Is there an objective way of deciding which pianist has superior technique?

[opus10no2]

In all the discussion I see... names are thrown around, arguments are made, but who lays out the criteria and decides for this to be more than a matter of opinion?

[go12_3]

In my opinion, it is only the individual that lays out the criteria and therefore, has to make his own decision upon which pianist has superior technique.  Pianists, I have found, have their own technique through their studying and practicing,  and who are we to say their technique is better or worse than ours?


 

[daniel patschan]

Well, i think there is the possibility to say that this or that pianist has a better technique than another one. Berezovsky for example: he sometimes slows down (Opus 10-2) or plays more difficult passages with weaker (Islamey) than others within the same piece. Lugansky or Gavrilov for example play 10-2 strightforward with the same speed and articulation - this is superior because itīs simply more difficult to do so. Neuhaus said: Gilels does the most difficult thing: he plays for a long time loud and fast.

[javacisnotrecognized]

   
Is there an objective way of deciding which pianist has superior technique?

Count the number of topics about them on SDC.



Jav

[richard black]

Simple answer to the question in the title - no.

[daro]

Last I checked, the piano was a musical instrument, not a race track, and technique is not a measure of how fast one can play, but a means of communicating musical ideas.

It takes far, far greater technical skills to play the 2nd movement of the Appassionata effectively than it does the 1st or 3rd.

(FWIW, people did not admire Gilels for how loud and fast he was, but for his musical sensiblity. If anything, he was criticized for "technical" sloppiness. When I saw him play, he missed a few notes here and there, but it was still the greatest musical performance I've ever heard).

yd

[drpiano]

(FWIW, people did not admire Gilels for how loud and fast he was, but for his musical sensiblity. If anything, he was criticized for "technical" sloppiness. When I saw him play, he missed a few notes here and there, but it was still the greatest musical performance I've ever heard).

yd

Yes, and in fairness to Neuhaus, his comments about Gilels being able to play fast and loud were tempered by his observation that Gilels was never a 'pounder.' In other words, he had sufficient musicality and taste to avoid doing things simply because he could.

In answer to the original question in this thread- there are many objective ways to determine which pianist has better technique. However, good luck getting two or more pianists to agree on the factors that comprise good technique. Speed of a performance is easily measurable- but not everyone thinks that speed is necessarily and indicator of technique. 

[opus10no2]

A technique is a procedure used to accomplish a specific activity or task

I actually think technique can be learnt in a very short space of time.

I can learn the notes and play with the economy of technique, similar to a virtuoso. The difference is that they may have practiced over a longer period, thus developing 'mechanique' - the raw capacity of speed and power of the joints(this can be tested by the simple speed with which you can wiggle your hands and fingers).

It's like the old discussion of 'size' and 'what you do with it'.
Technique is the latter, but is dependant upon the 'size' of ones mechanique.

Technique is learnt in days, mechanique is developed over years.

When we are marvelling at someones technique, are we impressed by their 'size' or 'what they do with it'? think about it.

[opus10no2]

It takes far, far greater technical skills to play the 2nd movement of the Appassionata effectively than it does the 1st or 3rd.

It does?

Technical skills are physically ingrained, what we choose to do with them is down to down to our imagination and musical intent. Subjective matters.

Objectively there is no way of saying which mvmt requires more imagination, however it is obvious that the 3rd mvmt does require a more advanced mechanique, simply to execute the physical motions at tempo.

[javacisnotrecognized]

Technical skills are physically ingrained, what we choose to do with them is down to down to our imagination and musical intent. Subjective matters.

People disagree over musical interpretations. That doesn't make it subjective.

[opus10no2]

The quality of music can't be discussed with complete objectivity.

Subjectivity, by its nature, means any preference is subject to the tastes of the individual.

To be objective about any aspect of technical skill we have to mentally divorce our ideas of musical preference from our observation of technical skill.

Analyse the physical possibilities the individual posseses while remaining unbiased by the effectiveness of their creative music-making.

Think of the old Horowitz, he could produce amazing effects and voicings, while his mechanism had declined.

Is this technical skill or musical imagination at work?
I think it's the result of a powerful individual imagination combined with acute dynamic control.
I think it's possible to replicate the effects(a technical skill)of a great pianist but not the musical imagination it came from.

So I think this aspect of technical skill is too tied to individual musicality to be gauged objectvely.

[javacisnotrecognized]

Think of the old Horowitz, he could produce amazing effects and voicings, while his mechanism had declined.

