All over the world piano teachers are spending a lot of time developing "new" piano techniques, publishing books, contradicting each other, et al. I personally think that all this is only a way to make money and has really nothing to do with the art of the piano.
I can bring numerous examples of the greatest virtuosos and composers who were good not because they had been taught by some teacher, but because they had learned music through diligence and trial and error. The list begins with the self taught Godfather of the classical music, Johann Sebastian Bach and continues through Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, and to modern times of performers like Sviatoslav Richter and Arthur Rubinstein.
Obviously, some might not agree with my views. For example, one may say that Liszt was taught by Czerny. However, we must remember that Liszt did not become a great pianist because he studied with Czerny or Salieri, but he studied with them BECAUSE he was a good pianist in the first place. This is just one example that can answer all such questions regarding the rest of the artists. And this proves that the best way to learn something is through trial and error (the same way that all the musical instruments, including the piano and the violin, have been created and ameliorated).
To finalize, it can be safely said that all the greatest virtuosos are created by themselves - a virtuoso creates itself - and that no teacher can create a virtuoso.
Obviously, teachers still have a function - to teach students to press the right notes at the right times and to make money.
Here is a very small portion of the evidence concerning very general "rules" of technique that supports my views:
- Can't play with flat fingers (what about Horowitz?)
- Elbows above the keyboard (Gould?)
- Feet straight and not under the chair (Rubinstein?)
- Quiet hands (Gilels)?
All over the world piano teachers are spending a lot of time developing "new" piano techniques, publishing books, contradicting each other, et al. I personally think that all this is only a way to make money and has really nothing to do with the art of the piano.
I can bring numerous examples of the greatest virtuosos and composers who were good not because they had been taught by some teacher, but because they had learned music through diligence and trial and error. The list begins with the self taught Godfather of the classical music, Johann Sebastian Bach and continues through Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, and to modern times of performers like Sviatoslav Richter and Arthur Rubinstein.
And this proves that the best way to learn something is through trial and error (the same way that all the musical instruments, including the piano and the violin, have been created and ameliorated).
Anytime Bernhard.
I thought you were too busy laughing all the way to the bank. ;)
And this proves that the best way to learn something is through trial and error (the same way that all the musical instruments, including the piano and the violin, have been created and ameliorated).
And this proves that the best way to learn something is through trial and error (the same way that all the musical instruments, including the piano and the violin, have been created and ameliorated).
If teachers really believe that wheel should not be reinvented, then why one of the rules is to avoid listening to a recorded piece by a great artist?
You should understand what I mean since you agree that there are no rules in technique.
A teacher who is well known for writing an entire book on how to press the keys is not good, but likely the opposite.
2. B Minor - my view is simplistic only if you analyze it simplistically (if you carry a German screen name, please analyze accordingly). The word virtuoso has no single definition. In simplistic terms it can be said that a virtuoso is simply a very well rounded person, and not only musically. If one could play octaves faster than Horowitz, that would not necessarily qualify him as a virtuoso.
- Your question is indeed rhetorical, but you still went ahead and asked me about it. First of all, you should define a “good” teacher. Please understand that if the teacher is “good”, then my comments have nothing to do with him. I would say that any teacher who accepts that there are no rules in technique can be qualified as a good teacher. In this forum the only person to admit that has been Saturn.
- If one student is taught by Czerny and the other is left to study by himself, then it is not hard to assume that the student with Czerny would learn much more. But here are the drawbacks: How many teachers are as experienced as Czerny or Beethoven were? How many teacher have ever won a competition, recorded something wonderfully, or composed a beautiful piece? Would you say that in modern days it would be 1 in a million? As such, how can someone teach you a piece like Balakirev’s Oriental Fantasy Islamey when she can’t play it perfectly herself? After all, what is YOUR repertoire?
Now lets look at it differently. Let’s say someone like Horowitz has an identical twin. H-1 is taught by Czerny and H-2 is self taught. Czerny would not allow H-1 to play with flat fingers while self-taught H-2 would do whatever he would find suitable. Maybe in 3 years H-1 would know more, but eventually it would be H-2 who would develop transcendental technique due to his flat finger style that suited him best. This is a very simple example.
