My assessment of what constitutes the greatest technique.

[dr suchong]

The issue of technique has been the subject of many threads, and many acrimonious debates associated with them. I will try to propound my own, more or less objective theory as to how technique could be measured.

Technique is really only a method for the achievement of a desired result. In this sense, the pianist with the greatest technique is one that is able to attain the results he or she desired to attain, with the greatest finesse.

If speed and accuracy is the desired goal, then the pianist should be judged strictly on finger mechanics as they relate to speed/accuracy ratio. The person with the greatest speed, and least ammount of undesired notes, is the greatest technician.

Subjectivity is addressed by the definition of "technique." Only those with the greatest grasp of the method of attaining a target, whatever it may be, can be truly said to possess the best technique.

That said, pertaining to the debate of who has the greatest technique when it comes to speed and accuracy, the only plausible answer is quite honest: A what, not a who, constitutes the anwer to technique.

Machine, has the greatest technique.

[m19834]

Machine, has the greatest technique.

A machine doesn't listen to itself, does not percieve itself or music, and that's why the music of a machine has no living, breathing, real-time personality.  If somebody "plays like a machine" and lacks personality, it is because their ability to listen, hear, percieve, is stunted, at best.  Playing like a machine is not truly about lacking flaws.  Being human is not truly about having them; it is the ability to percieve.

[dr suchong]

A machine doesn't listen to itself, does not percieve itself or music, and that's why the music of a machine has no living, breathing, real-time personality.  If somebody "plays like a machine" and lacks personality, it is because their ability to listen, hear, percieve, is stunted, at best.

Whether or not a machine has perspective of its work is out skope. Strictly speaking, no human can equal the performance of a machine in speed/accuracy ratio. Therefore, a machine will always have a better technique in regards to said playing traits.

[m19834]

Whether or not a machine has perspective of its work is out skope.

Yes, sorry.  I know  .  I am just in my own world over here ... hee hee.  I am so much in my own world that I had the nerve to even add to my initial post.  Carry on though, of course.  I'm sure this will be a very interesting conversation !

*goes back to piano*

[m19834]

dr suchong :  "yes, this is how it goes"

*anybody else :  "no, it's not"

dr suchong :  "ya huh"

anybody else : "nut uh"

dr suchong :  "you are all stupid"

anybody else :  "that's not nice !"

dr suchong :  "well, goodbye then"



end of discussion.


* = possible alternate ending here.


dr suchong :  "yes, this is how it goes"

anybody else :  "yes, you're brilliant" end of discussion.

[m19834]

One flaw with your initial statement, from my perspective.  A machine doesn't "aim" or "attain its target" (as you put it) as aim implies intent (with the ability to miss, btw), which a machine doesn't have any of.  Its accuracy is not its own, but in fact it is actually human.

[opus10no2]

Musically, the machine has quite a bit to offer also.

With certain music I prefer a MIDI to any existing recording.


The main problem with discussions like this is that the dictionary definition of technique isn't known by all, and the word is misused.

Pianists play fast because they have faster fingers, and by and large everyone can learn the technique of moving them efficiently in minutes.

[dr suchong]

One flaw with your initial statement, from my perspective.  A machine doesn't "aim" or "attain its target" (as you put it) as aim implies intent (with the ability to miss, btw), which a machine doesn't have any of.  Its accuracy is not its own, but in fact it is actually human.

That is also out of skope. Whatever intrinsic aim the machine may or may not have, the fact that it can attain the speed/accuracy ratio that no human can ever achieve is a testimony of machine's superiority in regards to technique.

[m19834]

That is also out of skope. Whatever intrinsic aim the machine may or may not have, the fact that it can attain the speed/accuracy ratio that no human can ever achieve is a testimony of machine's superiority in regards to technique.

Sorry, but no, this time you are dead wrong.  It is not out of scope.  The point is, the machine isn't actually attaining anything.  And, technique itself implies a method of attaining a target, which it's not doing any of.  IT is more or less a human tool and method.

