Russian piano school

[ag]

                 Hello everyone!
 Just curious, what do you guys think about the " Russian piano school" and if there is such a thing?

[guven]

There is .
Russian piano school is a phenomenon .
they are well-disciplined about music and they have strong technique. Let me recall some names,

• Tchaikovsky
  
• Rubinstein
  
• Goldenweiser
  
• Siloti
  
• Safonov
  
• Zverev
  
• Neuhaus
  
• Rachmaninov
  
• Prokofiev
  
• Scriabin
  
• Lubimov
  
• Sokolov
  
• Medtner
  
• Tatiana Nikolaeva
  
• Emil Gilels
  
• Van Cliburn
  
• Vladimir Horowitz
  
• Sviatoslav Richter
  
• Victor Merzhanov
  
• Bella Davidovich
  
• Gregory Haimovsky
  
• Dmitri Bashkirov
  
• Vladimir Ashkenazy
  
• Lazar Berman
  
• Andrei Diev
  
• Nikolai Lugansky
  

[eddie92099]

There is .
Russian piano school is a phenomenon .
they are well-disciplined about music and they have strong technique.

Yet it clearly is not the only acceptable method,
Ed

[ag]

as far as I am concerned it's not a method.  By the way in your opinion what are other methods that could be compated to this one?

[redberry]

what is actually the specific Russian method? strong fingers-fast octavas-strict .... ?

[Greg_Fodrea]

I've studied a bit of Russian technique, and what I like the most is the relaxation of the wrists and arms.  I find that when I apply these techniques, I can play continuously for much longer than I ever could before.  And I don't get fatigue in my forearms, shoulders, or back.  Admittedly, I am not formally schooled in the entire "Russian Method," but I know enough to see some value there.

[Greg_Fodrea]

Incidentally, I've noticed that American and European concert pianists tend to retire well before "old age."  Russian concert pianists play well into their 70s and 80s.  Hmmm...

[thracozaag]

what is actually the specific Russian method? strong fingers-fast octavas-strict .... ?

 heh.  VAV.

[Hmoll]

Incidentally, I've noticed that American and European concert pianists tend to retire well before "old age."  Russian concert pianists play well into their 70s and 80s.  Hmmm...

Sorry, but that's a bit of  generalization. There are a number of non-Russian pianists who played into their 80s - Arthur Rubenstein, Earl Wild, Manahem Pressler, Alicia De Larrocha, Cortot. Those are just off the top of my head. Also, there are examples of Russian pianists - like Ashkenazy -  whose playing in their 50s and 60s is by their own definition not on the same level as it was when they were younger.
If a pianist lives into their 80s with their mental faculties are intact, then they will continue to perform.

Also, when speaking of the "Russian School," you have to distinguish between the Russian School of Anton Rubenstein and Joseph Levine, Richter and Gilels, and the old Soviet School, which was a machine that manufactured scores pianists where the emphasis was on technical excellence and not musical sensitivity, and where the objective was winning competitions.

[ag]

the old Soviet school did manufacture both Richter and Gilels and Ashkenazi.  By the way, as far as I am concerned, the "Russian School" is an approach of emphasizing well-rounded musical education first of all.  The students started their education at 5 and were surrounded by an atmosphere where they had to practice 5-8 hours a day, and recieved their 2 hour lessons twice a week.  On top of that there was theory, choire, music appreciation, etc.  Of course the competitive spirit was also present, that is the reason why perhaps it seems like the Russian School stresses the importance of a competition.  But however you put it, the RUssian school never conerntrated on a purely technical side of playing the piano.  That is the exact opposite of what the Russian school stands for.  Whether it's a school of Goldenweiser or Neihaus.

[eddie92099]

Also, there are examples of Russian pianists - like Ashkenazy -  whose playing in their 50s and 60s is by their own definition not on the same level as it was when they were younger.

Let him off, he's arthritic,
Ed

[guven]

Is there any other school who managed good pianists as much as Russia ?

PS. I meant Tchaikovsky Conservatoire by saying 'school' .

