The French "versus" the American technique

[hermesdream]

Hi to everybody !

I'm am at the present time thinking about how to improve my technique and thereby the musical quality of my playing. I don't think indeed that it is appropriate to always distinguish musicality and technique...the latter serves the interest of the first, doesn't it?

Being French and having learned how to play the piano in France, my teachers learned me the so-called "French school technique" (the fact that there are "national" schools of piano playing such as the Russian or the American ones, is obviously arguable, however it is not 100-percent wrong), which involves a very digital playing (i.e. the predominant role of the fingers, a dynamism of the knuckles as Marguerite Long and Alfred Cortot advocated it). Having changed from an "old-school" French teacher to a younger one who has studied in Canada, I'm questioning this technique as I'm aware that the quality of the sound is not that good and that this technique limits the possible musical intentions . Moreover, the "mecanic" aspect of this technique often causes pain.

The Russian and the American technique, on the contrary, are more based on movements involving  the wrist, the elbow, the whole arm and even the back. This allows the playing to be more powerful in sound, and having seen many Russian pianists in performance, I think that their technique (which is often, and amazingly enough, quite similar, even if a Volodos is not a Kudoiarof) allows them to have a better musicality, a better understanding of piano.

Do you agree with this ? Do you think that I really should radically change my technique?

[faulty_damper]

You are actually talking about stereotypes of so and so school of technique.  If you look at it historically, the French have had the worst piano training.  If you look at the Russians, they've also had the worst training, etc.

What you describe has no merit but is perpetuated by the examples of a couple.  There is no such thing as a French school of technique nor a Russion school.  These things are perpetuated by ignoramuses and no scholarly investigation went into what actually made these things uniquely French or uniquely Russion.  In fact, they are quite similar.

If what you say are true, then the best pianist/musicians would be French and Russian.  But that's not currently the case nor has it ever been the case.  You will not be able to find such a connection unless you look at only the well-known examples who just happen to be born in so and so a country, who's teachers were born from so and so...

If you want to improve your technique, you must first understand the capabilities and limitations of your body.  Be warned: technique has historically attempted to "correct" limitations instead of understanding the capabilities (the so-called French and Russian schools fit this philosophy).  Understanding them (pragmatically, not intellectually) allows someone to master their bodies and as a result master the piano.

[m]

You are actually talking about stereotypes of so and so school of technique.  If you look at it historically, the French have had the worst piano training.  If you look at the Russians, they've also had the worst training, etc.

What you describe has no merit but is perpetuated by the examples of a couple.  There is no such thing as a French school of technique nor a Russion school.  These things are perpetuated by ignoramuses and no scholarly investigation went into what actually made these things uniquely French or uniquely Russion.  In fact, they are quite similar.

If what you say are true, then the best pianist/musicians would be French and Russian.  But that's not currently the case nor has it ever been the case.  You will not be able to find such a connection unless you look at only the well-known examples who just happen to be born in so and so a country, who's teachers were born from so and so...

If you want to improve your technique, you must first understand the capabilities and limitations of your body.  Be warned: technique has historically attempted to "correct" limitations instead of understanding the capabilities (the so-called French and Russian schools fit this philosophy).  Understanding them (pragmatically, not intellectually) allows someone to master their bodies and as a result master the piano.

I don't have much time to type right now. All I can say, I strongly disagree with every single statement in this message.

Best, M

[iumonito]

You are actually talking about stereotypes of so and so school of technique.  If you look at it historically, the French have had the worst piano training.  If you look at the Russians, they've also had the worst training, etc.

What you describe has no merit but is perpetuated by the examples of a couple.  There is no such thing as a French school of technique nor a Russion school.  These things are perpetuated by ignoramuses and no scholarly investigation went into what actually made these things uniquely French or uniquely Russion.  In fact, they are quite similar.

If what you say are true, then the best pianist/musicians would be French and Russian.  But that's not currently the case nor has it ever been the case.  You will not be able to find such a connection unless you look at only the well-known examples who just happen to be born in so and so a country, who's teachers were born from so and so...

If you want to improve your technique, you must first understand the capabilities and limitations of your body.  Be warned: technique has historically attempted to "correct" limitations instead of understanding the capabilities (the so-called French and Russian schools fit this philosophy).  Understanding them (pragmatically, not intellectually) allows someone to master their bodies and as a result master the piano.

Smells like troll.  "best pianist/musicians would be French and Russian" 

Well, just Russian (please count the Ukranians here too): Richter, Gilels, Horowitz, Lehvine, Ashkenhazy, Oborin, Rachmaninov, Neuhaus, Kern, Gavrilov, Demidenko, Vlassenko, agh - forget about it, there is way too many.  No other school can boast such pleyade of pianistic giants.

