Let's put the charlatans of "the Method" to sleep once and for all.
My Champion is Josef Lhevinne and the study is Etude in G-sharp
Minor Op 25, No. 6.
I defy anyone, with any method, especially Taubman, to approach
the artistry demonstrated by the recorded performance.
Lady Gaga sells more CDs without misrepresentation of a
"Super Method". In my opinion this is just a marketing ploy!!
Jim
I'd have to disagree here. Leaning towards the fifth is a classic short term means of voicing the fifth. I did this for years and the muscles for my 5th were so underused that I think they had literally atrophied. I think leaning towards the thumb is even better- when you engage the muscles properly rather than slump onto a dead fifth. I had never been able to make sense of this thumb rotation in chords before. However, since I discovered that straightening the thumb provides a reflexive improvement to the action of the fifth, I think I've come to see what is meant here. If the rotation towards the thumb is matched by a light straightening action of the thumb, it can actually serve to make the fifth finger work better too.
I think Alan's idea of making the thumb the main point of focus in octaves is also part of the same thing. To be honest, I hadn't really been able to grasp this very easily before- particularly the idea that you can still voice the the 5th when thinking more from the thumb. However, I'm now thinking of all these three things as basically being a description of one and the same thing. I do find that a tiny sense of rocking to the thumb side can make the fifth even to voice as the main sound.
My problem with the Taubman explanation is that it doesn't even touch on actually doing anything with the thumb- if anything it gives the impression of replacing the thumb's need to do something. It depends wholly on an instinctive response. Without that you'll just end up collapsing with very poor control. However, since I've trained the straightening action, I do find that I can sometimes think of simply leaning lightly to the side. The thumb is starting to respond automatically, without necessarily being a point of focus.
Lhevinne's "Double Thirds" Etude is certainly a technical marvel. Do you think that Horowitz could have played that Etude at Lhevinne's technical level?
Lhevinne taught at Juilliard, so there is a good chance that his extraordinary technical methods were passed on to his students. Did Lhevinne ever write a book about piano playing?
Oh yeah he did "Principals of pianoplaying" I think a must read if you ask me.But one has to have in mind that the pianos of those days were different from todays. His wife taught at Julliard but I don't know to what degree his ideas are still vigorous. I don't think Horowitz had Lhevinnes mecanics.
I don't think any one has ever had the facility on that Etude except Liszt
(who practiced double thirds until his death)
and perhaps Chopin.
The information imparted in the little pamplet written by Josef and Madame
Lhevinne is invaluable for serious artists.
My devotion to music includes Jazz as well as all types of improvisational music. The Jazz pianist who had amazing facility was Art Tatum. He was admired and respected by both Rachmaninoff and Horowitz.
Jim
Thank you for the information; I'll have to read that book.
In what way do you think Lhevinne's mechanics were superior to Horowitz's? I know that Rachmaninov declared that Horowitz had the fastest and loudest octaves and even envied Horowitz's jeu de perlé.
You might want to listen to Ignaz Freidman and Moritz Rosenthal play the "Double Thirds" Etude, if you haven't already. Both performances are available on youtube, and both of them can rival Lhevinne.
This is of course my very personal "opinion". There is a difference between "mecanics" and technique. Horowitz had extensive mecanical training like every other russian at that time that is the ability to play all kinds of scales in every possible combination and in every tonality in front of a jury and an audiance-then a prerequisite to pass on to higher levels. In earlier recordings you can hear reminiscences of this. But he abondoned the mecanics to a certain degree and concentrated entirely on "effects" and musicality.His job was to get audiences excited and to keep up the amounts on the checks. So much of his wonderful sound is in a way "magics" if you listen carefully his passages are full of irregularities, skipped notes and so on he knew all the tricks in the game. But the effect-the end product is just breathtaking. Lhevinne did something else he was without compromise and never ever allowed himself to "cheat" and kept up his mecanics. That's why I agree with Dr Jazz from a mecanical point of view his playing is just unequaled.
Best regards
This is of course my very personal "opinion". There is a difference between "mecanics" and technique. Horowitz had extensive mecanical training like every other russian at that time that is the ability to play all kinds of scales in every possible combination and in every tonality in front of a jury and an audiance-then a prerequisite to pass on to higher levels. In earlier recordings you can hear reminiscences of this. But he abondoned the mecanics to a certain degree and concentrated entirely on "effects" and musicality.His job was to get audiences excited and to keep up the amounts on the checks. So much of his wonderful sound is in a way "magics" if you listen carefully his passages are full of irregularities, skipped notes and so on he knew all the tricks in the game. But the effect-the end product is just breathtaking. Lhevinne did something else he was without compromise and never ever allowed himself to "cheat" and kept up his mecanics. That's why I agree with Dr Jazz from a mecanical point of view his playing is just unequaled.
Best regards
That's an interesting view. So you're saying that in the earliest part of his career (perhaps the 1920's), Horowitz had the type of mechanics that Lhevinne had, but that his playing became less accurate as he grew older? Harold Schonberg said that notes of Horowitz's scales could not have been more evenly matched, leaps could not have been hit more accurately, chords could not have been struck more precisely, and octaves could not have been sharper or more exciting. If those comments are true, then it would sound like Horowitz had flawless, unsurpassed mechanics. Also, Rubinstein talked about a recital that Horowitz gave in the 1920's where he lamented having played a wrong note in the Polonaise Fantaisie. Rubinstein was amazed that Horowitz was able to claim only one wrong note after a performance, which seems like incredible mechanical ability. There is the quote about Rachmaninov envying Horowitz's jeu de perlé, but that may be related more to the sparkle and evenness of Horowitz's passagework, as opposed to mere accuracy.
IIn a way it's a very interesting subject because there is at the end of the day a trade-off between flawless "mecanics" and musicianship. To some degree you can notice this in competitions. They are full of "bore to death" flawless bombastic renderings of the Chopin etude 6/25 and Feux-Follets. Even if this kind of pianists manage to win some they as a rule just fade away in oblivion-it's a market and the public doesn't want to get bored. I don't say Lhevinne was not musical in fact he is one of my idols and rawmodel. His "tradeoff" was small.I'm sure the recordings doesn't do him justice.
Horowitz said perfection is imperfection and that's something to meditate on.I think he literally meant what he said and that it expressed a hard-gained lifelong wisdom. Why is it so enjoyable to listen to a river and so agonizing to hear an ambulance signal?
I would think that one should be able to obtain both mechanical perfection and musicianship. After all, with the right technique, it becomes much easier to control the sound and arrive at your musical goals. Technique should be used for the purpose of making your musical statements.
