What is meant by "technique"?

[fuel925]

I see technique mentioned a lot on these forums, i.e. some particular performer has good or bad technique. What is meant by technique, and what comprises a good or bad technique?

[bernhard]

Such talk (performer so and so has bad/superb technique) is just misinformed talk.

Technique is just a way of doing things for a certain purpose.

Take the high jump. Nowadays everyone jumps backwards. But before 1968, everyone jumped forwards. Both are techniques, and both give you the desired result: jumping over the bar. However you will jump higher if you do it backwards, so now everyone does it. Does that mean that jumping forwards is “bad” technique? No, it just means that there is a better technique. But in order to decide you need to have a standard of comparison. In this case the height of the bar.

Unless you have a similar standard of comparison, and unless you know what is it that the pianist is trying to achieve, you will not be able to decide if the technique is optimal or not.

Then you have the question of appropriateness. No matter how efficient jumping backwards is for the high jump, it will not work for a hurdle race, even though both events involve jumping.

Likewise, the technique to play a Bach fugue will not be appropriate to play a Chopin Ballade. Some pianists cannot manage to change their technique, so they end up specialising on a repertory (sometimes they can, but they decides to specialise anyway).

Most music critics, when they start saying so and so has no technique are usually talking through their back holes, so I wouldn’t pay much attention to it.

(A critic is to a musician what a dog is to a lamp post: The musician bring light forth, the critic urinates on it)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[xvimbi]

(A critic is to a musician what a dog is to a lamp post: The musician bring light forth, the critic urinates on it)

Sorry to go off on this tangent, but I have never really liked this image of yours about critics. Sure, one can say a lot of justifiably negative things about critics, but in the end, we are all critics. When we hear someone play, we will have a spontaneous opinion. What sets critics apart is that they publish their opinion for others to read. Critics are also not more jealous or arrogant than most of us when we bash someone's performance. And they get paid for it. The general dog on the street doesn't.

[i_m_robot]

 

Critics are also not more jealous or arrogant than most of us when we bash someone's performance

yes huh the are

no one can take a completely unbiased critique of anything

and knowing that people will actually listen to their critique makes them take a sort of pride of it

and it is completely impossible for their opinions of the artist to have no affect on the critique unless is anonymous

like saying the actress was pretty -her performance was not

or the mood of the piece couldve used a lift - much like her bosom

stereotypical but slightly true

[fuel925]

Ok we have established that good or bad technique is subjective, but what exactly IS technique? Does playing Chopin expressively and with an ample amount of rubato constitute good technique for playing Chopin, or is technique something completely different?

[xvimbi]

Ok we have established that good or bad technique is subjective, but what exactly IS technique? Does playing Chopin expressively and with an ample amount of rubato constitute good technique for playing Chopin, or is technique something completely different?

OK, here is my definition: technique is the skill to produce any sound an instrument is capable of producing. This, IMO, is the most concise definition of "technique" in purely technical terms (no pun intended). It is objective.

Now, deciding what sound is appropriate for a given piece is not technique, but musicality. So, there is a big difference between playing rubato and deciding to play it in the first place. One can have perfect technique but no musicality, in which case the sounds one produces are perfectly fine, but don't make any sense. On the other hand, one can have perfect musicality, i.e. one would know what the right amount of rubato is, but one can't realize this at the intrument, because of lack of technique. as Bernhard said before, technique is a means to an end.

My $0.02

[mound]

how about "Technique encompasses all physical movements required to produce a desired effect."

[xvimbi]

how about "Technique encompasses all physical movements required to produce a desired effect."

Hey, that's even more concise than my definition!

You should write a book too

[mound]

I'm still waiting to read a book

[piazzo23]

Could it be that technique is a word that non musicians began using?

I remember Chopin threatise and other works, naming it mechanism to the physical side of piano playing. It think it´s much more appropiate.

[mound]

Could it be that technique is a word that non musicians began using?

Perhaps, but I wouldn't think so.

I remember Chopin threatise and other works, naming it mechanism to the physical side of piano playing. It think it´s much more appropiate.

Right - which is. for all intents, exactly as I phrased it.  The definition as I wrote it could be used to describe technique in anything - painting, singing, dancing, martial arts, water skiing.  It doesn't matter.

I think Bernhard may have phrased it very much like that at some point. I forget.

-Paul

[jeremyjchilds]

Have we decided yet if technique is a thing you have or a thing you do

Or do you do it so you can have it...

I think I lost my train of thought...

[mound]

if we went with my definition ("Technique encompasses all physical movements required to produce a desired effect.") I think it would be safe to say that technique is something you do. To "have technique" would imply both having knowledge "of the physical movements.... " as as having knowledge "of the desired effect"

[fuel925]

If I have interpreted your post correctly, is this then what you are saying? :

Knowing what it takes to play Chopin (as an example) correctly, and then also knowing how to manipulate the keyboard to produce this.

[mound]

If I have interpreted your post correctly, is this then what you are saying? :

Knowing what it takes to play Chopin (as an example) correctly, and then also knowing how to manipulate the keyboard to produce this.

Umm, no actually I was going to start by saying you were half right, but I think in fact no, this isn't correct.

I first wouldn't limit to any pre-defined agogics such as "knowing how to play XX correctly", nor would I refer to "manipulating the keyboard" (and again, this is just my feeling) --  rather, knowing "what effect I want to produce" and knowing, physically, how to move my body to produce exactly the effect I desire.  Wheather that effect is "right" or "wrong" is entirely irrelevant.

Take Glenn Gould for example. He clearly had a very well defined inner voice guiding him, and he reproduced exactly what he heard/desired.  Physically, he may have looked quite odd while doing so. As far as agogics (interpretation, musicality, etc.)  we all know many people whom are fully convinced that his playing "was just plan wrong".  Would you then say that he has bad technique or good technique? Love him or hate him, believe he looks beautiful or rediculous hunched over the keyboard, he is producing exactly the effect he desires, thus, he "has [great/perfect/wonderful/whatever] technique"

[xvimbi]

If I have interpreted your post correctly, is this then what you are saying? :

Knowing what it takes to play Chopin (as an example) correctly, and then also knowing how to manipulate the keyboard to produce this.

Knowing how Chopin should sound belongs to "musicality".

Knowing how to produce those sounds belongs to "technique".  

"Knowing what it takes to play Chopin (as an example) correctly", requires both musicality and technique.

[piazzo23]

Have we decided yet if technique is a thing you have or a thing you do

Or do you do it so you can have it...

I think I lost my train of thought...

Technique is the way you do it.  At least in my language "técnica"

Technique is french? Is there an english word to say that?

[fuel925]

"technique" is the english word for it, pronounced "tek-neek"

[piazzo23]

"technique" is the english word for it, pronounced "tek-neek"

Oh, thanks!