Which do you think there is more value in spending time in pursuit of

[opus10no2]

Oh my goodness!

So much talk about technique and musicality, the alpha and the omega, the yin and yang!

Good lord!

I have to question this, because.

[rob47]

how about "there is no value in either if you don't pursue the other"?

also i don't understand the question

[opus10no2]

 

What do you think it's better, for the end result, to spend more time on?

Developing technique or musicality.

[rob47]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006020536,00.html

[gerry]

I'd say developing technique is most important as it is the necessary basis for musical expression. As for "developing musicality" I find it difficult to conceive of how one would go about it. When speaking of "musicality" do you mean that elusive concept of "talent" ? If so, then that really has to be somewhat inate and can only develop with age and maturity. As such, perhaps the concept of musicality can grow independent of technical study; HOWEVER, one will never be able to manifest it on an instrument without technical ability. There may be some concepts of "musicality" that can be coached like pointing out phrasing, melodic lines, etc. but these will be difficult to achieve without good solid technique.

[cloches_de_geneve]

This question does not throw an advantageous light on this forum.

[opus10no2]

Gerry, your post speaketh some truth, and contains some fundamental things I agree with.

I feel that almost all time should be spent in the pursuit of 3 things -

1 - Learning notes

2 - Aquiring technical facility

3 - Whether it be improvisation or traditional performance, experimenting and focussing intent with all the possibilities that can come to the imagination, working with the aforementioned notes , and realised via technique.


I suppose an interesting thing to note is the common thought that mature musicians produce the greatest interpretations.

Could this be because they have learned the notes long ago, and do not learn many new pieces, their technique has peaked, and so is no longer the primary focus of concern, and so they are free to work with more creative time than ever before.

Distilled - it seems the 3rd element is just that - creativity. Technique is the physical ability to realise the creativity and notes...and the notes themselves are the ingredients to the recipe we work with.

Can time and practice help creativity?
I'd be inclined to say no.
Time and practice working on creativity allows that which is already a potential, become a reality.
It's about doing what comes to you, but where does that come from in the first place?

It comes from experience with notes and the possibilities of musical technique!

Spend your time on technique and learning notes, the creativity will come naturally at the end, that is if you have creative talent 

[mikey6]

Since you can't have one without the other, both!

[amelialw]

both! it's important to balance it out...

[jlh]

They are inseparable! 

Technique is an aggregate of the patterns and movements that have been learned, and that means nothing unless the music sounds good.   

The music won't sound good unless proper technique is applied.

This is a 'chicken and the egg' discussion.

[gerry]

I agree that both are necessary - that goes without saying.  However, the question posed at the outset, as I understood it, implied that both could be "developed" or practiced at the exclusion of the other, NOT that one was more necessary than the other. I chose to speak to the fact that musicality wasn't something one could choose to work on like technique but was more of an intangible, inate quality that developed as one's technique improved. I think the question itself is a bit naive and speaks of a misunderstanding of how one goes about becoming a true artist.

[opus10no2]

Since you can't have one without the other, both!

Yes you can. 

both! it's important to balance it out...

It is, but my idea is that to a large degree, an inclination to interpret a certain way is innate and somewhat inevitable.

So i think more time should be spent on technique and learning notes, and the creativity and interpretive focus should come into play, but should be a kind of reason to work on tech, and not an isolated aim in itself, because it feels like a search for something that's already under your nose.

[gerry]

Maybe there's a compromise - as you work on technique, try to make it musical rather than an automatic repetitive endeavor. Even Khachaturian considered Hanon musical enough to include in his 2nd Piano Concerto he he

One final thought, I think it's admirable to try to pursue musicality (still not sure of how it's done) but I can think of nothing more frustrating later in life than to have great musical concepts and ideas about how a piece should be played but not to have the technique to realize it . What's that old saw about artistry being 10% talent and 90% hard work (or is it 20-80 - not sure about the exact ratio)?

Thanks 0pus 10 for your input and support - I've seen you proffer your opinion on this subject elsewhere on this forum and you always take a bit of flack for it. I think it's sound and couldn't agree more.

[opus10no2]

Thank you too, but you might disagree with some of the things I claim too.

Of course alot of technical time should be deficated to command of dynamics, but I still think the primary basic aim in piano playing(besides making music) is aquiring a command of velocity of the fingers.

Velocity defines when the notes are struck, how quicky they can be unstruck, and also the velocity of each individual strike defines the volume of the note.

I really do think the first step in curing all technical ills is to get some fast fingers. 

[opus10no2]

A few words on creativity -

Creativity is nurtured by stimulus, and is brought out by random experimentation and focussed inent.

It may take a few minutes to compose a piece.

It can take a lifetime to have the right experience with stimulus to have the mind to make that piece be created.

This is the thing I find interesting about the recent ideas that TV dumbs kids down.

