What is TRADITIONAL ? (*hungry, hungry, hungry*)

[m19834]

That's what I want to know.  What, exactly, is considered to be "traditional" when it comes to the craft ? 

I think of Rachmaninov, for example, as having been raised on some kind of traditional musical nutrition ... but what is it, exactly ?  What do those people actually learn ?

[quasimodo]

Traditional wrote a whole bunch of famous tunes out there; truly a helluva composer

[m19834]

Well, I know you are being clever, but just to be clear, I am wondering about pedagogical concepts and practices.

What do "traditional" lessons really mean ? 

[frank_48]

Old school?

[go12_3]

Traditional is the handing down of customs, practices, doctrines, etc......
I think that Bach, Mozart and other composers learned through their parents.  Music in those times was a source of entertainment and livihood.  And if they child was a prodigy or clever enough, they learned quickly to ready notes and therefore composed music.  They probably learned at home first, and progressed to learning from an instructor or being sent to a conservatory of music.  So the learning to read notes, and pedagogy is what we are learning today, I suppose.

[general disarray]

Traditional is the handing down of customs, practices, doctrines, etc......

No better definition than this one.  The handing down of methods of teaching would obviously vary from culture to culture, but, since most of us seem to be fixated on the music that has arisen from the West (basically the Germans, Italians and French who led the Western world in inventing, advancing and polishing musical forms and approaches), our traditions would be based on those methods used to teach since the development of the keyboard.

Your question, not surprisingly, is rather odd.  I mean, you're a teacher who has been taught by teachers, so reflect on what traditions were passed down to you and those that you pass down to your students.  Hello?  Is K home?? 

If you want to dig deeper, you should read Amy Fay's famous book (and source for almost all we know about the great 19th century master-pianists-as-teachers) entitled  "Music Study in Germany," originally published in 1880. 

Amy Fay was a very gifted American pianist who polished her art by studying abroad with greats like Tausig, Rubinstein, Kullak, von Bulow and Liszt.  The book is loaded with observations of master classes by these great pianists, and many more, as well as Amy's own private lessons.

So, if you want to explore the tradition in which you've been immersed, you should begin here.

More up to date, would be marik's experience studying in Russia where a very refined and broad tradition has developed producing some of the greatest pianists of the 20th century.  I'm sure he'd be happy to describe his training.  Similar, I'm sure to Rach and Horowitz.  Maybe he'll see this, or better yet, since you're the one seeking information, you should PM him.

I studied with a Russian.  Prior to that, as a teeny kid, with a German.  The literature covered was similar, but the approach to the keyboard was slightly different.  The same result was sought (facility, beauty of tone) but the Russians are positively obsessed with beauty of tone production.  God love 'em.  Couldn't agree more.  I mean, if you have a crappy voice who cares about the song you're singing?

[m19834]

No better definition than this one.

YES, I FREAGIN' KNOW (!!!)  What the freak tradition MEANS ... I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Are YOU freagin' home ?  I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your post yet as I was stopped at your first copula senetences.  I tried to make my question as 'simple' as possible, as few words as possible, and nobody understands my !@&^&^ing question.

I'll read the rest later !  Bye 

[general disarray]

YES, I FREAGIN' KNOW (!!!)  What the freak tradition MEANS ... I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Are YOU freagin' home ?  I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your post yet as I was stopped at your first copula senetences.  I tried to make my question as 'simple' as possible, as few words as possible, and nobody understands my !@&^&^ing question.

I'll read the rest later !  Bye 

well, if you bothered to read the rest of my post instead of erupting into a hysterical Font Attack, you'd know . . . . bye, to you too, since I have to go educate those with an "open mind" as opposed to those with a perpetually frozen "caps lock" key. 

[m19834]

well, if you bothered to read the rest of my post instead of erupting into a hysterical Font Attack, you'd know . . . . bye, to you too, since I have to go educate those with an "open mind" as opposed to those with a perpetually frozen "caps lock" key. 

Sorry, but this board has been dead for months.  This whole forum consists of mainly the same topics year after year, and many of the posters here are boarderline completely made up characters.  I happen to be sincere in my questions and for sincere reasons, so if you didn't have your own thoughts so stuck up your mind's butt hole, you would see that you could do something here besides waggle your fingers in a way that you think gives you a badge of intellect ... on a topic that isn't rehearsed and beat to death on the forum already.

