Nyíregyházi's Amazing Piano Technique

To see him is impressive, but the best evidence of a truly amazing pianist is to be found in a couple of audio tracks on YouTube. Search for Nyireghazy playing the Second Legend of Lizst, and also Mephisto Waltz. He breaks all bounds of convention in the Legend to make it sound fully like a prayer prayed in the middle of a sea tumultuous and unpredictable in its moods, a sea that reminds one of the classic fisherman's prayer: "Oh Lord, Your sea is so great and my boat is so small..." In Mephisto he keeps a very conservative tempo that really evokes... a waltz! But a diabolical, devilish waltz that threatens to bite you and Lord knows what else... Legend: Mephisto: Enjoy! AFF

I have a film of Nyiregyhazi playing Lensky's Aria from Eugene Onegin, during one of his last concerts in Japan, that I intend to upload at some point. Sadly the late Japanese concerts are not even close to his best- making Horowitz's Japanese concert look like a model of technical proficiency. However, the Tchaikovsky is incredible. This film has a tantalising snippet of his prime years. In the thirty seconds or so from the 12th rhapsody, it's possible to detect how he scarcely plays a single note with his hands fully in sync, yet to me it sounds 100% natural- unlike the way Paderewski can often seem to do it out of routine, rather than for any particular musical reason.

I had a student in London once who told me that her other teacher insisted that the ONLY way to play a Chopin Nocturne correctly was to break the hands continually. What rubbish! And yet, it is indeed completely natural for Nyiregyhazi to do what he does. It just goes to show - any interpretive strategy done mechanically, because "one should," is bound to fail. The same strategy done 'in the spirit' can give marvellous results... AFF

I'd agree with aspects of that but, to be honest, I think people really SHOULD be encouraged to break their hands more often- but (importantly) with explanations of WHY it can be beneficial. The sound of notes stuck together is inherently less orchestral, than the sound of notes being used to build into one another (which enables virtually limitless possibilities). It's all very well when teachers tell students to listen to great singers etc. but if they aren't also familiar with the pianistic techniques that can emulate the most orchestral and vocal sounds, it won't necessarily do a whole lot of good. As you say regarding physical issues, a 'bad' musician may simply be limited by their means. I think, similarly, an 'ordinary' musician may simply be limited by their knowledge of pianistic tricks. It's no use imagining a sound, if you do not know the musical techniques that might enable you to actually realise it. Surely by far the most effective technique at combating the piano's limits is to use lighter sounds to build into the strongest sounds (to mask the inherent nature of the 'thud' followed by a decay)? What most modern critics seem to have overlooked is that hand separations are one of the most effective methods. It's very similar in principle to the overlapping legato (which also helps to mask the 'thud' of new tones). While merely telling someone to play their hands less together is unlikely to suddenly give magical results, in the long-term it can open possibilities, if they are shown how to do it and precisely what the benefits are. Personally I think that the really sad thing is that those who do experiment with breaking the hands (but fail to get the right sound straight away) are simply being told not to do it, rather than taught how to do it better. Even those who COULD go on to figure out some wonderful possibilities are simply being prevented from having the chance to develop it. I find it amusing to hear Pogorelich's odd recent experiments (such as a 50 minute Rachmaninoff 2nd concerto), when he has scarcely even explored the possibilities that come from minute spreads and separations. His earlier recordings show a very traditionally trained pianist (despite certain unusual aspects of his earlier interpretations, the foundations of the style were very traditionally modern). It's a shame that his apparent frustration at the limitations of 'regular' training have ultimately spilled out in such a perverse way, when he has yet to explore so many readily available sounds. Interestingly Mozart himself described the kind of rubato in which the hands do not coincide. Ironically, anyone who starts doing it in Mozart is almost certainly going to be described as disrespecting the composer. However, it's often far more logical for a breath to apply solely to the melodic line, without the accompaniment being forced to wait. How did we come to stage where it is universally agreed that the hands should correctly be played together in Mozart, when the composer himself is quoted in the most explicit terms as suggesting otherwise? The irony of virtually every living teacher preaching something that is so definably incorrect as being not only the 'correct' way, but the SOLE 'correct' is beyond belief! Shouldn't we redress this ludicrous imbalance, by actively prescribing the style of rubato that Mozart personally described? I wonder how many players who think that hands together is more 'correct' are even aware of this vital piece of first-hand information? Have you heard the Cortot masterclasses? The slow movements of Les Adieux and op. 110 are simply incredible. The Les Adieux actually sounds, like a reduction of Wagner! His voicing of the G D F A flat C chord takes on a darkly tragic sound I'd never even thought of, within Beethoven- although it's clearly the classic Wagner harmony (like a Tristan chord, plus an added root)! I'd never tended to use any 'old-fashioned' gestures in Beethoven (although I use them extensively in romantic composers), but since having heard that, I'm convinced that they are as relevant there as anywhere. I cannot think of a single performance of the main melody from the op. 110 slow movement that doesn't sound dull and inexpressive, by comparison to Cortot's snippet. I'm convinced that destructive teaching is the main reason why we do not hear this kind of thing any more. Teachers would sooner see a safe, comfortable result, than an interesting one that is not yet polished. I never tell students to break their hands for no good reason, but in the case of wide melodic intervals (where I'm a firm believer in the importance of displaying 'difficulty' through agogics), I see no reason why the 'difficulty' should necessarily apply equally to the accompaniment. Personally I do think that it can be beneficial to prescribe these things at times- hopefully encouraging the students to think about it for themselves and free them up from the supposed 'rule' of playing hands constantly together (something that often damages rhythmic flow far more than freedom in the melody alone). As a teacher of students in a non-specialist music school, it's a lot easier for me to experiment (although I'm lucky enough to have some diploma level students at a very good level). For an advanced teacher at music college I imagine that there is far more pressure to achieve consistently 'solid' results, but I'm convinced that the teaching system ought to be passing on these effects as standard. Few teachers seem to be even attempting to pass on such vital aids to tone-production. I don't see any other way that we will come to hear the orchestral and vocal sounds that used to be commonplace. Is it any wonder that everyone says that modern pianists all sound the same, when 99% of players and teachers are limiting the available permutations of sound to those that are possible with unyielding synchronisation? This an enormous restriction to creativity.