[bernhard]

In the music schools of Russia great stress in laid upon technic. All students must become technically proficient. None are excused. The course is nine years in duration. During the first five years the student gets most of his technical instruction form a book of studies by Hanon, which is used very extensively in the conservatories. In fact, this is practically the only book of strictly technical studies employed. All of the studies are in the key of C. They include scales, arpeggios and other forms of exercises in special technical designs.

At the end of the fifth year an examination takes place. This examination is twofold. The pupil is examined first for proficiency in technic, and later for proficiency in artistic playing – pieces, studies, etc. However, if the pupil fails to pass the technical examination he is not permitted to go ahead. He knows the exercises in the book of studies by Hanon so well that he knows each study by number, and the examiner may ask him, for intance to play study 17, or 28, or 32, etc. The student at once sits at the keyboard and plays.

Although the original studies are all in the key of C, he may be requested to play them in any other key. He has studied them so thoroughly that he should be able to play them in any key desired. A metronomic test is also applied. The student knows that he will be expected to play the studies at certain rates of speed. The examiner states the speed and the metronome is started. The pupil is required, for instance to play the E flat major scale with the metronome at 120, eight notes to the beat. If he is successful in doing this, he is marked accordingly, and other tests are given.

Personally I believe this matter of insisting upon a thorough technical knowledge is a very vital one. The mere ability to play a few pieces does not constitute musical proficiency. It is like those music boxes which possess only a few tunes. The student’s technical grasp should be all-embracing.

Later the student is given advanced technical exercises, like those of Tausig. Czerny is also very deservedly popular. Less is heard of the studies of Henselt, however, notwithstanding his long service in Russia. Henselt’s studies are so beautiful that they should rather be classed with pieces like the studies of Chopin.


This sounds more like the French school  (after all Hanon was French...)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[eddie92099]

It sounds to me like a monumental waste of time,
Ed

[bernhard]

Sorry, I forgot to say that the extensive description of the Russian School it is not by me. It is by Sergei Rachmaninov (James Francis Cook – Great Pianists on Piano Playing – Dover – pp. 208 – 220)

It sounds to me like a monumental waste of time,
Ed

I totally agree with you.

Bernhard.

[e60m5]

With regards to the Russian School of playing, I have had a little experience of its tenure - though only as much as one can garner while living today in New York City.

My teacher is Prof. Nina Svetlanova, a student of Heinrich Neuhaus (mentioned earlier in this topic, I believe). Neuhaus was the mentor of Gilels and Richter, among others, so I'm lucky enough to be just one step down the line from them.

The Russian school, or that epitomised by Gilels, Richter and so on (the Neuhaus school, in effect) places emphasis on the arms. Usage of the fingers is minimal; it is the arm pulling the fingers, dragging the hands up and down the keyboard. In this way, the fingers are never overstrained, and kept working at their most efficient. Excessive finger movement is unheard of.

Personally, as for its experience on me, I'm just getting used to the switch in technique. It is a style that I am thus far foreign to, and I have not had it taught to me this way before. I am still getting used to it, but will be able to offer a more experienced perspective later on in my development as a pianist.

-e60

[ag]

Bernard sounds like he has gone through all circles of hell of the Russian School himself!  I don't know if that kind of  a method existed in Rachmaninoff times, it definitely has been very different for the past 60-80 years.  By the way, if that method was such a waste of time, how would you explain the fact that it gave birth to Rachmaninoff himself???
You've mentioned that it takes 9 years, and an exam takes place after the fifth year.  Nowadays, it takes 11 years (before going for a higher education degree) and the technical proficiency exam has to be taken twice a year for the period of 11 years in addition to other solo exams, etc.  
Also, playing Hanon in the key of C for god knows how many years sounds ridiculous.  I am sure that was not the case.  Perhaps it was one mentor's way of teaching, rather than a  general "method".  I am positive that sort of thing did not apply to everybody who went through that schooling in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

[bernhard]

ag wrote:

if that method was such a waste of time, how would you explain the fact that it gave birth to Rachmaninoff himself?

I think that Rachmaninov was born in spite of the method. I do not think that he was the result of it at all. I think that this kind of institution ("russian School", "Jesuit College", whatever) likes to take the credit for whoever comes through their system and is successful.

