What Does "Knowing How to Play" Mean?

oh my god... in my opinion, a basic knowledge of an instrument's technique can already authorize one to say "I know how to play". The rest is study, which varies depending on the difficulty of the pieces one wants to play. But it is a complex discussion, probably unsolvable

thallo wrote:

But it is a complex discussion, probably unsolvable.

I agree. Furthermore, saying "I know how to play" on its own means everything and nothing. It depends on how/how much/what one knows how to play. Of course, even to play No. 1 from Bartók's Mikrokosmos one must "know how to play," but... A bit like saying "I know how to speak English." If someone knows how to say "would you like a cup of tea?" they must know how to speak in English. But is it enough to say that they "know how to speak English"? Perhaps not... But, even there, when can one say "I know how to speak English"? I remember that once Pollini said "I haven't understood anything about the piano yet...". Well, perhaps this thing is exaggerated on his part, but it makes you think...

I imagine the following scene, a non-musician friend arrives and asks: "do you play?", the pianist replies: "Yes, why?", the friend: "I had this sheet music that person x gave me and I don't know what to do with it, can you play it for me?", the pianist replies: "Certainly, give it to me".

A pause of silence ... the pianist's response: "...I am interested in classical music".

Something must have happened... ?! ... on the sheet there was only melody and chords ....

Now I say, if someone knows how to play ... what is the problem? No one asked them to respond to that specific request for a lifetime

In my opinion, there must be a common denominator of technical mastery that allows one to perform a good part, if not all, of the music written for their instrument... how long it takes to prepare a piece... and finally, how much one manages to convey to the listener, especially someone who is not a lover of the genre you are playing... whereas extreme virtuosity and sight-reading do not fall within my canon of what a musician who knows how to play should be... then one could extend the discussion to improvisation, but that would move away from the subject...

LaSingolarita wrote:

how much one manages to convey to the listener, especially someone who is not a lover of the genre you are playing..

Read this way, it seems that the composer's choices are "almost" irrelevant to the listener because all it would take is a ... who knows how to play"}

I was trying to stay on the topic of the discussion, which is knowing how to play; the composer's choices will be interpreted by the performer faithfully or not depending on their artistic personality. In my humble opinion, being able to move someone who doesn't love a certain genre using that same genre is symptomatic of great talent, and I am thinking of a Gould who reinvents Bach and charms even a rapper :-).. then maybe I didn't grasp your clarification, oracle..

LaSingolarita wrote:

In my opinion, there must be a common denominator of technical mastery that allows for the performance of a good part, if not all, of the music written for one's instrument..[...]

while extreme virtuosity and sight-reading do not fall within my canon of a musician who knows how to play [...]

There is a strong contradiction in what you are saying: if you say "technical mastery that allows for the performance of a good part if not all etc." and then say that extreme virtuosity does not fall "within my canon of a musician who knows how to play," you are excluding all the music that requires extreme virtuosity to be performed (and there is quite a lot). So, how do we settle this?

LaSingolarita wrote:

I was trying to stay on the topic of the discussion, which is knowing how to play; the composer's choices will be interpreted by the performer faithfully or not depending on their artistic personality. Knowing how to move someone who does not love a genre with that same genre is, in my modest opinion, symptomatic of great talent, and I am thinking of a Gould who reinvents Bach and charms even a rapper :-).. then perhaps I didn't grasp your clarification, oracle..

I understand and it makes sense to me, LaSingolarita

PS

Perhaps Carlos is referring to Liszt ... ? ...

Oracolo wrote:

Maybe Carlos is referring to Liszt ... ? ...

But there is much more virtuoso than Liszt jejeje... if it were only for that! There is a large slice of 20th-century repertoire that requires quite different virtuosity: for that reason, what LaSingolarita claims seems contradictory to me...

In my opinion, LaSingolarita is not making an absolutist argument, but rather one in relation to the initial question, namely: "when one can truly start saying it"

In my opinion it makes sense; if you play Bach perfectly, it doesn't necessarily mean you can afford Liszt, and yet you might say you know how to play...

Perhaps some other term comes to mind? I am asking. I mean something more exhaustive than "knowing how to play"...

I don't mind LaSingolarita's proposal, but the Jam Session example is emblematic ....

Here we return once again to the example of small hands. Those with small hands inevitably miss out on a huge slice of the virtuoso repertoire. Does that mean they don't know how to play? Let's think about it carefully; you will see that some explanation that satisfies everyone will emerge...

I admit that I did not precisely describe my point of view... speaking of virtuosity, I omitted a term that actually makes the whole thing contradictory... namely sterile... which often turns into exhibitionism... in the sense that certainly a large portion of the musical repertoire, especially contemporary music, requires high technical mastery... but my point of view leads me to recognize skill in a "player" more if they convey something to me rather than if they indulge in scales of 128th notes but without any kind of feeling... so making an ascending scale of values, first I would put those who have great technical mastery, then those who manage to communicate the musical language expressively even if not completely technically trained, and finally those who possess both abilities...

I agree, the first in the scale only needs hand technique. With enough practice, the hand will eventually do "almost everything". The second, well, that is an innate talent you must have and something you must study a lot; one works on the hand. The third would be the optimal one.

Music is emotion... it goes without saying, but if you are able to "give an emotion," then in my opinion, you know how to play. I don't think there can be a "cut off" in this, as if to say that once you know how to play a certain piece then you are a pianist, or if you play all this repertoire or that other, you are a pianist... after all, it is like in art... personally, I find modern art incredibly ugly (but alas, surely because I don't understand it, eh) and I am more moved seeing a painting by a street painter. Not to stray too far from the subject of discussion, art is not measurable, it is not quantifiable. For example, I know an opera singer from my town who, when she sings, makes half the hall vibrate internally and moves people much more than many other singers graduated from a conservatory... then of course, obviously, if you have developed all the technical qualities, you certainly have more possibilities, more tools to express your ideas, which is no small thing. In fact, it often happens to me that my brain would like to play many things it thinks of in that moment, but my hands are not yet ready..

In the belief that I have strayed far from the true subject of discussion, I am posting this video that more or less summarizes what has been said =D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc3xPql1ag0

Open content (youtube)

Daniele87 wrote:

Music is emotion... it's obvious to say, but if you are able to "give an emotion", then in my opinion, you know how to play.

Too subjective...

Now I'm going to be flooded by the booooooos....

a few years ago I happened to watch an episode of Friends, the most recurring judgment was that singer x or dancer y conveyed emotions... and this always happened if x or y were from a team opposed to theirs.

In this forum, I don't remember who wrote that some greats of music have come to us with the epithet of 'greats' only because they were liked by the critics of their time. A bit like the famous phrase that history is written by the winners.

PT I don't know why, but it would really piss me off if the century in which I lived were represented by various Einaudis/Allevis in music history books

Marziano wrote:

I think one studies also to be able to say "I know how to play".

Now, regardless of the instrument, what does "knowing how to play" mean?

That is, when can someone truly start saying it?

I leave the question open

...and so the things to know increase...

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2307-il-revisore-questo-sconosciuto/