[go12_3]

I appreciate your post, general disarray,  and there is no need for any member to get into "a hysterical Font attack" upon any member's post.  I feel that genral disarray's post best expains what tradition is. And besides, Karli, other members are trying their best to UNDERSTAND your question ----so give us a break in what we have to offer in our posts.  
While I was posting, your post appeared.  If you think this board has been dead for months, you don't need to speak with such language as in previous posts which shows that you need some re-evaluation of your inner feelings and circumstances in your life.

[m19834]

I appreciate your post, general disarray,  and there is no need for any member to get into "a hysterical Font attack" upon any member's post.  I feel that genral disarray's post best expains what tradition is. And besides, Karli, other members are trying their best to UNDERSTAND your question ----so give us a break in what we have to offer in our posts.  
While I was posting, your post appeared.  If you think this board has been dead for months, you don't need to speak with such language as in previous posts which shows that you need some re-evaluation of your inner feelings and circumstances in your life.

Yes, that's right, any random member has any right to say whatever pleases them to me, but when patience has not given the right hint, the minute I actually say what they need to hear to get my message in response, you feel you need to speak up.  Sorry, but much of the time I get the feeling that people are actually just waiting around to push somebody's button because they have nothing better to do, and that includes mine.

Sorry, but I in no way think of you as my mother, and I don't think of you as a friend.  I don't believe you can tell me with any authority what I need to evaluate in my life, though in general, it would be pretty silly of anybody to think they can waltz through life without evaluating their life's circumstances, don't you think ?

I realize that SOME of what GD posted was probably meant to be helpful.  But, isn't this forum more than book references ? 

There is more to discuss on the subject that I have tried to start in this thread. 

[general disarray]

I happen to be sincere in my questions and for sincere reasons, so if you didn't have your own thoughts so stuck up your mind's butt hole, you would see that you could do something here besides waggle your fingers in a way that you think gives you a badge of intellect ... on a topic that isn't rehearsed and beat to death on the forum already.

Heaven forfend!  Even your insult (I think it's an insult) confuses me.  And, thanks, go, for your support here.

Look:  by asking what our tradition is, you, firstly, are referring to the Western tradition, yes?

If so, you are referring to keyboard tradition and the pedagogical approach that has come down to us, yes?

Well, it begins with the great harpsichordists (Bach, his kids, Rameau, Couperin, etc.) and their contributions to pedagogy.  Some of this applies to the pianoforte, some does not.

As I mentioned earlier, the great 19th century pedagogues are described in Amy Fay's seminal and very entertaining work.  Please read it.  Also, a much later book, entitled (if memory serves me well) "Men, Women and Pianos," by (I think) a man named Frank Loesser, is a classic in discussing the relationship (culturally and pedagogically) people have had with that miracle known as the piano.

And, in nutshell, since I realize now you sincerely are trying to stir up a discussion on an excellent idea, our tradition begins, really, with voice:  organum, plain chant, Palestrina's counterpoint, then 18th-century counterpoint draws us into the instrumental realm.

We are all nothing but singers, so this is where our tradition begins.

 

(Just a preamble here, I suppose, to the discussion you want others to delve into.  I do hope I have understood you correctly.  Now, excuse me, I have a Chopin program to polish for a recital.  Three Etudes, one Ballade, one Scherzo, and the one and only Barcarolle.  All of these will be preceded by four Soler sonatas and Beethoven Op. 101.  And Karli, if you promise not to shout at me during the performance, I'll invite you.)    

[m19834]

(Just a preamble here, I suppose, to the discussion you want others to delve into.  I do hope I have understood you correctly.  Now, excuse me, I have a Chopin program to polish for a recital.  Three Etudes, one Ballade, one Scherzo, and the one and only Barcarolle.  All of these will be preceded by four Soler sonatas and Beethoven Op. 101.  And Karli, if you promise not to shout at me during the performance, I'll invite you.)    

Sounds great.  I'll bring flowers then  .

