It is known that Rachmaninoff suffered from a severe depression, caused by a breakdown after the premiere of his First Symphony. An unproductive period of about three years stressed him that much, but finally he recovered through a hypnotic therapy by the psychologist Nikolai Dahl. He was able to compose again and he wrote his gorgeous Second Piano Concerto, which was dedicated to his therapist. He recovered from that deep psychological crisis, finally being successful with the premiere of the Concerto.

Nevertheless a sort of darkness characterized the soul of his following works. Even his playing changed and became the idealized source of sadness of his inner being.
Probably because of his emotional power Rachmaninoff´s music has been often criticized by puristic tendencies, reduced just into sentimental patterns.
Of course we would face his works on the wrong side when accepting this theory, rather a deep understanding of his personality and his highly-structured music would bring us to a more faithful interpretation of the great composer.
In conclusion, Rachmaninoff remains an Immortal in the universe of great pianists.

I am not speaking about simple piano playing, what I often prefer to define as a pushing down of keys, depressing pedals like the accelerator of your car with a typewriter technique. Not at all.
It is very important not to strive after a quite impersonal and unattractive style of playing.

How do you consider your being a pianist?
Did you set your own mission statement about your personal musical development? If not, believe me, you should.
Unless you want to play rather for yourself in your free time and not for public.
But remember: being a pianist is only the step before you become an artist…

Thepianist.com starts with Glenn Gould, the eccentric Canadian pianist who certainly set a milestone in the history of the piano and pianists.

A large source of information has been written, spoken, broadcasted about Glenn Gould.
It will not be necessary to put more information about him, as it is already available. And everybody knows that there are controversial opinions about his interpretations.
Let us simply remember Glenn as someone who wanted to change the old patterns of classical music, to bring more life in the masterworks of great composers, to suggest new and original approaches to the score.

Glenn´s personal note was doubtless his conducting the music he was playing (when one of his hands was free, of course) and, last but not least, his permanent humming over the notes, the phrases or the bass-line, whatever he thought it was right to do.

Another personal note was also his polyphonic playing.
He perfectly understood how to study the score, how to read the voices in the context of the composition, how to analyze the structure and finally how to play like a string quartet or even an orchestra.

My personal recommendation to all pianists:
Don´t try to be a second Glenn Gould, the world has already one and he is enough. But you can take him as an example.
You can also decide to continue his purpose.
Be yourself, like Glenn was, and your style will develop in the right direction.
“Thank you Glenn, for showing us what to do, what not to do, how to do it, how not to do it.”

There are basically two types of musicians: the first ones declare their artistic Credo remaining true to the score, the others rather prefer to remain true to the musical masterwork. The first kind of musicians is strictly approaching the written notes. The score represents an indispensable fundament for the study and the examination of the composer´s work. To understand the composition means to capture exactly the text of the score, almost being obsessed with details. An analytic artist doesn´t question the written indications of the composer, as soon as the musical thought is put down on paper, the masterwork shows its perfection. The artist is not reflecting anymore, he just needs to achieve an accurate performance at the instrument to justify his exact study and faithfully approaching the score.
Sometimes this artist also makes use of additional helping methods for his meticulous analysis of the score, for example consulting different versions of the composition by other editions. But those editions only provide a basis for him to come closer and closer to the original message of the composer. Actually, the perfect solution would be having a personal communication with the creator of the musical work, the artist would have the official opportunity to honour the untouchable authority of the composer, he would serve the master by following exactly his musical specifications. Those artists consider this analytic procedure as the way to THE interpretation (Example: Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli).

An interesting metaphor could be mentioned at this point: a professional cook wants to prepare traditional exquisite dishes for his special guests and for this occasion he will be using the recipe of an old master of cuisine. He just follows the specifications of the recipe, ingredients must be exactly selected and mixed together. The dish must be prepared as the old master noticed, so the cook would honour his untouchable authority about cuisine. The dish is served to the guests. For the cook, this is COOKING.

Now we go to the second group of musicians. Those artists are focussing on the composition as a masterwork. The composition is considered as a fundament and at the same time as a source of inspiration for the study and direct approach to the composer. This artist wants to know more about the composer´s personality, he puts the score on a different perspective, using it as a directory and language of the author himself. In this case the artist perfectly understands the musical expression of the composer, being able to create an appropriate performance of the work. Reflecting, questioning, making thesis, antithesis and synthesis about the musical work guide the artist to the truth of the composition. He raises himself from servant to equal. The artist meets the composer and the composer needs the artist to execute his musical testament. For those artists this is the absolute way to achieve the musical INTERPRETATION (Example: Shura Cherkassky, Glenn Gould, and with respect, my humble self).

Here is the related metaphor: our cook wants to prepare the traditional exquisite dishes for his special guests. He has the recipe of the old master of cuisine. But he wants to know more about the master and his recipe, why he selected those particular ingredients, in which occasion the master prepared the dishes, in which manner he used to prepare them. The cook just wants to create a new recipe, perhaps being more creative with the ingredients, he wants to cook like his master did. He wants to become himself a master of cuisine, being able to prepare an excellent dinner to highly satisfy his guests. The dish is served, this procedure is COOKING and at the same time TASTING for our cook.

Back to our two artists: the first one wants to perform the composition, the second one wants to re-compose, to interpret and to deliver the composition to the listener. The first one is positioning himself between composer and listener, the second one is inviting the composer, the interpreter and the listener to join one single room. In this room all truly experience music, doing like the cook, the butler and the guests: they are joining all together the same table for dinner.