Everyone mentions Gilels, Richter and Ashkenazy. But if the Russian School (0r whatever other school/system is out there) is so amazing, how come we can count their products on the fingers of one hand? What happened to the millions of piano students that went through it and we never heard of?

I think that this kind of institution works on the principle of natural selection. They accept one thousand students in the first year, By the second year only 200 are still there. By the third year one hundred, and so on. So by the end of the course, whoever has survived is good, not because of the school/system, but simply because they are very persistent. And persistence will get you results even if the methods are inefficient.

Interestingly enough. Richter who is always quoted as a product of the Russian School only met Newhaus in his twenties. But the Russian School was quick to take the credit...

And of course, you are right, it depends much more on the mentor than on the school/system. Piano learning is one of the few areas of knowledge where the old master/apprentice system has not yet been replaced by institutionalised learning. But if it depends on the mentor, why call it the "Russian School". Lechetzky (who was Polish) certainly turned out more virtuosos and with more consistency than any "system" or school. He himself admitted that he had no method. He adapted to the student (which is the crucial difference between apprenticeship and institutional learning).

I think a lot of marketing and propaganda is involved in all this.

Please, understand that I have absolutely no first hand experience of the Russian School, the Lechetzky method, the French School or any other of these systems. But of all the accounts I heard, I haven't seen anything particularly Russian. Or French. Or Roman.

They use Hanon, they use Czerny, they use relaxed wrists and arms. So does everyone else.

Reading through interviews with different pianists is not enlightening either. Some (Serkin, Backhaus) say that you must do scales and Hanon. Others (Ashkenazy, Gould, Ed) say that they are unnecessary. Yet some people end up as incredible performers, while others never amount to much.

So, is there a golden path that leads to piano mastery and that only a few know? I am afraid not. It all depends on the individual, on having the good fortune to find a superlative teacher, and on being able to follow his/her instructions.

As for the apparent supremacy of Russian pianists, I will take that with a pinch of salt. It is a bit like being in awe of a karate master just because he is Japanese. And yet most of the karate competitions these days are won by Westerners.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ag]

      I only used Rachmaninoff as an example since you were the one mentioning it.  Of course there are others.  What about Horowitz and others?  What about violinists and cellists? Or were they also brought up in spite of the method as well?
      Gilels, Richter and Ashkenazy were mentioned just because they are well known.  There are MANY others, who became excellent musicians because of the method, not in spite of it.  
      As for the competitions being won by Westerners, I suggest you take a look at the results of the last Van Cliburn, or Rubenstein for that matter.  Perhaps that was in spite of everything else as well???

[eddie92099]

Lechetzky (who was Polish)

Why can nobody spell Leschetizky? (I am aware of the irony in this statement).

Others (Ashkenazy, Gould, Ed) say that they are unnecessary.

Maestro Ashkenazy would be honoured to get a mention in such an illustrious list,
Ed

[bernhard]

Ag wrote:

"As for the competitions being won by Westerners, I suggest you take a look at the results of the last Van Cliburn, or Rubenstein for that matter.  Perhaps that was in spite of everything else as well."

Have you ever wondered why pianists from Afhganistan never win any competition? In fact have you ever heard of a pianist from Afhganistan? How come all of a sudden (in the past twenty years) so many Superb Chinese pianists have appeared from nowhere? Perhaps we should investigate the Chinese School…

It seems to me that once a government invests massively into any area, a few extraordinary people in that area will appear. We are back to the principle of natural selection, which works fine once you attract a large enough number of people to select from. And yes, these people will shine in spite of institutional methods.

Having said that, what exactly is the Russian School? Apart from Rachmaninov’s account – which seems quite straight forward: practise Hanon in all keys for five years – I have not read anything that one could test to see if it would yield the same results time and time again.

Ed wrote:
"Why can nobody spell Leschetizky?"

I know, they cannot spell Bernhard either…;D

[bernhard]

la_carrenio studied many years in Russia. Maybe she could give some input here...
Bernhard.