Hi I beleive one should be careful with breaking hands. It used to be a sort of fashion in the old days coming from a very poor tradition. Cortot did not of course emanate from a poor tradition but in my taste he sometimes overused breaking hands and rubati especially when things were getting difficult. His technique was flawless at times he was well prepaired which was not the case always due to his deep involvements in other areas. Playing several notes simutanously is can produce a flabbergasting sound but it is not that easy. In a chord one can accentuate different voices very effectful if you have a series of chords and that is even more difficult.I beleive Horowitz did just this. By the way he said that play Mozart like Chopin and Chopin like Mozart. So my standpoint is to be careful with breaking chords-it's addictive! The best thing that happened to me this year was the discovery of the DVD and the Book.Thankyou Alan! Happy new year Eric

Hi I beleive one should be careful with breaking hands. It used to be a sort of fashion in the old days coming from a very poor tradition. Cortot did not of course emanate from a poor tradition but in my taste he sometimes overused breaking hands and rubati especially when things were getting difficult. His technique was flawless at times he was well prepaired which was not the case always due to his deep involvements in other areas. Playing several notes simutanously is can produce a flabbergasting sound but it is not that easy. In a chord one can accentuate different voices very effectful if you have a series of chords and that is even more difficult.I beleive Horowitz did just this. By the way he said that play Mozart like Chopin and Chopin like Mozart. So my standpoint is to be careful with breaking chords-it's addictive! The best thing that happened to me this year was the discovery of the DVD and the Book.Thankyou Alan! Happy new year Eric Sorry, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but reading your post I didn't see a single rational or aesthetic reason against the act of breaking chords. I'm an 'addict' (if you must put it that way) and thoroughly proud to say so. Precisely should I 'be careful' of? 'Poor tradition'? I'm afraid that to make such a generalisation justs stinks to me of ungrounded indoctrination against the act of breaking the hands. Please elaborate upon why you think this is 'poor'? Why is there always such a strong modern bias against the sound of freedom- to the point where continual, non-stop togetherness is fine, but even a small number of broken chords seem to be enough to cause distaste? It's ironic that you quote the thing about Chopin and Mozart because BOTH of those composers were explicitly quoted as having said that a melodic line should function independently of a stricter bass-line ie. the hands should not always be in sync. Did these two composers come from a 'poor tradition' of performance? This quote (which I believe Horowitz was quoting himself btw- although I'm not sure as to the original source, it has also been attributed to Casals) is frequently used to try and stop freedom in Chopin, but constant hands together playing is clearly not appropriate in either, if the composers own words are to be taken seriously. Sadly, the quote is rarely used to inspire the kind of freedom that Mozart described, within his music, although it is widely used to restrict freedom in Chopin's. As far as Cortot and difficulty goes, there may be some truth to the idea that his rubato was occasionally for technical reasons, but I'm really not talking about such things. Such suggestions are often made to discredit the idea that romantic pianists wanted to sound 'free' in general. Cortot certainly DID want to sound free though and he DID want to spread chords and break his hands. I'm sure he wasn't struggling in Chopin's E minor Prelude! The sad thing is that although many continue to appreciate his playing, they insist on frowning upon these supposedly 'unnecessary' spreads and separations (as though, while they feel compelled to respect him, they feel that they 'know better'- with regard to what is one of the core foundations of his sound). Had he removed them and started playing squarely together I think it would have been quite clear how necessary they were after all! It's true that a great pianist (Horowitz, especially, as you say) can voice chords that are struck squarely together. However, it's equally true that by using tiny displacements and spreads, they have almost infinitely more possibilities available. The great thing about Horowitz is that he was able to reap the benefits without making the displacements especially obvious. Sadly, modern players have almost exclusively disposed of BOTH the displacements and the benefits. For a classic example of the benefits, listen to the way Horowitz projects the tenor note A in the bar before the theme returns in Scriabins op. 2 no. 1. Yep, left hand AFTER the right! This enables a searing, projected sound- that will cut across in any concert hall. However, it doesn't even need to be very loud to get that rounded sense of depth (which, rationally speaking, comes from the fact that, after the smooth swell of the spread chord, the note does not begin in direct competition with a higher note- the ear being drawn towards higher pitches, even when they are played softer). It's also extremely easy to learn this effect. Aside from Volodos and Pletnev, I've rarely heard a single living player who exploits this effect. Is it any wonder that we no longer hear great orchestrators, when they do not use what is available (simply because hands not coming together is too 'old-fashioned). Why is such a wonderful effect not being taught by every 'advanced' teacher in the world? You say that those who frequently separated their hands are from a 'poor tradition'. Personally I would suggest that the thousands of living pianists who are utterly ignorant to the piano's full capabilities and who have rarely tried experimenting with so much as a single note out of strict placement belong to the poorest tradition in the history of classical music.

