Question ABOUT Bernhard

[monsieurrenard]

I've noticed, reading posts on these forums, that many of you whole-heartedly trust the member Bernhard about technique and such. He does offer many good tips, but for some of what he preaches, such as not practicing technique but rather gaining it through repertoire, I am astonished that so many of you readily accept his philosophy.

I tried to look for a recording of him, thinking that would be the cause everyone beleived his theories, and found nothing.

I'm a little new here and I apologize if Bernhard is actually a piano doctorate or something and I'm just asking a dumb question, but why beleive some random person online about not practicing technique, rather than Horowitz, Duchable, Berezovsky, or even Lang-Lang, who have expressed in interviews the necessity of technical practice?

Just curious,

-Monsieur Le Renard

[00range]

Personally, I didn't trust him. I was dissatisfied with my teacher, and was looking for alternatives to Hanon (although, at the time, I admit to actually enjoying it), dull pieces assigned by her, and six or seven hours of practice a day just to play these pieces badly. What I found, was a detailed approach to an interesting piece (Bach's Invention no.1) and gave it a try.

It worked very well for me, certainly the results were far better than what I had been getting.

[stevehopwood]

I neither know nor care whom Bernhard is. His posts frequently seem to consist of a series of links to a myriad of discussions that have already taken place on these boards - something I regard as both silly and pointless.

Having said that, if Bernhard believes that technique can be developed by studying repertiore rather than unfocussed studies, scales and  exercises, then I am right with him. This is how I developed mine.

I offer my own evidence in support of my assertion - follow my website links. Maybe Bernhard is sufficiently confident in his own ability that he does not need feel the need to prove himself in this way.

Steve 

[tac-tics]

Take every piece of advice that Bernhard gives the same way you'd take anyone's advice. With a grain of salt. To say he's off his rocker would rob you of his unique take on learning piano. Take everything he says as the holy word, and you'll probably just make a fool of yourself whenever you meet a pianist who loves Hanon.

[dorfmouse]

His posts frequently seem to consist of a series of links to a myriad of discussions that have already taken place on these boards - something I regard as both silly and pointless

I think this is very unfair. These lists of links are usually given in response to specific questions, which have already been discussed in detail in previous threads and to which he has contributed detailed, well-argued and often entertaining views. Using the search function doesn’t always uncover all the nuggets of valuable information buried on the forum. Even though I think I've read just about everything here by now  these links still throw up more food for thought.

why beleive some random person online about not practicing technique,

Have you read the “random person’s” patient, detailed and  oft-repeated response to this question? Why such an insulting tone? Are you getting at Bernhard or at those who find his input helpful?

[rimv2]

I've noticed, reading posts on these forums, that many of you whole-heartedly trust the member Bernhard about technique and such. He does offer many good tips, but for some of what he preaches, such as not practicing technique but rather gaining it through repertoire, I am astonished that so many of you readily accept his philosophy.

I tried to look for a recording of him, thinking that would be the cause everyone beleived his theories, and found nothing.

I'm a little new here and I apologize if Bernhard is actually a piano doctorate or something and I'm just asking a dumb question, but why beleive some random person online about not practicing technique, rather than Horowitz, Duchable, Berezovsky, or even Lang-Lang, who have expressed in interviews the necessity of technical practice?

Just curious,

-Monsieur Le Renard

Shut up, read, listen, do, experiment.

I'd say try his methods for 6 months and compare results but your sketicism would most likely interfere. There is no correct approach, only correct results. The ends is the means. Do as you wish

One tip: One mental repetition is worth a thousand physical repetitions.

[barnowl]

I'm surprised and dismayed at some of the skepticism and rancor expressed by some of you. He is wise, caring and eminently knowledgeable. He probably gives more time at this site than many of you.

Bernhard's opinionated, I'll give you that. But he's earned that right. 

So please give Bernhard his due. If you disgree with him, okay. But express your opinions respectfully. He accords that same courtesy to you.

[steve jones]

The methods that Bernhard outlines have actually worked very well for me! So the more I progress, then more I trust his words. Simple as that.

When I first started, I did Hanon for a few months and it really did little for me. Only when I started research repetoire and finding pieces that offered developmental benefits, did I begin to make real progress. Now (after about 18 months) I am able to play some of the more advanced intermediate repetoire (Chopin Op 64 No 1, Op 55 No 1, working on Mozart K330 Mvt 1).

Truth is, I find his methods do actually work great for me. And after discussing with my sister her lessons with a qualified teacher, I can safely say that I am happy to put my trust in Bernhard for now.

Not that I am walking around with my eyes closed. I dont agree with everything he says. I dont understand everything he says perfectly. But Iv been able grasp enough to be make consistent progress.