[ag]

To BERNHARD!
(I sincerely hope I spelled your nick correctly)
I have explained the "schooling method" in my previous note.  It's well-rounded  musical education that goes on for almost 20 years.  (Same thing that goes on in China nowadays).  And playing Hanon for 5 years in different keys has nothing to do with it.  Besides, you yourself mentioned that you have no first hand experience in that.  You are basing your opinions on a book that describes something that was (perhaps) true a 100 years ago...
How can you state your opinion with THAT degree of assurance about something that you were never introduce to?

[bernhard]

Let us summarise what we have learnt so far about the Russian School:

It all started with:

“Just curious, what do you guys think about the " Russian piano school" and if there is such a thing? (ag)”

“Russian piano school is a phenomenon . They are well-disciplined about music and they have strong technique (Guven)”

“I've studied a bit of Russian technique, and what I like the most is the relaxation of the wrists and arms. (Greg_Fodrea)”

“(…)you have to distinguish between the Russian School of Anton Rubenstein and Joseph Levine, Richter and Gilels, and the old Soviet School, which was a machine that manufactured scores pianists where the emphasis was on technical excellence and not musical sensitivity, and where the objective was winning competitions. (Hmoll)”

“the "Russian School" is an approach of emphasizing well-rounded musical education first of all.  The students started their education at 5 and were surrounded by an atmosphere where they had to practice 5-8 hours a day, and received their 2 hour lessons twice a week.  On top of that there was theory, choire, music appreciation, etc. (…) the Russian school never concentrated on a purely technical side of playing the piano. (ag)”

“The Russian school(…) places emphasis on the arms. Usage of the fingers is minimal; it is the arm pulling the fingers, dragging the hands up and down the keyboard. In this way, the fingers are never overstrained, and kept working at their most efficient. Excessive finger movement is unheard of. (e60m5)”

“It's well-rounded  musical education that goes on for almost 20 years. (ag)”

Apart from Rachmaninov’s account, all these descriptions of the so called “Russian School” are too vague to be of any real use. More to the point, I see nothing specifically Russian about any of what I have read. I would describe it as the regimen adopted by Schools in Russia, rather than the Russian School regimen.

As for Rachmaninov’s account (which he seems to agree with) at least I could go on and practise Hanon in all keys for five years, and see if it helped me in any way. In other words, it is possible to test his statements.

But how can I test (on a personal level) your description of the Russian School? I would have to be five again, surround myself with a musical atmosphere, where I had to practise 5 – 8 hours a day, and receive 2 hour lessons twice a week. On top of that I should get theory, music appreciation. Etc.  

Hey! wait a second! Maybe I have been educated by the Russian School after all! This was exactly my regimen from 5 – 16. Except that instead of two hour lessons twice a week, I had one hour lessons everyday. And it did not go on for 20 years, just 11 years. Would that qualify as first hand experience with the Russian School? By the way none of my teachers was Russian, and none claimed to have been trained by a Russian, or in Russia. So maybe I do not qualify as a product of the Russian School (I don’t think I do, anyway) .

So what is the difference? Surely there must be something more specific about the Russian school than using arm weight, practising 5-8 hours a day and receiving a well-rounded musical education.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

ag wrote:
“How can you state your opinion with THAT degree of assurance about something that you were never introduced to?”

Huh  ? What was the opinion I was stating with such a degree of assurance? Please do not be fooled by my articulate writing. I am completely unsure of everything!

[bernhard]

ag wrote:
“To BERNHARD!
(I sincerely hope I spelled your nick correctly)”

You did! Welcome to the spelling police force (SPF) which seems particularly active in this forum. Join the force and enjoy yourself (childish I know) picking on the contributors who dare to mistype or simply ignore the correct spelling, even though their first language may not be English (a language where even phonetics does not spell phonetically!). Even us, SPF members (I joined recently) are known for the occasional slip (check out my Leschetizky! Now I got it right!)

