Da zepp cuntduckt zum dizturbin rezearch

if diz dun apply to u:

den plz read on :sunglasses:

tiz da opinion of da zepp dat

among tymed zportin dizciplinez, ZWIMMIN iz da moz zimilah to 88 playin, az in

tiz a zheeyat dat cumbine raw dex ability n zophizdickated tech trainin in zumwut equal meazha

zo tiz naturally follow dat

we can gain zum inzite into world record zpeedz of 88 playin by analyzin world record zpeedz in zwimmin :swimming_man:

da zepp put all officially recognized long-courze swimming world recordz for men from da WIKI world record progression page into an EXCEL zpreadzheeyat

n calculated da improvement-ratio per year fo each zheeyat uzin da followin formula:

(firzt record) / (current record) ^ (1/(2019-(year da firzt record wuz zet)))

note we iz actually UNDAHEZTIMATIN diz ratio by uzin 2019 rathah den da yr da current record wuz zet

now da important zheeyat:

uzin diz improvement-ratio, we can back-project to da year when a world record tym wud haf ztood at:

DOUBLE what it iz today

n it turnz out:

13 out of 13 world recordz tymz wud reach da doublin threzhold durin or aftah da BROTHAz lyf tym

perhapz mo dizturbinly

10 out of 13 wud reach da doublin threzhold

durin da PIMPz lyf tym :sunglasses:

in plain lingo

diz mean

cumpared to da faztezt penizt today

da PIMP wuz moz lykly

a half-zpeed mofo :pimp: :snail: :fire: :sunglasses:


oh n da data :sunglasses:


Wut we now need iz a ztudy of doping in 88playing :wink:


I didn’t bother to read this closly, but I am still writing why I disagree with da zepp:

A much better comparison than sport would be painting and drawing. The question is:

Do the best painters/drawers today draw much better than the best painters/drawers of 400 years ago? Why do I use this comparison? Because there were no people using all of their time and energy swimming 100 years ago. The best swimmers 100 years ago probably swam like five times each year, but painters/drawers and pianists did not do anything but paint/draw and play da 88.

What is da Zepp’s response?

And just to be clear: I agree 100 % that the pianists of today have better technique than the pianists of the past, I am just saying that the swimming/sport comparison is a bad one

1 Like

Liszt a half-zpeed Mofo?
Damn, remove him from da SDC header image.

1 Like

I find it impossible to believe da pimp wuz a halfzpeed mofo, for many reasons. And not least would be the accounts describing him as having “prodigious speed” in interlocking octaves. :zif: They sound ridiculous at half speed (eg 5,6 nps) and need to be fast to work.

1 Like

Tis true dough that already in the 19th century, the older generation of musicians was complaining that the younger generation played everything too fast. As Zepp showed by his comparison with sportz, in a narrow definition of “technique” (= purely dexterity, mechanical speed and precision, athletics) Liszt may have been surpassed by a later generation of peniszts. But artitsic 88 playin is so much more than that, and :pimp: probably more than compensated it by his musical depth, tone, phrasing, agogics etc. etc.

1 Like

The older generation ALWAYS complains that the young generation plays too fast. It’s a natural progression, probably caused by the combo of tech decline with age plus the tendency of younger peniztz to be preoccupied with tech.

But today’s youth is tomorrow’s old penizt, and the scenario self-replicates. I don’t think it necessarily means tempi keep getting faster through the ages.


Already plenty of competition swimmers 100 years ago:

1 Like

I am of course exaggeration. My point is: Did these swimmers live from swimming? Did they swim (almost) everyday the same way pianists played the piano (almost) everyday hundred of years ago? I assume they did not. Most athlethes of the past were just amateurs who had a regular job and did sports on the side

1 Like

On the cuntrary in the course of the 20th century under the influence of a handful of great pianists, some music is now performed considerably slower than 100 years ago (some Schubert pieces, Brahms Intermezzi, Fauré Nocturnes etc.). Some people think this gives the music more philosophical depth while it doesn’t.


And in fact, professional athletes were banned from the Olympics early on (see Jim Thorpe controversy).

1 Like

Of course you are right, there was a gradual professionalization of all this leading to better (faster) results.
But you see, when it comes to practising and learning da 88 professionally, you can actually say the same thing, in the sense that the overall technical level of the average piano student and the modern competition pianist is infinitely higher than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Not that I think this automatically means modern pianists are more interesting to listen to than the oldies.

1 Like

I agree, but I’d like to add that it’s more a matter, imo, that where there once was a handful of peniztz with a truly virtuoso tech there are now thousands upon thousands. That doesn’t per se make Volodos, Zimerman, Katsaris (eg) better than Liszt.

But why isn’t the comparison with painting better? I mean: Do painters today paint better details (technically) than painters 150 years ago?


I’ve quite often felt that the playing is too fast when hearing old recs. It sounds a bit comical and light. Is this becuz dey played fast or has it anything to do with the recording. I mean, I know they often had to make zongz fit on the rec, but still, hard to imagine they actually played slow.

tru da progrezz in zport iz

30% professionalization :money_with_wings:
60% body science : anatomic underztandin + :syringe:
10% tech science : (da zwimah “supahzuit”)

da progrezz in sprint not az imprezzive with a 10% improve n 100 yr
diz make x2 improve in 700 yr

da MART actually haff hope da 30~35 npz are reachable becuz

88 playin haff not realy been ztudied zcientifically yet
we are ztill in da “naïve” age of tech :sunglasses:


I don’t have time to properly participate, but studying art history is really the best thing I’ve done with respect to music. It’s allowed me to sort out thoughts I only had on the hunch plane earlier, and also put words on things by analogy I couldn’t talk about in a tangible way earlier.

Great painters as with great pianists - later isn’t better, but later is more advanced. Techniques are better worked out or more refined, thoughts, ideas and movements are more developed, directions are more numerous and diverse, etc. It’s information science at the heart of it, people learn and draw inspiration from each other’s work. But since both art forms are rooted in creativity (and subject to fashion) all it really does is expand the toolbox and field of view of the artist, not determine the quality of his work. One of my favourite painters is Fra Angelico, who lived in the early 1400s and couldn’t even draw a proper perspective! Yet his solutions to artistic problems and sheer talent was formidable, and I rank him as highly as many other famous and better equipped artists from 500 years later. Not “for his time”, but in an absolute sense. Same with da Friedmofo in piano for instance, who didn’t have a clue but who through talent, instinct and force of personality left some of the most memorable - and best - piano recordings in history.

Also, while technical standards might be higher on average today, that doesn’t apply to the individual case. Hofmann wouldn’t have to apologize to anyone today, and neither would Liszt. At least not mechanically, I think what’s changed since then is ideas about how to use and adopt it.

1 Like

Also, btw, with regards to the tech discussion - today there is agreement that modern pianists are better equipped than earlier ones, but 50 years ago there was agreement that modern pianists were worse than earlier ones (which was true).