Response to Technique...

[mattgreenecomposer]

I thought I'd elaborate on the technique question in the previous posting...

I think "technique" is different for everyone and its sort of a "whatever works" for the individual.  I've watched dozens of videos of the legendary pianists and had this question?  Has anyone noticed that the best pianists of the 20th century had what appears to be just atrocious technique.   The top 3 I can think of Horowitz, Richter and Gould......

Gould-What teacher in his right mind would teach there student to play hunched over and seated low like that, but somehow he manages impeccabel control and accuracy.
Horowitz- plays with his long fingers with extremely little shoulder and arm movement and sits somewhat low like Gould. (probably my favorite pianist ever) but plays Chopin and Rach perfectly
Richter-brute force, looks like an autistic child who can't sit still, yet has more speed and control than just about anybody.
Any body know what Im talking about?
I wanted to list M Aragarich in here too, but her technique is visually superb, so I won't include her.

[burstroman]

I give a qualified amen to what you say: the end (the great music) justifies the means.

[counterpoint]

Has anyone noticed that the best pianists of the 20th century had what appears to be just atrocious technique.   The top 3 I can think of Horowitz, Richter and Gould......

"Atrocious" compared to what...? 

Compared to the "technique" as it is taught by the average piano teacher? 

You see: there seems to be a "technique" to make you a piano teacher, and there's a "technique" to make you a real pianist 

Okay, I'm a piano teacher, but I think, what the average piano teachers teach is wrong 

[jlh]

"Atrocious" compared to what...? 

Compared to the "technique" as it is taught by the average piano teacher? 

You see: there seems to be a "technique" to make you a piano teacher, and there's a "technique" to make you a real pianist 

Okay, I'm a piano teacher, but I think, what the average piano teachers teach is wrong 

Well, perhaps, but I'm more inclined to believe that many piano teachers tend to teach technique as a "cookie cutter" type of standard.  People's bodies are different, and therefore what works great for one person might be so unnatural to another that it actually hinders their development. 

[rc]

I've always thought it was my job as a student to deal with the 'how' of playing and the teacher was more a guide of the 'what and why'.  Of course there've been times where my teacher has had to let me know I'm going about doing things in a bad way

[ramseytheii]

Although technique is personal, it is for the most part personal at the most subtle level.  A personal technique should not mean a general waste of energy, copious amounts of tension, stiffness in joints, or exaggerated, manneristic motions (I'm not implying Lang Lang because he does his all with economy). 

When we see students do these things, especially those that exaggerate motions or are mannered, it is our duties as teachers to stop them and to show them how to use the body in the most efficient, unobtrusive way.  And you will find that for most people, that is basically the same, at least from the outside.

We see Gould, Horowitz, and we think, ah, their technique was so personal, and then we imitate it to disaster, because it is only imitated from the outside, not from the inside.  The things that drove them to the weird technique always came from the inside.  And anyways, they both played with extreme economy.

Walter Ramsey
.

[opus10no2]

Agreed that different bodies require a slightly different technique, but the laws of mechanique are the same for everyone.

ie. Speed of apparatus is paramount, and the attainment of it can only be peaked by striving for it.

[mike_lang]

We see Gould, Horowitz, and we think, ah, their technique was so personal, and then we imitate it to disaster, because it is only imitated from the outside, not from the inside.  The things that drove them to the weird technique always came from the inside.  And anyways, they both played with extreme economy.

Walter Ramsey

How true.  For anyone who would like to look into this further, I would recommend Alan Fraser's book "The Craft of Piano Playing."

ML

[jlh]

Agreed that different bodies require a slightly different technique, but the laws of mechanique are the same for everyone.

ie. Speed of apparatus is paramount, and the attainment of it can only be peaked by striving for it.

Is speed the only thing that matters to you??

[mike_lang]

Is speed the only thing that matters to you??

Speed and wisdom so esoteric that he alone comprehends it.

[ramseytheii]

Is speed the only thing that matters to you??

Is that a surprise anymore?  Opus12 long ago revealed himself to be such a one-trick pony.

Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

Speed and wisdom so esoteric that he alone comprehends it.

Precisely.

Is speed the only thing that matters to you??

No, but it is of more important than many people give it credit for.

Average people on the street, they see a performance and look on in wonderment at the apparent speed of their fingers.

With experience we think we know more, when in many ways our thoughts become clouded by comparitevely inconsequential issues.