[m19834]

More up to date, would be marik's experience studying in Russia where a very refined and broad tradition has developed producing some of the greatest pianists of the 20th century.  I'm sure he'd be happy to describe his training.  Similar, I'm sure to Rach and Horowitz.  Maybe he'll see this, or better yet, since you're the one seeking information, you should PM him.

Well, I love to learn of Marik's training.  I put my question on the forum for several reasons, one of them being for the forum itself to be potentially stimulated.  Another reason is that I feel Marik probably has his hands pretty full with me already ... hee hee ... and perhaps I am a little easier to handle if it is at first from a distance ... hee hee ... There is a monster inside of me.  I more than welcome his thoughts in this thread (and I will leave that up to him as to whether or not he wishes to share it), but I also want to believe there are here in the forum several perspectives on the subject.

[Bob]

Lots of drama around here lately....

My definiton:
Weekly lessons.
Teacher/mentor type of relationship
Focused on playing pieces, with some theory thrown in.  There's not much time though for theory, let alone aural skills or sight-reading.
Starting with a method book series and working up to simple pieces, then more difficult pieces.
Doing the recitals at the end of fall and spring.
Focusing a little technique as time alllows, scales and arp are a must.

That's my view of traditional.  Although I ran into someone on another forum who thought that wasn't traditional at all.  They thought sight-reading and improvisation was mandatory.  I guess I'm thinking of weekly 30 minute or 1 hour lessons.  And this type of plan is pre-college.

Traditional college keyboard is different and has transposition and more with chords from what I understand.

[m19834]

Traditional is the handing down of customs, practices, doctrines, etc......
I think that Bach, Mozart and other composers learned through their parents.  Music in those times was a source of entertainment and livihood.  And if they child was a prodigy or clever enough, they learned quickly to ready notes and therefore composed music.  They probably learned at home first, and progressed to learning from an instructor or being sent to a conservatory of music.  So the learning to read notes, and pedagogy is what we are learning today, I suppose.

I apologize, go, for some reason now I can read this as a different answer than I initially read it as.  Of course, this is what we read in books, this is what courses in music history tell us, and while I don't discredit that, it is somehow not anymore what I am looking for.  Somehow I am needing the actual substance as though I were actually living there in those moments.  When I was around 12 I had a distinct realization that I felt I had been born in the wrong Century.  Somehow part of me aches about those times, I don't know how to explain it.  I don't just want to read about it, it's just not enough.  I want to feel it in my hands and body, and I want to hear it coming out of me through the instrument.  *That* is what I am deeply hungry for and *that* is what I have been deeply hungry for for years now.  I feel like I am starting to become capable of finding this, but sometimes the whole thing makes me crazy.

It's so funny and strange how one chord that I played in one lesson with my mentor could induce in me a very distinct realization and "rememberence" of this whole world which I crave to know infinitely better !

[go12_3]

Indeed, in the world that we live in now, in this century, with all the  hurrying that surrounds us each day, it becomes more apparent that we, as musicians, have a harder time to focus upon our music.  I would like to just play my piano and violin all day long without the interruption that comes into my life.  And so the music gets set aside until I find another moment to play my pieces.  I think in Bach and Mozart's time, they had that opportunity to learn music without so much distractions and therefore they learned their music through their lifestyles. Music was a major part in their lives.  I can understand, Karli, what you are inferring to, that how much you would like to feel that music flow through you as you strike a chord or play a piece, and desire to be at past century.   I think is becomes more prevalent that the classical music is of utmost importance in this century so that the "traditions" will  continue  with us through all time.

best wishes,

go12_3

[m19834]

Well, I have been wondering what the essence of the tradition is, and I went back and read through some of Marik's older posts where he shares some of his experiences with his training, as well as his listening experiences when hearing live some of the greats.

It has dawned on me that whatever is the tradition, perhaps or even probably its essence is in the performance practice itself, experienced within the actual playing, as well as in composition.  I believe that some of those things can only be passed through mentor/apprentice relationships, and perhaps within some schools of yesteryear.

I wonder a couple of things related to that.  How do "we" diverge from what is considered to be tradition ?  That is one reason I want to better know what tradition actually is.  GD said to think about what has been passed on to me, but that is a funny thing.  To put it very succinctly, I feel I am just starting to barely learn about tradition, at least in the way that Marik seems to speak of in his former posts. 