It doesn't (!) by itself, it stimulates and can almost saturate the mind.
This can only be a good thing, but it's when their minds become lazy, all creative thoughts are made for them, and they don't have to come up with things for themselves.

This is why book reading is good also, it encourages an imagination, but again - that imagination can only be made up of prior actual real-life stimulus.

In short, we are spoon fed better than ever, but we must still learn to hunt!

[mikey6]

In order to achieve the musical effect you want, you need a sound technique - so how can they not co-exist?

[gerry]

Thank you too, but you might disagree with some of the things I claim too.

Of course alot of technical time should be deficated to command of dynamics,

Opus 10 - was that an intentional typo? It certainly tweaks the imagination

[jlh]

Thank you too, but you might disagree with some of the things I claim too.

Of course alot of technical time should be deficated to command of dynamics, but I still think the primary basic aim in piano playing(besides making music) is aquiring a command of velocity of the fingers.

Velocity defines when the notes are struck, how quicky they can be unstruck, and also the velocity of each individual strike defines the volume of the note.

I really do think the first step in curing all technical ills is to get some fast fingers. 

C. Chang disagrees with you on this point:

"The most common misunderstanding is that technique is some inherited finger dexterity. It is not. The innate dexterity of accomplished pianists and ordinary folk are not that different. [...] Unfortunately, many of us are much more dexterous but can't manage the musical passages because of a lack of some simple but critical information. Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength.

Technique is the ability to execute a zillion different piano passages; therefore it is not dexterity, but an aggregate of many skills."

Fast fingers will do nothing for you except turn you into a machine gun. 

[opus10no2]

In order to achieve the musical effect you want, you need a sound technique - so how can they not co-exist?

Well, of course they can, you said that they always have to.

There are many pianists with good imagination and poor technique. There are those with great technique and poor imagination.

I'd prefer hearing the latter, a technique will at least let the music be heard, and can be thrilling in a sport-like way.

[opus10no2]

Prhps

C. Chang disagrees with you on this point:

"The most common misunderstanding is that technique is some inherited finger dexterity. It is not. The innate dexterity of accomplished pianists and ordinary folk are not that different. [...] Unfortunately, many of us are much more dexterous but can't manage the musical passages because of a lack of some simple but critical information. Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength.

Technique is the ability to execute a zillion different piano passages; therefore it is not dexterity, but an aggregate of many skills."

Fast fingers will do nothing for you except turn you into a machine gun. 

Chang is sadly mistaken.

Of course finger strength is useless beyond a certain point, but finger speed isn't.

Technique is the way you achieve your result, yes, but this result is achieved by moving the fingers, and this mechanique inhibits/facilitates the ability to do whatever the brain commands it to do.

[jlh]

Prhps

Chang is sadly mistaken.

Of course finger strength is useless beyond a certain point, but finger speed isn't.

Technique is the way you achieve your result, yes, but this result is achieved by moving the fingers, and this mechanique inhibits/facilitates the ability to do whatever the brain commands it to do.

Yes, you should train your mind and fingers to move quickly if needed.  I'm not arguing that.  In fact, I've proven on here many times that I understand the value of fast fingers...    What I'm saying is that technique is so much more than simply moving one's fingers.

I certainly hope you don't think that fingers are the only part of the anatomy that need training!  In fact the fingers should be used less than other parts because of their size. 

Of course, fast fingers (no matter how or what you do to get them) are useless unless you know how to control them, and then we're back to musicality.   

[opus10no2]

Control is a byproduct, in many ways, of speed.

Great command of speed naturally allows for control...and it's an illusion that any person on the street can move their fingers fast. They play the piano and their hands will feel like jelly, and even if they coordinate something, their individual finger speeds will hold them back.

Of course I know fingers aren't the only part, but it's largely fingers and lower arm, I just say fingers as a catch-all term for the pianistic mechanism.
Like when we are amazed by a pianist's technique, we are amazed by their technical command of their mechanique, their technique alone would be useless without the raw physical velocity to do it.

[gerry]

Of course alot of technical time should be deficated to command of dynamics,  

Opus 10: I messed up with my previous post regarding this. Was this an intentional typo? or did you mean dedicated?   Leaves a lot up to the imagination!

[opus10no2]

A typo, my fingers are admittedly not perfect quite yet .

[jlh]

Control is a byproduct, in many ways, of speed.

Great command of speed naturally allows for control...and it's an illusion that any person on the street can move their fingers fast. They play the piano and their hands will feel like jelly, and even if they coordinate something, their individual finger speeds will hold them back.

Of course I know fingers aren't the only part, but it's largely fingers and lower arm, I just say fingers as a catch-all term for the pianistic mechanism.
Like when we are amazed by a pianist's technique, we are amazed by their technical command of their mechanique, their technique alone would be useless without the raw physical velocity to do it.