Is this technical skill or musical imagination at work?

It is a technical skill; it can be easily explained (And in other posts I have explained it)

However; do you not consider musical imagination an integral part of the technique?

[opus10no2]

A technique is a way of doing something, a musical imagination in an integral part of being creative using it.

I suppose one objective(if impractical) way of working out who is best at this would be to expose a group of pianists to a recording of a piece they've learnt and ask them to reproduce all of the dynamic effects using their technical skill.
Do a waveform analysis to tell who can most accurately translate dynamics from sound to technique.

Other than this, yes, speed of mechanique is the only objectively calculable technical element.

[javacisnotrecognized]

A technique is a way of doing something, a musical imagination in an integral part of being creative using it.

If the objective is to create a musical effect, and this is not predetermined, then the imagination decides which effects to produce. Even if it is predetermined, any unspecified implementation details need to be filled in by the imagination.

I suppose one objective(if impractical) way of working out who is best at this would be to expose a group of pianists to a recording of a piece they've learnt and ask them to reproduce all of the dynamic effects using their technical skill.
Do a waveform analysis to tell who can most accurately translate dynamics from sound to technique.

But that is not how the process works though.

Other than this, yes, speed of mechanique is the only objectively calculable technical element.

What different elements to you perceive to be part of the mechanique? Things like accuracy, evenness, etc?

[opus10no2]

Technique in relation to mechanique with regards to accuracy and evenness is like a railway track.
If the technique is optimised and close to 'perfect', a lack of evenness can manifest if the mech is pushed beyond comfort, and inaccuracy results with further pushing.

I can tell you for a fact that Mr. note-perfect Michelangeli would be subject to the same mechanical restrictions, if he pushed beyond the technical comfort zone.

Regarding the dynamic technique - no that's not how it works, the idea comes from the inner ear, but using the outer ear was the only way I think that technique could be tested and 'measured'.

[javacisnotrecognized]

Technique in relation to mechanique with regards to accuracy and evenness is like a railway track.
If the technique is optimised and close to 'perfect', a lack of evenness can manifest if the mech is pushed beyond comfort, and inaccuracy results with further pushing.

Well this is a very thorny issue - I see it thusly: There are alot of different techniques, and each is coupled with a certain type of organization of the fingers/hands/wrists/forearms/torso/hip/etc etc. Depending on the organization, it creates a limit to the maximum upper limit - you will hear alot more extremely fast, accurate, even 1/3 trills than you hear extremely fast, accurate, even double octave passages. But I do not think it is physically possible to bring the 1/3 trill up to that point. (Another factor here is loudness; would it be harder to play said trill FF or pp?)

Anyway, let me rephrase my original question: What do you consider to be the complete list of objective mechaniqual skills, and how do you objectively measure each of them ?

[opus10no2]

There are 12 basic mechanical elements, 10 fingers, 2 wrists. Each with their own limitations.

The basic way to test them is to see how fast each of them can depress repeated keystrokes, unaided.

This is mech, how they are used in piano playing and in conjunction with the whole body is tech.

[javacisnotrecognized]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. So things like evenness or accuracy do not factor into the equation? Or do you consider these as things that can be derived directly from these 12 elements?


BTW - The topical question was "Is there an objective way of deciding which pianist has superior technique". This is your proposed solution, right?

[opus10no2]

Well, I made the topic to see the different views, and to voice my own.

The basic problem with the topic title is that technique is a very misused word.

'Wow, Hamelin has an amazing technique' is often heard, then I see comments like 'your technique really needs work' levelled at pianist who visibly use almost identical technique and economy of motion.
Their techniques are equal, their mech is the only difference, but it makes a huge difference.

Evenness and accuracy factor in when the piece moves around, demanding control(technique) aswell as mech. Like a very curvy train track.

Repeating one note leaves out this and lays the mech bare, like a perfectly straight track.

You wont find many willing to do this, but most top concert pianists have pretty much perfect 'techs', their limitations with speed and their byproducts - accuracy and evenness - are almost all down to mech limitations.

[javacisnotrecognized]

'Wow, Hamelin has an amazing technique' is often heard, then I see comments like 'your technique really needs work' levelled at pianist who visibly use almost identical technique and economy of motion.
Their techniques are equal, their mech is the only difference, but it makes a huge difference.

Well, suppose Hamelin and pianist X both play the same piece, using the same technique and economy of motion, and pianist X misses half the notes, plays other too loud, and so on. I would assume Hamelin has a better technique.

