What comprises "traditional" lessons?

[m1469]

Those are mainly my questions, but I do wonder what is considered to be "traditional" anymore?  And is the tradition of Classical music dependent upon them?

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,
I think it is not possible to draw a precise line between traditional and non traditional piano pedagogy. The main question is that traditional teachers never realize they are that orthodox. And non traditional teachers most of the time are just non traditional teachers wannabes.

That said, let me think freely.  

1. The main point to me is the existance of a syllabus. It denotes a believe in a certain kind of epistemology and, thus, of learning. The basic idea is: if a path is believed to work, it must work for everyone. Always. In any circumstance.

2. The second premise is that the goal of everyone is the same. Of course, that leads us to your second question. A syllabus is a manifestation of a canon, i.e., the establishment as it manifests itself in classical music. So, let me please rephrase your question: Is the tradition of Classical music dependent upon its canon? Well, the answer seems very clear to me: yes.

3. By and large, piano students actually do want to play Bach, Beethoven, Brahms. But why is that? OK, OK: it is a huge debate, and I don't want to oversimplify things. However, I think it's possible to agree on a point: the phonographic industry did shape our taste since the early 30s. And it's perhaps impossible now to escape it: you begin studying piano, and you listen to a great artist playing Chopin. It acts as a model. You play Chopin as well. Your syllabus asks you to play Chopin. Any competition/exam asks you to play Chopin. Most audiences will ask to have Chopin in the menu. And Chopin (you might replance "Chopin" with any mainstream composer from mid 18th century to early 20th century) is the upmost goal in a certain traditional path.

4. How to play Chopin etudes? The answer is not simple, because it depends on another question: Who made the best recording of the Chopin etudes? This one depends on another: What is a good interpretation of Chopin etudes? And, finally: How is it possible to achieve the same dexterity/fluency/technique/speed/any-term-you-like of this interpretation in this particular recording?

5. We reach now, with Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance as incidental music, the Great Doors of the Traditional Piano Institution. Interpretation lies on technique and technique lies on exercises. Daily, painful, muscular exercises. Many of them. This is known as The Path. And yes, I'm talking about Czerny, Hanon, but also about Bach, Beethoven sonatas, and Chopin etudes. This is tradition, and this is normally taught in a traditional fashion.

6. A first rupture happens when someone realizes that people learn things differently. It leads us to reevaluate the value and the authority of a syllabus, and then, the meaning of its path. Notice that the canon itself remains, but there is no precise sequence to it. Here, you may dismiss Hanon, for instance, or start Bach with the two-part inventions (instead of the spurious Anna Magdalena notebook).

7. A parallel breach occurs when a teacher have a different notion of interpretation. If you drop velocity as the main focus of music - a very traditional notion - everything changes. For instance, certain studies of Chopin became quite easy. If you add this to the reevaluation of the given syllabus, you have quite a revolution. There are no known paths, and there are no precise goals. Yeap: it may turns easily into chaos. That's why, imho, people love syllabus and traditional teaching so much: it is a safe path.

8. A further break, and the ultimate one, is possible when the whole piano playing is reevaluated. Why bother with a particular - and famous - difficult part, if you may rewrite it in a way it falls under your own fingers?

To me, personally, I think that you must dwell in tradition before being able to speak for yourself. So, I'm very pro canon (Bach, Beethoven, etc). On the other hand, the way we can solve this repertory is constantly improving. So, it makes no sense at all to me to rely upon something that was useful a hundred or more years ago. It's something like sticking to radio transmission because it's traditional and reliable, and ignore the existance of internet. Yes, you can communicate with radio, but you communicate in many other ways with the internet, including radio broadcasts...

Too many ideas...any of that make sense to you?

Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.  I love it!  I am thinking ... 

