Which is more important- proper technique or rich feeling/mood portrayal

[pianissimo123]

In your opinion, which do you think is best?

[birba]

You can't have the latter without the former.

[stevebob]

You can't have the latter without the former.

Exactly right.  Technique is the means to expression.  It's not possible to make the instrument "speak" the way you want (i.e., convey feelings, portray moods, etc.) unless you can control it.

[invictious]

Without technique, i.e. the means to execute it, you cannot portray the 'rich feeling/mood'.

[gyzzzmo]

As said before, you need proper technique to be able to express yourself, so technique is more important.

[lostinidlewonder]

It is more important to have a rich feeling/mood rather than proper technique. From my teaching experience I find it harder to instill musicality in students than technical capability. If the student does not "feel" or "hear" the music it is a  real uphill battle. Technical ability is easier to practice.

[kitty on the keys]

Technique.....if you dont have the tools....you cannot express the music properly.

Kitty on the Keys

[stevebob]

It is more important to have a rich feeling/mood rather than proper technique. From my teaching experience I find it harder to instill musicality in students than technical capability. If the student does not "feel" or "hear" the music it is a  real uphill battle. Technical ability is easier to practice.

I guess at least one persistent poster here will be delighted to read that.  Unfortunately, those "rich" feelings and moods sound like crap without proper technique for their execution (to all but the self-deluded performer, anyway).

It's absurd to imagine there's disagreement about this (especially from a teacher) or that it's considered debatable.

[lostinidlewonder]

I guess at least one persistent poster here will be delighted to read that.  Unfortunately, those "rich" feelings and moods sound like crap without proper technique for their execution (to all but the self-deluded performer, anyway).

It's absurd to imagine there's disagreement about this (especially from a teacher) or that it's considered debatable.

I guess I should clarify somewhat. When someone understand a passage musically but it is not mastered technically, the technique can be acquired through measurable practice/discipline. But if the person can technically play a passage, that is with memory and comfortable fingering, this does not always make them be able to produce "feeling" with their playing even with a lot of hard work.

I prefer to work with someone who is stronger musically rather than technically, it is better than working with someone who is technically strong but does not understand the language of the music. Musical maturity cannot be really taught, it comes from experience, talented children for instance can play technically wonderfully but they play with no feeling, it is robotic. This feeling is hard to teach, if you naturally have it you have more of a head start than someone technically strong imo.

However there is no point being musically strong and base it on a technique which is not producing your desired sound with physical effortlessness. If we are busy with inefficient technique then the enjoyment to play a piece can be more of a physical workout than it really should be which takes away from our musical playing. BUt if you play musically all the time you can naturally find the correct technique, this is not so if you are technically strong, if you can technically play a passage 100% this does not always mean that you will be able to capture the "feeling" of the passage. But knowing the "feeling" of a piece and being able to produce it with bad technique however will cause more of an automated improvement in technique over time, however with good technique you may have to really work hard to find the musical voice if you do not understand it.

[gyzzzmo]

I guess I should clarify somewhat. When someone understand a passage musically but it is not mastered technically, the technique can be acquired through measurable practice/discipline. But if the person can technically play a passage, that is with memory and comfortable fingering, this does not always make them be able to produce "feeling" with their playing even with a lot of hard work.

This confirms that technique is more important. You can have all the musical feeling of the world, but without technique you wont get anywhere of expressing that. So you FIRST need technique, but only Secondly need musical feeling to do something with the technique.

[birba]

This whole discussion takes on a different light.  "musical feeling" is innate.  Technique is acquired.  Therefore, it's easier to teach technique then "musical feeling", I guess.  But then why would one want to learn technique if one didn't have "musical feeling"?  And "musical feeling" can also condition your technique.  The way I look at it, they go hand in hand.  You absolutely have to have both.

[venik]

This confirms that technique is more important. You can have all the musical feeling of the world, but without technique you wont get anywhere of expressing that. So you FIRST need technique, but only Secondly need musical feeling to do something with the technique.