[jlh]

Precisely.

No, but it is of more important than many people give it credit for.

Average people on the street, they see a performance and look on in wonderment at the apparent speed of their fingers.

With experience we think we know more, when in many ways our thoughts become clouded by comparitevely inconsequential issues.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've just revealed yourself.  How much 'experience' do you have?  I have yet to hear you really play in the audition room.  Would you be willing to post something that shows how your attainment of speed has helped you become a superior pianist?

If not, then based on your statement here, I must conclude you are the type of person you mention here that "see a performance and look on in wonderment at the apparent speed of their fingers."

Make me laugh harder, please.

[opus10no2]

I haven't revealed anything but the supreme extend of my wisdom.

Like Bernhard, I have gained respect, admiration, and even love, from fellow members of the forum...without even having to prove anything with a recording.

The warmth of my personality and the wealth of my knowledge should come through in my eloquent words.

[mike_lang]

Like Bernhard, I have gained respect, admiration, and even love, from fellow members

Indeed, as you have been so kind as to grant Josh's wish.

[opus10no2]

'Let ye all know, the truth will be met with laughter, profound thought, and rejection' - Columbo

[jlh]

[opus10no2]

I recomment the 'profound thought' option now

I'm radical, and you can't handle that.

[mike_lang]

No, you are out of touch with reality, and we cannot handle it.

[jlh]

I recomment the 'profound thought' option now

I'm radical, and you can't handle that.

No, in fact I think the SPAM option is more fitting for your ideas.

I meet profound thought with profound thought, and have yet to hear that from you.

[opus10no2]

Whatever our disagreeances are, you show a blatant lack of respect for my school of thought, and I find this profoundly disturbing.

[jlh]

Whatever our disagreeances are, you show a blatant lack of respect for my school of thought, and I find this profoundly disturbing.

I almost didn't honor this with a reply, but I think you should know why everyone's making fun of you.

"With experience we think we know more, when in many ways our thoughts become clouded by comparitevely inconsequential issues."

Those "inconsequential issues" are everything except speed in your view, and those "inconsequential issues" are much more important to creating music than any amount of speed can do.  Yes, you may be able to woo a few non-musicians with your mechanical way of playing as many notes as possible (well, this has yet to be proven, as I have my doubts that you can even play at all), but anyone who has a profound connection with music will be appalled by your blatent lack of respect for the artform of music.

You, my friend, have insulted music, and this I find profoundly disturbing. Good day.

[m]

I almost didn't honor this with a reply, but I think you should know why everyone's making fun of you.

"With experience we think we know more, when in many ways our thoughts become clouded by comparitevely inconsequential issues."

Those "inconsequential issues" are everything except speed in your view, and those "inconsequential issues" are much more important to creating music than any amount of speed can do.  Yes, you may be able to woo a few non-musicians with your mechanical way of playing as many notes as possible (well, this has yet to be proven, as I have my doubts that you can even play at all), but anyone who has a profound connection with music will be appalled by your lack of respect for the artform of music.

You, my friend, have insulted music, and this I find profoundly disturbing. Good day.

Hey Josh,

Why would you bother? Just read my signature, follow advice, and save your precious time.
The person just wants to get attention, whatever it takes. Leave alone this clown and he will shut up.

Best, M

[opus10no2]

'Josh', you apparently partially misunderstood my intent.

I do think that as people become 'musicians' they become pretentious, like you and marik, and try to deny any appreciation of the purely physical achievements pianists display.

Have I once inferred that I do not love music deeply?

I have never intended to do so, I have only intended to shed light on the immaturity of many people's attitudes, most notably 'franzliszt2' and 'elevateme'.
Once fascinated by velocity, but no longer, pretentiously living in their clouded 'musical' world.

Back to the overall importance of speed -

Control of speed is the single most important command a pianist can posess.

Speed of touch, and speed of successions of notes.

The ability to do something, and do it fast, frees the mind to creatively interpret music.

Having the utmost speed available at your fingertips allows for no physical limitations to get in your way.
I can assure you, the deeper you look, the more 'speed' matters.

[counterpoint]

The ability to do something, and do it fast, frees the mind to creatively interpret music.

Having the utmost speed available at your fingertips allows for no physical limitations to get in your way.
I can assure you, the deeper you look, the more 'speed' matters.