It can sound quicker and more note accurate (though not tonally accurate, btw).  So what ?  To compare it truly, it would need to have the same apparatus as a human, and the same equation to face, which is how to actually use the apparatus (including the mind) to produce the desired sound ... but wait !  It has no perception at all of a desired sound !  etc. etc. etc.

[opus10no2]

We have the machine, the machine is the technique. Yes.

[m19834]

We have the machine, the machine is the technique. Yes.

This still implies human accuracy, not a machine's.  And, aside from that, it is not tonally accurate.  They simply can't be compared, no matter how you slice it, in my opinion.

[go12_3]

Well, judging from another post topic , on method,  dr suchong had a list of hours and what needs to be practiced on daily.  Granted that even we, a normal human being, can endure such a pracitice routine, I would suggest to try his list and see how we can feel like "machine."   

best wishes,

go12_3

[dr suchong]

Sorry, but no, this time you are dead wrong.  It is not out of scope.  The point is, the machine isn't actually attaining anything.  And, technique itself implies a method of attaining a target, which it's not doing any of.  IT is more or less a human tool and method.

It can sound quicker and more note accurate (though not tonally accurate, btw).  So what ?  To compare it truly, it would need to have the same apparatus as a human, and the same equation to face, which is how to actually use the apparatus (including the mind) to produce the desired sound ... but wait !  It has no perception at all of a desired sound !  etc. etc. etc.

I think you misunderstand me. If technique is a method of attaining a product, and a machine is an invention capable of attaining said product (and does so better than any human can ever achieve), it is therefore a valid representative of technique.

Human fingers are also human tools.

I don't follow your "tonally accurate" assertion. If all the right notes are played, that is those that are confined to a tonality, then the playing is accurate.

[olszewski]

.

[dr suchong]

Fair enough, but if that is the case, how can we objectively decide which pianist desired what?

Seeing as how the conversation is pointing to a new direction, I will allow to entertain the new topic.

This can more or less be addressed by observing the pianists and their achievements. Surely, we may never know of any artist's true intent, especially of those who are deceased, but we can make educated guesses as to their individual styles, based on their playing. It is a fact that some pianists tend to emphasize speed and clarity more than nuance.

No, this is fundamentally incorrect. Let me quote Neuhaus:

“Technique cannot be created in a vacuum just as you cannot create a form devoid of any content.”

Ironically, he also states, “Present-day technology is striving to turn the machine into a human being (through the number and variety of operations it can perform), but it is sinful and stupid to turn man into a machine.

Whether or not a machine will turn into a human is a different debate, but the fundamental aspect of machine's technical superiority is clear. A human simply cannot achieve the same precision that a machine can achieve. We already see this everywhere. Surgery for example, is dependent more and more on precision tools.

You are saying that as a machine can only have the greatest technique, we must approach that level. This is true in that we should attain the greatest level of humanly possible technique, and this is entirely subjective. But to suggest that a machine would have the greatest possible technique is wrong in itself as I can safely hypothesize that in our lifetimes we will not be able to create a machine equivalent to a human being.

I am not suggesting that as humans, we must approach the machine. That is impossible. As previously stated, the machine will always excel at the tasks it is assigned to do. We must therefore relinquish some of the tasks we no longer excel in.

[olszewski]

.

[opus10no2]

Most of the music we hear is reproduced by machines.

We humans input our expressive data and the machine produces the sound.

[dr suchong]

A machine is not technically superior to a human. Why? Because technique is not only precision or only accuracy as you seem to suggest. To return to Karli's initial post, a machine will never have perception and perspective on the level of a human, and to truly create music (for which real technique is necessary), both are necessary. When the day comes that a machine is able to have both of these factors, coupled with a sensory system as accurate as a human, the machine will cease being machine and will be able to replicate a human. But then, if our own sensory perception is not perfect, how can we possible create something that is beyond us?

Again, you go out of skope of the initial argument. Various techniques produce different results. The results in question are speed and accuracy. A machine will always attain higher speeds, and higher accuracy. Therefore, it possesses superior technique to that of man.

Again, it is not necessary for a machine to ever gain perception of itself in order to display superiority in function.