- Playing the piano is not a complicated art, but you can make it to one by introducing infinite number of unnecessary rules. Obviously, if you tell the same thing to your students, then they will feel the same way and will change gears from art to robotized mechanics. It is the same thing as if to say that love is complicated. It is only complicated when you complicate it, otherwise real love is a simple but very beautiful feeling, the same feeling that is felt while playing some pieces. Your view makes me feel that you are one of those teachers who would place coins on the students’ hands to teach them the silent hand technique.
- My apologies if you misunderstood me again. I did not say that YOU became a teacher to make money. I refer to those teachers who write volumes upon volumes on how a piano should be played.
- In the end you contradict yourself - if you agree that there are no rules, then what can a teacher teach the student about technique? I think that you strongly believe in rules and that’s why you brought the 3 years example and said that piano playing is complicated.
there is no way the teacher will be able to devise the best technique for the student. That’s perhaps why LISZT ALMOST NEVER TAUGHT TECHNIQUE.
How many teachers are as experienced as Czerny or Beethoven were? How many teacher have ever won a competition, recorded something wonderfully, or composed a beautiful piece? Would you say that in modern days it would be 1 in a million? As such, how can someone teach you a piece like Balakirev’s Oriental Fantasy Islamey when she can’t play it perfectly herself? After all, what is YOUR repertoire?
Nevertheless, you still should agree that no matter how good a teacher maybe, if the student is not good enough, he will never become anything more than a note player.
From this follows that there are no good teachers, only good students.
If the student is not “innately” talented or eager, there is nothing that even the best teacher in the world can do about him. On the other hand, if the student is good enough, he can achieve success even without a teacher.
Bach was not the only child in the large family to have the privilege of musical education. In fact, all the members of the family got more or less the same exact educational package. But then why was it only Bach that emerged as the ultimate virtuoso? Because he was innately capable. Otherwise, all the pupils in St. Thomas or perhaps in the entire Germany would become virtuosos. So, if many pupils got more or less the exact education as Bach did with the same teachers, what made Bach so successful? Self-education and HIS OWN rules. The fact that he perused the library has to be attributed to self-education and to nothing else. No one told him to do so (if anything, his brother tried to prevent it). In Bach’s time teachers still had the belief that the thumb should not be used during keyboard playing. Do you really think that if Bach was purely a teacher’s student he would ever write those complex fugues? I think not.
You are implying that Mozart was created by a formula (method on how he did it)?
By the way, Mozart also had a sister who began to study with her father (the same person who taught Wolfgang) even earlier than Mozart did. However, she did not become anything close to a “great” artist. Can you see the connection between Mozart and Bach now or should I go on?
- You know Liszt’s biography well enough. Nevertheless, you still interpret it in a biased manner that will benefit your point of view.
Here is something new to you (it must be new since you did not mention it): Paganini who never taught Liszt anything was probably a far more important teacher for his development than Adam, Carl, and Antonio combined. Why? Because he was the one to inspire Liszt to begin his exhaustively fanatical self-education. Have you ever heard of Liszt’s OWN piano exercises? That’s right, Liszt transcendental technique was not developed by Czerny, and far less by Adam Liszt, a mediocre musician, but rather by Liszt’s perseverance to study by himself, sometimes staying up all night and performing variations on pieces like Mozart’s Dies Irae (which ironically made his neighbors kick him out of the building). Thus, Liszt’s sophistication ultimately resulted from his self-education. I can bring much more examples, but since you yourself are very knowledgeable, I do not think that I need to give you more examples to understand my point (I am by no means sarcastical).
Many students become virtuosos after being taught by their parents. This one’s for you Bernhard - since most of the parents do not play the piano good enough themselves, it follows that they are there more for the moral support rather than teaching a technique.
Not all is lost since you are but a very small portion of teachers and are mainly located in England. Perhaps, this topic would be debated more properly if the representative samples of teachers also came from countries like Russia and Germany. These two countries alone are responsible for perhaps more than 90 percent of all great virtuosos and composers ever created (to avoid any contradictions, I will add that artists like Mozart and Handel were both purely German even though they did not live in Germany).