You're so crazy... unbelievable 

[ted]

If opus10no2 had said that all good music is played fast or that all music which is played fast is good, then I would take issue with that. But I venture to suggest that he has been misunderstood once again. As far as I can tell, the point is that the faster our neural pathways are trained to work, the more freedom we shall have in our overall musical capability. Rather like computers. A computer with a faster processor will run an algorithm better than a slower computer regardless of the cleverness, beauty or efficiency of the algorithm itself.

In this particular sense and in this sense alone, yes, I do think speed matters.

[jlh]

If opus10no2 had said that all good music is played fast or that all music which is played fast is good, then I would take issue with that. But I venture to suggest that he has been misunderstood once again. As far as I can tell, the point is that the faster our neural pathways are trained to work, the more freedom we shall have in our overall musical capability. Rather like computers. A computer with a faster processor will run an algorithm better than a slower computer regardless of the cleverness, beauty or efficiency of the algorithm itself.

In this particular sense and in this sense alone, yes, I do think speed matters.

Of course speed matters -- or rather the control of velocity and intent.  It is not, however, more important than the "inconsequential issues" of which those with more experience cloud their minds with, namely everything except speed. 

[opus10no2]

The control of velocity is important, but you can only control within the velocity limit restricted by your own body and mind.

I am not saying physical speed is more important than music. I am however saying that a pianist who pursues speed more than 'interpretive quests' and 'good tone' will in the end be able to play music better.

I say this, because once speed and command of it is aquired, the other issues are primarily to do with ear and instinct, and don't take as much time.

[jlh]

I say this, because once speed and command of it is aquired, the other issues are primarily to do with ear and instinct, and don't take as much time.

How do you know this?  Again I ask you to post one of your recordings...

[opus10no2]

I don't have a recent one.

I don't know if it's because I have such an innate gift for music or not, but I find creativity and interpretation an enjoyable and fluid process.

My posts aren't 'attention seeking', they're serious, and I only wish for some actual discussion and not a relaying of insults.

[jlh]

I don't have a recent one.

English translation:  I can't play...

[opus10no2]

Need me to whip it out for you? you can already see the bulge.

My words speak for themselves, respond intelligently or not at all.

[mikey6]

Once you're capable of producing the sound you want, you can sit however you want, as long as it doesn't compromise the resulting sound.
Apparently this is why Radu Lupu uses a high back chair coz he's incapable of producing his colours on a normal stool - if it works for him (and it does), hey....

[ramseytheii]

Once you're capable of producing the sound you want, you can sit however you want, as long as it does compromise the resulting sound.
Apparently this is why Radu Lupu uses a high back chair coz he's incapable of producing his colours on a normal stool - if it works for him (and it does), hey....

That's interesting.  Radu Lupu, by the way is not known for playing virtuosic, fast repertoire, and yet he can produce a huge array of colors that so many fast-fingered pianists cannot.  I would go so far as to say he is not able to play the main body of fleet-fingered virtuosic repertoire.  But if that is the case, then opus12's argument that only speed can facilitate artistic playing is clearly false.

Anyways, I think opus12 likes to think above all else that he is controversial, when the most of his posted questions just lack substance, or set up straw men.  The only thing that makes opus12 controversial is the hysterical reply.  But, as a connosieur of hysteria, I can only say, "Bring it on!"

Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

Speed facilitates *fast* artistic playing, and even in slow playing it plays a role.

The faster the mechanism, the truer the staccato.

[jlh]

Anyways, I think opus12 likes to think above all else that he is controversial, when the most of his posted questions just lack substance, or set up straw men.  The only thing that makes opus12 controversial is the hysterical reply.  But, as a connosieur of hysteria, I can only say, "Bring it on!"

I would heartily agree... In the spirit of hysteria, I would love for him to post something he's performed.  In the spirit of argument, I would accept more of what he had to say if his recording were musical, and I would bow down to him if he played something that were both fast and musical, and showed maturity of style.

The ball is in his court, but somehow I don't see it coming back over to my side very soon.

[m]

I do think that as people become 'musicians' they become pretentious, like you and marik, and try to deny any appreciation of the purely physical achievements pianists display.

Not true. People could call me whatever, but only not pretentious. In fact, you are the first person EVER calling me so.

Back to the topic, I regard technique highly. As a professional I know the value of it, know how much hard work stands behind it, and tremendiously respect it. I equally greatly enjoy whether beautifully played Chopin Notturne, or well performed 6th Rhapsody, or super fast op.10/2, played absolutely evenly on pianissimo, with perfect execution of middle voices, or just nice and even C major scale.

