My assessment of what constitutes the greatest technique.

[Bob]

Yes, I like that about technique.  You can measure it. 

But there's fast and slow.

Loud and soft.  It's tough to play very loud and fast or very soft and fast. 

[db05]

"Karli's a genuine "head case," posing as a feeling intellectual with the most irrational pronouncements on music that I have ever read.  No, irrational is a compliment.  She's demented and beneath amateurish.  Nothing she writes makes sense.  Opus is "da original speed freak" from a parallel universe who has irritated and driven away some of the most thoughtful pianists on this forum.

That they united in this unholy dialogue strikes me as the most absurd development here in months."

 -- CMG, April 9th 2009

I completely disagree on that bit about Karli. She IS a feeling intellectual, no doubt about it. She's only beyond cmg's understanding. Well that's not her problem.

[omar_roy]

Technique in the simplest sense, as per my hybrid definition garnered by reading the works of Josef Hoffman and Charles Rosen, is the ability to negotiate passages of music precisely and with absolute control.  I would also like to add, that as Charles Rosen aptly states (I am not quoting, but relating from memory a generalization of the text), the way we strike the keys has no impact on the quality of sound.  We like to think that a certain motion of the arms or swinging of the elbows produces a different sound, but it simply does not.  A piano key is a button.  You push it at a certain velocity, and hold it for a certain length, and the sound that emanates from the machine (because the piano is really a mechanical object aside from being an instrument) is relative to that velocity and length.  Whether you smack the key with a hammer or with your finger, if the velocity is the same, the sound will be the same.  You push a button, something happens.  It doesn't matter whether the button is pushed with your finger, a stick, or a mallet.  The impact on sound by pressing the keys differently is garnered by a visual interpretation of what the sound would be like if it really did have an impact on tone quality.  If you see the pianist really sink into the keys, you can see that he wants a heavy sound, and that is what makes it sound heavy.  The visual perception, not any real difference in sound.

Therefore technique is not the playing of music but the facilitation of a passage and must be considered an independent factor.  In this sense, can a human be more efficient than a machine?  No, a human does not possess the same level of precision that a programmed machine does.  Speed and clarity are not the only factors, but volume, and note length as well, and even tempo.  In this, a human will never be able to match a programmed machine.  Thus, as proposed by the topic's author, a PROGRAMMED machine does possess the superior technique, independent of art.

Think you can keep perfect tempo with evenness of tone and length? Think again.  You may think you can, but your ear does not catch everything.  Go hook up a quality Midi Keyboard to a computer, and start up GarageBand or a similar MIDI editing program, and play a scale or arpeggio, anything you please.  Then look at the MIDI sequence.  You'll be surprised.  Pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised, however, is the question.

However, we cannot lose sight of the purpose of building a formidable piano technique.  Yes, it is nice to be able to play clean, fast, even scales and arpeggios, etc.  But aside from that and being able to play very difficult music, is not the purpose of developing that technique to make it easier for us to convey our musical ideas?  Many people could do great justice to monumental piano works yet they simply do not have the physical capability to do so.  Their emotions and their intellect run beyond the capabilities of their hands.

Having that perfect technique, that precise digital control, is more about making it easier to convey our musical thoughts than it is to be able to play things at "x" speed.

Yes, technique and artful playing are independent in theory, but in practice, they are very much intertwined as technique can limit or aid in the latter.

[l. ron hubbard]

Throughout my long career of dedicated study in various fields, I can safely say that no matter what the endeavour, those coming out on top will be treated with utmost respect. I mean look at me!

This is known as survival of the fittest. Those who are the strongest and the fastest win. It is only natural to strive for being the best, and in a culture where elitism is valued greatly, one should realize that no matter what, those who are the fastest or strongest are the focal point.

However, it is also wrong to disregard those who are beneath the zenith. How else would standards be set, should there be no other person to be compared with. You cannot have everyone on top; you need competition.

[m]

I mean look at me!

So far you did not provide any sufficient data, particularly none of some deep insights on piano playing, or at least some recordings, which would make people to look at you at the angle somehow your post suggests. Sorry to say, so far looking at you and looking at the random brick I see on the side of the road for me makes no difference.   

This is known as survival of the fittest. Those who are the strongest and the fastest win. It is only natural to strive for being the best, and in a culture where elitism is valued greatly, one should realize that no matter what, those who are the fastest or strongest are the focal point.

Neither A. Cortot, H. Neuhaus, A. Schanbel, V. Sofronitsky, or E. Gilels were the fastest, or the strongest, but somehow we still know their names as the greatest artists ever lived.

Best, M

[communist]

What a bunch of BS!!! Neither A. Cortot, H. Neuhaus, A. Schanbel, V. Sofronitsky, or E. Gilels were the fastest, or the strongest, but somehow we still know their names as the greatest artists ever lived.

Give me a break...

Best, M

I actually think that was a metaphor.

[michel dvorsky]

Off topic, but

"if god doesn't exist than anything is permitted".
- Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Great quote, but the context matters.

Might want to change the source to: Ivan, from Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky).

[l. ron hubbard]

So far you did not provide any sufficient data, particularly none of some deep insights on piano playing, or at least some recordings, which would make people to look at you at the angle somehow your post suggests. Sorry to say, so far looking at you and looking at the random brick I see on the side of the road for me makes no difference.   

I wasn't talking about piano playing per se. Throughout my long career in many departments, I can safely say that those who excel in said departments are to be viewed with greater respect by others. Is it not true that the astrophysicist who performs faster and more thorough in analysis would be chosen over the lesser candidate? Comparing me or anyone else to a "random brick" doesn't stimulate a positive flow of discourse. Please respect others if you want to be respected yourself.

Neither A. Cortot, H. Neuhaus, A. Schanbel, V. Sofronitsky, or E. Gilels were the fastest, or the strongest, but somehow we still know their names as the greatest artists ever lived.

You are right. The artists you mentioned were the best in their fields. However, times change and conventional paradigms change. What those artists embodied is not anymore the current focus of this modern world. When the world embraces artifice and efficiency, quality is seen as more expendable than quantity. Look at the top musicians these days. Would you not say that they often embody the same principles I ascribed to the principles of the modern world? Faster and more accurate yet often devoid of content? I am in no way suggesting that this trend is necessarily the right one, but the facts cannot be ignored. Reverting back to old paradigms is an impediment to human evolution.

[m19834]

I am posting to declare with fervor that I now have a new respect for fast, clean playing.  Of course, I am only impressed with it in others as I am being able to do it myself  .  No, but really, I better realize what it takes to have a truly clear and clean sound (besides "hitting" all the right notes), and then to do that quickly, too.  It's an accomplishment and worth listening to and appreciating.  That doesn't erase most of what I have ever said on the subject, it's just that I am more or less adding to it with this thought.

An interesting-to-me thought is that there is actually a pretty wide range of "ability" just within clean speed playing.  It is starting to mean something much different to me than it used to. 

Bye bye !

[berniano]

"Not much will come of this discussion" me thinks I heard a while back............

it appears that someone may have been plahying devil's adovacate?

[m19834]

"Not much will come of this discussion" me thinks I heard a while back............

it appears that someone may have been plahying devil's adovacate?

Yeah, I was wrong ... in a way  .  Of course, in reality, my last post really came about through study and practice and such .

[slow_concert_pianist]

A machine will replicate notes far faster than any human would find possible, but technique enables performance. The ulimate aim of any performer is to find the issued music. Showmanship is merely a bi-product lest you all forget.