The flaw of underestimating dynamic and interpretation

[danny elfboy]

I have already list what I consider the major flaw of the classical piano training approach.
The major one is little focus on aural sensations and understanding and learning to read before learning to play by sound, by ear and sound recognition. Perfection over consistency of rhythm, discipline over creativity and stiffness of the body coupled with emotional repression.

I have one more which I think it's worth mentioning.
In my experience most classical piano teachers with an orthodox approach expect the student to play a piece naked (without dynamics and interpretation and rubato and style) before adding all the interpretative details later.

I know recognize this approach is hugely flawed.
Today I helped a young student whose teacher got extremely frustrated because he couldn't play a certain piece properly, couldn't maintain the rhythm and just play the right notes.

So I sat at the piano with this student and asked and asked him to play the piece.
What I noticed is that he was playing the piece like a poorly made midi.
All the notes lacked personality and each note had the same dynamic, volume and intensity.
It was a bunch of notes in sequence not music.

So I asked him to add some style, interpretation, contrasts, dynamic to which he told me that his teacher doesn't allow him to. When the piece will be ready and perfect then they will work on interpretation till there it's a matter of practicing and perfecting the piece.

I asked him how long he has been working unsuccessfully with this piece to which he replied more than 12 lessons. Each time he made the same mistakes and each time the teacher would listen to him making them and would tell him to practice those will they were perfect.

I said the hell with your teacher let's start to make this stuff more musical.
So I marked with a pencil the phrases, the accellerando and intuitively I marked notes which I thought sounded better ff and notes that I thought sounded better pp, instructed him where to play the left hand more softly and where to emphasize the melodic line over running triplets, where to lift the hand to "breathe" and where to apply a certain portament.

After two ripetitions something clicked and the student not only played the piece musically but avoid all the mistakes he had kept making for 12 weeks. <It makes sense now ... I can see how to play it> he said to me. For example a technical problem he had with a phrase was due to the fact that he was playing the note with both intensity .. they blurred together and the sense of rhythm got lost. The teacher never thought of checking that as a source of his problems but kept telling that first the piece must be perfect, interpretation come later.

So what I learned nowadays is that a musical approach with technical problems solves most of these problems even if they're not dealt technically but from a sound point of view.
A teacher that expect a piece to be perfect naked (just technically) before the musicality of it can be added to the naked notes is likely preventing the very source of the solution of the technical problems. The teacher might keep assigning the same piece for months and months just because 20% of it is still not perfect while solving those imperfection through a musical and interpretative approach could have been the matter of 1 week.

Now the problem is that when this student plays the piece musically the notes are perfect when he goes back to playing it like a technical drill everything falls apart. But the teacher won't allow him to play it musically since she insisted ... first the notes then the interpretation. My "intromission" might even get her more infuriated.
It's really frustating. That's like a student learning a second language but afraid to admit it because he has learned it by watching DVDs instead of studying the school text book.

[faulty_damper]

How old is this student?

Your story reminds me of many people, including teachers, students, conductors...  Somehow, they think that if they can master the smaller details first, the other details can come later (i.e. Music).  Without the music, it becomes a drill, a technical exercise and there is nothing really of interest to pursue and the music making is horrible... if existant.

Some teachers want their students to get all the notes there before something called music can be made.
Some students think that if they get all the notes right then they can try to make something called music.
Some conductors think that if they conduct slower, the ensemble will be able to come together as a whole and music spontaneously occurs...

How flawed this mindset is!  And where does this mindset come from...

[counterpoint]

I fully agree with danny. What some teachers see as a fault of "technique" (manual training) is often the fault of not understanding the meaning of the music. And how can you understand the music if you are supposed to play like a machine!? 

"Perfection" in the meaning of "as precise as a machine" is an objective, that leads to nowhere. It kills the music.

[danny elfboy]

The student is 14 and thanks for your comments.
I just think it's ridicolous. Nowhere like in classical piano music there's such a strong drive to reductionism, to decompone a music into lifeless notes.
I mean in acting, in painting and in writing the creative and sensorial process and maintenance of the wholeness of the artistic end are of primary importance and comes before anything else.

[slobone]

I'm a fan of the two-track approach. Spend part of your practice time perfecting the mechanical components of the piece -- notes, rhythm, articulation, fingering, and building up to tempo. Then spend the rest of the time taking what you've already learned and bringing it to life.

When you first get a new piece, you'll spend most of your time on the technical side. As you master that, spend more and more on the interpretative side.

If you don't have time for both, do fewer pieces, break them into smaller chunks -- or get a new teacher.

[faulty_damper]

I'm a fan of the two-track approach. Spend part of your practice time perfecting the mechanical components of the piece -- notes, rhythm, articulation, fingering, and building up to tempo. Then spend the rest of the time taking what you've already learned and bringing it to life.

When you first get a new piece, you'll spend most of your time on the technical side. As you master that, spend more and more on the interpretative side.

If you don't have time for both, do fewer pieces, break them into smaller chunks -- or get a new teacher.

Such an approach would work for some but not for all.  For students, this may not work for those who have musical awareness and are interested in making music and not just playing the piano.  For students who have minimul awareness but interest in playing, such an approach would be more suitable as it takes care of the playing side enough to allow for learning to listen to how music should be performed.

Once a pianist is mature, such an approach would be entirely inappropriate and will be a cause of slow progress.

[mknueven]

Good for you, Danny!
At least he had a musical breakthrough - and isn't that what it's all about anyway?
As important as technique is - we have to remember it is serving the music -
and not the other way around.

Maybe when the student is alone now - he will try your approach even if he's not sure where to put the dynamics - if they're missing in the material.
At least he's had the pleasure of knowing he can play beautifully - and if he did it once -
why not again and again?