Unlike you, I don't buy some amateurish things like "to play unevenly is OK". I got my education in Moscow Conservatory, where EVERYBODY could play very fast, but where if you'd possibly dare to say something like "if you miss notes for sake of speed, it is OK" to your professor, your music would fly out the window while you would fly out the class after such kick in your butt, that you surely be fast enough to catch the music down in the street and never find your way back, again.

For me music is a system, where every little detail is in very tight relationship with others and cannot POSSIBLY exist one without another. Take one little part out of it and the whole system will collapse.
No doubt, ability to play fast is a part of this system, but it does not exist by itself, which would be an absurd, especially when applied to teaching or WAY of PRACTICING.
It is the same as to take for example a basketball player and start training him to only move his legs fast--sure it doesn't matter, he knows what his task is and what and where the basket is, so as long as the legs move fast he's gonna be good  .

My posts.... are serious, and I only wish for some actual discussion...

Well Opus, it seems you are questioning people's intelligence. Not a very wise thing to do.
Let's see:

It is you, who never listens to anybody.
It is you, who ridicules people who say some quite intelligent things with remarks like "I listen, then laugh".
It is you, who spams the board and turns almost every thread about technique into flame wars.
It is you, to whom it is IMPOSSIBLE to talk whether seriously, or otherwise.
It is you, who behaves here like an out of hands 5th grader.
It is you, who never able keep one idea even in one reply, jumping all over the place, and answering with completly random and unrelated things.
I am not even talking about those "Who has the best..." "threads" you create  .

After all that you want to tell me how wise and intelligent you are? Sorry, I have my very serious doubts.

You want to discuss, then learn some social skills and discuss things talking the same language.
So far, everything points out to your burning desire for attention.
 
And seriously, do you really beleive somebody gives a ... about your talks how good, enlightened and intelligent you are?

Have a good day.

[opus10no2]

I understand you perfectly Ok.

It comes back to the basic idea that you don't appreciate speed on it's own.

OF COURSE it is only part of the picture when it comes to music, but I appreciate it as a discipline in and of itself.

You don't.

That's fine, but on to the basketball player analogy -

The player, if they just play games all their life, will never gain the same ability as they would if they isolated a way to optimise leg speed and endurance.

It will generally improve their game a great deal, and it will be admirable as a pursuit in itself.

You evidently didn't read what I had to say about unevenness.

I referred to the fact that, in close-to-call situations, it would be impossible without computer assistance to define who is the more even.

Unevenness isn't as apparent at extreme velocity anyway, and so accuracy and raw speed become the primary factors in this discipline.

You sound like a basketball player who has zero appreciation and understanding of why track racing events are so popular!

My 2 basic beliefs are -

Pianistic speed and physical skill can be appreciated and admired independantly from music

Speed of the mechanism and brain plays a greater part in overall skill than most people realise.

That's it.

[pita bread]

I just learn everything at 1/4 tempo, as relaxed as possible, then kick it up to 1/2 tempo, full tempo, then above tempo. It just somehow works.

[mephisto]

Arcadi Volodos, a pianist who may just have the most natural way at playing the piano I have ever seen or heard, claims that he has never seperated technique from music; that his technique is fully based on the ear.

Here is what a former member has written about Volodos' teacher:



Posts: 719

         Re: Request for Fernandito: tell us about Volodos's teacher! (please)
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2004, 11:13:36 AM »   

Sorry. I only post now because... well. VACATION AT LAST!!!

What can I pass on, I think its nothing that no one already knows.

Practice as much as you can.
Never practice with a cold heart and a hot head. Think and feel. Volodos and Lupu started very late. Especially Volodos. Galina was also a child prodigy, although she chose to teach. For her, there are absolutely no technical problems. Al technique is in your head. Like Volodos said. You need a lot of imagination. The way she says it is: There are no hard things on the piano. (Technically at least). Any hard passage can be broken down int doing a lot of easy things at once or really fast one after another. In other words, you have to train your mind to think as fast as possible and your ears to hear as fast and as cantabile as possible. Not your fingers to play as fast as possible. That way, your technique will not only be complete, but it will not be empty. Its easy to play a chromatic scale very fast. Its very hard to hear every single note in that scale, regulate the quality with which you play it and correctly intonate the conection between every note. So always ALWAYS break up everything into the smallest possible units that your mind can handle. Thats basically all she tells you about technique. Hear everything you do, and play in the most natural way possible. And always have a lot of enthusiasm for what you play.