My other question is, who gets to carry it on ?  What type of individual ?  Do they have to start when they are 5 with certain teachers and in particular places of the world ?  Or, can somebody like me really be somehow directly connected to and somehow embody all of those things, even at this point in my life ...

[lostinidlewonder]

Personally I believe that how piano music is taught today would blow away how it was "traditionally" taught those many years ago. Today we have so much knowledge to base our teaching upon, back then they where still working it out somewhat. I almost see it as todays sports stars in comparison to yesteryears. The technique of the old stars would not compare to those of today, that is not to take away their brilliance or ability, they just did not have "shoulders of giants" to stand upon.

Traditionally I think that music was only taught to upper socio economic groups. Since most people would not be able to afford to learn piano let alone afford an instrument. Also the listening experience was left to upper classes in concert halls or private occassions, there was no such thing as CD players. So nowadays the overall knowledge of music is a lot more advanced than back in the "old days", thus I believe that people have overrated some of the abilities of the greats of the past simply because they did not have much competition or comparisons We do things a lot better now than before, but it is nice to imagine that there was some musical magic in the past that will never be found again, I just dont believe that.

[quasimodo]

Personally I believe that how piano music is taught today would blow away how it was "traditionally" taught those many years ago. Today we have so much knowledge to base our teaching upon, back then they where still working it out somewhat. I almost see it as todays sports stars in comparison to yesteryears. The technique of the old stars would not compare to those of today, that is not to take away their brilliance or ability, they just did not have "shoulders of giants" to stand upon.

Traditionally I think that music was only taught to upper socio economic groups. Since most people would not be able to afford to learn piano let alone afford an instrument. Also the listening experience was left to upper classes in concert halls or private occassions, there was no such thing as CD players. So nowadays the overall knowledge of music is a lot more advanced than back in the "old days", thus I believe that people have overrated some of the abilities of the greats of the past simply because they did not have much competition or comparisons We do things a lot better now than before, but it is nice to imagine that there was some musical magic in the past that will never be found again, I just dont believe that.

I globally agree with lostinidlewonder.
Also, from a technical standpoint, I wonder if tradition is relevant at all. There's a point to holding upon traditions when it's related to one's identity; but as far as piano teaching and learning are concerned, identity does not have much to do with those.

[scottmcc]

if the question is, "what is the traditional method of piano teaching," then I'm pretty sure that's been answered by several of the posts above.  the way I see it, it would imply a more directive approach from the teacher, with the student far less involved in choosing what to do or how to do it--"teacher knows best."  and it would be much more discipline-based.  I envision stern foreigners with rulers ready to rap the pupil on the knuckles.

I agree with lostinidlewonder and quasimodo that this idea of tradition is probably false nostalgia.  while classical music is certainly less popular now than other times in history, those who perform it professionally are definitely far more technically proficient and knowledgeable than their predecessors, thanks to breaking with tradition and innovating.  for instance...beethoven's famed hammerklavier sonata was considered "unplayable" during his lifetime, but there are a number of people who have played and recorded it during mine. 

furthermore, the idea that people had more time to devote to music in the past is almost certainly false.  just surviving 200 years ago required some real effort, unless one was quite wealthy, and the numerous modern conveniences we have certainly allow more time for music.  while those of us with non-musical jobs may spend more time at work than we would prefer, there's still a good amount of time for music, probably more than we realize, and probably more than there would have been in the past.

alas, I had wanted to say more, but it's time for work. 

[m19834]

hmmm ... well, I will take these posts as fuel for my thought, I just can't seem to let this topic drop and it is related to things I have been "working out" for years it seems.

Further up I wrote that I think that "tradition" is about performance practices itself, and probably heard within the playing (as well as in the writing).  Well, I still think that's true, but I decided it's not JUST that.  More precisely, I think it's in the tools that each individual is taught to use, and how they learn to use them.  This is where I suspect there is becoming a difference between what was practiced in older school Moscow Conservatory, for example, vs. "modern thought" in the world. 

I don't know truly that much about any of it, and I have in the past several years felt constantly like I am just piecing things together as items come my way or as I find scraps here and there.  I feel that what I am learning now with my mentor is by no means scraps, but sometimes I wonder if it's "okay" for me to truly want to learn what I want to learn even though most of me is no longer only 5 months old (as the world sees me).

