you know that there were more people who liked classical

saying that by accident all living today people were born less smart or prepossessed for culture is ridiculous
Never said this.

Yes, I deleted that quote

"Pop is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom. The terms popular music and pop music are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular and includes many disparate styles. During the 1950s and 1960s, pop encompassed rock and roll and the youth-oriented styles it influenced. Rock and pop remained roughly synonymous until the late 1960s, after which pop became associated with music that was more commercial, ephemeral, and accessible."

This is called folk now because this was a lot centuries ago and noone knows the authors of the songs, I would't say that there is much difference in the folk song where the guy sings how he likes the girl and today's pop song with the same lyrics, if it was XV century  today, that folk music would also be called pop, pop comes from "popular" (everybody listens to it), not "trash" or "unaesthetical"


We can only have opinions about how people differ from the people before bacause we didn't live at that time, so you can agree and disagree, but what I know definetely is that people think stereotipically and when we read the book or watch the film where a lot of people talk politely, wear whiskers and play the classical everywhere we unconsiously start to think that it was normal back then

Last edited by Romariozen (22-11-2020 00:30)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

Such an interesting discussion.

Romariozen wrote:

What do you think, do we really have and advantage and is it worth to practice the raw piano with all the additional sounds off?

For classical piano, I do think so, thinking of the room as your reverb, with a real piano in it makes for good results.

For other music, it may not always matter as much but for classical piano practice, I think it will always be a good choice.

I like to play using the player type presets, and listen back to the MIDI later, with audience perspective presets with more reverb, other pianos etc., sounding a bit like a radio concert broadcast in the background while reading etc. Sometimes I'll hear "Ouch! that gimmick's just gotta stop!" - and I do think I've stamped out a few old habits this way.

Think like a band listening to their practice room and concert desk recordings - hearing it back is something we can take for granted with piano and Pianoteq - and to be able to concoct a virtual concert sound from our player-preset auto-recorded practice or play-through MIDI is pretty delicious stuff).

Pianoteq Studio Bundle (Pro plus all instruments)  - Kawai MP11 digital piano - Yamaha HS8 monitors

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

In a random order:

This is called folk now because this was a lot centuries ago and noone knows the authors of the songs, I would't say that there is much difference in the folk song where the guy sings how he likes the girl and today's pop song with the same lyrics, if it was XV century  today, that folk music would also be called pop, pop comes from "popular" (everybody listens to it), not "trash" or "unaesthetical

There is a saying that "if a grandma had a couple of balls, she would be a grandpa". One could argue that, say, the dogs are nothing but exactly the same as humans, much more similarities than differences, same type of body parts, digestive system, brains, even like to howl, which is enjoyable and popular among dogs, so the dogs are singing like a pop music, very much the same. If we were dogs and could speak we could actually call each other humans. So, please, no, folk is folk, pop is pop, they are not the same, and no, we are not it the XV century today. You could call the similarities, because it is all, you know, music, uses notes, scales, etc. The differences are huge, one of the most significant is the economics, so no, pop is a new kind of modern music reality, it is professional, more like a full time job for many, highly commercialized, industrialized - quite far from XV century folk songs. And it is all very much influential for the recent classical piano music situation.

There are more schools today and a lot of people attend musical schools or learn theory via internet, it doesn’t cost a lot so you don’t have to be in a noble family for that and can afford an instrument at least electrical. I would better ask how do you know that there were more people who liked classical

Hard to tell without the actual scientific statistic data, can't be sure. In the USSR the nearly free music education was very wide spread, you could be right here, but it peaked at late XX and significantly declined in XXI, I've heard that in China and Japan the early music education is mandatory, although don't have the exact knowledge, don't know about how it is in USA and Europe. Speaking of pre XX, the society was very much divided, so if you were in the privileged class you could have the impression that most of people around play some instrument, was going to concerts, know the music, operas, symphonies, etc., but if you were in the lower class, which was the vast majority, then nearly nobody around play the instruments or could read the music.

We can only have opinions about how people differ from the people before bacause we didn't live at that time, so you can agree and disagree, but what I know definetely is that people think stereotipically and when we read the book or watch the film where a lot of people talk politely, wear whiskers and play the classical everywhere we unconsiously start to think that it was normal back then

After all I have my personal experience, I can gather information from my family, older generations, friends, friend's friends, their kids, so on. The younger generation don't give a flying fork about classical music, really. The moonlight and fur elise is your best bet, if you are lucky enough. Same with the current 30-40 years old (more or less my generation), albeit they are not professionally involved. Only among people who are 70+ there is a chance to meet someone who could name some other pianists except Matsuev (for Russia). From what I'm able to observe the classical music culture evolved and peaked in XIX century with the names of Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Rubinstein (as performers) starting to very so slightly fade in XX and quite significantly in XXI. Overall it is not trivial but still possible to acquire the accurate knowledge about the past, the tools are present, even the music by itself carry the information about the times and society, if one is sensitive enough.

saying that by accident all living today people were born less smart or prepossessed for culture is ridiculous
Never said this.

Yes, I deleted that quote

The hard fact is that everything we see around will eventually come to it's end like the humanity, the planet, and hence the culture. I highly doubt the latter is starting right now but still it is a small chance that it is :-)

Last edited by AKM (22-11-2020 07:51)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

AKM wrote:

In a random order:

This is called folk now because this was a lot centuries ago and noone knows the authors of the songs, I would't say that there is much difference in the folk song where the guy sings how he likes the girl and today's pop song with the same lyrics, if it was XV century  today, that folk music would also be called pop, pop comes from "popular" (everybody listens to it), not "trash" or "unaesthetical

There is a saying that "if a grandma had a couple of balls, she would be a grandpa". One could argue that, say, the dogs are nothing but exactly the same as humans, much more similarities than differences, same type of body parts, digestive system, brains, even like to howl, which is enjoyable and popular among dogs, so the dogs are singing like a pop music, very much the same. If we were dogs and could speak we could actually call each other humans. So, please, no, folk is folk, pop is pop, they are not the same, and no, we are not it the XV century today. You could call the similarities, because it is all, you know, music, uses notes, scales, etc. The differences are huge, one of the most significant is the economics, so no, pop is a new kind of modern music reality, it is professional, more like a full time job for many, highly commercialized, industrialized - quite far from XV century folk songs. And it is all very much influential for the recent classical piano music situation.