Most of the music we hear is reproduced by machines.

We humans input our expressive data and the machine produces the sound.

Yes. Musical instruments are machines. The human brain interprets their use.

[m19834]

The results in question are speed and accuracy.

No.  The results in question, at least as you actually stated yourself, are the speed and accuracy with which a target is attained.  That is actually different, as what I am questioning is not speed and accuracy in and of themselves (which by themselves mean nothing), but rather what the target actually is.

[olszewski]

.

[m19834]

I don't follow your "tonally accurate" assertion. If all the right notes are played, that is those that are confined to a tonality, then the playing is accurate.

No.  Tone is more than notes.  It is everything about who we are and how we percieve all that is  .  And, btw, our apparatus is perfectly suited to this, and not only that, but our tonal perceptions are actually idiomatic to what our apparatus is.

But, please, by all means, if you personally feel that machines should take over the music making business, step aside !  If you believe that, then certainly you have no place on the bench.

[dr suchong]

No.  The results in question, at least as you actually stated yourself, are the speed and accuracy with which a target is attained.  That is actually different, as what I am questioning is not speed and accuracy in and of themselves (which by themselves mean nothing), but rather what the target actually is.

No, the results in question are speed and accuracy. That is the target to which I was referring to.

But it is impossible to compare speed and accuracy without a musical context! Who cares how fast you are and how accurate you are? That is not technique.

Yes it is. You have the score, and you have the tempo. The machine will always have a greater tempo. No matter the musical context, the tempo and accuracy, which are the factors in question, are always going to be executed better by a machine.

[m19834]

No, the results in question are speed and accuracy. That is the target to which I was referring to.

Unless you have a target, then it can't be measured.  So, nice try but no cigar.

[dr suchong]

Unless you have a target, then it can't be measured.  So, nice try but no cigar.

The target is speed and accuracy, and both can be measured.

[m19834]

The target is speed and accuracy, and both can be measured.

Speed and accuracy can't be measured without a point A and a point B.  End of story.

Still no cigar.

[don largo]

The observation of the correlation between technique and mechanization seems apt enough, but the apparent perception of its meaning seems to have been lost upon the esteemed members of this forum.

Technique is a tool, a mechanism which enables the artist to better express himself; Talent is an innate ability without which all the technique in the world will avail you not.

Hence, technique is to some extent machine-like by nature, and, hence, machines are inherently technically superior--the degree of technical superiority being largely a measure of the ability of programmers and engineers.  This is not to say that attaining technique renders you machine-like or that machines are more "musical" than humans.  Do not be confused by the fallacious assumption of a reciprocal correlation here.

While the cultivation of technique is good and necessary, it would seem that the recent conception of it is reminiscent of the dreaded egotist of which our dear Claudito was so opposed.  Trust me.  Resident in Japan for the better part of a decade, I know of what I speak.  In this country, there is any quantity of technique, and we now eagerly await only the arrival of some talent.

My apologies to any of you who learned Suzuki or who are currently inflicting it upon others.

[dr suchong]

They can't be measured with a point A and a point B.  End of story.

Yes they can. Speed can always be measured and accuracy can always be measured. If what you say is true, then all recordings of Chopin's op10 no4 are the same speed, and the same collection of notes (no doubt you agree that mistakes occur in some of them).

[m19834]

Yes they can. Speed can always be measured and accuracy can always be measured.

IF you have a point A and a point B. 

[dr suchong]

IF you have a point A and a point B. 

Start time/end time.

[m19834]

Start time/end time.

From where to where ?    Floating in outer space ?

[dr suchong]

Technique is a tool, a mechanism which enables the artist to better express himself; Talent is an innate ability without which all the technique in the world will avail you not.

"Talent" is a latent capacity for technique. Technique, like you said, is a device aimed at fostering a desired product. If the desired product is speed and accuracy, then only machines possess the greatest amount of technique for the job. In this aspect, a machine is more talented than a man.

[don largo]

I know that I don't advocate machines or machine-like pianists.  In fact, I take Mr. Suchong's comments to mean that lessemphasis should be placed on the technical development of pianists and more on the artistic element of music performance.