Anyway.  Marik has posted about achieving particular articulations, for example a very light kind of staccato where within the line, everything is actually connected in concept, and that this becomes the highest incarnation of legatissimo.  Also, Russian School, as far as I know, has nurtured "intonatsia" ... something that I rarely hear anybody talking about anymore at all (not that I have had lengthy discussions with most people in general about it), but something that it seems people around here (I am talking years ago) believe doesn't really exist, or that it is less than it is cracked up to be.  But, I can't help but think people just never learned about it and I can't help but wonder why that is ?

Lostinidlewonder, you say that you think today's teaching would blow away that of yesteryear ... and I don't necessarily agree nor disagree ... but, what I want to know is how ?  Like what (?), specifically, do we do or know now that yesteryear didn't ?  For example, amongst other things and probably deeper concepts (that I don't know too much about), Taubman teaches about forearm rotations (that is not just Bernhard talking about that).  Is that an example ?  I don't know ALL of the ins and outs of what seems like a "modern" thought or school on technique, but if there is something of value in that way of thinking, is it truly new ?  Or, perhaps it's rather just a certain kind of focusing on things that have always existed ?

Or, what does yesteryear know that today doesn't ?

Also, who would/could we say is truly a product of modern thought, of that which would blow away the teachings, the technique of yesteryear ?  Lang Lang ?  Or what is the product of this modern teaching which blows yesteryear away ?  What is being achieved musically ?  Is it truly on par with that of the olden days ?  If we have never heard/seen the greats of yesteryear live (some people have), how do we know ?  Are there truly little Mozarts running around everywhere, and we just don't notice the same way because there are so many ?  My questions are endless ... 

[m]

Personally I believe that how piano music is taught today would blow away how it was "traditionally" taught those many years ago. Today we have so much knowledge to base our teaching upon, back then they where still working it out somewhat. I almost see it as todays sports stars in comparison to yesteryears. The technique of the old stars would not compare to those of today, that is not to take away their brilliance or ability, they just did not have "shoulders of giants" to stand upon.

I actually would not go that far. I am still to see somebody today to compete in term of technique with titans like Rachmaninov, Lhevinne, Hoffmann, Gould, or Michelangeli, who (at least IMO) are still unsurpassed. But in their (as playing of many other old masters) playing there was something much more than just a mere technique--there was a soul and spirit. There was elegance, bravura, and abandon. There was something essential--there was a personality, and they knew a secret of being an artist--that was a tradition.

MOST of the modern pianists sound to me the same... as Holliwood stars, when I cannot tell one from another--to me they all look the same.

The times change, the values change, the tradition changes. Today, in the era of competitions and CD recordings when everything should be absolutely perfect the whole attention has shifted to those qualities and nobody cares about personality anymore (or don't have enough knowledge to recognize one). All people are interested today is entertainment and reliability, so that's why clowns like Lang Lang, with their vulgar and tasteless approach to music and piano look like some "fresh" air.

Best, M

[pianowolfi]

I actually would not go that far. I am still to see somebody today to compete in term of technique with titans like Rachmaninov, Lhevinne, Hoffmann, Gould, or Michelangeli, who (at least IMO) are still unsurpassed. But in their (as playing of many other old masters) playing there was something much more than just a mere technique--there was a soul and spirit. There was elegance, bravura, and abandon. There was something essential--there was a personality, and they knew a secret of being an artist--that was a tradition.

I wonder, do you think they were so great because of tradition or because of their individual genius? Or both? Do you think they got their secret out of a tradition?

[m19834]

that's why clowns like Lang Lang, with their vulgar and tasteless approach to music and piano look like some "fresh" air.

Original Lang Lang crush :  |       | = 7 space crush (out of 103)

Current Lang Lang crush :  |  | = 2 space crush (good time to buy stock in Lang Lang Crush)

MOST of the modern pianists sound to me the same... as Holliwood stars, when I cannot tell one from another--to me they all look the same.

Best, M

I want to one day surprise you.

[Bob]

I want to one day surprise you.

Hmmm.....  I think I get it now. Mmmhmmm....  mmmhmmm....  It's an perpetual loop.  I think I've figured it out.  It finally makes sense.

