Pianists are perhaps the only musicians who do not have to listen to what they are doing?

Question

It's a great essayist and scholar -- Charles Rosen is the 'agent provocateur' in this splendid case -- who can just about antagonise every possible element of his audience at a stroke with just one sentence in order to make a crucial point. Pointing towards spatial awareness and muscle memory, what do you think might his next line be to justify this sally? And do you agree?

Certainly add freely by all means, but watch the question: what might be the next line that justifies this objectively speaking not even tenuously supportable thesis? Rosen's not on trial here, just the thought... :-)

I ain't thumbing nuffing! Toutvas, you've edged very close to the heart of it; and Chameleon, too: Rosen then moves to include 'keyboards', and I'd add 'particularly ones where the mode of attack can alter sound.' His firecracker is seeking to highlight a real problem...

Lynndramsop & Bearcat have put the nature/quality of sound and means/method of production into the mix. Throw in fixed pitch & intonation free, can we now wrap these elements into one that says something specific about keyboardists' hearing and enables a 'yes' to the Q. and still satisfies all who want it to be 'no'..?

Yes Glinzek, in fact you're so close you've just about wrapped it up. Rosen's next line was this: "They often know from a sense of touch alone [...]; in fact, in my experience one knows that a note will be wrong a split second before striking it, too late to change [...]." The complete mental imprint of the total performance you refer to is precisely what we depend on, with our ears as implacable overseers. Often tho, players can fail to recognise their reliance on body feedback and mistake that for 'hearing'. That's the problem we've all seen: the player who *looks* subject to high emotion, but our ears can't actually hear it; or the player whose first studio playback gives a rather nasty surprise. Rosen's firecracker stays true: just place the stress on *have* as you read. Your answer's first part demonstrates the truth of that. The second indicates the other essential: no aural overseer, no music.

Answer 1

I am guessing that what he (and you) are driving at is the concept of total memorization. All aspects of the performance are programmed into the mechanical or "muscle" memory; notes, tempi, touch, tone, coloring, nuance, pedaling, dynamics, architecture, all become part of the large habit, so that the pianist could theoretically play the piece with plugs in his/her ears. Free from worry about intonation, they can go on autopilot.

His next line could well be "But they had better!" Muscle memory can be unreliable at the best of times, especially in the high tension environment of a live performance -- so there are backup systems, redundancies that must be in place, and the pianist needs to monitor flow of thought and output in order to know when to engage them. (at least that has been MY experience -- ask me why I don't perform). And every hall is different, which requires adjustment of projection. And there is also the issue of ensemble playing, which requires a bit more focus and alertness.

Am I getting closer?

Answer 2

I think his next line would have been, "This is because performance on the piano is not materially affected by anything other than weight of the attack - light or heavy - and the perceived quality of performance lies in the manner in which the notes are connected."

My lack of expertise in this area should preclude a decision between agree and disagree, but there may be some smidge of truth in the old boy's thinking (with apologies to my piano playing friends). My understanding is that some earlier piano mechanisms perhaps allowed more control over tone production. Whatever it is, there is something present that allows us to tell a superior performance from a mediocre one.
And how about keyboards with programmable touch? Are they better able to convey nuance?

What seems to come out of this is that while pianists have no need to pay attention to intonation and very little to tone production, their tactile responsibilities require their main focus and in many cases operate on automatic through feeling and muscle memory. Again, to Rosen, the manner in which the notes were connected would determine the quality of performance. (Another interesting thought, How does the visual element in a piano performance affect judgment of quality or musicality? Would an observed performance be judged differently from a purely auditory one?)

Musician, composer, teacher.

Answer 3

DON"T THUMBS DOWN IMMEDIATELY .... I cannot disagree completely because a good typist can be a pianist (note I didn't say good) an accurate and proficient pianist yes but not a musical pianist .... the key word is musician ... a pianist who doesn't listen could not be a good musician ... muscle memory and accuracy and being able to play complex piano pieces does not a musical pianist make just a technician

his statement is actually so correct it really is offensive ... any good typist could learn where the fingers go and therefor produce monumental and very dry copies off the music that is being read and the funny thing we completely forgot we hear that sort of performance every day with the canned and programed pop music

Answer 4

I disagree with that statement. Really, for a violinist or saxophonist, you are playing only one or two notes. When a pianist begins to play, usually more than one note, more preferably multiple voices sing in harmony. A pianist must listen and give special attention and make certain differences to each voice. Some people may see the rambunctious style of pianists like Keith Jarrett, or the speed of Art Tatum, but every single note is begin played for a very important purpose. One cannot say that the pianists aren't listening to themselves, just as another couldn't say the same of a guitarist or drummer. All instruments have purpose, therefore must be listened to by not only an audience but the one playing.

Answer 5

Perhaps that is why his performances, in my opinion, are so dismal. He doesn't listen.

The only line that could follow this statement might be that many don't listen, but I don't believe for one second that true artists are that way. I'm certainly not! We listen to every aspect - the attack, the ending (which includes the release at the precise moment we wish) and all the way through every sound.

The artist's awareness is obvious. You wouldn't catch artists like Uchida or Goode not listening, and the greatest tool I was given was being forced to listen and account for EVERYTHING I did - even when it was good.

Should I tell you how I really feel?

Answer 6

Pianists? Or keyboardists?
I can tell you that last time I played a harpsichord I wished I was deaf :-)
Being a singer though I can't even begin to comprehend how that idea could work. Interesting (and, as always, thoughtful) question, though.

Answer 7

I would like to reword Rosen's claim..."Pianists are perhaps the only musicians who do not HAVE to listen to what they are doing, in order for them to APPEAR to be playing well...however, to the trained ear, the difference between a PIANIST paying attention to their playing, and the pianist simply hitting notes, is vast.
His next line may be..."Look at all the pianists today, who clearly are not listening to what they are doing".

Answer 8

perhaps he is referring to the fact that a piano's tone is set into the instrument, and needs much less "coaxing" than just about any other instrument?
How many squeaky reeds that need to be overcome, a mis-set bow along a string, singer's phlegm blocking the easy egress of sound: a piano always sounds like a piano.
There have been some cogent statements about musicality, and touch on the instrument, but perhaps he had the basic tone in mind?
Thank you for your usual thought provoking question.

Answer 9

The next line could be "Because becoming a competent pianist requires so much practice that muscle memory takes over."

Answer 10

false. VERY FALSE