Fine.  You mind's made up (probably before you even made this topic...).  Consider this though...

Technique is a mechanism used to get a musical thought across.  There is no need to make technique your aim.  The music should be your aim.  If some passage is difficult for you, then do something technical that helps you with that passage.  There is no need to do MORE technical work than is necessary to make a musically convincing performance. 

This is why Hanon doesn't work for many people -- because they use it and abuse it trying to make themselves better pianists, and they frequently injure themselves as a result.

Simply making your fingers fast will not make you play a piano well.  That's the problem with a lot of younger pianists these days... they think that if they can get their fingers to move fast, they will be a great pianist.  That is simply an illusion in and of itself.  Fast fingers is something that will help you.  It is a tool.  It should not be your goal.

[opus10no2]

Well, I'm notorious for my admiration for finger speed in and of itself, I think it's as admirable as any track athleticism.

I know it's important not to lose sight of music, but in order to achieve fast fingers, speed most become a real focus, often at the expense of working on 'musical' things in practice.

Actually, if a passage is difficult for me, of course I consider improper technique, but I try and see what the problem is.

Almost ALWAYS it's because there is a weak link in the dexterity chain, a finger that maybe can't keep up...so it gets isolated and improved by working on appropriate things.

[invictious]

I can tell MOST people say musicality, but they don't have a sense of musicality at all.

I try to achieve both to the top, but my technique sucks, and I am NOT voting because that will show me...umm...hmm...




something..

[jlh]

Just so you know, I'm not saying technique is unimportant.  On the contrary, I think proper technique is indispensible!

I just wanted to point out that it is not the end all in and of itself. 

[mikey6]

Well, of course they can, you said that they always have to.

There are many pianists with good imagination and poor technique. There are those with great technique and poor imagination.

I'd prefer hearing the latter, a technique will at least let the music be heard, and can be thrilling in a sport-like way.

ok, I can see how you can have some technical skills and no musicianship. Some technical skills coz I believe technique encompasses sound production which encompasses musicianship - therefore in order to create imaginative sounds, one must have a solid technique no?

[invictious]

Just to add on a few words:
Musicality and Technicality are generally inseparable. You can have all the technique you want, but without musicality, it's just Czerny.
If you have all the musicality in the world, you won't have technique to deliver your musicality.

[term]

technique is the basis for everything on the piano.
When i focused on technique, nothing interesting ever came out.
When i focused on musicality, i found that techniqe develops naturally to serve what i was trying to achieve musically. So, the more i advance musically, the better my technique.
I therefore draw the conclusion that focusing on technique only is a waste of time.^^

[opus10no2]

in order to create imaginative sounds, one must have a solid technique no?

Well, Jake(on this forum) believes so, but if you consider what technique is, it becomes difficult to say whether a technique is impeding an active imagination, or lack of imagination is impeding a technique from being explored.

I mean, Jake thinks Hamelin has a poor technique.
If he intends to play every note as he does, then he really has *perfect* technique!

In this case one can only question his musicality, and this is too clouded by subjective taste to discuss without bias.

[opus10no2]

Musicality and Technicality are generally inseparable. You can have all the technique you want, but without musicality, it's just Czerny.

Not quite, a pianist with a less creative musicality - which many people criticise Hamelin for - is capable of played the music literally and without much intervention of personality.
There IS value in this, just as there is value in listening to a MIDI.

Some music is more suited to this than others, but I don't understand why people complain, the music is still there.

technique is the basis for everything on the piano.
When i focused on technique, nothing interesting ever came out.
When i focused on musicality, i found that techniqe develops naturally to serve what i was trying to achieve musically. So, the more i advance musically, the better my technique.
I therefore draw the conclusion that focusing on technique only is a waste of time.^^

Well, this is an interesting observation, and holds true for dynamic command, and a creative finished interpretation, but without concentrating on the purely dexteral element of technique, even at the expense of music, you can never reach a potential mechanical peak.

If this isn't what you desire, fine, but people shouldn't expect to have it both ways.

[term]

Well, this is an interesting observation, and holds true for dynamic command, and a creative finished interpretation, but without concentrating on the purely dexteral element of technique, even at the expense of music, you can never reach a potential mechanical peak.

That is relative.
As soon as i gave whatever technical figuration a musical sense, i was able to play it much better and up to speed (with fast stuff); BUT required however a high level of concetration i could only maintain for a short time.
So if one develops the ability to not only maintain the level of conenctration necessary but also to use technique for the purpose of making music (i.e. technique is secondary to music), one can play very difficult music without ever focusing too much on technique.
With other words: Have fun at the piano and things are much easier. Thats what teachers tell their students all the time.
I mean too much, because nothing is absolute and there is enough difficult music where you have to pay some attention to the purely technical aspects in order to play it the way you want.