[m1469]

Okay, I want to try to put some thoughts together, but there's a lot of thoughts that are surely not even close to being fully formed yet.  Of course, I don't know who you are and what your background is, but I wanted to consider your points at least as a kind of substantial "devil's advocate" in reasoning.  There are some points you mention which I don't know how to agree with, because I'm not sure how you would have reached them.  Overall, though, it seems that the viewpoint you are presenting is that both traditional lessons, as well as what is considered to be Classical music and techniques, are, basically ... whimsical.  Whether you are actually meaning to put it that way or not, I don't know, but I myself have considered for a long time that very idea.

At this point, I think that (officially as of today), I don't agree with that notion.  In fact, I think that the raw ore of Classical music, its evolution, and whatever its tradition, is based upon scientific and pragmatic ways of thinking, not excluding intuition, individual talent and intelligence, and new ideas.  Of course there are 'overboard' ways of approach on either end, where two people can both believe they are studying and/or playing Classically, and one by way of "anything goes" and the other by way of "there's only one way to go."  But, that's not what I'm talking about.  I am talking about the very tradition of being pragmatic.  The very tradition of being scientific and of re-evaluating as to how something is functioning and whether it's functioning as is desired.  I think that's the Classical and, in a way, traditional, approach.

I think that what I was/am seeking in this question was something along the lines of wondering at what point is something considered traditional, and then at what point has it changed so much that it could no longer be considered such.  Something like learning to cook an omelet, it could be an omelet only for so long until enough is subtracted from the recipe and/or enough is added, and then at some point, it must be called something else.  Overall, I don't think this is actually what Classical music, interpretation of that music, classical techniques, and "tradition" is about.  Like I said, some people may treat it that way and others may purposely not.

I do, however, think that there are certain veins of knowledge which have been gained through human progress (including sciences, reasoning, but also social structures and cultural tendencies, as well) which are worth being passed along.  I mean, the instrument itself, in its furthest descendant, came from a Pythagorean mathematical measuring device with one string.  And, while I find it difficult to believe that curiosity wouldn't have played a role in its development, it would certainly not be fair to credit what it is today as something which is/was basically accidentally and whimsically blowing in the breeze over the Centuries.  The music which we consider as Classical is as much a part of the kinds of scientific thinking that went into the instrument's development as the instrument is itself.

So, when it comes to the subject of interpretation, of technique, of ways of teaching and learning and development, I think it's important to keep evaluating ... but that doesn't necessarily mean it becomes entirely subjective, that everything should get thrown out or that everything should be kept, etc..  Going back to my little thought on learning to cook an omelet, even though in the case of the instrument's development it in fact did morph into something entirely different than how it started, I guess the point to me is that what it developed into was not exactly accidental.  Sometimes I get the feeling that it is very easy to go too far into one direction, especially this day in age, where thoughts on lessons and related subjects, becomes similar to the difference between a master chef having learned how to make a dish, based on traditional knowledge, maybe combined with some modern technologies and his/her own imagination, and it truly being something spectacular, vs. a 3 yr. old wandering into the kitchen, deciding to "cook" and throwing cat poop and dirt into a pan with butter and calling it food ... and a bunch of people saying "well, who are we to say it's not?" ... haha.  "who are we to say one is food and one is not when it's all subjective anyway?"

Well, I think I'll stop there for now ... hee hee.

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,
I think we can dig deeper into this subject, but now is my turn: I need time to think about what you wrote!
I'll be back in a couple of days. Btw, thanks for something to evaluate during my sunday's walking (I think tomorrow will be quite a nice day: sunny and cold!).
Best regards,
Jay.

[lostinidlewonder]

I feel that the ability to read music was quite important and focused on a great deal. How to gain the habit to play without watching the fingers and controlling the hands via fingering technique. Since mostly upper socio economic groups could really afford piano lessons and usually did so more than once a week, every weekday was not uncommon and would allow for intensive sight reading lessons to work much more effectively (although I could imagine quite brutal and exhausting for the beginner!).