When I see a good counter-argument, I don’t beat around the bush and openly admit my mistake. Such occurrences don’t lower a persons prestige, but heighten it for that person is much better than he was earlier. It is better to be a fool for a moment than a fool for life.
- The way you talk makes me feel that you know Liszt better than his biographers. That can only mean that you knew him personally (however, he lived 1811-1886).
- Another mistake on your part: contrary to popular uneducated beliefs, Liszt was not a Don Juan, but more like a priest (he eventually became one as you should know). He was mainly attached to only two countesses in his entire 75 years of life - Marie D’Agoult and Princess von Wittengstein. Like every other man, he was dumped and haunted by women. Both were really possessive of him and he was on a very short leash even when he was over 60.
Now your honor is telling about his flirtings in a coffee shop. If you told that either to D or W, he would be in a very deep trouble. His only controversial relationship with a woman was during his transitional period from D’Agoult to Wittengstein. That does not make him anything close to a Don, but more like a solemn priest. Upgrade you sources.
Bernhard, enlighten me! Who do you think you are? If Liszt was not a good teacher, then you are not a teacher at all, but a charlatan. Excuse my rudeness, but your statement stinks with foul vanity. Hans von Bulow and Carl Tausig were just few of his great students.
Of course, they became virtuosos because they were innately good themselves - thus in here you unconsciously support my argument that there are no good teachers (it shows that you are pointlessly trying to resist all my views - ask Sigmund Freud about that [Psychoanalysis of Everyday Life]).
However, if anything, Liszt was the best piano teacher since he was one of the fewest to really know what he was teaching! How thankless can you be to state that there are teachers that can teach better than Liszt, the inventor of modern piano playing? Your credibility is going more and more down the drain because your assumptions are too opulently surpassing your knowledge.
I really don’t have to say anything more to you, but I will go all the way, once and for all.
- Bernhard are you comparing piano playing with boxing and soccer? Art with sports? Your examples are very childish, as if you are trying to hold on to the very last twig to stay afloat. Here is my response: a soccer player and a boxer have a very devised strategy to respond to the opponents attack. The pianist has no opponent. If a pianist considers a grand piano to be an opponent, then allow me to say that he has problems (or the teacher for that matter). There is also no one particular strategy involved in piano playing. When Horowitz returned after 12 years of retirement, he did not hire a teacher to coach him so that he could pump up and go onto the stage to knock the hell out of the piano. In fact, he arrived only a few minutes before the concert was to begin, and still left the audience astonished. I’ll leave the rest up to you.
One more thing. A coach for boxing or soccer can watch the games on TV and devise strategies on where each player should be located during a given attack. Can a piano teacher do the same? Are you going to watch Gilels produce those superhuman sounds on the piano and then teach that to your lucky students? Excuse my Francais, but hell no. To teach Gilels, you have to play like one. Enough of this nonsense.
- And here you go again:
You are saying that you are “bored” to teach your students about pieces that you have mastered yourself. Is this how a good teacher is supposed to be? Or is your technique so flawless? Do you realize that you have insulted all the virtuosos who can play almost everything but at the same time they pass on their knowledge (Arrau to Heifetz)? That is indeed news for me that a teacher should teach only pieces that he can’t play himself otherwise it is all counterproductive. I realize many of you oppose to my views, BUT ARE YOU ALL TEACHERS DEAF to what this guy is saying? Do all of you agree with this nonsense? I am truly surprised. A teacher can show the most efficient way of playing a piece without ever having played a note of it herself. The waters are getting dirtier than I ever thought. The reality seems is even worse.
- Another irrelevant paragraph. Bernhard, my posting has nothing to do with "talented" students who play Christmas tree or Going Home. Please don’t do that again.
- No offence, but Brendel is very low on my list of piano virtuosos. Maybe you like him because of his nationality, but when the stars like Gilels, Richter, Gould et al shine, Brendel becomes nothing but a mere shadow.
- Bernhard, why are you being so pedantic? Why are you telling me what I already know? This is not a show off forum, but a debate. It is very painful for me to hear insults from someone like you against Bach. “Nobody cared for his cantantas.” Tell me something, don’t you love Bach? If not, you are in the wrong profession. You might say that you are simply telling the history; that’s not the problem. The problem is that you talk about Bach as if you are disgusted by him.