Hi Cziffra, I'm sorry if my choice of words upset you my english is not that good.. I can't find a single reason, rational or aesthetic, why not breaking chords. I am aware of the orchestrational benefits and I use it myself. Breaking chords is not a "poor tradition" in itself-far from it. But there was a school of interpretation of Chopin and others with exaggerated and unmotivated rubati chordbreaking diminuendi/crescendi very far from the manuscript and from the intentions of the composer. A kind of degeneration. People like Horowitz,Rubinstein,Hoffman and others changed these misconceptions they also changed the taste of the public. We can never be sure but I beleive that the greatest of the 19century pianists did not have this mannerism in their play. People like Busoni Planté and others. Some of my teachers ,most of them now deceased, had this fresh in their minds from the time around 1900-1930 and clearly warned me of this pompous and manneristic approach. It's very temptating to exaggerate romantic music-it's almost intrinsic- and it takes some discipline to resist this temptation. To the listeners benefit. Now, in a way the fashion has perhaps turned to opposite exaggerations, todays interpreters tend to play like machines so I guess that this robotlike studioplaying with only the microphone and competitions in focus is what you are against. I fully agree they bore me to death. Probably the separation of composer and performer has something to do with the loss of freedom (in good taste!) as well.But I can see signs that more and more performers also compose these days.And that is encouraging. Best regards Eric