What she tells you cant really be resumed into one thing. The only thing I can say is that she always makes you love playing, even if she is so strict.

[faulty_damper]

I thought I'd elaborate on the technique question in the previous posting...

I think "technique" is different for everyone and its sort of a "whatever works" for the individual.  I've watched dozens of videos of the legendary pianists and had this question?  Has anyone noticed that the best pianists of the 20th century had what appears to be just atrocious technique.   The top 3 I can think of Horowitz, Richter and Gould......

Gould-What teacher in his right mind would teach there student to play hunched over and seated low like that, but somehow he manages impeccabel control and accuracy.
Horowitz- plays with his long fingers with extremely little shoulder and arm movement and sits somewhat low like Gould. (probably my favorite pianist ever) but plays Chopin and Rach perfectly
Richter-brute force, looks like an autistic child who can't sit still, yet has more speed and control than just about anybody.
Any body know what Im talking about?
I wanted to list M Aragarich in here too, but her technique is visually superb, so I won't include her.

Gould had a very unique manner of making sound from the piano.  When pianists listen his recordings they attribute his ability to the unique manner in which he sat at the keyboard.

Horowitz had a unique manner of making sound from his piano.  When pianists listen to his recordings they attribute his ability to the unique manner in which he held his hands.

Richter had a unique manner of making sound from the piano.  When pianists listen to his recoridngs they attribute his ability to his unique manner in which he undulated his body.

Yet these three pianist and musicians had technical shortcomings which they could not overcome.

Gould was clearly incapable of maintaining his concert career and could only play a limited amount of repertoire.  He alternative was to spend his time in recording studios to perfect his recordings (or rather, compesate for his shortcomings by doing hundreds of takes and overdubbing passages in which he could not perform them with only two hands [e.g. Beethoven's symphonies - he could not play octaves].)

Horowitz was clearly incapable of playing without the obvious mistakes.  He sat too low at the keyboard and played "flat-fingered" and clearly this resulted in slapping adjacent keys and thus making mistakes.  This occured both live and in the recording studio.  He also had his piano doctored to have the lightest touch possible which eased his physical exertion.

Richter was capable of demonstrating his skills as a musician.  But his undulations could clearly be done without.

And of Argerich:  She once said that being a pianist was torture, a sacrifice, playing until her fingers bled.  She did not/does not have the impeccable technique her calm physique may indicate.  Quite the opposite.  Her control was gained by practicing to the point where it sounded pleasing and yet in her recordings of even "non-virtuosic" music, there are many signs of percussion from her fingers and does not achieve a legato where required.

There is a joke which is unfortunately apt:
There are musicians and then there are pianists and conductors.

Unfortunately, for even the most famous of pianists, there are musicians trapped in pianists' bodies.

[pita bread]

Whatever our disagreeances are, you show a blatant lack of respect for my school of thought, and I find this profoundly disturbing.

I don't respect idiots.

[opus10no2]

I don't respect idiots.

At least have some self-respect 

[pita bread]

At least have some self-respect 

You then, must have the most self-respect of all.

[m]

It comes back to the basic idea that you don't appreciate speed on it's own.

OF COURSE it is only part of the picture when it comes to music, but I appreciate it as a discipline in and of itself.

You don't.

I appreciate it, but only as a part of the whole. It is exactly like for example, when I watch Michael Jordan I appreciate the speed of his legs only as a part of entire picture.

That's fine, but on to the basketball player analogy -

The player, if they just play games all their life, will never gain the same ability as they would if they isolated a way to optimise leg speed and endurance.

It will generally improve their game a great deal, and it will be admirable as a pursuit in itself.

Evidently, you did not understand my analogy. Try to read again.

The leg speed and endurance is not applicable to piano playing. I'd suggest you find some of my posts here about music image and its correlation with technique, as well as excellent DannyElfboy posts on endurance. Then we can resume.

You evidently didn't read what I had to say about unevenness.

I referred to the fact that, in close-to-call situations, it would be impossible without computer assistance to define who is the more even.

Unevenness isn't as apparent at extreme velocity anyway, and so accuracy and raw speed become the primary factors in this discipline.

This is a typical amateurish approach.