I don’t deny that Telemann was known better then Bach, however, Bach himself was not a “mediocre” musician. Yes, when he was young, he was not well respected or known, but as years passed, the respect for him increased a lot.
Your illiterate remark about Spitta especially infuriated me. Bernhard, did you know that I have read Malcolm Boyd’s “Bach” (there is no J.S.)? If you knew I am sure you would be more careful in showing off your knowledge.
And here is something new for you: Spitta’s work IS still the most complete work ever carried out on Bach. May be there have been new findings (I found Boyd’s book the most boring biography ever written), but ALL your new authors rely on Spitta. You show me a real biographer of Bach who doesn’t use Spitta and I’ll show you a buffalo with wings. Once again, you are in way over your head.
- Yet another wrong remark. I know that during Mozart’s time women could not easily become musicians. But your comment is again irrelevant. Mozart surpassed her sister right after he began studying keyboard. As they were still children, your feminine comment is ultimately irrelevant.
- One more mistake by you. Can’t you grasp that Paganini example was supposed to show you that teachers value is not that great in creating a virtuoso? Don’t you know that Paganini never taught Liszt anything? It seems I have to explain to you that I meant that Paganini was like a trigger for Liszt to begin his rigorous self-education which proved to be more productive than what he had gained from all his teachers combined.
- Do you consider Baremboin a virtuoso too? Have you ever heard him play Chopin as if he has no power in his left hand and just barely enough in his right?
Anyway, your comments were very immature. I can’t write any more lengthy responses because I don’t like to talk about the piano as much as I love to actually play it. I am not boxing you, but expressing important ideas. If you choose to block, there is nothing I can do but waste time.
I expected that by now you would be more open minded.
In the very beginning I already said that I am talking about talented students. A student who reads ANY book on how to play a piano is not going to become a virtuoso (I am not talking about musical theory, but physical mechanics). So why do you bring such a student into a debate?
I’ll just add that I did not say that good teachers have no function at all and if anything
I am very confident that not all the good teachers are concentrated in England. If you said Germany, at least your comment would be artistically literate.
Bernhard
Your problem is that you have never been punished for your ignorant remarks for a long time
You also bring in USA? Keyboard and USA do not blend in. If you will point out Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky, they were not Americans, but Russian jews. Copland and Bernstein were jews also. Get your records straight.
I don’t know why Bernhard even mentioned America and Italy when we are talking about keyboard virtuosos.
just let me add that Rachmaninoff was an American,
Should we really go around telling people to shut up? It is a forum afterall... and if you are getting 'sick' of something, the easiest sollution is to stop reading. There's heaps of other things to read.
Yeah, you may be right. Maybe I shouldn't have said "shut up" but it was at the heat of the moment. And I did try not to read this thread anymore but it's somewhat addictive.
Don't back off pksim. There's a time and a place for everything. "Shut up" was not out of line at all.
b minor
Not only you continue to talk rudely, but you make it worse?(for Christ’s sake [even if you’re agnostic] don’t answer this one, it is a rhetorical question).
If you are desperate to find out which one of us is an idiot, take a paper and a pencil (it can also be a pen) and list all the keyboard virtuosos from Baroque (that’s 17th century) to modern times (we are in 2004). After you are done, please place your lists side by side and measure each one of them by a ruler (the ruler can be either in metric [cm, m] or the British systems [in, ft]). To help you out to begin, I will give you some American and Italian names: Muzio Clementi, Van Cliburn, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli et al. I will not give you any Russian or German names because I don’t want to help my cause. Now, we can also add a variable of the quality of each “virtuoso,” but I am sure you would ask me to define “quality.” As such, to make things easier for you, you can leave that one out. I will just add that Mozart (a German) thought that Clementi (an Italian) was an inferior pianist and lacked strength in his left hand. Now if you don’t agree with Mozart, make sure to write that one down so that you can remember that (because that is very important). Mozart also stole several of Clementi’s compositions and made them more ostentatious (look up in Webster).
After you are done with your lists, take the ruler and measure each of them (separately). The one that is longer should win (it will not be illegal for you to cross out several Russians and Germans while nobody’s looking, but that won’t help you much).