Irrational fears of being somehow usurped by computers are irrational and irrelevant.  If you are a true artist, you will play your heart out and not concern yourself with what the machines, other musicians or even members of the audience are doing.  Pseudo philosophical arguments of the If a computer plays music in the woods... genre are sophomoric and misguided.  

[iroveashe]

The issue of technique has been the subject of many threads, and many acrimonious debates associated with them. I will try to propound my own, more or less objective theory as to how technique could be measured.

Technique is really only a method for the achievement of a desired result. In this sense, the pianist with the greatest technique is one that is able to attain the results he or she desired to attain, with the greatest finesse.

If speed and accuracy is the desired goal, then the pianist should be judged strictly on finger mechanics as they relate to speed/accuracy ratio. The person with the greatest speed, and least ammount of undesired notes, is the greatest technician.

You just said it yourself, IF speed and accuracy are the desired goal. That's a huge 'if'. From my point of view, the greatest technique is that which adapts to each and every need, accuracy and speed being just ONE of those needs, and not the most important one in that matter; it's the means to achieve ANY musical goal, to make everything sound exactly the way you want it to sound. So no, machines are not the greatest technician, because even if they can play fast and not hit the wrong notes, that's far from what I consider technique means. If you just want to say "machines are faster and more precise than humans" then sure, I can agree on that.

[don largo]

A great deal of what you say rings true to me, but I'm skeptical about something at the core of your argument.

 

it's the means to achieve ANY musical goal, to make everything sound exactly the way you want it to sound.

This statement appears true when viewed in context of your personal goal as a musician and your motivation for practicing technique, but it doesn't help to truly define technique.  It is a subtle difference.  How about saying "...the means to achieve any musical sound..."  As far as making something sound precisely the way you want it to in terms of technique, the human loses.  Our only salvation is that other element, the musical goal, itself.  Don't confuse the goal with the action of achieving that goal.

Otherwise, what you say makes a great deal of sense.

[opus10no2]

Irrational fears of being somehow usurped by computers are irrational and irrelevant.

Yes, the reason running races is still popular despite the invention of cars.

The existing piano repertoire almost all bears the limits of finger velocity in mind, written to be played by humans, but with newer technology - the physical limitations don't exist.
The paradox is that the opposite difficulty becomes apparent - it's easy to have the notes played metronomically and in uniform dynamic - but it brings up new difficulties in inputting sublte creative performance details.

[m19834]

The existing piano repertoire almost all bears the limits of finger velocity in mind, written to be played by humans, but with newer technology - the physical limitations don't exist.

That is one opinion, which probably has something to do with why most modern day pianists may all sound alike to some individuals.  While we obviously may face physical limitations in how fast we play, even if a computer can play faster, our aural perception and mind perception of those sounds are still limited by what they can take in and process.  And, in fact, the point of the pieces is not to press the physical limits of the speed of hands and fingers, at least that is not the kind of music I am interested in.  It is rather a nutrition for our ears in how we develop a musical concept from point A to point B.

The concept of getting from start to finish in a certain amount of time is much different than the concept of getting from tonic to tonic by way of some tonal path.

[opus10no2]

How is that relevant?

The computer can play faster and thus opens new expressive possibilities, fact.

Your opinion is that these possibilities are irrelevant? tempo is irrelevant?

By being apprehensive about embracing technology.. one can stifle art.

The origin of the word technology is .. guess what

[m19834]

Well, I am not apprehensive about "embracing technology" so far as it can achieve what needs to be achieved.  I personally think it doesn't yet achieve the point of the music (which, to me, is perfectly relevant), and I personally think that music needs humanity to interact with it as the artistic technician, or at least that is what I am interested in at the time.  That's it, plain and simple  . 

I have given a bit of what I already think regarding music and technique in this thread.  Probably I should direct that towards some more practicing this evening instead of this thread .  I was mainly just having a bit of fun by responding in the first place.

[opus10no2]

I personally think that music needs humanity to interact with it as the artistic technician

?? Of course, and I never said otherwise, and anyone else has they're probably just confusing semantics.