[m19834]

Hmmm.....  I think I get it now. Mmmhmmm....  mmmhmmm....  It's an perpetual loop.  I think I've figured it out.  It finally makes sense.

I actually don't know what you are talking about, but I am curious.  On the other hand, join my guided listening course in the theory section.

[lostinidlewonder]

what (?), specifically, do we do or know now that yesteryear didn't ? 

Or, what does yesteryear know that today doesn't ?

I think, first of all the quality of our instruments today surpass the past instruments. I have played on a Pleyel which was a piano that Chopin himself used and composed on, nice instrument but no where near a Steinways standard. This is also why Liszt and many others broke so many pianos, the instruments of the day just where not very good compared to todays standard.

Teaching wise I think we are a lot more advanced than before, however there are legendary stories of pianists, like how Busoni could play any piece by sight and transpose into any key with almost zero errors. I don't have any idea how to teach that! Except maybe using a transpose button on a digital However some stories we read might be romanticized and exaggerated. Creative ability is not limited I think to a time period, I think back in the old days you could be more unique, find your individual voice more easily, nowadays it is easy to be considered to have stole or copied ideas that have already been done, it is unavoidable, pretty much everything has been written.

Technique at the piano also has changed a great deal. Where in the old days you would be taught to play with curled fingers, nowadays we are pushed towards a more natural flattened hand shape. Old days still had the old fashioned keyboard technique of the harpsichord, clavichord, pianoforte what have you to deal with, this tradition of piano playing was somewhat revolutionized by JS Bach fingering developed by Beethovens exploration of the capabilities of the piano, and then developed further by Liszt and Chopin. However during this time and even during the early 20th century we where working out how it all really worked.

Just by watching a master play we can learn a lot. Musicians would desperately try to learn things in the olden days by watching masters play their instruments, but there was no videos to constantly replay, slow down, analyze. Nowadays we can see masters play and see what it looks like exactly to play effortlessly, making "difficult" movements seem to float across the keyboard. This visual training is extremely important and something which was very rare to see in the olden days.

Exactly which techniques today are superior to the olden days is tough to list down since I do not know anyone from the old days who play piano. I know a 90+ year old lady who use to play but physically no longer can play, she did tell me that how I play my fingers are so flat her teacher (who was a nun) would have wacked her fingers with a ruler to keep them curled like holding a ball. But even this lady did not exist in the 19th century, so there is no way I can really know what the old way was. You can read how the masters of yesteryear conducted lessons and infer what they did, mostly they all had their own theories and held them close to them like secrets. I remember reading stories of famous traveling concert pianists hide their fingers from audience members who might try to steal their superior technique by visual observations

There is certainly a lot more literature to read when it comes to piano technique. Access to this information brings a lot of power to our ability to learn the piano. In the old days there was not many books to help you, there was no real standard, nowadays we have all the information infront of us and can choose and select what is best. We can also see these theories in practice by watching instructional videos of performances or lessons by masters. We can see how music is analized by masters and watch lessons over and over again. The Information Age we live in today has acted as a great catalyst to a students development in all areas and disciplines in this world.

[olszewski]

.

[m19834]

Can someone explain or link me to the discussion about the articulation? concept

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,21174.msg346283.html#msg346283

[olszewski]

.

[m19834]

Thanks! 

You're welcome .  As you can read in the actual message compared to what I tried to post about with regard to it, I didn't word it quite right.  Anyway, what Marik is talking about in that post piques my interest.  Listening for something specific like that is the type of "guided listening" I am craving !

[m19834]

I wonder, do you think they were so great because of tradition or because of their individual genius? Or both? Do you think they got their secret out of a tradition?

I have been thinking a bit about this, Wolfi, and woke up wanting to give my own thoughts on yours, if you don't mind.  I don't think that every method of going about learning and creating music was created equally.  From my perspective, it seems that certain traditions focus on aspects of learning about and creating music in ways that may give an individual particular tools, which may provide the individual a greater oppotunity to express themselves than if they didn't have those tools (a painter would not have the same opportunities to express him or herself without the right colors to do so). 

Honestly though, I really know next to nothing about what "tradition" actually is, in any sense of the word at all (which is why I made the thread).  I do know though that what makes a tool useful is not simply whether or not it follows tradition, but whether or not it actually aides the individual in doing whatever needs to be done.

