For a long time, I have listened to hundreds of recordings each week, even bad ones. They allowed me to discover the repertoire as well as fascinating performers. They were part of my musical education and partly trained my ear. They had an influence on my music personality, it’s certain. But which one? Did they helped me or, on the contrary, did they hinder me?

When I have started listening to a lot of records, I did not know at all or knew very little about the repertoire for piano. So I primarily listened to pianists. Thanks to them, I rapidly gained knowledge of the repertoire of my instrument and started to become interested in the rest. I have also acquired a critical ear on these interpretations, trying to understand why I disliked such-and-such recording. They sometimes brought me new ideas and opened my musical world.

The downside is that all these interpretations have influenced my ear. While some were good catalysts, many others prevented me from developing my own sound imagination, putting in my head already-thought sounds. Instead of searching, I have long used the “all ready” solutions offered by the CD. Here is the problem though: I have long believed that knowing by heart a recording means knowing the work perfectly. Rather than trying to learn from the work and draw an interpretation, I used to try to reproduce with more or less success what I already heard without really understanding the ins and outs. Without realizing it, I was standardizing my play and loosing my imagination.

Of course, it is necessary to listen to interpretations, if only for the benefits I have mentioned, but in my approach I lacked hindsight: I was like a painter contemplating a Velasquez and wanting to reproduce the same thing. Today, I have evolved enough to search for my own style and understand that even if Velasquez fascinates me, I must not copy Velasquez, but rather try to find what makes his strength.