Indeed, just the other day I was talking to a qualified piano teacher about scales, and he told me that the TO technique is WRONG full stop. He said that it leads to injures, its ineffective and that no pianist will good technique is likely to use it. But then again, he agreed about Bernhard's opinions on Hanon and other exercises methods, unlike some teachers who swear by them!

My point being, agreement among pianists and teachers alike seems very rare! The best we as students can do is to absorb what knowledge we can and decide for ourselves what works best.

Btw, this is why he said about the TO technique:

"1) It leads to inaccuracy. When demonstrating the C major sclae descending with the left hand, the guy in the clip plays the note A twice by mistake! By attempting to play TO, he actually goes wrong! This "technique" leads to insecurity in finding notes.

2) It prevents legato. This guy's scale using TO technique is not legato - where his hand jumps there is uneveness in the musical effect. Attempting to play using TO technique spoils the musical effect.

Now of course you say too that he does not apply the technique very well. In fact there is a good reason for this... he DOES understand the importance of NOT twisting the wrist, and carefully (correctly) explains this. A correct Thumb Under technique enables players to avoid twisting the wrist (although this is musunderstood in some of the inormation you have supplied in support of your views). However, the TO technique you advocate requires unnecessary wrist movement and strain, and can lead to injury.

The tendons and ligaments that start in the armpit, move right down the arm and end in the fingers pass through a very small cavity between bones in the wrist called the Carpel Tunnel. By twisting the wrist unnecessarily, these ligaments are placed under excessive strain, which can lead to an injury known by dosctors as Sarpel Tunnel Syndrome. It is essentially a repetitive strain type injury, and has effected many great pianists who paid too little attention to "conventional" technique, or who lived at a time before Performing Arts Medicine had researched and concluded good and safe techniuqe."

While I disagreed with much of his thoughts, I didnt have the heart to argue to much as he is a good trained pianist and also a nice guy. Would have been bold of me to argue the toss all things regarded! He was talking about a video clip Id sent him.

I think the main problem was that we were mixing up terms. I showed him another clip which I considered to be a TO technique, yet he said it was a perfect TU technique!? In the said clip, the hand turns to allow the thumb to move towards the next note without reaching under the hand, and was combined with a shift at the last moment so that the other fingers are in position before the thumb plays.

Like I say, rare is it that any two teachers agree! Take what you will, disgard what doesnt work. And Im sure you find that many of Bernhards methods work like a charm.

SJ

[desordre]

 Hi there!
 I've been reading Bernhard texts since I joined this forum, and his points of view seems to me, at least, reasonable. In many aspects, I think he's quite right, and he's been helpful to myself.
 Anyway, let me quote something that himself wrote: take two pieces, try both methods and see what happens. He's only giving some suggestions, and if you see that they're useless, that's it. Period.
 However, I must quote what Mr(s) Tics wrote:
 

Take every piece of advice that Bernhard gives the same way you'd take anyone's advice. With a grain of salt. (...)

About technique, I never find two pianists (or performers for that matter) with equal skills and with the same kind of approach and results. Hence, it's a question that's is up to everyone of us. In my particular case, I have used the Hanon for years and it was quite helpful, until I smashed my face in a lot of "speed walls", as both Chang and Bernhard calls that phenomenon. Since then I am working out in alternatives, and all that orthodox methodology of Hanon, Czerny, Clementi and so on has been pointless to myself. In the other hand, I still believe that some Hanon may help my students in some cases.
 Finally, Mr. Renard please accept my apologies because I have to disagree totally with you: a recording or a diploma says nothing about a teacher. There are lots of pianists who had record and can't teach a ball, and many doctors that don't have been teaching in the last twenty years, so I really don't see the connection you imply, unless you think that any opinion must have a pedigree. I think that opinions stands for themselves.
 Best wishes!

[alwaystheangel]

bernhard's a god, and a mystery, that's why I listen. 

Besides, one can't easily argue with the well thought-out essays that he posts each and every single time.  God, at over 5000 posts and each like a novel by itself he could probably write his own method book.



.....maybe he has....


                            cue mysterious music......



                                                                                                     

EDIT: Either that or he's a bum on the streets with a laptop... if that makes any sense  j/k bernhard, don't want you angry at me.....  no no no....

I don't think I made any sense in this post... I should go to sleep now.

[desordre]

 Dear Angel:
 I'm not sure, but i think that Chang once wrote that Bernhard was his role model...
 Now, you came up with this theory (the laptop bum).    What's next?
 Best wishes!
 

