How important is technique?

[wotgoplunk]

Ok, to cut to the chase: I began playing four years ago, self-taught. Consequently, without a teacher, I just played pieces, and never played any scales, triads, etc. I started lessons after about 9 months on my own, and switched to a different teacher roughly 10 months ago. I am now at Grade 9 (RCM) for pieces, but just entering 8 for technique, and 7 for sight-reading. My teacher thinks that if I don't improve my technique and sight-reading, I won't be able to continue playing the pieces. So my question is, would I need to consolidate technique and sight-reading to play a more advanced repertoire, or could I continue without struggling to get them up to scratch?

[amelialw]

technique is extremely important, I cannot emphasize that enough. For you exams teachnique consists of 10% of the total mark and it still plays a great part. Set aside at least half and hour daily for technique daily. No you need to have better technique otherwise you won't be able to go much further.

[rc]

I began learning only through repertoire as well and after a while it began to feel as if I lacked flexibility.  I was learning through the pieces well enough, but it was like a one-trick pony for each piece.  Too much reliance on muscle memory, I would take on more difficult pieces and felt that I had holes in my skills.

Sightreading is important for enjoyment - being able to play and hear a piece off the bat.  Also to lighten the load on your memory, not having to memorize every simple thing.  A skill worth developing if you're interested in playing the written note.

Scale/chord/arp figurations is an old debate.  Rep only is a popular idea around here.  I've found these technical exercises useful.  Shapes like these are all over the music, so my simple principle is that if I can't do it then I will have to practice it.  I have the patience to practice them now rather than wait for it to arise in the literature.  The patterns have also found their way into improv.  It's argued against as well, one thing that's true is it's more important HOW you practice than what.

[amelialw]

as rc said you lack flexibility when you don't do technique you will lack a few other skills too. I have ever went without practising teachnique for 3-4 months after my Grade 10 piano exam last year because my performance exam does not involve any technique. My playing all went down the drain, and it was almost as bad as when I started off. At last my teacher decided to do something about it, and she told me you know what you have to do. Never done that since then...

[slobone]

Well, there is a school of thought that says you shouldn't do finger exercises, only real pieces. I believe Leon Fleischer is an advocate of this approach, since he blames too much mechanical practice for the crippling medical problems he suffered.

But I think he's only really talking about those students who practice 12 hours a day. For the rest of us, I think exercises (scales, arpeggios, even Hanon and Czerny) are the most efficient way to develop certain basic muscular skills.

And once you have that, you can spend more of your practice time learning how to make music instead of just getting the notes right.

[mcgillcomposer]

technique is extremely important, I cannot emphasize that enough. For you exams teachnique consists of 10% of the total mark and it still plays a great part. Set aside at least half and hour daily for technique daily. No you need to have better technique otherwise you won't be able to go much further.

I smell ideology...

[mcgillcomposer]

Why can't we all agree that it depends on the person? It is naïve to lump everyone into the same category on such a matter; technique is VERY individual.

[rc]

Why can't we all agree that it depends on the person? It is naïve to lump everyone into the same category on such a matter; technique is VERY individual.

I only offer my experiences.  The reason these skills are isolated is because they're found in some form in a lot of the literature.  If someone for example can't play a scale cleanly at a fast tempo, it's just a choice of practicing it now or later when it arises in some form in a piece.

So yeah, I agree that it depends on the person...  It's something I neglect to mention, I've come to the conclusion that there is no step-by-step manual to anything in art, everyone carves their own path in their own way.  Still there ARE a lot of scalar runs, chords and arpeggios in the literature.

[wotgoplunk]

technique is extremely important, I cannot emphasize that enough. For you exams teachnique consists of 10% of the total mark and it still plays a great part. Set aside at least half and hour daily for technique daily. No you need to have better technique otherwise you won't be able to go much further.

Thank you for all the responses 

That's what my teacher insists, but I can practise 5 minutes and have the same end result as with 30. Also, I find with repetition, I will make a mistake, and end up ingraining that mistake through repetition. So far my pieces haven't deteriorated, even those with scales/arpeggios used extensively. So why practise so religiously? Does it more depend on more advanced pieces? My teacher also insists that it aids with memorization, though she never ended up giving a concise answer. Can anyone show me a reason for that?

[ramseytheii]

Thank you for all the responses 

That's what my teacher insists, but I can practise 5 minutes and have the same end result as with 30. Also, I find with repetition, I will make a mistake, and end up ingraining that mistake through repetition. So far my pieces haven't deteriorated, even those with scales/arpeggios used extensively. So why practise so religiously? Does it more depend on more advanced pieces? My teacher also insists that it aids with memorization, though she never ended up giving a concise answer. Can anyone show me a reason for that?

I would make a wild guess that having a more reliable technique gives less worries, and thus aids memorization.

Practicing technical exercises can without a doubt be shown to be helpful.  However, this is not due to the nature of the exercises themselves, it is due to the concentration applied by the pianist. 

It's often argued that if you only practice repertoire, every time a technical challenge comes up you have to practice it anew (for instance, no matter how much you practice the thirds in La leggierezza, you will have to start from scratch in Chopin's G major nocturne).  The reasoning behind this is that the figurations are different.

The incompatibility of that argument with reality is apparent: no exercise reproduces figurations found exactly in pieces either.  You can play chromatic scales in thirds up and down in an exercise, but that is not the way La leggierezza is written.

Technique is essentially the tools you use to solve problems (by which I mean: chromatic thirds are not a technique, how you play them is a technique).  Anytime you apply concentration when dealing with a physically difficult issue, you discover ways to make it easier: that is technique. 

You can practice an exercise of chromatic thirds up and down, and make it easier, and apply that thought process and gained facility when playing Liszt.  However, you can also concentrate while practicing Liszt, playing the melodically written chromatic thirds, and thus improve your performance of the mechanical exercise.

This addresses the question: are technical exercises necessary?  The answer is obviously no.  Do they help?  They can help, just like practicing your repertoire can help.

Nothing on piano can be played without technique, so the question "How important is technique?" is redundant.

Walter Ramsey

[m1469]

Great post, Walter !