There are more schools today and a lot of people attend musical schools or learn theory via internet, it doesn’t cost a lot so you don’t have to be in a noble family for that and can afford an instrument at least electrical. I would better ask how do you know that there were more people who liked classical

Hard to tell without the actual scientific statistic data, can't be sure. In the USSR the nearly free music education was very wide spread, you could be right here, but it peaked at late XX and significantly declined in XXI, I've heard that in China and Japan the early music education is mandatory, although don't have the exact knowledge, don't know about how it is in USA and Europe. Speaking of pre XX, the society was very much divided, so if you were in the privileged class you could have the impression that most of people around play some instrument, was going to concerts, know the music, operas, symphonies, etc., but if you were in the lower class, which was the vast majority, then nearly nobody around play the instruments or could read the music.

We can only have opinions about how people differ from the people before bacause we didn't live at that time, so you can agree and disagree, but what I know definetely is that people think stereotipically and when we read the book or watch the film where a lot of people talk politely, wear whiskers and play the classical everywhere we unconsiously start to think that it was normal back then

After all I have my personal experience, I can gather information from my family, older generations, friends, friend's friends, their kids, so on. The younger generation don't give a flying fork about classical music, really. The moonlight and fur elise is your best bet, if you are lucky enough. Same with the current 30-40 years old (more or less my generation), albeit they are not professionally involved. Only among people who are 70+ there is a chance to meet someone who could name some other pianists except Matsuev (for Russia). From what I'm able to observe the classical music culture evolved and peaked in XIX century with the names of Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Rubinstein (as performers) starting to very so slightly fade in XX and quite significantly in XXI. Overall it is not trivial but still possible to acquire the accurate knowledge about the past, the tools are present, even the music by itself carry the information about the times and society, if one is sensitive enough.

saying that by accident all living today people were born less smart or prepossessed for culture is ridiculous
Never said this.

Yes, I deleted that quote

The hard fact is that everything we see around will eventually come to it's end like the humanity, the planet, and hence the culture. I highly doubt the latter is starting right now but still it is a small chance that it is :-)


Well, I like folk very much, it is not equal to pop, all I mean is that there was popular music among the major society and there was academic music, not going deeper into the semantics of the exact word pop and folk. Because we started from the point that people now listen more ordinary music and classical became worse.

I really think that romantic music is now appreciated as well as in XIX, you can now find a lot of people at the concerts and a lot of views of classical pieces on YouTube as well as there is a lot of classical on Apple Music, like you can find Chopin etudes albums of 10 different piano players, it means that there is a demand

Not sure that back then when there was romantic period, peasants who were always the majority of the society visited concerts. Maybe within the “elite class” people used to listen to classical more, but I don’t think there should be any sensible  reason for it, I guess people of this class still listen to classical a lot though I am not part of it and can’t be sure.

That’s all for the long discuss, I think we will never get to the truth without having time travel machine your grandma isn’t enough to get to the XIX century ) as well as everybody has his subjective opinion, so I can say that right now classical is popular or not living in XXI and can be wrong.
But my personal opinion is that the status of classical music was always the same and the same category of people listens to it and people don’t change. Don’t pretend noone to think as I do

Last edited by Romariozen (22-11-2020 10:29)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

(added some text to let the single smile message through forum automated rules)

Last edited by AKM (22-11-2020 11:03)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

Regarding the practice habits, like switching the reverb off, it is never a bad idea to make your life harder for exercise. You may also want to set the dynamics to ultra-low or to ultra-high for the same reasons. Regularly switching different instruments during practice in theory also may help to be ready to whichever real one you happen to be playing.

-added-
Also a good challenge is to set the overall volume significantly high (to force yourself playing more delicate) or the opposite, significantly low (to be tricked to apply more force into playing).

Last edited by AKM (22-11-2020 16:52)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

Beto-Music wrote:

Today, I wish  to learn Clair de La Lune, as it's not in the trivialization fashion anymore. :-)

Which one ?

https://youtu.be/URwSOVEOAxI

https://youtu.be/TesdiZ7LMqs

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

I meant Debussy version. I should had said "Clair de Lune".

Beethoven 3th moviment it's so difficult, and that's why most people stay in 1th moviment.

Maybe it's easier to learn this than the 3th moviment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIMHN87nmrQ


Gaston wrote:
Beto-Music wrote:

Today, I wish  to learn Clair de La Lune, as it's not in the trivialization fashion anymore. :-)

Which one ?

https://youtu.be/URwSOVEOAxI

https://youtu.be/TesdiZ7LMqs

Last edited by Beto-Music (22-11-2020 15:35)

Re: Advantage over the XX's pianists?

AKM wrote:

Regarding the practice habits, like switching the reverb off, it is never a bad idea to make your life harder for exercise. You may also want to set the dynamics to ultra-low or to ultra-high for the same reasons. Regularly switching different instruments during practice in theory also may help to be ready to whichever real one you happen to be playing.

-added-
Also a good challenge is to set the overall volume significantly high (to force yourself playing more delicate) or the opposite, significantly low (to be tricked to apply more force into playing).


thx