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

The only answer to this inquiry about whether to trust Bernhard or not can be summed up with one sentence. If you like his approach, go for it. If not, then don't. Okay that was two sentences. Simply speaking, I find that excercises are a MUST. Czerny is the ultimate basic structure used for later etudes. I personally think that if one devotes all the time to developing repertoire and the technique derived from it of course, then one will spend a lot more time developing the small and big technique such as scales, arpeggios, chords, etc. That is where Czerny comes in.

[barnowl]

Greetings.

The only answer to this inquiry about whether to trust Bernhard or not can be summed up with one sentence. If you like his approach, go for it. If not, then don't. Okay that was two sentences. Simply speaking, I find that excercises are a MUST. Czerny is the ultimate basic structure used for later etudes. I personally think that if one devotes all the time to developing repertoire and the technique derived from it of course, then one will spend a lot more time developing the small and big technique such as scales, arpeggios, chords, etc. That is where Czerny comes in.

Thus spake our resident Exercist, born a Hanonite and later, founder of Czernianism. 

[crazy for ivan moravec]

it's not that czerny doesn't work at all. it's a matter of how you use it that will help you improve technique. so is with other pieces, like the vast piano repertoire. how you practice those passages in the liszt sonata is no different with czerny exercises (slow, rhythmic, staccato, deep, or however as long as you achieve good results). the advantage is, you get to work on the repertoire themselves and not waste time on exercises you won't need for a recital program.

i think that is the main point of bernhard. and note that he won't ever tell you that czerny books are exercises (as he mentioned in one thread)... he'll say they're musical pieces (regardless of how boring some may be). there are a lot of etude-like parts of the pieces. all the chopin ballade codas are very difficult. a teacher in a masterclass once told me to use those codas as etudes coz not only will i improve technique, i will also be able to play the difficult parts of the pieces hich will save time if ever i do learn them for concert.

as for the bernhard himself, he is one anonymous person i've learned so much from. my approach to technique wouldn't be like this if not because of him, and i must say it's helped me a lot now that i've tried his suggestions... way, way, way better, if not the best i can achieve with the resources in this country i live in! his teachings always reflect the words of the great technicians who have given masterclasses here

I'm a little new here and I apologize if Bernhard is actually a piano doctorate or something and I'm just asking a dumb question, but why beleive some random person online about not practicing technique, rather than Horowitz, Duchable, Berezovsky, or even Lang-Lang, who have expressed in interviews the necessity of technical practice?

.

i would even trust these people less. they have great and "natural" technique. they can be clueless as to how they are able to do it. my teacher has great technique and until now, he hasn't said a word about how he does it! the truth is, we need teachers who can actually see and analyze what these great pianists do and how they do it.

Bernhard proves to be one of those teachers, IMO. he doesn't need to have the greatest technique to be able to teach the right stuff. how he speaks about technique tells so much of the kind of piano practice he's done in his life; he talks out of experience. you will realize that he has put into practice those things he's said when he starts to talk about details. i can relate so much to these and i go, "oh yeah, it's so true". but then sometimes when i haven't experienced things that he'd say, i'd go, "maybe i'll realize it when i encounter such a technical problem."

i don't know about some of you guys who can't see the wisdom in his posts, esp regrading the technical exercises. but i must say, i'm with him all the way in that stand.

[jazzyprof]

I'm a little new here and I apologize if Bernhard is actually a piano doctorate or something and I'm just asking a dumb question, but why beleive some random person online about not practicing technique, rather than Horowitz, Duchable, Berezovsky, or even Lang-Lang, who have expressed in interviews the necessity of technical practice?

Just curious,

-Monsieur Le Renard

Monsieur Le Renard, I'm sorry but you simply don't know what you're talking about.  You mention Horowitz, but look at what Horowitz himself said about how useless it is to spend time on pure technical exercises:

"Every composer has a different technique. Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, each has his special technique. One must find this technique with the fingers themselves, must feel it out. The studies of Czerny, Clementi, Cramer and the like I have never practiced. They are bad for the ear and bad for the touch, because they are not alive; they are merely mechanical. No mechanical playing assists the technique."

https://web.telia.com/~u85420275/Articles/1932.htm

If you're going to take issue with Bernhard, at least get your facts straight.  For what it's worth, Bernhard is the wisest, most selfless person I have ever encountered on any forum.  He deserves a medal!

[leucippus]

I've read several of Bernhard's posts since I've been here.  I've also read Chang's book on the Fundamentals of Piano Practice and to be perfectly honest about it I don't seem much difference between what Bernhard is saying and what Chang has already said in his book.  So from my point of view Bernhard is really just basically passing on Chang's philosophy with enthusiasm.

Although I'm sure that Bernhard has added his own personal twists and changes along the way.  I too get a feeling that Bernhard is very respectful of others and his only goal is to share what he believes to be the best approach to piano practice.