The more priority you give to technique, the more difficult it becomes imo. If, as i said above, you subordinate technique to music, it becomes easier because it is just a means to an end. You can either focus on the clarity of every single note in a difficult run OR you can try to bring out the music - and clarity comes automatically.

These are just observations. I'm neither a concert pianist nor have i that much experience. I don't claim to say THE truth but i believe what i say and that's how i approach the piano.

Musicality and Technicality are generally inseparable

You are right in a way. But on the other hand, we shouldn't pretend that there is no difference between them, or, in other words, that these are not two sides of the coin that *can* be seperated in order to think about their nature.

[richard black]

There are three things a pianist needs.

The first is technique
The second is technique
The third is TECHNIQUE

Hans von Bülow.

[burstroman]

TECHNIQUE IS THE MEANS TO THE END WHICH IS MUSICALITY.

[amelialw]

There are three things a pianist needs.

The first is technique
The second is technique
The third is TECHNIQUE

you say that...have you ever watched a performance that was purely technical, I have and it was horrible.

you have to add in musicality after the technical part is done.

[jlh]

There are three things a pianist needs.

The first is technique
The second is technique
The third is TECHNIQUE

Hans von Bülow.

Technique alone is (to quote Schnabel) "mere athleticism"--without any emotional or intellectual insight into the music one plays, all we are left with is a playing machine.

[m]

There are three things a pianist needs.

The first is technique
The second is technique
The third is TECHNIQUE

Hans von Bülow.

First, what was the context?
Second, it depends on what he means by "technique". If he thinks of it as a "tool for self expression" then everything is kosher.
Third, from what I read, Hans von Bülow never was an inspiring or inspired pianist.

[richard black]

First, what was the context? [for Bülow's quote]

No idea, I saw it quoted at the beginning of some book I once flicked through, about 25 years ago, on playing the piano. I thought it might make an amusing wind-up here!

 

[opus10no2]

Technique alone is (to quote Schnabel) "mere athleticism"--without any emotional or intellectual insight into the music one plays, all we are left with is a playing machine.

Of course I'd question his use of the word 'mere' here.

Is it only in artistic circles that pursuit of pure athleticism is actually looked down upon? 

Anyway, emotional and intellectual insight should be secondary to musical insight.

And the point of this thread is to think about how much time we spend in the pursuit of either.

I'd even say, if you consider musicality much more important than technique, many would still agree that technique is still something which more time should actually be spent aquiring.


It can go either way, like said above, you can improve your technique, and by doing so - find new musical ideas incidentally along the way.
You can search for musical ideas, and along the way incidentally improve your technique.

Either way is, of course, great, but the big reservation I have is that there will be an inherent limit to the achievment of the best mechanism your body can possibly achieve.

I still maintain, it's impossible to be one of the fastest pianists without at one time having a real obsession with speed for it's own sake.

[cmg]

Of course I'd question his use of the word 'mere' here.

Is it only in artistic circles that pursuit of pure athleticism is actually looked down upon? 

I think we can all agree now that posts like this should just be simply ignored.  These sophomoric rants, disguised as reasoned argument, are planned only to provoke people -- not to thought, but to angry responses. 

It's all rather anti-social and designed primarily to gain this poster some attention.  He's famous for such utterances, couched in decent enough English, that people mistake them for thoughtful, helpful comments.  They're not.  He stirs the pot with absurdities, sits back and waits for the irritated responses.

I suggest we just ignore him.  He's an embarrassment.   Maybe he'll get away from the internet long enough to get an education.   

[opus10no2]

I aim to educate and enlighten.

Can you actually reply with a counter-argument or are you just going to sit there and insult someone on a higher plane than you simply because you cannot comprehend my views?

[mike_lang]

Can you actually reply with a counter-argument or are you just going to sit there and insult someone on a higher plane than you simply because you cannot comprehend my views?

How old are you, kid?

[opus10no2]

Don't be so surprised that someone so young can be so wise.

[term]

Don't be so surprised that someone so young can be so wise.

If you think you're wise, you've already left the path of wisdom.

[opus10no2]

Not quite, to apply any knowledge with conviction and authority, one has to have confidence(or arrogance) in it.

Noone knows everything, but it's fair to say that people in the upper percentiles of the population are 'wise'.

[richard black]

Noone knows everything, but it's fair to say that people in the upper percentiles of the population are 'wise'.

Mate, I'm not too sure how seriously you expect to be taken, and personally I read your stuff with a smile, but I'm not sure comments so likely to piss off your colleagues are wise.

[elevateme_returns]

i think technique and musicality go together but they can be separated. for example good technique but no musicality, look at asian pianists.

[jlh]

i think technique and musicality go together but they can be separated. for example good technique but no musicality, look at asian pianists.

How very racist of you, congrats!