These days sight reading is not a skill that most people starting out piano are interested in learning or achieving. It is full of drudgery and hard work but I think the traditional lessons had it right to get the student to learn reading effectively asap, the problem with doing that these days is that getting daily lessons is next to impossible. Most students these days are too busy doing other activities and cannot study music in this manner. Thus sight reading nowadays has become an experience based skill, over the years you get better by reading every day, teachers don't anymore get the beginners to do the hard work immediately because getting the daily lessons can't be set up and I believe would be necessary to teach the thorough basis and extensions of sight reading skills early on to the general population. I even find trying to teach advanced/intermediate playing skill students sight reading very difficult on a week by week basis, they can fall into their bad habits too easily without guidance, but it is not to say we can't set them up to try with some guidelines to help but weekly sight reading courses are just too slow and it is difficult to get the student to stretch themselves with sight reading, the baby steps weekly are too slow, taking baby steps daily works excellent (but most students are not this serious about mastering sight reading let alone setting up the foundation for it and beginning further development when they start out).


I posted not long ago some 1906 perspective on teaching piano.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=39616.0

[pianowolfi]

Yes lostin, that perfectly sums it up.
My experience shows that during the first years continuity in the younger student's progress can only be achieved by constant guided practice. I remember that Marik has put a note into his studio policy that parents must attend the lessons and guide the students in their practice. I will now do something similar. And I will make continuous (sight) reading practice a precondition for taking piano lessons with me, as I am fed up with spending 80% of my teaching time and energy with starting from scratch over and over. Perhaps I will lose some students, but those who are really serious about piano and music will stay. For those who have trouble with reading I will do one or two quarters after the summer only focused on systematical reading training, and perhaps make a test at the end of this phase which they must pass if they want to stay with me. I'd estimate that 80% of those persons who give up on piano do it because they never developed this skill effectively and consequently.

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,
Whimsical...well, I don't know if I would choose this very word, but yes: I think much of what is Classical music and its traditional teaching is about something that is not on the music, and it was never there. Time to go concrete: I used Chopin as an example and I'll stick to it. Consider his first study, opus 10 number 1. Quite a difficult challenge, isn't it? But...why? First and absolutely foremost, there is a race over the years that looks like a track and field sport: who have the fastest recording of the piece.

As far as tradition is concerned, a student is presented to the work with a series of ultra-fast and very much alike recordings and – not surprisingly – he feels: wow...that is amazing! I must play it! Even faster, to show the guys who they are talking to! In a couple of minutes he (I'll use he because I think of myself) put the work as a goal and a challenge. Furthermore, they way Chopin wrote down his harmonies is a pain in the...er...hand. Some chords are nice, other are terrible to play. But there is a sacred rule in the traditional approach: you don't change anything! You play just like Chopin would play it (which is the utmost fallacy of this approach). Since Chopin didn't record this study, you have a testimony of a recognised master of the piano.

Let's now change it upside down. What if we drop speed as a yardstick? You can even reason that in a modern piano things blur too much when are played too fast. What is left of the difficulty of this study? Only some problematic voicings that are not that problematic when you play this andante. Since we went this far, why we could just change a few notes and make this voicing a confortable one. I don't propose to jazz it up and keep only the harmony to improvise. No, maintain everything, but adapt it to your hand and to yourself.

The fundamental question to me is: why not?

Here, a priest from the Great Church of Fundamental Classical Piano Music must talk: you can't change things! You must do the way they are! The way they always have been and will always be! Forever! You have good examples, and you must play it only if you have The Gift! Otherwise, be a nice boy and buy your ticket!

Sorry for this acid vision of the concert world. But I digress.

The quick answer to the why not question is straightforward: what is left in a world where Chopin's first study can be learned by anyone who is playing the piano for a year or two? If you play it andante, and adapt some passages, it can: I already did this test with a student. And the result was quite nice, but – of course – way out of the expected. However, this is the key to myself.

[to be continued]

[gerryjay]

[cont.]
What makes you love an artist? Is it how much traditional s/he is? Is it how much close to common sense perfectness s/he is? Well, if your answers are yes, we don't have much to talk about. I'd must respect your opinion and call it a day. Further, I must adress you to the most traditional teacher available, to walk the most conservative syllabus available. By the way, I did it several times, with students, friends, colleagues. Although my opinion is quite the opposite, people are free to like Kissin as much they want to.