I am not a pianist myself.  In fact, I'm only just starting out playing the piano at 57 and I have mental disabilities that may render me unable to learn to play irregardless of any methods I might choose to use.  However, I have been a college instructor for many years and I do have a clue about what works with education in general.  I have to say that I also agree with Chang's approach (which I don't see as being much different than Bernhard's really).  Chang makes a lot of really good points and backs them up with solid common sense.  Moreover, it's very obvious to me that educational systems on their own tend to fall into bureaucratic repetition of familiar stuff without really asking how well it works.   So it wouldn't surprise me in the least that traditionally accepted piano teaching methods are out-dated, stagnant and inefficient.  In fact, I would actually be quite shocked if they weren't, given the tendency of educational institutions to fall into mundane ruts.

I do have a problem with this distaste for all technique though (especially Chang's antagonism toward Hanon).   If you read Chang's book carefully you will discover that his greatest hostility toward Hanon is the fact that Hanon claims to be a completely piano practice system than will lead the beginner to become a virtuoso in 60 lessons or exercises.  Personally I don't believe that Hanon intended that even though he may have named the lessons in a way that implies that.

Is Hanon a completely piano practice system?  No, it's obviously not, and I don’t believe for one second that anyone ever believed that it was, not even Hanon.  But to toss it completely aside as being totally useless I also believe is a huge mistake.  Hanon has it's place.  And I personally believe that Hanon is most useful to the very raw beginners who can't yet play anything.  Hanon gives them something they can play instantly to practice cadence with.  It's gets all of their fingers moving on both hands instantly.  It lets them work on practicing simultaneity with both hands.  And the first Hanon lesson can be taught on Day One!  The student leaves the lesson feeling like they can actually play something and it even sounds impressive to everyone they play it for so it builds confidence early.  So for a first lesson I personally don't think Hanon can be beat.

Now the question becomes, how useful is Hanon once the student actually starts learning how to play pieces?  Well, I agree with Chang at that point.  Continuing to practice the early Hanon exercises would probably not be worth the time.  However other Hanon exercises could also be used to introduce scales and such.  So I disagree with Chang, and probably Bernhard too, when it comes to Hanon.  I believe they are useful exercises.  I don't believe that they should be the focus of the study though.  On that point I agree with Chang and Bernhard - Choose what you WANT to play and you will learn all of the technique eventually just by playing what you want to play.  I do agree with that wholeheartedly.  It just makes so much common sense to me that I simply can't believe that it wouldn't work.  Students are going to put more feeling, energy and dedication into learning the pieces that they want to play.  Forcing them to play technical junk that they don't want to play is a waste of their time, even if those techniques may be useful.  They can be learned in other pieces!  After all, if those techniques aren't used in other pieces then what good are they in the first place???

Sorry for the ramble, but I had to get my views on Hanon off my chest.

As far as Czerny, etc, I'd say they are only useful for students who want to learn them.  Anything you WANT to play is useful.  I'm currently learning Köhler for example because I enjoy them.  They are also pretty easy which is what I need to start.  But I'm also learning simple pieces by Bach, Schumann, Beethoven, and others.  In fact, I'm trying a few Czerny pieces too, but only because I like them.   I disagree that they are all mechanical and cold.  In fact, putting life and feeling into them is the challenge!  That's up to the player to do that and learning musicality is every bit as important as learning technique.  If you can put music into Czerny you're doing GREAT!   And I believe you can if you really want to.

[prometheus]

Argument out of authority is a fallacy. It doesn't matter who says something. It is what they say. If you don't buy the arguments Bernard uses, or you just dont' agree with them, fine. But to suggest he needs to prove himself as an authority to argue against things said by people like Horowitz, is insane.

It would mean that I am unable to argue against any world leader because I am not one of them.

[alwaystheangel]

Bernhard must hate people talking about him like this.
It's not like it's even talking behind his back.

[prometheus]

Lang-Lang doesn't even know how to play music. The fact that he has incredible technique doesn't mean he actually 'known' anything. You don't get technique through knowledge. You get it through practice. And if you have unlimited time it doesn't really make that much of a difference how you practice, as long as you don't get any injuries.

I mean, Gould is one of the biggest names ever. Should we have taken advice from him on ergonomy just because his name is so big? Or about playing Mozart for that matter?

[steve jones]

Bernhard must hate people talking about him like this.
It's not like it's even talking behind his back.

I dont think he would mind. Internet 'gurus' are always treated with a certain degree of scepticism... and with good reason, as many of them are con men.

Fortunately, our good friend Bernhard has done nothing to make me think any bad of him at all. Infact, I come to respect his words on this forum very highly.

SJ

[bernhard]

                        Either that or he's a bum on the streets with a laptop... i

Dang!