Now, let us look at another option: It is quite possible that whoever made the comment did not have a clue what he was talking about. Possibly he disliked the look on pianist X's face, perhaps he thought that "Pianist X doesn't sway in a circular motion while he plays, so his technique mustn't be very good". Perhaps whoever commented did have an actually valid reason for commenting, but for whatever reason does not care to explain it. But this is something entirely different that can't be solved from within this thread...

Anyway, let me ask my question another way: Suppose you had with you a group of pianists with you who were there to get a "technique assesment", and a couple top of the line pianos with which to do them on. Your objective is to give each pianist a number between 0 and 500 to roughly measure their technique. What is the exact process, in as much detail as you can muster, that you go through to get this number? Would (a) video(s) of the pianist playing be enough? An audio track? What would be the minimum audio quality? What if it was a slow piece? Etc.

[opus10no2]

Well, 600 would be a clearer maximum score, dividing each mechanic to be individually scored out of 50.

Given a 10 second time frame, measure how many times the note can be struck, and divide by 3.

15 strikes per second gets a score of 50, but noone has achieved this, even for octaves the maximum may be 12 or so. Scoring 40/50.

Well, suppose Hamelin and pianist X both play the same piece, using the same technique and economy of motion, and pianist X misses half the notes, plays other too loud, and so on. I would assume Hamelin has a better technique.

You would? you said it yourself that their motions are identical, clearly the mech is the difference.

[javacisnotrecognized]

The problem though is that finger action is basically learning to move the finger with the best muscle, and learning to inhibit sympathetic finger motions. You can't really train it more than that..

There is also another issue, though: If you move your finger downwards to press a key, it creates an upwards reaction that travels to the arm. To inhibit it, (And still play the note) it's necessary for the arm to move forward a minuscule amount (Arm weight is useless for this). So already this kind of action can't practically be used. And about repeated notes using the wrist .. I won't even start to go there.

Anyway, how can you correlate the results of such a test to the technical fidelity of the pianist in playing anything else ?

[michel dvorsky]

I consider technique the facility with which a musician can communicate their musical ideas.  But I consider virtuosity the combination of this facility with chance-taking and musical spirit.

In this respect, there are pianists in Shanghai, Moscow, and New York who have as good mechanism as Friedman, Hofmann, Busoni, or Pugno.  They just don't have what I consider to be the personality, musical spirit, courage, or general artistic sensibility to count as true virtuosi in my books.

[opus10no2]

The problem though is that finger action is basically learning to move the finger with the best muscle, and learning to inhibit sympathetic finger motions. You can't really train it more than that..

How is that a problem?

The digital flexors and extensors are the only muscles to move the fingers up and down.

Anyway, how can you correlate the results of such a test to the technical fidelity of the pianist in playing anything else ?

Like I say, the mech of the pianist defines their limits more than their tech does.

Technique can only be honed so much before physical limitations rule progress.

Basically, it depends on the piece, if a pianist scores high on RH fingers 3 4 and 5, I'd guarantee you they'd have a blazing 10/2.

[michel dvorsky]

How is that a problem?

The digital flexors and extensors are the only muscles to move the fingers up and down.

Like I say, the mech of the pianist defines their limits more than their tech does.

Technique can only be honed so much before physical limitations rule progress.

Basically, it depends on the piece, if a pianist scores high on RH fingers 3 4 and 5, I'd guarantee you they'd have a blazing 10/2.

Yeah, a pianist must have the right physical equipment to play the piano.  But the brain is also physical equipment.  If you swapped brains with Andrei Gavrilov, there's no doubt he'd play 10/2 better than you would in your body than you would in his.

[opus10no2]

Define 'better'.

[javacisnotrecognized]

How is that a problem?

The digital flexors and extensors are the only muscles to move the fingers up and down.

If you want to get tendonitis, yes. There is also the interrosei and the lumbricals (Move your finger up and down without bending any of the joints, so that it pivots around the knuckle. This uses the interossei muscles, if you pay attention to the inside of your hand you will feel them moving around.)

[michel dvorsky]

Define 'better'.

Better tech, though p'rhpz NQDL.

[rob47]

man, 'NQDL' is the best acronym of the 21st century

[opus10no2]

If you want to get tendonitis, yes. There is also the interrosei and the lumbricals (Move your finger up and down without bending any of the joints, so that it pivots around the knuckle. This uses the interossei muscles, if you pay attention to the inside of your hand you will feel them moving around.)