If your answer is not, well then we have to discuss why. You pointed out two notions (anything goes and the only way out there), but I'm only interested in both as reference: my personal approach is a mix, always, of both. It must be, and here I think I can clarify my point of view about your very question.

There are more than one way to face epistemology and, thus, to understand how we learn (and if we do learn at all) and, thus, to understand what is piano pedagogy. We could talk about empiricism, idealism, usw, but this would lead us off the track. The point to agree without any proof is: there are several ways. So, there must be several ways to face piano, and piano learning. Well, nothing new, but now I must proceed to what I want.

The anything goes approach dismiss classes. If you are able to learn the piano for yourself, you will find another person telling what to do very much annoying, to say the least. Actually, it is pointless because the real process of learning, in this case, comes from an individual path that can lead anywhere. Eventually, as far as our discussion concerned, it can even lead to a Classical piano genius. But the odds are against it. The most likely situation is a hybrid jazz/pop approach, where the concept of making music is open and, well, anything goes indeed.

On the other hand, the there is only one way approach claims for a clear path to the golden cup. Of course, if is there only one way, why bothering to try anything else? Please give me the ticket to the fastest track. Please give me the outstanding conservatory. Please give me a place in the most important competition. Please give me a contract with the greatest recording label.

I shall dismiss both.

[to be continued]

[gerryjay]

[cont.]
To explain why, you need to know a bit more about myself. I am interested in Classical music, through an academic point of view. My repertory is quite conventional, I know the whole book of analytical tricks, I think a student who come to me is interested in that. So, I am not interested in a path that could lead me to – let's say – composing music inspired by The Smiths and Argentinian rural songs (I use this examples because I like both) and playing it in a synthesized piano. Or to play Bach in a busonian way (another example of something I like). Then, I can rely on chance.

The other approach is, excuse me to say, dull. It is directed to people who are not interested in music, but in athletic competition, although I don't see any problem to do that. I have been there, and I find it boring. But that is just me. Anyway, I can't – as a teacher – to transmit these notions. Which finally leads me to what I belive in. Let me return to the Chopin example.

Am I interested in the latest ultra-fast and ultra-perfect rendition of this? No. From the top of my head I can think about a handful of ultra-fast, ultra-perfect, ultra-cool recordings of the complete etudes made half a century ago. There is no point doing that again, and I think that using the audience's ignorance is a shame.

Am I interested in the mom's version of this study that my student made? No. Although it was quite decent, it was not an interesting piece of art either. As far as anything won't go, this Chopin' etudes have boundaries and this rendition was evidently out of bounds.

Well, there is no reason to proceed: I am not interested in any new version of Chopin' etudes because we reached it already. The notion that someone will always come with a better version is useless. Take Freire's recording. He is quite a wonderful pianist, but I felt asleep listening to it. What is left to the thousands of students that insist to present it? Notice that I am not saying we should quit Chopin: as I wrote above, I believe we must dwell in tradition before leaving it. But we must leave it! As far as Chopin is concerned, pick one piece of him that you really have something to say. The rest, just leave.

A final word about science. You have quite a point when you talk about the way music developed (although this is not the only way to face history, not even my own, but let this alone), and its dependence on science. However, most musicians are just poor scientists and Chopin is here to prove. What would be the scientific departure point to a performance of Chopin? A complete revision of what already exists. If there is something new to say, let's make a study. If not, let's find another problem. That is the fundamental premise to myself.

Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

hmmm ... Thanks, Jay.  I have read through your posts here, but will need to read through again to gain a better concept.  My first overall impression is that it has turned into a "why bother" question, regarding traditional learning, Classical music, and maybe even anything  .  Why bother tasting chocolate cake when it's been around for ages and chocolate cake is chocolate cake is chocolate cake??  Well, for one, every chocolate cake is different, and so is every day of life, even.  So, even my tastebuds are these slightly different characters each day, I guess .