What he's saying is that technique is useless without musical feeling (yes they both require eachother) but if you have the musical feeling you are much closer to being a great pianist than if you lack musicality and have technique. Do you agree that technique is easier to acquire? Then feeling should have a higher priority. I.e. is it easier to get two peas or a pot? If it's easier to get two peas then you would rather have a pot then two peas.

[gyzzzmo]

What he's saying is that technique is useless without musical feeling (yes they both require eachother) but if you have the musical feeling you are much closer to being a great pianist than if you lack musicality and have technique. Do you agree that technique is easier to acquire? Then feeling should have a higher priority. I.e. is it easier to get two peas or a pot? If it's easier to get two peas then you would rather have a pot then two peas.

First, you need technique for musical expression. You dont need musical expression for showing technique.
Secondly, i actually do think that musical feeling is easier to acquire, although that is ofcourse hard to explain with facts. But i think that people mainly get musical feeling by listening to alot of decent performances and different composers. That is something that grows with time and can be displayed by having a good teacher (provided you have the technique  ). And yes its true that alot of time of a teacher goes into teaching musical details, but i think that the majority of anybodies 'piano time' is being spend on improving technique and getting the technical aspects of a piece into ones fingers.
That requires alot of effort, while musically interpretations go almost automatically when you get more advanced.

Gyzzzmo

[birba]

I.e. is it easier to get two peas or a pot? If it's easier to get two peas then you would rather have a pot then two peas.

?  Are you talking about two peas in a pod?  I don't get it.

[pianissimo123]

AMAZING responses, all. I agree with you people 110%. I feel proper technique is most important to get the depth and feeling you are desiring to achieve when playing a piece. However, there are some people out there who say that playing 'too technical' will make your work sound robotic and redundant.(which imo, is a load of absolute malarky.)   Thank you for reaffirming mydeductions. I wanted to see how many serious musicians felt about this. Thanks allot guys!

[pianissimo123]

?  Are you talking about two peas in a pod?  I don't get it.

 I think what they are saying is that you cannot have richness/meaning with out technique, just like you cannot have the peas without a pod. They are both so interrelated.

[scottmcc]

This whole discussion takes on a different light.  "musical feeling" is innate.  Technique is acquired.  Therefore, it's easier to teach technique then "musical feeling", I guess.  But then why would one want to learn technique if one didn't have "musical feeling"?  And "musical feeling" can also condition your technique.  The way I look at it, they go hand in hand.  You absolutely have to have both.

I will disagree with you slightly.  Musical feeling is something that can be developed, but only in those individuals capable of it, with a receptive ear and the patience to truly listen to music.  by doing so, their "mind“s ear" will grow such that they know better how to express their thoughts musically.  but as everyone else has said, without the technique to back it up, all the musical intuition in the world is relatively useless, at least if you“re trying to perform.  as a listener it“s still beneficial, because you will better understand the sounds with which you are presented.

[liordavid]

There are people who have destroyed their lives striving for perfect technique. We need a balance of both.

[rmbarbosa]

Perhaps technique first. But technique gained without dry technical exercises. I can play scales with a "dry" technique, like a robot. But I can play them with a lot of "nuances". And the same with Czerny, for example. I saw a guy playing Czerny exercises with an extreme musicality. You may find him in youtube. Also we can see in youtube some horrible little girls playing Mozart and Chopin without any "soul", like little monkeys...and MUSIC isnt made for monkeys...Without technic, we cant play MUSIC. But without heart and soul, we cant play MUSIC either. Then, from the first moment one puts his hands on the keyboard, one must search for musicality.
Other way, we are all discussing what appeared first: the egg or the chicken...

[pianoladywong]

In my opinion, I think that in order for someone to master his or her instrument, it is important to have proper technique. Proper technique allows you to maximize the ability to play the instrument.
To perform a piece of music without "rich" feeling or mood, the piece will sound very dull, mechanical and manufactured.

On the other hand, you may perform the piece with a "rich" feeling or mood but with wrong notes or rhythm. This might not impress anyone either.

In my opinion, both technique and feel are equally important.

[ara9100]

You Cannot speak without your'e toungue, and you cant make poetry without speech.