My cover has been blown!

(and I am sure Karl Rove and Dick Cheney had something to do with it)
 

[alwaystheangel]

Dang!

My cover has been blown!

(and I am sure Karl Rove and Dick Cheney had something to do with it)
 

lmao   

you just made my day

[pianochild]

I myself have found bernhard very helpfull, allthough he sometimes writes too much, but everything he writes makes sense and is quite helpfull. And for you, a newbie to come on and say that with just a few hours experience of pianostreet, to come and say that, you are very cheeky, and i think you dont know one thing about bernhard, + i think he should know hes been on piano street since like 2003!

[nanabush]

haha he's been on PF longer than you 

[pianochild]

and you

[alwaystheangel]

hell, he's been here longer than PF existed, like I said_ he's the PF god!

[debussy symbolism]

Thus spake our resident Exercist, born a Hanonite and later, founder of Czernianism. 

I am actually not a Hanonite. I happen to agree with Bernhard on that one. I am a Czernyist for that matter however.

[nanabush]

and you

nonono, i mean Monsieur Renard... he joined bfore you and you said he's a PF newby and that's the reason why he doesnt know bernard..

[ridr27]

Bernhard will have no idea who I am.  However, I have read and re-read his comments for a long time.

I decided to register and comment on this post.

Bernhard is giving of his time and knowledge.  I have printed off much and organized it in a notebook.

Thank you Bernhard.  Thank you. 

I have no idea who you are (Piano teacher is assumed).

I would so much like to meet you.  But so would many others. 

Rider27
(oh, and that is a *horse* I ride)

[leucippus]

Bernhard is giving of his time and knowledge.  I have printed off much and organized it in a notebook.

I've read quite a few of Bernard's posts too and IMHO he could have saved himself a lot of typing and just posted a link to Chang's Fundamentals of Piano Practice book because I've read that book and I can't really see much difference at all between what Bernhard is saying and what Chang is saying.

I actually agree with Chang's approach overall (and therefore I agree with much of what Bernhard says as well).  But just the same I think Monsieur Le Renard has a point.  Why do people believe Bernhard?  I mean, other than the fact that much of what he says does appear to be common sense?

People say that Bernhard is a forum god with over 5000 posts to his name.  Yet he has nary a single performance in the Audition Room.  It does seem to be a valid question of whether or not he can even play the piano at all.

I really don't care.  I read Chang's book and Chang makes a lot of sense.  I really don't see Bernhard adding much to what Chang has already said in his book.  Therefore since I agree with Chang I probably agree with Bernhard whether he can play or not.

In fact, It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that "Bernhard" is just a screen name used by Chang.   

[steve jones]

The real clincher is that, to my knowledge, no money is involved.

Bernhard isnt even teaching piano England any longer. He isnt selling any books or instructional DVD's. And he isnt refering to other teachers. Chang's book is free also.

As far as I can see, the only thing that he stands to gain or lose is his reputation on this forum.

SJ

[stevehopwood]

I've read quite a few of Bernard's posts too and IMHO he could have saved himself a lot of typing and just posted a link to Chang's Fundamentals of Piano Practice book because I've read that book and I can't really see much difference at all between what Bernhard is saying and what Chang is saying.

Why should Bernhard post a link to someone else's work?

If Bernhard and Chang are on the same wavelength, then you can expect them to say much the same things.

I actually agree with Chang's approach overall (and therefore I agree with much of what Bernhard says as well).  But just the same I think Monsieur Le Renard has a point.  Why do people believe Bernhard?  I mean, other than the fact that much of what he says does appear to be common sense?

Sounds like a good enough reason to me. Not that I know, mind, as I have not read his posts - just making the point.

People say that Bernhard is a forum god with over 5000 posts to his name.  Yet he has nary a single performance in the Audition Room.

Me neither. Can't make the damn thing work - can't even download existing performances, never mind upload my own.

  It does seem to be a valid question of whether or not he can even play the piano at all.

You can't really have it both ways. You appear to respect Chang and accept that he and Bernhard have complimentary views. I have not heard of Chang, but I take it from postings here that he\she is a respected teacher. Bernhard also seems to be respected here. Granted, respected teachers are not always virtuso soloists, but they can usually play, or could play once, or at least understand playing. I assume Bernhard falls into one of these categories.

Unless he really is a street bum with a laptop and a gift for blagging 

I really don't care.  I read Chang's book and Chang makes a lot of sense.  I really don't see Bernhard adding much to what Chang has already said in his book.  Therefore since I agree with Chang I probably agree with Bernhard whether he can play or not.

In fact, It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that "Bernhard" is just a screen name used by Chang.   