Sorry to have broken down this answer in three separate replies. It is easier to read this way (but the true reason is that I want to make it to junior member before the end of the week!)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[DAwud7]

Hello bernhard.
Im kinda new here and as stated in another thread new too piano only about 6 months. I saw your post about russian piano school interesting. ALso u mentioned Henselt i luv his work i read somewhere that he was the father of the piano russian school. I am also working on his etude opus 2 no6 i luv it dearly im almost done and can almost play it like friedhiem who plays it better than rachmoninov. Also another name not mentioned Was blumenfeld he was a fmous piano teacher also he taught horowitz. Just curious if u really believe all that technical exercises are required too play music i dont do any other than what i do while improvising. But as far as hanon i would never touch it. I also mostly teach my self everything my teacher seldomly gives me fingering tips and of that such we are mostly working on reading music which i cannot do and i did not learn the henselt etude by reading it either. Although i played it wrong for three weeks till i got the sheet music and saw that u have too cross your hands on the sixths and fiths i was using one hand, oh well that what i get for teachin my self.

[bernhard]

ALso u mentioned Henselt i luv his work i read somewhere that he was the father of the piano russian school.

Hi, DAwud7

Actually, I didn’t. Rachmaninoff mentioned him. That long description of the RPS is by old Rach, not by me. But I like Henselt a lot. Incidentally he was not Russian, he was German. He was considered better than Lizst in his heyday. Unfortunately he suffered from a really bad case of nerves, and rarely performed in public, and when he did it was usually awful. However in private he was amazing. He was also a terrible teacher, humiliating and deprecating his students – no patience at all! Harold Schoenberg (“The Great Pianists”) devotes three or four pages to him in his book. I think that the guy who really started piano playing in Russia was John Field – the Irish pianist who invented the nocturne. So I guess the Russian Piano School is really the Irish Piano School!

Actually it was Anton and Nikolai Rubinstein who are the fathers of the Russian piano School. They organised the teaching of music in Russia, which at the time was pretty much a hit and miss affair. Incidentally, another pianist that is often hailed as the product of the Russian piano School was Siloti, who actually studied with Liszt. He had a few lessons with Rubinstein and went on record to say that they were the worse lessons he ever had (even though he admired Rubistein as a pianist).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Just curious if u really believe all that technical exercises are required too play music.

No, I believe that abstract technical exercises like Hanon are completely unnecessary and ultimately a waste of time. This is not to say that one should not work on technique and just play whatever one pleases. The way to work on technique is to work on the technical difficulties of the pieces one is learning. How do you do that? Too large a topic. Maybe it might be interesting to start a new thread on this topic and see what people say… Also have a look at the thread that Ed started on the value of technical exercises.

However I will sometimes play studies if I am interested in them as music (Chopin etudes are obvious, but there are several Czerny studies that I find quite nice).

Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Hello bernhard.
I also mostly teach my self everything my teacher seldomly gives me fingering tips and of that such we are mostly working on reading music which i cannot do

Do train yourself for reading music (which is a different skill from sight-reading by the way), for the simple reason that it saves masses of time. Just like doing Hanon is a waste of time, not being able to read music is an even larger waste of time. And get your teacher to help you on fingering and movement. These are the two most important aspects of good technique. You want to get the movement and the fingering right from the very start so that you do not have to waste time undoing bad habits later on. It is very easy to learn – the real problem is to unlearn!

A reporter once asked Wilhelm Kempf: “How come you never play a wrong note?” Kempf’s reply: “I only practise the right notes!”

Incidentally, Joana MacGregor couldn’t read music either. She got to grade 8 without ever reading any music. Then she went to College, and had to put her act together. But the sooner the better!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[eddie92099]

Incidentally, Joana MacGregor couldn’t read music either. She got to grade 8 without ever reading any music. Then she went to College, and had to put her act together. But the sooner the better!

Surely she would have failed the sight reading component. I will ask up on this one,
Ed

[bernhard]

Surely she would have failed the sight reading component. I will ask up on this one,
Ed

“In fact I couldn’t read music for ages. I was found out around grade IV or V when I had to sight read and the examiner said what you’re doing bears no resemblance to what’s written. I finally admitted I was just making it up! But despite my interesting start, educationally, I had the full works once I went to school and Cambridge. After that I went on to the Royal Academy of Music and found I had a huge amount of catching up to do.”