But, to why bother, obviously or maybe not obviously, I guess it's a questions that is more or less asked and answered every single day.  And, definitely not something I could actually fully put into words.  I'd also love to be musically poetic and say, "it's only something one can express through the music" ... but, that's not even true, I think.  So, I say why bother, squared, now.  Or maybe I could simply say that I think it's good stuff ... chocolate cake included. 

Yes, I think that there is scientific approach to Classical music and tradition, but not to say it's not continuously changing and growing and developing.  You say it must move beyond Chopins, etc., well, I say (and I guess you know yourself) that it is!  But, why must it, anyway?    The hydraorgan could not express a Chopin prelude, nor a Bach partita ... nor a Rachmaninov.  Those came later, as did so many other things, as the instrument changed, as society changed, as the needs of the people and music changed, etc. etc, etc.

Rachmaninov is not Bach, and while Bach is considered "Classical" in the broad sense, Rachmaninov somehow is not Country.  How is it also Classical if there is not something pragmatic that links them together?  Why is Beethoven not R&B?  Why are they all considered Classicals?

So, why bother, why bother, why bother.  Answered only with every moment of every life.  Deep down, I think our biggest lesson in life is that we learn what we already know.  Sometimes it seems we know nothing at all.  etc.


*gets back to the Chopets*  

[m1469]

[cont.]
As far as Chopin is concerned, pick one piece of him that you really have something to say. The rest, just leave.

This has been "ringing" in my head since I first read it.  I both agree and disagree.  I currently believe (through glimpses) that, to really have something to say in one piece by any major composer, means to understand their entire body of works.  It means to understand the composer so well, the style so well, the point in history so well, that you can more or less sum those things up, then, in a single work.  It is also understanding how that single work fits into the much bigger picture.  It is being able to do the same with the music-changing, life-altering composer's works who came before and after.  It is being capable of putting the work into performance in such a way that it gives a glimpse in time through Centuries, as though you are pinning a dot on the page for the listener.  It is in knowing what every note means in a work, and what every work means in the total body.  It is in being able to say "I began it like this because it ends like that."

So, that means the approach, at some point, crosses from studying single works to having the facility to take in and to (by necessity) quickly comprehend the complete works -- so as to actually understand single works.  But, how do you get there?  If I were to somehow personally choose what I would call a traditional way, I would say this falls into it for me.

[gerryjay]

Why bother tasting chocolate cake when it's been around for ages and chocolate cake is chocolate cake is chocolate cake??

(...)

But, to why bother, obviously or maybe not obviously, I guess it's a questions that is more or less asked and answered every single day.  And, definitely not something I could actually fully put into words.

(...)

So, why bother, why bother, why bother.  Answered only with every moment of every life.  Deep down, I think our biggest lesson in life is that we learn what we already know.  Sometimes it seems we know nothing at all.  etc.

Dear m1469,
thanks a lot for your insigthful post. I'll promise to be brief this time. And personal.

I think that I have a very simple answer to "why bother?". Because I want to. I am a curious guy, and I can't live without at least trying to know, to understand. I am no particular fan of chocolate cakes, but I did try them several times. Different ones. And I don't have any desire to make one.

What to bother with is my fundamental question. And this is the most dear point of what I wrote before. The traditional approach to music and piano just take for granted what you need, and give you the most perfect common sense experience possible. That is my problem with that: you must be allowed time and things to experience for yourself and - at some point - choose your own direction. Only there you have a chance of finding your own voice (more about that in the next post ).

You say it must move beyond Chopins, etc., well, I say (and I guess you know yourself) that it is!  But, why must it, anyway?

Because Chopin is done. I think the only reason to schedule Chopin is the commercial one. If that is your interest (and it is mine sometimes, I must admit), well...he does the trick! However, we will not have any other income from his music anymore. Yes, more in the next post as well.

Why are they all considered Classicals?

Because we consider them Classicals and - absolutely fundamental - the musical establishment have been considering them that way for some time. A composer is not Classical (or any other label) per se: it is a matter of historical interpretation. And there are almost as many historiographic trends as there are scholars. The notion of a Classic period (or Classical music) comes from periodization, the need to create boxes to keep the dead composers well organized.