Yes, but not all of us have heard of Chang before, or read his book, so Bernhard might be a most useful resource, regardless of whether he really is Bernhard, Chang in disguise or merely a street bum with a lappy and the girt of the blag. 

I posit all this theoretically, you understand. I cannot be bothered to follow all the links Bernhard places in his posts.

Actually, this brings me to a completely different point. In an earlier post in this thread, I pointed out Bernhard's habit of posting lots of links to earlier discussions. As part of another reply, someone wrote, "I think this is very unfair. These lists of links are usually given in response to specific questions, which have already been discussed in detail in previous threads and to which he has contributed detailed, well-argued and often entertaining views."

Doubtless this is true, but new forum members want to discuss things; we do not want to be told that, "This has all been done before. Please visit these 100 links; there you will find the results of our previous weighty discussions and can stop wasting our time."

Members new to a forum should be left alone to discuss things no matter how often they may have been discussed before by older forum members. Older members should contribute if they have something useful to say. Merely sighing heavily and implying that 'this has all been done before and is therefore beneath out attention' is not helpful.

Steve 

[emmdoubleew]

i would even trust these people less. they have great and "natural" technique. they can be clueless as to how they are able to do it. my teacher has great technique and until now, he hasn't said a word about how he does it! the truth is, we need teachers who can actually see and analyze what these great pianists do and how they do it.

Bernhard proves to be one of those teachers, IMO. he doesn't need to have the greatest technique to be able to teach the right stuff. how he speaks about technique tells so much of the kind of piano practice he's done in his life; he talks out of experience. you will realize that he has put into practice those things he's said when he starts to talk about details. i can relate so much to these and i go, "oh yeah, it's so true". but then sometimes when i haven't experienced things that he'd say, i'd go, "maybe i'll realize it when i encounter such a technical problem."

That's a very interesting way to think about it.

So far, I can sort of see two responses as to why people listen to him:
"I tried it and it works" (seems perfectly reasonable)
"He gives tons of information" (which doesn't even make sense)

[arensky]

Maybe Chang and Bernhard are one and the same... 

[ada]

I must say while I find the blind Bernhard worship by some members a little nauseating I have found his (your!) comments almost always extremely useful and instructive.  And I strongly suspect Bernhard knows what he's talking about  .

I have printed his posts off on several occassions for future reference. I also find the links he/you provide helpful because often my searches don't work. Keep 'em coming, I say.

Plus Bernhard is smart, always courteous (unlike some, myself included) and has a wry sense of humour. He (you) is not a religious fanatic, a bible basher or a right wing extremist. (Which is always a welcome relief).

That said, it doesn't mean he should be considered some sort of piano god or put on a pedestal. (Sorry B!)

And it shouldn't prevent others questioning and debating his philosophies or make him any more valuable a member than even the looniest of the loony here.

This is the internet, and everything you read on it should be taken with a good pinch of salt. Amongst the tripe there'll be some gems, but a sense of skepticism is always healthy.

 

[leucippus]

Why should Bernhard post a link to someone else's work?

Well, if the bulk of "Bernhard's ideas" are indeed the work of someone else perhaps giving them a little credit once in a while woudln't be a bad idea.

I have nothing agains Bernhard.  I don't even know him.  All I'm saying is that from the posts I've read he is pretty much conveying the very same ideas that Chang has in his book.

Nothing wrong with that at all.  Chang's ideas are great and I think it's great that someone is willing to take the time to explain them to other people on a forum.  But at the same time it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge where the original ideas came from.

People say that Bernhard is so smart.  Well, he probably is.  But at the same time part of why they might be saying that is that they think he is the one who is originating all of these clever ideas when in fact Chang has already made them publicly availble for FREE on the Internet.

When I read a Bernhard post it just sounds like an excerpt from Chang's book to me.  That's all I'm saying.  If Bernhard's ideas are original then it's one hell of a coincidence that's all.

[prometheus]

Why do Bernards idea need to be original?

I mean, I have been posting about Darwinism, quantum mechanics, Schenkerian analysis, special relativity, etc etc. All these ideas I got from books I read. Very little of my ideas are original. Most of the things I post is pure plagiarism. Not to mention Pianistimo quoting the whole bible.

As for the ideas that other people post that are truely original; they are mostly very bad ideas. So I don't get this at all. Can't I say that the earth is round because almost everyone will say the same thing? Why can't Bernard state 'the obvious' as well?


I have seen Bernard and Chang discuss piano on this forum. Maybe you should do a search on this.

[rlefebvr]

Well, if the bulk of "Bernhard's ideas" are indeed the work of someone else perhaps giving them a little credit once in a while woudln't be a bad idea.

I have nothing agains Bernhard.  I don't even know him.  All I'm saying is that from the posts I've read he is pretty much conveying the very same ideas that Chang has in his book.