Joanna MacGregor, pianist.
(Sorry, cannot remember which magazine I took this quote from - It may have been one of the Sunday newspapers a couple of years ago).

You can completely fail your sight reading with ABRSM and still pass as long as you do extremely well on the pieces, scales and aural tests (something I disagree with actually. I think they should have minimum pass marks for each component of the test. On the other hand, if they did that, maybe Joanna would have given it all up ).

Bernhard.

[ag]

“In fact I couldn’t read music for ages. I was found out around grade IV or V when I had to sight read and the examiner said what you’re doing bears no resemblance to what’s written. I finally admitted I was just making it up! But despite my interesting start, educationally, I had the full works once I went to school and Cambridge. After that I went on to the Royal Academy of Music and found I had a huge amount of catching up to do.”



Bernhard.

 To Bernhard:
 Not being able to sightread.  Is that  what you call a "well-rounded" education ( I believe that was the term) ?

[bernhard]

Hi, ag.

Did you actually read the thread?

The quote is by Joana MacGregor. By the way Stephan Kovacevich and Martha Argerich also cannot sight read that well (did you hear that Ed?)

Do I think this is a well rounded music education? Well, since I was replying to Dawud7 who said s/he could not read music, and since I suggested to him/her that reading music was a must, I find your question a bit baffling.

Then Ed took issue with my assertion that JM could not sightread in her student days. Therefore the quote in her own words.

So what is your point exactly?

Do Stephan K, Martha A and Joanna M have well rounded music educations? I have no idea. If they drop by I will ask. But they certainly play well enough to be included in the 100 best pianists of the 20th century (Phillips) - the first two. As for Joanna, she is getting there fast.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[DAwud7]

Wow u guys really get into the convos around here that is cool. Thanks for the reply BErn oh and the Dawud is David so im a he. And yes that is what i am def goin over with my teacher is reading music, he showed me though a piece i learned the wrong way the Schumann opus 15 no1 i dont play it how the book would say too play it but he says i play it better then him so he said he will leave that alone. But i can def cee how reading will make stuff easier i mean especially for music i cannot find recorded or seqcuened. But then again i have some pieces of music that u cannot find the sheet music for on my computer some come from old piano roll scans played by godowsky and hoffman and elisa tavarez and carreno, grainger other pianists of that era. But yes as i plan too audition for college in a year or two i will have too learn too read.

[eddie92099]

“In fact I couldn’t read music for ages. I was found out around grade IV or V when I had to sight read and the examiner said what you’re doing bears no resemblance to what’s written. I finally admitted I was just making it up! But despite my interesting start, educationally, I had the full works once I went to school and Cambridge. After that I went on to the Royal Academy of Music and found I had a huge amount of catching up to do.”

I understand from this that she had to learn to read music after grade 4 or 5. I can absolutely assure you that she would have to read music to study music at Cambridge. On a seperate note, I got accepted to the Royal Academy today, where Joanna teaches  . I am going to organise a consultation lesson with her.

You can completely fail your sight reading with ABRSM and still pass as long as you do extremely well on the pieces, scales and aural tests (something I disagree with actually.

In fact, even if you do not play a single note you will still be awarded 7/21 for sight reading.

I think they should have minimum pass marks for each component of the test. On the other hand, if they did that, maybe Joanna would have given it all up ).

They do, but you do not need to attain them (rather defeating of the object).

The quote is by Joana MacGregor. By the way Stephan Kovacevich and Martha Argerich also cannot sight read that well (did you hear that Ed?)

Argerich learnt the second movement of Ravel's G major piano concerto from the score with no piano the night before her first performance of it,
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

that doesn' mean she sight reads well. She just has a good memory and has patience.

boliver

[bernhard]

Thanks, Boliver

I was in Brazil for holidays last year. They were showing at the cinemas there a movie by Brazilian director Walter Moreira Sales. It was a documentary about Brazilian pianist Nelson Freire. ("Nelson Freire" was the original title). Apparently Nelson and Martha are best buddies, frequently playing together. In fact Martha appeared in the movie almost as much as Nelson. Half way through the movie they decided to sight read through some duets. Eventually Martha gives up, laughing and saying, "I am no good at this sight reading, you are much better than me." (or something to that effect)

But of course she can sight read (up to a point) just not as fluently as some pianists out there.  