If you look musical facts through a developmental glass, the Classic label lose its meaning. Beethoven can't be considered a fixed model anymore, nor its music can be a zenith as well. There are another approaches that will regard music in many different ways, and it is perfect possible to write a history of western music withouth any mention at all to Beethoven.

Let's change the angle a little bit.

[gerryjay]

I currently believe (through glimpses) that, to really have something to say in one piece by any major composer, means to understand their entire body of works.  It means to understand the composer so well, the style so well, the point in history so well, that you can more or less sum those things up, then, in a single work.  It is also understanding how that single work fits into the much bigger picture.  It is being able to do the same with the music-changing, life-altering composer's works who came before and after.  It is being capable of putting the work into performance in such a way that it gives a glimpse in time through Centuries, as though you are pinning a dot on the page for the listener.  It is in knowing what every note means in a work, and what every work means in the total body.  It is in being able to say "I began it like this because it ends like that."

I couldn't say it better myself. I agree completely with that, and that is what I refer to when I wrote "to dwell in tradition". You must know as much music as you can, and study it, and play it, and listen to it. Only then you will find your own comprehension and, with a great deal of blessing/luck/chance (it depends upon each one's beliefs), you will find something to say.

So, that means the approach, at some point, crosses from studying single works to having the facility to take in and to (by necessity) quickly comprehend the complete works -- so as to actually understand single works.  But, how do you get there?

Yes, you do study single works. However, it says all: you do study! Nothing more than that. Let's take the Chopin example again: what is the point of a new complete recording of the studies? To show the pianist is a virtuoso? To show s/he made his homework? To enlighten our understanding of Chopin's music? No, it is all about the market. And if that is clear, I see no problem at all: music is commerce, and it will always be.

Of course, if in the process of studying then you really find something special in one, a couple, well, please, record it!

Nevertheless, we can't mix up things: I don't think targeting exclusively a well-succeed career is an inteligent basis for a syllabus, a school, a philosophy. Of course that at some point a pianist who wants to pursue a professional career should care about that, but how many can do that? One in thousand? One in ten thousands? Am I being too optimistic?

Parenthesis: to me, the situation gets even worse when I think that today the most difficult way to have a career in music is doing the standard.

If I were to somehow personally choose what I would call a traditional way, I would say this falls into it for me.

In some sense I agree with you, but I like to divide what you approach and how you do that. Perhaps with that I can sum up my own belief: it is necessary (and perfectly cool) to study the music from tradition, but not in a traditional way. And not with the traditional objectives.

Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

Again, I can't respond fully, but I don't think that matters all that much, at this point.  A few things, though.  I will admit that, while I don't play the Chopin's to show (perhaps eventually if not right away) that I am a virtuoso, per se, I don't play them or let's say, I am not drawn to them, simply because of the market.  Simply because of the perspective of "commerce" as you say.  Everything can become commercialized and marketized.  Everything.  Or wait, maybe there are some things that actually cannot be done so much like that.  For example, sitting in the middle of a deep forest, all alone, in pure quietness.  Sure, that could be advertised and sold and then hoards of people can go to those places and then, guess what?  The thing, the idea that got sold, isn't there to be found anymore because its very essence actually can't exist in a frenzy of people, all in the same place, looking for peace in the quiet forest.  Once the frenzy is there, the peace is gone and the idea is lost.

Anyway, to some respect, I think that however you arrived at those opinions, they are in fact opinions and not the supreme fact for all purpose in playing something that you might say is simply and only for the market.  Sure, there's hoards of recordings, etc., Chopin is "done".  Well, maybe YOU are done with Chopin, and maybe to some extent Chopin has been done, but so long as others are not done with Chopin, Chopin is not actually done.  At least in as much as 'man' is not done, or 'woman' is not done.  A good poetic text, for example, can strike a person deeper and/or differently continuously throughout one's life, because there is a spirit behind it that goes beyond the immediate senses of whatever points we happen to be at in our life when we read it. I think it's the same with great music, and in that respect, the musical works are living.