Marik, you went to Gnessin and Tchaikovsky?  Please correct me, but isn't the medium standard there actually just as high as the elite level at places like Curtis and Julliard?  Curtis and Julliard, by the way, extensions of the Russian school of playing; did any one say Vengerova and Rosina Lehvine?

[m]

Marik, you went to Gnessin and Tchaikovsky?  Please correct me, but isn't the medium standard there actually just as high as the elite level at places like Curtis and Julliard?  Curtis and Julliard, by the way, extensions of the Russian school of playing; did any one say Vengerova and Rosina Lehvine?

Tchaikowsky.

Curtis is undegrads only, but definitely the standards in Moscow Concervatory were much higher than Julliard, both, teaching and students... at least then. Now I hear that level has somewhat dropped.

Just think of the teachers of that time: Bashkirov, Naumov, Vlassenko, Gornostayeava, Nasedkin, Pletnev.
It is when the memory was still fresh about such patriarchs as Gilels, Neuhaus, Goldenveiser, Igumnov, Flier, Zak, Feinberg.

Only my generation of students has included A. Sultanov, A. Mordasov, S. Babayan, B. Berezovsky, N. Lugansky, V. Rudenko among hundreds of other quite phenomenal pianists.

[mattgreenecomposer]

"no other school can boast such pleyade of pianistic giants."
And composers too! Dont forget Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Stravinsky.  There is no comparison> Not even the "Germanic" region comes close. 

I think in the 21st century some of what faulty-damper said has merit as far as no French school or Russian school is concerned but a 100 years ago or more this is definately no true.  The globalization, easy travel, DVD's, CDs and even the internet have caused people to gain influence from all over so now just about everybody "sounds" the same, regardless of what country they are from.  This could also be partly due to actual piano companies shipping work over seas and having someone in China, build the "American" piano for example.
I will say though  Korea and Japan definately still have a unique system in their training that is different form say-Russia.  A much flatter hand  and fluidity.  Im not sure about the European countries so much.

[debussy symbolism]

Hi to everybody !

I'm am at the present time thinking about how to improve my technique and thereby the musical quality of my playing. I don't think indeed that it is appropriate to always distinguish musicality and technique...the latter serves the interest of the first, doesn't it?

Being French and having learned how to play the piano in France, my teachers learned me the so-called "French school technique" (the fact that there are "national" schools of piano playing such as the Russian or the American ones, is obviously arguable, however it is not 100-percent wrong), which involves a very digital playing (i.e. the predominant role of the fingers, a dynamism of the knuckles as Marguerite Long and Alfred Cortot advocated it). Having changed from an "old-school" French teacher to a younger one who has studied in Canada, I'm questioning this technique as I'm aware that the quality of the sound is not that good and that this technique limits the possible musical intentions . Moreover, the "mecanic" aspect of this technique often causes pain.

The Russian and the American technique, on the contrary, are more based on movements involving  the wrist, the elbow, the whole arm and even the back. This allows the playing to be more powerful in sound, and having seen many Russian pianists in performance, I think that their technique (which is often, and amazingly enough, quite similar, even if a Volodos is not a Kudoiarof) allows them to have a better musicality, a better understanding of piano.

Do you agree with this ? Do you think that I really should radically change my technique?

Greetings

First of all, classifying piano methods according to the country they may have came from is very incorrect. For example, the Russian school and the French school are very similar to each other, with slight variations according to teachers respectively. I should know this as I use the so called "French" method, which is also intrinsically the "Russian" method, as my teacher comes from that country.

What nonesense, the method I am using focuses on wrists just as much as it does on developing finger independance. I try to develop both facilities with ardor.

Would you say that all French pianists lacked in musicality in their playing? Quite the contrary in my opinion.

Again, the method I am using advocates those "elbow, back, wrist, etc" factors, so further classification of methods into schools is rather weak. If you want to improve a certain aspect of your piano playing then focus on that aspect. There is no need to go hunting for a school method that will solve all your problems.

[m]

Greetings

First of all, classifying piano methods according to the country they may have came from is very incorrect. For example, the Russian school and the French school are very similar to each other, with slight variations according to teachers respectively. I should know this as I use the so called "French" method, which is also intrinsically the "Russian" method, as my teacher comes from that country.

What nonesense, the method I am using focuses on wrists just as much as it does on developing finger independance. I try to develop both facilities with ardor.

Would you say that all French pianists lacked in musicality in their playing? Quite the contrary in my opinion.

Again, the method I am using advocates those "elbow, back, wrist, etc" factors, so further classification of methods into schools is rather weak. If you want to improve a certain aspect of your piano playing then focus on that aspect. There is no need to go hunting for a school method that will solve all your problems.

Too bad, you are talking about methods--they are for beginners... nonsenses like Alfred or Bastien. Either Russian or French schools have nothing to do with that.

The differences beetween those schools are much more on musical and conceptual approach, and have nothing to do with that "wrist approach" or "finger independance" aspects, you are so concerned with.