In fact, I thought the whole episode quite endearing.

I am mentioning this because the movie is really good, and you may want to try to get the DVD (should be out by now). I have no idea where you could get it from though, I am not sure if Amazon has an outlet in Brazil.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[meiting]

At one point in history there might have been a russian school. Now there isn't. Mostly, any so-called "school" is really a teacher and his/her assistants and students, and their students etc. And that doesn't really mean anything. The fact that people can trace their teaching lineage back to Beethoven and haydn really doesn't mean that they play the way beethoven did. Same with the russian school. Remember that the best teachers have their own methods.

Now to qualify what I said about there might have been a russian school. During the soviet years and before, the moscow conservatory is the premier institution in Russia (or USSR), and there was a distinct "method" of teaching there, that resulted in (and this is the important part) students with strong technique and well-balanced and independent fingers. The fact is that that is not unique to russians, and when their students played, each played differently (even technically - for instance, Richter and Gilels, both from the same time, plays very differently). The only similarity the students had within the conservatory, was the amount of technical studies they went through, and how much they practiced. In that sense, Rachmaninoff is absolutely correct. What I think everybody here is more interested in, is not the technical studies, but rather the musical studies of the so-called "russian" school. There are a few traits of the earlier pianists that modern people emulate and call "russian" playing: a strong emphasis on the top note of the right hand; sometimes playing the right hand, or the right hand top note, slightly before the left, also for emphasis (reverse-hands-not-together?); a clear, pearly sound. And that's it. Anything else you might want to add to that list is probably an INDIVIDUAL trait by a soloist, that was picked up by others. Examples follow:

Many people are influenced by Horowitz and the way he played, including the strong bass (which of course happened before horowitz, but many people dont' know that), the incredible numbers of colors (Pletnev comes to mind as someone who tries to imitate that). That's not the russian school, but rather Horowitz.

There's also people influenced by Paderewski and Cortot, in their senses of rubato. That's also not russian. (cortot is french lol)

In fact, the original russian school should be defined as a group of students that came from Russia, or were taught by people from Russia. Everything else is dependant on the teacher, the student, and the influences on the student.

There are even major differences in the technical side of things. Again, Richter was one of the most unnatural pianists in history. All anyone has to do is look at a tape of his playing. He had to work very hard for everything he can do in his technique, and it definitely shows. On the other hand, Gilels had one of the most natural techniques, and when you compared the two, there really is nothing similar about their playing.

Anyway, just adding another long post to a series of long posts...

mt

[bernhard]

Willelm Bone: People in Western Europe tend to speak of “the Russian piano school”. Is there actually such thing as a “piano school”in your country or are there probably several?

Grigory Sokolov: I don’t think so. What counts in art, is the fact whether things or people are unique. Let’s take for instance Glenn Gould. Does he belong to a school and if so, to which one? The Canadian school? Glenn Gould is simply Glenn Gould, as Emil Gilels is simply Emil Gilels. That should say it all. Sofronitzky, who also lived in Russia, was again a totally different pianist. Both he and Gilels were geniuses, if not at all comparable. You simply can’t take them together and say: “That is the Russian piano school”.

WB: Does that mean that the so-called ‘school” of Neuhaus hasn’t really existed?

GS: Not really, no. Both Richter and Gilels studied with him and developed into very different personalities.
(Interview with Grigory Sokolov, Utrecht, 18 February 2003, By Willem Boone.) Read the full interview here:
https://www.rogev.com/sokolov/reviews/Piano-News.htm

Also,check this video: Russia’s Wonder Children.

https://www.frif.com/new2000/rwc.html

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[tph]

Naturally, at the very highest level, an artist's personality counts above all else.  I think that's what Sokolov is getting at when he suggests that there is no "school", even among the Russians.  (Although the oft-cited comparison between Richter and Gilels is not really fair since Richter, as noted above, was primarily self-taught before coming to Neuhaus, and can't be considered a model product of Russian schooling.)