As far as your nonsense about Bernstein identifying more with Israel than the US, could you please explain why he chose to live in one country and not the other??
Are you trying to say that because your screen name is in German you are actually a German? Well, here I absolutely agree with you for you really do have a point (just let me add that Rachmaninoff was an American, Vivaldi was an Austrian, and of course, Handel was a mix between British and Italian. However, he probably was more British than Italian since he lived in England longer). Also, Liszt was a mix between purebred French and German (I wonder why he always insisted that he was a Hungarian. Do you wonder too?)
As to why did these people choose to live in different countries, I can’t answer for them. But during a Rachmaninoff concert, you perhaps might ask him yourself (please, I am not implying that you don’t know that Rachmaninoff has passed away). But if you insist that Rachmaninoff is dead, then you should find out other ways to find out what you are trying to find out and when you find out please let me know that you found out.
You have not had your facts straight since you started posting here. When people challenge your preconceived ideas, you say they are attacking you personally.
I agree. My facts are crooked (or maybe they crook your “facts”). As for challenging, why do you speak for other people (please, I don’t mean that you never were able to challenge me)? And who said that you ever insulted me? What a nonsense. Forgive me minor for my major rudeness because I was not informed about that.
Add to list of things I've learned from Bernhard: tag all offensive remarks and insults with " (Please don’t regard this as an offensive remark, it is simply a statement of fact)" to soften the blow.
Wow. What would you do without Bernhard? Since you are a good learner, I have also supplied you with my own way of insults above. Having said that I should say that they are not really insults, but I just gave you them as an example so that you could “learn” them too (I am not super-conservative and I believe that “learners” should have a variety of learning material. Scientists say that using different brands of gasoline in your car actually helps clean the accumulated dirt from your engine). I should also add that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus although perhaps I did not intend to insult you, you might choose to understand them as an insult (this is a free country). Personally, it doesn’t matter for me that when your head hurts and you see a lying rock whether you think it was used as a weapon against you or as a jewelry around your neck.
It wouldn’t hurt that besides offensive tags, you also learned from Bernhard at least some of his better qualities. Even if many of his comments are not well informed, he still knows a lot of things. If you at least learned part of them, you would experience a renaissance from the ice age ([“Please don’t regard this as an offensive remark, it is simply a statement of fact”]).
Also, Bernhard is far from being the only person from whom you could learn many things. There are many other people in this forum, have you noticed? (Now that I have told you that, you can add more teachers to your list and hence more useful skills).
As you can see, the debate with you is over. What I have written to your response is not my idea of a productive debate. You can still go ahead and post anything you desire. If in the future anyone in this room should think that what you say is intelligent enough for them to mention you (just as you have mentioned Bernhard and have actually taken the liberty of answering to one of my comments that was intended for him and not for you), then I will address that personally (please note that I don’t mean that your cranium is a decompression vacuum chamber since there might be at least some people who might point out your ideas to me after all).
I am also glad that you have chosen the minor key as your screen name. It suits you well (this is not an insult since I happen to love the minor key). Also, please change your screen name from German to your native language. You see, most Germans are very intelligent and complex people and if you want to be a German, you must first raise your cognitive skills (though I am not sure if your country would be proud to call you its own either. Maybe that’s why your screen name is in German). If you wonder, I know many Germans. I showed some of them your articles, and they had a blast (one of them was over 30). Don’t feel bad because your articles were not the only amusing ones. My response is Germany approved and thus is authentic (now this one is an insult, but not by me).
It does not matter who are you calling an idiot, whether a young person or an elderly. What matters, is that it wouldn’t hurt if you thought before expressing even such a simple opinion as “you are an idiot.” If you are a teacher, try that on your peers during your next conference. See what will happen.
JSBach,
Forgive me for my ignorance, and I certainly do not want you to get upset with me for asking, but I truly am confused. I don't understand what you meant by: ...
Hmoll asked why did <some pianist or composer> choose to live in America if he was Jewish.
J.S.Bach said that this doesn't make him American, and we don't know the reasons why he chose so, but he was at heart Jewish, just like Rachmaninoff was Russian although he lived in America.
