other piano philosophies?

[Bob]

Chang, Bernhard.... what else?  In other areas of music, I know there are many philsophies named for their "author" but I don't see that so much in piano.

Is there a Schnabel philosophy?  Or others?

[bernhard]

In no particular order (and only from the 20th century onwards):

Tobias Mattay
Abby Whiteside
Dorothy Taubman
Gyorgy Sandor
Seymour Fink
Barbara Lister Sink
Carola Grindea
Candida Tobin
Shinichi Susuki
Yorke Trotter
Zoltan Kodaly
Bela Bartok
Ralph Kirkpatrick
Rosalyn Tureck
Charles Rosen
Paul Badura Skoda

I am sure I am leaving out many.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[thalbergmad]

Chang, Bernhard.... what else?  In other areas of music, I know there are many philsophies named for their "author" but I don't see that so much in piano.

Is there a Schnabel philosophy?  Or others?

There is the Thalbergmad philosophy.

"If it works use it, if it don't, don't"

[emmdoubleew]

I heard the saying that there are as many philosophies concerning piano playing as there are pianists.

[nomis]

There is also the Leimer and Gieseking philosophy, which emphasises greatly on the traning of the ear.

[rc]

I've done a fair amount of reading. Currently on Neuhaus 'The Art of Piano Playing', so far I'm impressed.

There's a lot of overlap in every source I read, a lot of the same ideas in different words, which isn't a bad thing... It seems like the best sources all are describing the same basic methods. I'm starting to see what Bernhard means when he's said that everything we might think up has probably already been discovered 'way back when'.

[zheer]

In no particular order (and only from the 20th century onwards):


Charles Rosen

  He likes to do finger ex at the same time as reading books on sociology and detective story.

[m1469]

Someday there will be the m1469 Fox school of piano 

 (maybe I am already starting it  )

[zheer]

Someday there will be the m1469 Fox school of piano 

 (maybe I am already starting it  )

   you have DELUSION'S OF GRANDEUR ,  I think most piano teachers ( not all ) are just are glamorized house wifes, and a number of concert pianists are glamorized piano teachers

[m1469]

 you have DELUSION'S OF GRANDEUR

My thoughts regarding piano teaching have everything to do with effectiveness and results, and not personal recognition.  I don't care if anybody in the world knows how I teach, aside from my students, and prospective students.   

Furthermore, just to be clear, it is not my aim to develop a style of teaching that has never been around before.  Rather, I am working on my own understanding of those things which already exist, including those things which may not yet be visible.  With all due respect, I think this is all anybody has ever done.  And the truth is, I cannot instill that same understanding into anybody else.  At most, they will also come to recognize their own understanding, which is, more than anything else, exactly what I would want for each of my students .

Your post inspires within me neither encouragement nor discouragement, and my advice to you would be to reconsider the use of time and energy it takes you to type such things on my behalf, next time you are tempted to advise me on the subject of my life .


m1469

[Bob]

Zheer.... you've angered the m1469.  Not smart.

I suppose to have your own philosophy, you need a lot of students to influence, those students influence others, and then when you write a book it helps.

[m1469]

I suppose to have your own philosophy, you need a lot of students to influence, those students influence others, and then when you write a book it helps.

To have my own philosophy, all I need to do is have it.  I don't need anybody just to have it, nor do I need to influence anybody to justify me writing a book.  However, the whole point, as I stated before, is not about me, per se, but how effective the ideas are and the results they get.  What else matters ?

Anyway, whatever I do, I guess it will just be one thing at a time 


m1469 

[zheer]

Zheer.... you've angered the m1469.  Not smart.

 
     

[BoliverAllmon]

charles cooke has a philosophy

[quasimodo]

My piano philosophy: "Piano ain't about philosophy."

[m1469]

My piano philosophy: "Piano ain't about philosophy."

So what is it about ?   

[quasimodo]

So what is it about ?   

To make it simple, it's mainly about fun and self-awareness: Have fun by becoming self-aware and become self-aware through having fun.

[m1469]

To make it simple, it's mainly about fun and self-awareness: Have fun by becoming self-aware and become self-aware through having fun.

And I think it is about fulfillment, which is not always about fun and is not always (or perhaps almost never) "about" self.  

There is always philosophy, it seems.

[quasimodo]

And I think it is about fulfillment, which is not always about fun and is not always (or perhaps almost never) "about" self.  

There is always philosophy, it seems.

Fulfilment is about self, me thinks. Nobody requires anyone to fulfill or achieve anything, it's all about free will. Anyway, personally I don't really care about "fulfillment", it's too relative a notion, and piano or any other form of artistic activity is an endless quest, you never really reach "fulfillment". Fun is definitely subjective but it's absolute, you have fun or you don't, that's it. On the other hand, the click (more exactly the clicks) which allow you to have one piece learned is mostly, even totally, linked to self-awareness. Between the very moment when you start learning a piece and that one other moment when you got that piece mastered to a satisfying level, what you do is overcoming blocks, sometimes physical but most often mental. The only way you can overcome blocks is to have the required level of self awareness which allows you to assess properly the nature of the block and its solution.

Obviously there is philosophy in art but I think not really in the aspect of learning and executing methods, which was mostly implied in the initial question. Now if we talk about the underlying metaphysics of why and how we love (or don't love) listening and/or playing music, then there are indeed as many philosophies as there are pianists and/or listeners.

(OK I'm into semantics here).

[m1469]

Fulfilment is about self, me thinks. Nobody requires anyone to fulfill or achieve anything, it's all about free will. Anyway, personally I don't really care about "fulfillment", it's too relative a notion, and piano or any other form of artistic activity is an endless quest, you never really reach "fulfillment". Fun is definitely subjective but it's absolute, you have fun or you don't, that's it. On the other hand, the click (more exactly the clicks) which allow you to have one piece learned is mostly, even totally, linked to self-awareness. Between the very moment when you start learning a piece and that one other moment when you got that piece mastered to a satisfying level, what you do is overcoming blocks, sometimes physical but most often mental. The only way you can overcome blocks is to have the required level of self awareness which allows you to assess properly the nature of the block and its solution.

Obviously there is philosophy in art but I think not really in the aspect of learning and executing methods, which was mostly implied in the initial question. Now if we talk about the underlying metaphysics of why and how we love (or don't love) listening and/or playing music, then there are indeed as many philosophies as there are pianists and/or listeners.

(OK I'm into semantics here).

And frankly, overall, this philosophy has not "worked" for me in either piano practice, nor in life practice.   Therefore, I recognize the need to change my behavior, and put into practice what does.


m1469