Nothing wrong with that at all.  Chang's ideas are great and I think it's great that someone is willing to take the time to explain them to other people on a forum.  But at the same time it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge where the original ideas came from.

People say that Bernhard is so smart.  Well, he probably is.  But at the same time part of why they might be saying that is that they think he is the one who is originating all of these clever ideas when in fact Chang has already made them publicly availble for FREE on the Internet.

When I read a Bernhard post it just sounds like an excerpt from Chang's book to me.  That's all I'm saying.  If Bernhard's ideas are original then it's one hell of a coincidence that's all.

Considering the first thing Bernard says to newbie pianist is to "READ CHANG"S BOOK" , I think your point is a little mute. Sorry.

[leucippus]

Considering the first thing Bernard says to newbie pianist is to "READ CHANG"S BOOK" , I think your point is a little mute. Sorry.

Well, in that case then he is giving Chang credit.  I just didn't see that in any of his posts that I've read.

I'm not putting Bernhard down in any way.  I'm simply replying to the comments in this thread.

The original question of the thread was "Why do people put so much faith in Bernhard's ideas".

Well, there's one good answer,... they aren't just Bernhard's ideas, he's sharing a wealth of information from various sources.

There's your simple answer to the Opening Post then. 

[dorfmouse]

they aren't just Bernhard's ideas, he's sharing a wealth of information from various sources.

Extract from one of Bernhard's responses, (his comments italicised);

 Re: How does Bernhard or Chang's method differ with traditional?
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2005, 10:44:40 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what you mean by “traditional”. The pedagogical tradition at the time of Bach was very different from the pedagogical tradition at the time of Beethoven, which again was very different from the pedagogical tradition at the time of Chopin, and so on and so forth.


Quote
What's new with them?  No offense intended, but I've heard a lot of these ideas before.  I don't think anything is new.

I have now resigned myself that there is nothing new with them. Every time I come up with some revolutionary new concept (at least I thought so at the time), I usually come across some book (sometimes a very old book) that describes my “new” concept. Perhaps there is nothing new under the Sun. Perhaps originality is a myth and it is our fate to keep rediscovering the wheel . This is always on the back of my mind:

“We shall not cease from exploration
 and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and know the place for the first time."

(T. S. Elliot – Little Gidding)



Quote
I don't think I'll ever have things perfect so I'll always be looking for more advice on how to do things better and more efficiently.  The ideas presented sound like good general principles for practicing that have always been around.

I agree with that. But don’t forget that all sorts of very bad ideas/principles about practising have also always been around. And they do get a strong grip on people’s minds, even if they are proven again and again to be terrible ways of practising.

[bernhard]

The real clincher is that, to my knowledge, no money is involved.

He isnt selling any books or instructional DVD's.

Yet.

[quasimodo]

Chang's book and Bernhard's posts are complementary and consistent with each other. Chang attempts to tackle the question of practicing on a scientific-analytic level, while Bernhard provides practical insight for specific problems.
As far as I know, none of them claims the paternity of the methods they are professing, they are both very honest intellectually.
Beyond the explicit content of their work, there is something underlying that is even more important: it's a state of mind of permanently challenging methods in order to be efficient, that is to know what we are aiming at when doing a practicing protocole.
It would be obviously an error to take every single word they say as absolute truth (however, I don't find much BS in what I read from them).
The problem one could face in understanding their philosophy and accepting their suggestions is called Cognitive Dissonance.

[jazzyprof]

There seems to be this hang up regarding "originality".  The mark of a good teacher is not so much originality but in clarity, simplicity, and the ability to show how a path is laid out and what steps need to be taken in order to follow the path.  I don't think either Chang or Bernhard claims to have originated the basic ideas they describe.  If you read Chang's book he states clearly:

"Let me start by pointing out that I did not originate any of the basic ideas in this book. They were invented and re-invented umpteen times in the last 200 years by every successful pianist. The basic framework for the methods of this book was constructed using the teachings of Mlle. Yvonne Combe, the teacher of our two daughters who became accomplished pianists (they have won many first prizes in piano competitions and averaged over 10 recitals a year each for many years; both have perfect pitch, and now enjoy composing music). Other parts of this book were assembled from the literature and my research using the internet. My contributions are in gathering these ideas, organizing them into a structure, and providing some understanding of why they work."

Does it really matter who came up with the ideas so long as they work?  Pedagogy is very different from say, research in physics, where priority is paramount...the Nobel Prize goes to the first person to demonstrate Bose-Einstein condensation, not to the second.  Besides, piano playing is not an exact science...there is not one correct answer to question-"how do I acquire phenomenal technique?"  