[debussy symbolism]

Too bad, you are talking about methods--they are for beginners... nonsenses like Alfred or Bastien. Either Russian or French schools have nothing to do with that.

The differences beetween those schools are much more on musical and conceptual approach, and have nothing to do with that "wrist approach" or "finger independance" aspects, you are so concerned with.

I am talking about the technique aspects of the "methods," and am stating that they are alike. I wasn't in particular referring to the musical approaches of the particular methods. I do not use Alfred of Bastien; I use Long. If they are similar then so be it. It is of no special concern. The concern is technique. Musically speaking, I am aware that the two methods may differ, but I wasn't discussing that here.

[m]

I am talking about the technique aspects of the "methods," and am stating that they are alike. I wasn't in particular referring to the musical approaches of the particular methods. I do not use Alfred of Bastien; I use Long. If they are similar then so be it. It is of no special concern. The concern is technique. Musically speaking, I am aware that the two methods may differ, but I wasn't discussing that here.

With all due respect, I don't quite see how "technique aspects" could be separated from musical ones, as in both schools technique first and foremost used as means of musical expression.

On the other hand, even if we talked purely about "wrist motion" or "finger independance" (which BTW in my opinion do not define approach to technique in any way) there still would be enough difference to separate those two as two different schools.

[faulty_damper]

For those who continue to perpetuate this "school of" myth, I ask to show us a syllabus of these schools.  If you can show us any such syllabus from these different "schools", then we can do some comparisons.  Until then, any such claim that there is a "Russian school" or "French school" or even an "American school" is just pretentious party talk.

For those who bring up names from the "Russian school", did these pianists go through the "Russian school" of music/piano training?  Or are these names brought up because they are Russian and so they must belong to the mythical "Russian school".   

I guess I belong to the famous "American school" because I learned how to play the piano in the United States OR because I am a US citizen OR because I was born in the United States...

[m]

For those who continue to perpetuate this "school of" myth, I ask to show us a syllabus of these schools.  If you can show us any such syllabus from these different "schools", then we can do some comparisons.  Until then, any such claim that there is a "Russian school" or "French school" or even an "American school" is just pretentious party talk.

Well, if you insist, then for those who continue to perpetuate those schools as a "myth", I ask to show us a syllabus of these schools. If you can show us any such syllabus from those "schools" proving their similarity, then the case will be closed, with me going home with tail between my legs.

For your information, I was teaching history of pianism in college since I was 16 (while still an undegraduate student). At that time my concentration was difference between piano schools. Even in Russia itself there were at least 3 different schools, where each one had their very distinct esthetics and ideas, which no doubt, not only affected but dictated means of technical approach.

Needless to say, ever since I had a chance to experience all those schools first hand, including French and American.
 
You will need to give me hard numbers to convince that "school of" is a myth.

Best, M.

[thalberg]

Hi to everybody !

I'm am at the present time thinking about how to improve my technique and thereby the musical quality of my playing. I don't think indeed that it is appropriate to always distinguish musicality and technique...the latter serves the interest of the first, doesn't it?

Being French and having learned how to play the piano in France, my teachers learned me the so-called "French school technique" (the fact that there are "national" schools of piano playing such as the Russian or the American ones, is obviously arguable, however it is not 100-percent wrong), which involves a very digital playing (i.e. the predominant role of the fingers, a dynamism of the knuckles as Marguerite Long and Alfred Cortot advocated it). Having changed from an "old-school" French teacher to a younger one who has studied in Canada, I'm questioning this technique as I'm aware that the quality of the sound is not that good and that this technique limits the possible musical intentions . Moreover, the "mecanic" aspect of this technique often causes pain.

The Russian and the American technique, on the contrary, are more based on movements involving  the wrist, the elbow, the whole arm and even the back. This allows the playing to be more powerful in sound, and having seen many Russian pianists in performance, I think that their technique (which is often, and amazingly enough, quite similar, even if a Volodos is not a Kudoiarof) allows them to have a better musicality, a better understanding of piano.

Do you agree with this ? Do you think that I really should radically change my technique?

My experience was similar to yours.  My early training was heavily focused on fingers, and I knew nothing about arms, elbows, or back.  I was very good at playing only with my fingers.  When I arrived at graduate school, I got a teacher who tried to get me to move my arm and it threw me off so badly that I changed teachers.  Later in grad school, I found a teacher who was much better at teaching arm movement.  When I finally was able to understand how the arm, elbow, back, shoulders etc. worked, it made a tremendous improvement in my playing. 

So my answer would be yes--learn these new things.  They will only add to your technique.

(One key discovery for me was that arm movement is heavily linked to finger movement.  Each arm movement pairs with either the pulling finger or the pushing finger.  When you match them up, you get both clarity and fluidity.)