Technique vs Emotion. Alongside Chopin vs Liszt, Is probably the cause of most conflict between musicians.

I believe you need, both technique and Emotion, in your'e music. But you should never let the technique overpower the emotion, and visa versa.

Music is not flashy technique, but rather the ability to enchant your'e audiance. Otherwise it is just noise.

[lovettmusic]

I guess I should clarify somewhat. When someone understand a passage musically but it is not mastered technically, the technique can be acquired through measurable practice/discipline. But if the person can technically play a passage, that is with memory and comfortable fingering, this does not always make them be able to produce "feeling" with their playing even with a lot of hard work.

I prefer to work with someone who is stronger musically rather than technically, it is better than working with someone who is technically strong but does not understand the language of the music. Musical maturity cannot be really taught, it comes from experience, talented children for instance can play technically wonderfully but they play with no feeling, it is robotic. This feeling is hard to teach, if you naturally have it you have more of a head start than someone technically strong imo.

However there is no point being musically strong and base it on a technique which is not producing your desired sound with physical effortlessness. If we are busy with inefficient technique then the enjoyment to play a piece can be more of a physical workout than it really should be which takes away from our musical playing. BUt if you play musically all the time you can naturally find the correct technique, this is not so if you are technically strong, if you can technically play a passage 100% this does not always mean that you will be able to capture the "feeling" of the passage. But knowing the "feeling" of a piece and being able to produce it with bad technique however will cause more of an automated improvement in technique over time, however with good technique you may have to really work hard to find the musical voice if you do not understand it.

Agreed. I do believe that practicing proper technique is the most important when honing piano skills, but technique can be built. Musicality is much harder to teach -- I have a wonderful student who is amazing technically, but she struggles with feeling the music and expressing it adequately. I have been nitpicking her in articulation and dynamics, but until she understands the meaning behind it, her performances will be subpar.

[lostinidlewonder]

I also remember what Chopin said: Each fingers is assigned a particular part. People do not notice uneveness of a scale when played very fast but they do notice when a finger does not produce a desired sound the piece asks for.

[Petter]

lets see, pair of black sunglasses and lots of bling is more important then both

[gyzzzmo]

I also remember what Chopin said: Each fingers is assigned a particular part. People do not notice uneveness of a scale when played very fast but they do notice when a finger does not produce a desired sound the piece asks for.

....wich requires good technique itself

[craig137]

Wrong, wrong, and absolutely wrong about having to have technique to express oneself even VERY effectively.  lostinidlewonder; you do not have to clarify ANYTHING.
I've been teaching MYSELF classical for only a few years.  I probably don't have ANY even decent technique- if I have any AT ALL.  Yet, when I give a little recital; I make the ladies cry on Fur Elise EVERY SINGLE TIME.  That's because I PRACTICE THAT one with total feeling.  (And last time I even made a male (scientist) wet under the eyes, I noticed.)  Once again, I highly doubt I have any technique at all.  And even after only one year of teaching myself- my brother went to great lengths to say how I play with such FEELING and MOOD- and that THAT'S what sets a decent and a great pianist apart.......  No jive.  Oh, and by the way; I consider this brother to be a musical genius for the past 23 YEARS.

Gyzzzmo says that "technique is more important."    Oh, yeah??  Are any of you going to tell the seemly countless pop and rock stars that 'technique is more important"??   Or that 'you must have technique before you can play with effective feeling'?  Are you (anyone?  )  going to tell these extremely successful musicians that have made millions and millions off of musical feeling that "you have to have technique first"?  Anyone want to try to tell Stevie Nicks or Neil Diamond any of that???   Well?  Weeeeelllllllll???

The same goes for probably almost ANY instrument- guitar, as well as with acting.   In my experience and with whoa so many others.   Wel-  WLLLLLLLL???