[leucippus]

There seems to be this hang up regarding "originality".   {snip}  Does it really matter who came up with the ideas so long as they work? 

I don't think there's any "hang up" about it at all.  It was simply the question that was posed in the OP of this thread,…

He (Bernhard) does offer many good tips, but for some of what he preaches, such as not practicing technique but rather gaining it through repertoire, I am astonished that so many of you readily accept his philosophy.

Just curious,

-Monsieur Le Renard

The point is that Bernhard's posts don't necessarily reflect his philosophy.   They are insight gained from many different philosophies.  So it's not a matter of being hung up on who originated the ideas.  It's a matter of trying to respond to the concerns raised by the author of the thread.

[timothy42b]

I noticed a couple of comments above along the lines of "...but can he play?"

I am not inclined to think it matters.

Tiger Woods is the best golfer in the world most days.  Butch Harmon is his teacher.

Who would you take lessons from, the guy who can hit a golf ball, or the guy who taught the best in the world? 

[pianochild]

nonono, i mean Monsieur Renard... he joined bfore you and you said he's a PF newby and that's the reason why he doesnt know bernard..

Yes but ive been online a lot longer, im a full member hes jr, and ive done loads more posts, and ive read more of bernhars's than him/her.

[rimv2]

I must say while I find the blind Bernhard worship by some members a little nauseating I have found his (your!) comments almost always extremely useful and instructive.  And I strongly suspect Bernhard knows what he's talking about  .

I have printed his posts off on several occassions for future reference. I also find the links he/you provide helpful because often my searches don't work. Keep 'em coming, I say.

Plus Bernhard is smart, always courteous (unlike some, myself included) and has a wry sense of humour. He (you) is not a religious fanatic, a bible basher or a right wing extremist. (Which is always a welcome relief).

That said, it doesn't mean he should be considered some sort of piano god or put on a pedestal. (Sorry B!)

And it shouldn't prevent others questioning and debating his philosophies or make him any more valuable a member than even the looniest of the loony here.

This is the internet, and everything you read on it should be taken with a good pinch of salt. Amongst the tripe there'll be some gems, but a sense of skepticism is always healthy.

 

Are you kidding?

I tithe to the church of Berhard every morning

I signed over my house and plan to spend my days at the ranch listening to sermons by stand ins- you know the real Berhard is just too busy.

I pity you non believer.


I




Pity





You


Repent as you mightt be forgiven

[jas]

Has there ever been a person in existence who's had so many threads started about him?

Yes, but not all of us have heard of Chang before, or read his book, so Bernhard might be a most useful resource

Mmmm, there seems to be an assumption here that everyone who's read any of Bernhard's posts has also read this Chang book. I've never in my life read a book on practising technique and I don't want or feel that I need to. So even though I rarely read Bernhard's posts (I really don't have that extensive an attention span ), I appreciate that he's doing it out of sheer niceness, which is the only reason I've replied to this thread, since I'm not qualified to comment on his posts themselves. It's the ungrateful and rather childish attitude (displayed by some) to someone who's doing something out of nothing more than generosity that I felt moved to comment upon.

Although...

I must say while I find the blind Bernhard worship by some members a little nauseating

I agree with this, definitely.

I tithe to the church of Berhard every morning

Don't encourage them!

[thracozaag]

I noticed a couple of comments above along the lines of "...but can he play?"

I am not inclined to think it matters.

Tiger Woods is the best golfer in the world most days.  Butch Harmon is his teacher.

Who would you take lessons from, the guy who can hit a golf ball, or the guy who taught the best in the world? 

  For clarification, Tiger stopped coaching with Butch Harmon in 2004 and is now with Hank Haney (sorry to be a golf nerd).

koji

[pianistimo]

i still think of him as a sort of piano monk.  i could even imagine him in a monastary.  his vast knowledge coming from a hole in the wall library that noone but him can access when he needs the info.  but, the monastary is so old that students often look in from outside through the holes.  they can occasionally get glimpses of st. bernhard moving his bifocals up or down or completely lifting them off his nose to read the fine print.  he mutters a few words to himself and then goes back to the laptop under his confessional bench.  occasionally, his own students come into the confessional and admit to sneaking in some hanon time.  he tells them that they'll never get to heaven that way - but that going to hell has some merit.  he hopes the church won't dismiss him for heresy.  st. bernhard is open minded - but hasn't really read the bible on the hopes that music books wills suffice for now.

occasionally he sneaks off to a retreat in argentina.  the briefcase at the side of his piano is full of shots of bikini clad women - that he uses as a kind of lifting of the spirits when his students leave.  especially the ones with thongs.  behind the altar is his bottle of scotch or vermouth or sherry or something.  only he knows how much fun he really has.