The human is always the technician, but the technique can be either our hands or a computer program.

And, in fact, the point of the pieces is not to press the physical limits of the speed of hands and fingers, at least that is not the kind of music I am interested in. 

Of which pieces do you speak?

[m19834]

The human is always the technician, but the technique can be either our hands or a computer program.

Well, I know that some people embark on computer generated music as their means of expression.  Perhaps I should venture into listening to that, I don't know.  But, for me, as I have indicated before, that is tonally inaccurate to my ears.  When something comes strictly from the hands of a human being, with all of the perceptions they have of life, of who they are, of what music is, it is a completely different ball game, and one in which I am most interested at the time.  Nothing can replace it nor even compete with it, in my opinion.

Then again, you are talking with an individual who has no-door cupboards and individually hand-crafted clay plates and bowls made by a local artist, for everyday use.

In any event, honestly, I don't expect much from this discussion.  It's just a dead end as I indicated very early on.  There are only two possible ways to answer and it is basically either yes or no.  I have raised what I think are pertinent points and it has served mainly as clarification to myself.

Anyhoo, perhaps you would like to go answer quaver's theory questions in the theory board ?  Or, perhaps we could have a computer do that by playing quickly at him/her ?  I don't know  .

[rc]

Sorry if I missed it - I'm very tired, but are we talking about a machine playing a piano or a machine just doing it's own thing?

I have a hard time imagining a piano-playing machine even approaching what the flexible human mind can do.  Besides speed, controlling dynamic shading, adjusting pedalling, different actions on different pianos, tone control...  adjusting to different instruments - all these things requiring dynamic feedback.  What a complex machine that would be!  An interesting project maybe, but my bet is we'd get a better result just training anybody to play.

If we're talking more about a computer playing music, well could that even be called technique in the same sense as playing piano?

[opus10no2]

@ Karli

Is your opinion empirical?

Do you know that whenever you listen to a cd it's music via technology?
Every recording on this site including your own are also digitally replicated through technology.

A great deal of modern popular music is synthesized and is loved by millions who are moved by it.

I think your concerns and attachments are extramusical, and that's fine.. just so long as you know it.

[opus10no2]

Bear in mind this is only one application of technology, but check this out -

https://www.kevinhadsell.com/background/philosophy1.html

[m19834]

@ Karli

Is your opinion empirical?

Do you know that whenever you listen to a cd it's music via technology?
Every recording on this site including your own are also digitally replicated through technology.

Yes, I know, of course. 

A great deal of modern popular music is synthesized and is loved by millions who are moved by it.

Well, that's good for them, I guess  .

I think your concerns and attachments are extramusical, and that's fine.. just so long as you know it.

Well, I think that you see it that way, and that's fine, too, even if you don't know it. 

Bear in mind this is only one application of technology, but check this out -

https://www.kevinhadsell.com/background/philosophy1.html

It is interesting.  I actually went ahead and read through his site and listened to several samples.  Thanks for the link .

[furtwaengler]

A machine doesn't listen to itself, does not percieve itself or music, and that's why the music of a machine has no living, breathing, real-time personality.  If somebody "plays like a machine" and lacks personality, it is because their ability to listen, hear, percieve, is stunted, at best.  Playing like a machine is not truly about lacking flaws.  Being human is not truly about having them; it is the ability to percieve.

Karli, I think I understand where you're coming from, much more than where anybody else is coming from on this...but then I've not read most of this thread nor have I the slightest interest in this thread, except to highjack it and use it as a vehicle to promote the incomparable genius of Conlon Nancarrow. I urge you to listen to his Studies for Player Piano, which are living, breathing, and overflowing with joyful and delightful personality. Of course it is Nancorrow himself and his delightfully complex music from which the personality is born, but you can't say the instrument (with his doctoring) is insignificant. In fact it is a major part of the humor, the joy, and the genius of it - Nancarrow chose to write for a machine, pieces impossible for the human, and he spent this opportunity well; he went far enough and beyond to make it well worth it.