I'm aware of these, the flexors and extensors are much larger, every pianist relies upon them.

[scottmcc]

If you want to get tendonitis, yes. There is also the interrosei and the lumbricals (Move your finger up and down without bending any of the joints, so that it pivots around the knuckle. This uses the interossei muscles, if you pay attention to the inside of your hand you will feel them moving around.)

lumbricals allow the movement of the fingers as you describe.  the interossei open and close the fingers side-to-side, such as when stretching to a longer reach. (to be even more specific, the palmar interossei adduct the fingers and the dorsal interossei abduct them).

of course, essentially every practical motion of the fingers requires the coordination of literally dozens of interconnected muscles--there is virtually no such thing as a "pure" motion.

[javacisnotrecognized]

the interossei open and close the fingers side-to-side, such as when stretching to a longer reach. (to be even more specific, the palmar interossei adduct the fingers and the dorsal interossei abduct them).

When the interrosei to move the finger to the right and left are both activated at the same time, the result is moving it downwards. (But it is started off by the lumbricals). This is what I was talking about - move the finger without bending the joints so that it pivots about the knuckle joint. As I understand it, the flexors and extendors flex and extend the joints. Like 'grabbing' the key with a 'hook' finger. You see alot of bad pianists like this on youtube. A collapsed arch in the hand is a characteristic symptom of this.

[scottmcc]

you are right that combined interosseus and lumbrical action is needed for the motion you describe--flexion at the MCP and extension at the IP joints.

spreading and contracting the fingers is exclusively done by the interossei.

the flexors originate in the forearm, near the elbow, and insert either on the distal phalanx ("finger tip") for the deep layer, or the middle phalanx for the superficial layer.

the extensors also originate near the wrist and insert broadly across the fingers.

to flex the fingers while keeping the wrist straight requires input from the extensors, and vice-versa. (to prove this, try gripping something as tightly as possible with your wrist neutral, flexed, or extended, and then feel which parts of your arm tighten)

of course, there's also the various intrinsic muscles of the thumb and 5th finger, as well as a few minor ones of the 2nd finger, but no need to get into those now.  and there's the flexor and extensor carpi muscles which act to move the wrist.

the point is, there's a lot of different little muscles that act in concert to produce very complicated movements, and without any of them, you will have trouble doing something like playing a musical instrument (or writing, or typing, or whatever).  consider carpal tunnel syndrome:  only the intrinsic muscles of the thumb are weakened, yet the effects on a musician are profound.

for a far more detailed look at what I just explained, try Moore and Agur's Essential Clinical Anatomy.

[Petter]

Simple answer to the question in the title - no.

bump

[giannalinda]

everybody has different beliefs about technique and the way they play piano. They all have their own opinions. So what if they don't do the same things you do. Thats what they think. You shouldnt give them a hard time about things. Thats what their teachers tell them...So what...were all different. i mean to an extreme
hope this helps.
giannalinda

[lostinidlewonder]

It is not very intelligent to try and work out who has better technique than someone else. The reality is that every pianist changes as they age just as every sports stars ability changes as they age. Comparing a tennis player from the 60s to a tennis star of today would be idiotic. So too it is stupid to try and compare pianists of yesteryear to today, or even pianists who are still alive today to one another. Why are people so overly interested in the BEST the HARDEST, the whateverEST?

Also if you think that listening to studio recordings reflect a pianists live performance technique, that is a laugh. Nowadays with the technology you can engineer any recording and take multiple retakes of a phrase until it is ideal.

[abagdasa]

Hofmann is #2...

...is second only to Rach's hands transplanted onto Hofmann

[omar_roy]

There is a way, believe it or not.

If we're simply talking about technique in terms of speed, evenness (tone and length of notes), and similar things then it is rather simple.

Stick all the best pianists in the world.  Tell them to play any scale/arpeggio.  Except on a digital keyboard hooked up to a computer with a program like Garage Band or something similar.  The resulting MIDI sequence will have every single note, its length, and its volume, and obviously, speed.  Whoever is the fastest and has the most evenness in all respects is the winner.

But that'll never happen.

[nearenough]

I didn't see him mentioned, but Alfred Cortot is a notorious example of occasionally deficient technique combined with stellar musicality.

Gieseking is occasionally mentioned in the deficient category.

Horowitz, Rachmaninoff and Hofmann (I can never remember, is it Hoffman, Hofmann or Hofman, or even Hoffmann?? Anyone have a mnemonic?) are always among the top sacred Trinity.