Breaking chords is not a "poor tradition" in itself-far from it. But there was a school of interpretation of Chopin and others with exaggerated and unmotivated rubati chordbreaking diminuendi/crescendi very far from the manuscript and from the intentions of the composer. A kind of degeneration. People like Horowitz,Rubinstein,Hoffman and others changed these misconceptions they also changed the taste of the public. We can never be sure but I beleive that the greatest of the 19century pianists did not have this mannerism in their play. People like Busoni Planté and others. Eric But what is your basis for suggesting this? I'm listening right now to Busoni's recording of a Nocturne and he uses countless minor displacements (not as severe as Paderewski though). Is his recording of the A major Prelude 'respectful'? The earlier recordings originate from, the more breaking of hands and spreading of chords you tend to find. I don't believe that 'straighter' playing is absolutely new today (Faure's comments and roll of the Pavane, prove that is did exist) but it used to be the exception, rather than the rule. There is a modern arrogance (of which we are all guilty to at least some extent- in other fields if not necessarily in music) of assuming that we have necessarily progressed beyond our forebears. We like to think that we are 'better' at representing the composers, but music has to be served first! If you don't make music, you don't serve the composer. Sadly, we have suceeded in wiping out some of the finest tools we have for turning a percusive instrument into a singing one. I'm sure that Chopin would have preferred a beautiful line (that benefits from unmarked spreading of a chords), to a square one. Of course, taste is alway going to be an issue, but what can be stated as fact is that a pianist who uses absolutely minimal rubato in Chopin is more likely to be 'wrong' than one who often breaks his hands. How far is too far? Meyerbeer commented upon the fact that Chopin's playing of Mazurkas often led to four full beats in a bar! Clearly, the prevailing strictness of today is FAR worse than some of the pianists who took occasional liberties. The musical police have clearly set the limits of what is allowed in completely the wrong place. Shouldn't we start questioning these limits and encourage young pianists to experiment freely? Or should we worry that actively encouraging what Chopin himself prescribed might be 'dangerous'? Is it actually about the composer's wishes or not? Anyone who second-guesses that Chopin would have objected to a few unmarked spread chords (and hence tells a student not to do them), but who plays their hands utterly in sync (despite Chopin's description of rubato) is quite definably guilty of severe hypocrisy. Ironically, they may well be claiming to speak on behalf of the composer's wishes, when they tell students not to do the very thing that Chopin described as his manner of rubato! Once you realise that, the supposedly puritanical idea of adhering strictly to a score (as though that somehow puts you in touch with the composer's spirit) doesn't seem terribly pure or righteous any more. I hope you don't take offence at my response to your comments, but your points are absolutely typical of the modern attitude. I don't believe that you personally wish to 'ban' it outright, but when people stress how careful one needs to be about using it (as though it can be 'tolerated', but must never be 'encouraged') it's practically as good as doing so. Young pianists shouldn't be approaching the idea of occasionally letting the hands go out of sync with trepidation, as though that is tantamount to blasphemy. Equally, teachers shouldn't merely 'permit' it, on occasions- they should be actively encouraging students to learn how to use ALL of the wonderful sounds that are available. If the student goes on to decide it's not for them, then that's fine. However, if a pianist is simply ignorant towards the benefits and has never personally experienced them to the full, they are always going to be a limited player.

The bottom line for me are the sheets. My personal Achilles heel is rythm so I have always to pay some extra attention to ryhtmic patterns, especially every rest and accentuation there is. I'm not talking about metric beats. If you look at say Chopin scores you'll find myriads of microscopic syncopations and rythmic patterns matching the complexity of modern jazz. I'm sure all this have a meaning and it is reflecting the fiery rythmic folklore and dances in his environement. Add to this the contrasting beautiful lines and you clearly have two rather incompatible elements. So in a way the question is what to sacrifice and when and for what. Accelerating or descelerating tempo doesn't necessarily imply sacrificing rythm and using broken chords neither. Playing more freely and producing beautiful lines is indeed desirable but a lack of rythm kills it all. Well talking about music is not easy as you state and I hope I haven't wasted your time it's a challenging and interesting subject. Eric

The bottom line for me are the sheets. My personal Achilles heel is rythm so I have always to pay some extra attention to ryhtmic patterns, especially every rest and accentuation there is. I'm not talking about metric beats. If you look at say Chopin scores you'll find myriads of microscopic syncopations and rythmic patterns matching the complexity of modern jazz. I'm sure all this have a meaning and it is reflecting the fiery rythmic folklore and dances in his environement. Add to this the contrasting beautiful lines and you clearly have two rather incompatible elements. So in a way the question is what to sacrifice and when and for what. Accelerating or descelerating tempo doesn't necessarily imply sacrificing rythm and using broken chords neither. Playing more freely and producing beautiful lines is indeed desirable but a lack of rythm kills it all. Well talking about music is not easy as you state and I hope I haven't wasted your time it's a challenging and interesting subject. Eric Not at all. It's always interesting to discuss stuff. I wouldn't say that beauty and rhythm are conflicting elements, though. Even the freest playing has a rhythm of a kind. Equally, in what are supposedly the 'most' rhythmic passages of Chopin, great pianists can often be found to sharpen the tightness of dotted rhythms etc. What sounds highly rhythmic isn't necessarily metrical. Lyrical playing is just another element of the same thing. Just one thing to add: Chopin has some excellent rhythms (I love that weird pattern in the D flat major theme of the 4th Ballade- where it's both a two against 3 cross-rhythm between the hands and a sense of fours in the r.h.) but, believe me, it's nowhere near the complexty of modern jazz. I used to live with a lot of jazz players and there's no question that the crazy stuff they're doing in free jazz can be found in Chopin (although there are certainly earlier roots of things there).