(Now that I say this, there are these ambitious few who attempt to tackle aspects of a few of these studies in various ensemble arrangements. You can find a trumpeter and a bassoonist playing along with dead on precision with no. 7, and also a 2 piano arrangement of the same attempted by Thomas Ades and somebody else at a festival!)

Anyway, I read the quoted on a week in which I've been exploring again these player piano studies, listening to the five disk set of all 50 of them on Wergo on my hour long drives into work, and on a day when I shared a listening of two of the disks at the home of a couple singing friends from work (and yes, we all enjoyed it very much). Music for a machine with the personality of a composer, yes…yes indeed.

To blabber on, I was just looking at Ligeti's final etude, "Canons," one of many inspired by musical mechanisms, and Nancarrow specifically. In the instructions concerning the necessity of tempo alterations due to fingerings, he writes "The machine occasionally falters." That's a wit I can appreciate!

In summation, I think Conlon Nancarrow is great,

The end.

[m19834]

In response to the thread and ideas brought forth I will say, when anybody expresses by any means everything that a piece of music is, everything that art is, everything that life is, and everything that I am, I will be happy to donate my worthy organs and grant permission that my further remains be used towards a worthy cause like soap or glue.  Until then, I will return to my bench.

[keypeg]

I'd like to suggest that something is being missed here.  Music is an expression or artistic statement or an interpretation of musical ideas, or some such thing.  In order to be able to do this expressing, we must understand the elements of music and also be able to execute  certain actions which will work with these elements (time, articulation, dynamics, etc.).  Roughly that is technique.  Technical control is an element of music, but it is not the music.  If you have a good feeling for the music, but not the technique, then you cannot do what you intend to do with the music.  If you have technical prowess but no vision or feeling, you will produce a machine-like accuracy that may be appreciated but will fail to move.

There is an attitude that sees music as a cross between an Olympic event and a chess match: the mentality of the virtuouso, maybe.   If music is reduced to that, then machines can do a better job on both counts.  But is that music and musicianship?

[dr suchong]

I'd like to suggest that something is being missed here.  Music is an expression or artistic statement or an interpretation of musical ideas, or some such thing.  In order to be able to do this expressing, we must understand the elements of music and also be able to execute  certain actions which will work with these elements (time, articulation, dynamics, etc.).  Roughly that is technique.  Technical control is an element of music, but it is not the music.  If you have a good feeling for the music, but not the technique, then you cannot do what you intend to do with the music.  If you have technical prowess but no vision or feeling, you will produce a machine-like accuracy that may be appreciated but will fail to move.

There is an attitude that sees music as a cross between an Olympic event and a chess match: the mentality of the virtuouso, maybe.   If music is reduced to that, then machines can do a better job on both counts.  But is that music and musicianship?

Without mechanical execution of notes, music ceases to exist. Simply put, a machine will always be better at executing the notes.

You must understand that in this respect, a machine is more musical than you. You must give yourself over to the machine.

[go12_3]

Well, I hope that  we won't turn  into a "machine", 
that we will keep the feelings and interpretation with  the humanistic elements of music.  Music shouldn't have to be mechanical and yet, listen to the digital stuff that is in the Internet along with the electric violin(which a  boo hoo to me).  I would rather not let a machine take over my music because it is a part of me, and how I am and becoming.  Technique is important, but not to the extent that we cannot enjoy the FEEL of our fingers going up and down the keyboard, ah, that gratifiying experience of visual and audio, that goes along in learning a piece whether we are a student, amateur or a professional.

best wishes,

go12_3

[m19834]

I want to be a machine.  I am a machine.

Me machine.  I am a me machine.  That's not a very good machine.  I will be instead a music machine. 

Machines out music.

machine.                         

                                             machine.

         machinen ...


machiney ....


musicy machine ....


                                                 music machiney ...

machine is a cool sounding word .... machine ... machine ... machine ...


                       maaaaaCHine

MMMAAAchine ... (bless you)

                                                machINE ...

                                                                              machine envy ...

                                   machinevy ...

mach 20

machine ... machine