[gyzzzmo]

Wrong, wrong, and absolutely wrong about having to have technique to express oneself even VERY effectively.  lostinidlewonder; you do not have to clarify ANYTHING.
I've been teaching MYSELF classical for only a few years.  I probably don't have ANY even decent technique- if I have any AT ALL.  Yet, when I give a little recital; I make the ladies cry on Fur Elise EVERY SINGLE TIME.  That's because I PRACTICE THAT one with total feeling.  (And last time I even made a male (scientist) wet under the eyes, I noticed.)  Once again, I highly doubt I have any technique at all.  And even after only one year of teaching myself- my brother went to great lengths to say how I play with such FEELING and MOOD- and that THAT'S what sets a decent and a great pianist apart.......  No jive.  Oh, and by the way; I consider this brother to be a musical genius for the past 23 YEARS.

Gyzzzmo says that "technique is more important."    Oh, yeah??  Are any of you going to tell the seemly countless pop and rock stars that 'technique is more important"??   Or that 'you must have technique before you can play with effective feeling'?  Are you (anyone?  )  going to tell these extremely successful musicians that have made millions and millions off of musical feeling that "you have to have technique first"?  Anyone want to try to tell Stevie Nicks or Neil Diamond any of that???   Well?  Weeeeelllllllll???

The same goes for probably almost ANY instrument- guitar, as well as with acting.   In my experience and with whoa so many others.   Wel-  WLLLLLLLL???

did slow_concert_pianist make a new PS alt named craig?

[thalbergmad]

Once again, I highly doubt I have any technique at all. 

Absurd sentence as if you did not have any technique you would not be able to play Fur Elise.

The reason you are able to play this crappy little piece with feeling is because you are playing within your technical abilities and therefore you can concern yourself with presentation. The next time you give one of your recitals, try playing the Liszt Don Juan and see how many women cream their knickers then.

Thal

[birba]

 

[stevebob]

There are various reasons that a performance could reduce an audience to tears.   

[thalbergmad]

There are various reasons that a performance could reduce an audience to tears.   

Indeed, I remember being in tears after an organ concert in Rochester Cathedral because i discovered i had been given a parking ticket.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

I'd cry too i went a recital and discovered there that the pianist added 'fur elise' to the repetoire.

[rmbarbosa]

I suspect that, if the ladies and that man had tears while you were playing Fur Elise, it`s very possible your concert was done during the epidemy of influenza... Or they were sad because they spent some money with a concert where Fur Elise was performed... 

[lostinidlewonder]

I've asked for requests in concerts and I get Fur Elise thrown at me all the time, and yes I have played it in concert

I agree when I see famous musicians like Billy Joel or Elton John play piano (and are many times more famous and earn a lot more money through music than any of the most famous classical pianist today.), their technique is a bit rough and could be improved but they produce what needs to be done. They do not have masterful technique but they produce the desired sound and that's all that counts to a listening audience.

[lelle]

The problem is that many people seem to focus on technique and technique and technique and... And it seems to me that some of the joy of playing the piano is lost when sitting just hammering technical exercises. Which might explain why you find so many shitty recordings that seem to have zero musical understanding of the piece even if it's technically brilliant. I think technique and feeling needs to be focused on equally.

This is why I prefer old hissy Cortot recordings of Chopin, full of risktaking and technical errors/misses, because they capture the essence of the pieces ten times better than most of the modern recordings I've heard.

[rmbarbosa]

Cortot, yes... But does Elton John PLAY piano? Is this kind of sounds he produces play piano?I do fear someday I`ll see here a guy telling us that Elton John is better, much better, than Horowitz or Glenn Gold or Maria Joćo Pires...

[thalbergmad]

I love Elton John, but do not recall his piano playing being anything more than accompaniment to his singing, unless I am missing something here.

Thal

[rmbarbosa]

I do agree with you, Thal. And you are missing nothing. Independently of to love or not love Elton John, I think he plays more or less chords and his accompaniments are structurally very poor. That`s not MUSIC, it`s only music for entertainment and I`m not feel good when - in the middle of a talk about technique "versus" musical feeling - somebody offers the ladies tears with fur Elise or the music of Elton John as arguments. Here in the Forum and specially in this board we must stay in another level, I think. I apologize if I`m wrong.
The best to you
Rui

[stevebob]

It must be stating the obvious that crafting and performing pop songs is very different from composing and playing classical works.  Elton John is a master of his craft, or at least he was during his artistic peak in the 1970s, and he's but one of innumerable musicians in non-classical genres who could be described as such.  I really can't understand why comparisons are being made where none are possible.  (It's called "apples and oranges."    )

[lelle]

What's wrong with Fur Elise except that it's gotten butchered to death by millions of piano students?

it`s only music for entertainment

isn't the point of music to entertein in some way or another?