However, if one were to look at the average Russian pianist, at least until recently (when globalisation makes itself felt) I think that one could recognise particular national traits on the level of regimen or institution (as suggested by Rachmaninoff), and on the level of esthetics.

With regards to regimen or insitutions, I think Russia (and other countries with close ties) is much better organised than many other regions of the world, particularly during the Soviet era, where one starts training more intensely and systematically than elsewhere (e.g., N. America still lags behind in strongly  organized  early musical education in many regions) .  Also, there is an element of "natural selection" based on the fact that sheer numbers offer greater probabilities of musical talent.

And concerning esthetics, which influences technique enormously (even in Moscow, for example, the different Neuhaus and Feinberg philosophies or esthetics, which are often spoken about, result in differing technical characteristics or general approaches to the keyboard), I think it's interesting to observe that classical music only comes to Russia in a formal fashion (with the Rubinstein brothers and their conservatories) during the Romantic period - which I believe explains the generally Romantic approach Russians have to music-making.  Consider for example the emphasis on melody and singing, as mentioned in an above post (this quality is also strongly rooted in Russian culture, where traditionally, in almost every region, people sing a lot in choirs, in churches, etc.), and compare interpretations of Mozart and Beethoven between European musicians and Russian musicians in general.

So, in some ways, I think it is legitimate to speak of a Russian school in broad terms at a certain period in time.  But with globalisation, maybe no more, where ideas are being spread beyond the traditional geographic borders.  For example, with regards to the "Chinese school", it should be noted that the Chinese borrow their early college and conservatory methods from Russian curricula, and that the Communist organization and huge population probably contributes a lot to the success Chinese are having in piano competitions.

tph

[dinosaurtales]

Actually, I could use some of that Russian school stuff, especially the parts about arm and wrist relaxation.  As an *older* (47 - I know, bummer, eh?) pianist, I am starting to have more and more problems of tennis elbow, and stiff forearms.  Are the techniques documented?

Mindy

[bernhard]

Actually, I could use some of that Russian school stuff, especially the parts about arm and wrist relaxation.  

This is not really "Russian School stuff". Check it out:

Gyorgy Sandor – On playing the piano. (My only criticism of this book is that it does not have a video to accompany it. Real shame!)

Seymour Fink - Mastering piano technique (Amadeus Press – yes! There is an accompanying video to this one!)

Barbara Lister-Sink (video) – Freeing the caged bird. (Wingsong).

Everything you need without bothering to go to Russia!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[cziffra]

Richter was one of the most unnatural pianists in history

he was?  what do you mean?

[eddie92099]

he was?  what do you mean?

I could make an amusing comment here but it would be taken the wrong way,
Ed

[meiting]

he was?  what do you mean?

have you ever seen him play? he's hunched over the keyboard, very tense, nothing looks easy. A natural pianist makes playing the piano LOOK easy, even if its not, because there's very little extra motions or herkyjerky movement, which richter has quite a bit.

[cziffra]

i've always thought gould looked quite unnatural- how does he play seated so low?  it's very bizarre.

[bernhard]

i've always thought gould looked quite unnatural- how does he play seated so low?  it's very bizarre.

I have always regarded Glenn Gould posture as an attitude problem. His teacher(s) probably insisted in good posture, and he was determined to show that he could play as well with the worst possible posture.

But then I came across Charles Rosen’s “Piano notes” (Penguin) (highly recommended reading):

“(..) there is no optimum position for sitting at the piano, in spite of what many pedagogues think. (…) The height at which one sits does affect the style of performance. It isdifficult, for example, to play bursts of virtuoso octaves fortissimo when sitting very low. That is one aspect of piano technique that Glenn Gould, for example, could not deal with (…) nevertheless, the low seated position enabled Gould to achieve a beautiful technical control of rapid passage-work with different kinds of touch.”

This still does not explain the crossed legs, though…

[eddie92099]

But then I came across Charles Rosen’s “Piano notes” (Penguin) (highly recommended reading):

Quite,
Ed

[cziffra]

Rather!