Are you trying to say that because your screen name is in German you are actually a German? Well, here I absolutely agree with you for you really do have a point (just let me add that Rachmaninoff was an American, Vivaldi was an Austrian, and of course, Handel was a mix between British and Italian. However, he probably was more British than Italian since he lived in England longer). Also, Liszt was a mix between purebred French and German (I wonder why he always insisted that he was a Hungarian. Do you wonder too?)
do justice to the amount of good information here if everyone would just shut the fuck up (flame-wise) and focus on contributing ideas that will help J.S.Bach better understand the flaws in his post, instead of turning this into personal bullshit. >:(
What JS is saying is that someone with “talent” and determination can achieve a high standard of playing with or with out a teacher.
Hmoll:
you said
"What JSB said is no matter how good a student is, a teacher has no role in that student becoming a "virtuoso." He used several examples: Bach, Gould, Rubinstein, Richter, etc. All of his examples are erroneous because none of them were self taught.
However, the fatal flaw in his assertion is there is no precedent for what he is talking about. There are simply no historical examples of someone becomng a virtuoso player as a result of having been self taught."
i think you have been misinterpreting this part of J.S's argument (he probably didn't make it clear enough, or word it in the best way), and i think Willcowskitz almost showed in his last post the point that J.S was trying to make.
when J.S said "a teacher has no role in that student becoming a "virtuoso."", i believe he meant that a teacher can (and does) play a large role in a student becoming a really good pianist, but not necessarily a "virtuoso" - a virtuoso being in a different class to someone considered a "very good pianist"...
people like richter, rubenstien, gould, etc, they became successful as well-known and well-loved performers because they had something(s) unique about them, something very special which was part of their character, which they didn't learn from a teacher, and which the teacher in fact couldn't have taught them.
so i think one of the main points J.S was trying to get at is about the difference between a high-class performer and a 'virtuoso'.
Quote:
So you probably want to know what I can play before you will even take me slightly seriously, so here goes –
Rachmaninov
Prelude No.2 C-sharp minor
Flight of the bumblebee
Prelude No.5 G- Op.23 (this one is not quite polished yet, I still sometimes slip up on the last passage, I’ll keep at it though)
Chopin
Prelude Op.28-15
Waltz Op.64-2
Etude Op.25-1
Etude Op.10 No.12 Revolutionary (this is also new to my repertoire, its same as the Rach prelude it needs abit of polish)
Debussy
Clair De Lune
Doctor Gradus Ad Parnassum
Quote:
funnily enough I’ve never had a teacher offer their services to me for free! ;)
) You just did not understand the statement correctly.
J.S.Bach
I went to the doctors yesterday, and you know he made me pay for it - and I was REALLY sick. And when I got my hair cut - I had to pay for that too - and those dog washers with their vans and blowdryers - :o they're not free! In fact it seems that the entire world is made up of money hungry, self-interested people just out for a quick buck to pay their bills. I ask you, what is the world coming to? :-/
Hmmm….. well, I went to the doctors the other day also, but I live in the U.K so I didn’t have to pay for that…..My dad cuts hair for a living…so I don’t pay for that either….and when we wash our Dog we let him walk around the garden to dry off….so that’s free too!!
;)
aahhh, that's why you expect something for nothing... you're used to it ::)
Don't leave home in a hurry - it's a wonderful place to be.
I wouldn't say the "shut up" was out of line, but it wasn't really necessary. I don't think there's anything that this J.S. Bach (more of an insult to the composer than an homage) has said that anyone here would take seriously. And if you do take this guy seriously, evaluate everything he has said here, and see if he makes any sense.
- Saturn
rlefebvr
I see you have been practicing abstinence.
You are too late. The feast is over. Your quote is also very old and irrelevant. As for Janice, I agree that she is misbehaving, but I am sure you will find a way to forgive her, since compared to many, she was actually much better behaved.
Oh oh...Shame on me now for responding to this thread after promising myself not to even look at it.
As for that, don’t worry, it’s just a weak will which you share with many. You can get over it by taking some Yoga classes. Afterall, everyone likes to sin once in a while, espceially those practicing abstinence.
J.S.Bach
at least I hopefully improved my essay writing techniques.