[gyzzzmo]

Even for playing Elton John music you need some technique

And for Lelle: there is nothing wrong with Fur Elise, except that there might be more original pieces you could perform at a recital.

[anaqvi]

What would a person with exceptional musicality and no technique look like? What about a person with flawless technique but no feeling...We have all seen the latter but not the former because it does not exist. Technique is necessary to even play the instrument.

[tds]

btw, i got invited to perform in thailand cultural centre, bangkok early next year to perform fur elise, among other things. 

[go12_3]

I think proper technique is important in order to produce the sound and clarity of passages of
notes, however, music needs to be portrayed with feeling and a sensitivity of a piece being performed...not just the notes.  To play a piece well is to have good technique, good sense of
interpretation and rich feelings.   

[pianisten1989]

I think it's funny that you say it as there is One sort of musicality, and One sort of technique.

Martha Argerich, for example, is very virtuoso (is that the word?) musicality, and I don't mind that.
Glenn Gould has a very "mechanical" musicality .
Pogorelich had (Now it's just f-d up) his way, Per Tengstrand has his way, and so on...

[mcdiddy1]

Wrong, wrong, and absolutely wrong about having to have technique to express oneself even VERY effectively.  lostinidlewonder; you do not have to clarify ANYTHING.
I've been teaching MYSELF classical for only a few years.  I probably don't have ANY even decent technique- if I have any AT ALL.  Yet, when I give a little recital; I make the ladies cry on Fur Elise EVERY SINGLE TIME.  That's because I PRACTICE THAT one with total feeling.  (And last time I even made a male (scientist) wet under the eyes, I noticed.)  Once again, I highly doubt I have any technique at all.  And even after only one year of teaching myself- my brother went to great lengths to say how I play with such FEELING and MOOD- and that THAT'S what sets a decent and a great pianist apart.......  No jive.  Oh, and by the way; I consider this brother to be a musical genius for the past 23 YEARS.

Gyzzzmo says that "technique is more important."    Oh, yeah??  Are any of you going to tell the seemly countless pop and rock stars that 'technique is more important"??   Or that 'you must have technique before you can play with effective feeling'?  Are you (anyone?  )  going to tell these extremely successful musicians that have made millions and millions off of musical feeling that "you have to have technique first"?  Anyone want to try to tell Stevie Nicks or Neil Diamond any of that???   Well?  Weeeeelllllllll???

The same goes for probably almost ANY instrument- guitar, as well as with acting.   In my experience and with whoa so many others.   Wel-  WLLLLLLLL???

Wow, women actually cried at one the most overplayed piece on the piano ever besides Moonlight Sonata. Really, how many times can people hear that piece.

You have to have the techniqual abilites to play anything....even the most simplistic pieces. Stevie Nick and Neil Diamond has an incredible amont of knowledge about technique. The  know how to vibrato, control dynamics effectivly and with variety, vocal projection, posture, falsetto, vocal ranges. They are incredibly knowlegedable musicians and all they do requires a technique to do that. Whether they know how to explain it or teach someone how to do it is another thing but without a question they have the technique to do it. The ability to do that is what frees them to be expressive with their music because they have the capicity and ability to do so the concentrate on the musicality of the music. What you hear is the end product of knowledge. If you do not have a vocal box or fingers or know how to use it ..it would appear you do not have musical expression but of course that cannot be true.

You have to practice not to develope musicality but rather how to express musicality on your instrument. True the musicality is in your heart and being able to express it is important but you can dismiss the teachnical ability it takes to produce it. If you ask any of the artist you mention to play a scale or to teach a strumming technique they would probably shock you with the amont of time they spent developing their skills and knowledge. I doubt they all they needed was to be able to feel music and they can magicly play everything beautiful without figuring out how to do it.