People like to say though that the tools themselves matter less than what a person does with those tools, as though whatever the individual's personality is will ultimately be of importance.  That might be true to some extent, but not in an absolute sense as some tools just work better for certain things than do others.  Obviously, if I have a triangular wheel and then a round wheel, how I choose to use those wheels will make a difference in their effectivity within my life.  At the end of the day though, no matter what, a round wheel works better for traveling in a vehicle than a triangular one does.  Maybe my own personality would be drawn to a triangular one, but that would mainly just be a very stupid decision, no matter how "artistic" I may think I am being by choosing it.  The only reason I could imagine choosing something like a triangular wheel instead of a round one would be either a severe lack of knowledge and experience, or an utter disregard, ignorance, and stubbornness toward what my actual experience is in choosing to use it.

[m]

I wonder, do you think they were so great because of tradition or because of their individual genius? Or both? Do you think they got their secret out of a tradition?

I never look at any event in the art without historical and cultural context.
Just think, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, and Lhevinne were all classmates (!!!). Hoffmann was just around that time. Just around that time we had names like S. Feinberg, Igumnov, Neuhaus, Oborin, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch. Little later S. Barere, V. Horowitz, then little later Gilels, Richter, Merzhanov, etc. etc. etc.
Were they all individual geniuses? Maybe many of them even were not geniuses, but just with a certain method of teaching, certain cultural values, certain spritual foundations (again all of that based on historical and cultural traditions) were able to realize themselves in a most efficient and accomplished way.

Best, M 

[pianowolfi]

Thank you both for your answers, K and Marik
Sometimes it seems to me that there are two different approaches within the concept of tradition. One of them is what you both describe. If I understand it correctly it can be summed up as "Tools and methods in the service of the individual" The other one, which I encountered sometimes: tradition only as advices on "how something is played correctly" or better "how it needs to sound to be traditionally correct". There are people who can tell you exactly how something has to sound, which voice to emphasize, which sort of rubato needs to be applied at which part of a piece and everything else is just plain wrong to them. Different "interpretations" don't seem to exist for them. Of course it is rarely communicated in this radical form. But this latter approach, whenever I encounter it, makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Though I can't say that it necessarily must be be wrong. Perhaps it's desireable to get a mixture of both approaches.

[m19834]

Thank you both for your answers, K and Marik
Sometimes it seems to me that there are two different approaches within the concept of tradition. One of them is what you both describe. If I understand it correctly it can be summed up as "Tools and methods in the service of the individual" The other one, which I encountered sometimes: tradition only as advices on "how something is played correctly" or better "how it needs to sound to be traditionally correct". There are people who can tell you exactly how something has to sound, which voice to emphasize, which sort of rubato needs to be applied at which part of a piece and everything else is just plain wrong to them. Different "interpretations" don't seem to exist for them. Of course it is rarely communicated in this radical form. But this latter approach, whenever I encounter it, makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Though I can't say that it necessarily must be be wrong. Perhaps it's desireable to get a mixture of both approaches.

Well, I can't help but comment  . 

I think that for anybody who is working their music out in concept and then in physique, how to go about doing all of those things that you mentioned has to be decided at some point and by some process.  To me right now, a person's basic "tool kit" consists of the ability to clearly conceptualize how the piece/passage should sound, and then how to undeniably produce that concept pianistically.  Ideally, even a teaching method that is very direct and specific, in terms of precisely how a piece should sound, will ultimately serve the purpose of helping the individual to build the tools in concept and pianistic ability, as an individual.  In the right circumstances, I don't think that even the most specific advices will shut the gates to individuality, but can actually even open the gates further and heighten individuality.  You know, it's like using the round wheel instead of the triangular one.    

[pianowolfi]

Well, I can't help but comment  . 

Yes you can help. This helped me a lot  

[m19834]

Yes you can help. This helped me a lot  

Okay .  I just have to point out that I understand that it is obviously unique for each individual, depending on what stage in the game they are at and so on.  But, of course, it makes a pretty big difference to be corroborating with somebody whose musical thoughts and opinions you can fully respect and trust, and that you are actually interested in learning more about.