Sometimes I think that people forget or have no idea, maybe, with people like me.  I wasn't put on a track when I was a fetus, I wasn't put on a track when I was an infant, I wasn't put on a track when I was a toddler, an adolescent, nor even a teen.  I wasn't even exactly put on a track when I was in my twenties.  I was *drawn* to what I am doing now.  After having loved the piano and music already, after having had a perfect freedom to NOT be on a track (not that I am exactly on a track at this point, either, but there is certainly more structure to my learning path anyway) and for some reason I have "chosen" (in some respect only because my soul did not have a choice) what I am doing now.  And, why did I not choose only Garth Brooks?

In terms of why certain musics are considered Classical, I don't understand fully the idea that things are the way they are, simply because certain people decided it that way.  I mean, I get how that could work and I see how that is part of the human deal, but something that I see in each of these cases of Classical composers is that they studied the other Classical composers before them.  So, sure, they dwelt in tradition, and then you could say they left it, but I guess that is actually *part* of what I am currently believing tradition IS.  Part of what makes them Classical is because of the fact that they studied what was formerly considered Classical, while most people who these days in age who have chosen something like Country music, have not dwelt deeply in Classical, but perhaps they have in Country. 

So, perhaps it gets back to your idea of a "canon" ... I am not opposed to that idea, necessarily, as far as I understand what you mean, but what I can't currently get myself to feel at peace with regarding it is why I would wake up each morning to spend my life practicing for the pure sake of a canon.  No, I like that canon, but there is something still much more meaningful and pertinent and personal to me even in this moment, than simply going by a syllabus (which, is not at all what my life seems like).  It is something, which is for me, like reading a favorite Bible Psalm, and it speaking exactly to me in a way that I need.  Not because I am a Bible scholar (which I am in NO way such, nor do I have the hardly the remotest desire, since fundamentally I don't even believe that's actually what the Bible is 'about'), but because there is something about it which quietly, privately, gives me a peace similarly to being in the woods.  And, then, I feel inspired to play, and yes, I feel drawn in that same spirit to Chopins, to Bachs, to Rachmaninovs, and to others --though not all-- and, sure, perhaps "beyond" as well.

Well, all speaking of which, I have an early lesson today and must shower and such within the next 30 mins.  Of course, you know, the story is not about chocolate cake, just as it's not exactly about Chopin, I guess, either, it's about what comes from it all.  If you don't like chocolate cake (you are missing out  ), then obviously choose something else that you do like.

[m1469]

Let's change the angle a little bit.

Perhaps with that I can sum up my own belief: it is necessary (and perfectly cool) to study the music from tradition, but not in a traditional way. And not with the traditional objectives.

I would like to know what this means to you?  Also, what does it mean to you to "move beyond" Chopin and/or tradition?

I guess I feel like this is something that is fun to say, either as a fish, or a hint, but I'd like to know what is the substance or foundation in doing it?  Thank you .

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,

Anyway, to some respect, I think that however you arrived at those opinions, they are in fact opinions and not the supreme fact for all purpose in playing something that you might say is simply and only for the market.  Sure, there's hoards of recordings, etc., Chopin is "done".  Well, maybe YOU are done with Chopin, and maybe to some extent Chopin has been done, but so long as others are not done with Chopin, Chopin is not actually done.  At least in as much as 'man' is not done, or 'woman' is not done.  A good poetic text, for example, can strike a person deeper and/or differently continuously throughout one's life, because there is a spirit behind it that goes beyond the immediate senses of whatever points we happen to be at in our life when we read it. I think it's the same with great music, and in that respect, the musical works are living.

You are right: that is my opinion and my point of view. And I have a deep respect for anyone who feels different. For instance, if someone wants to buy every one and single recording of Chopin and spend days listen to them, that's perfectly fine to me. Also, commerce and market are a choice of life style and people can be happy there. I'm off, notwithstading.

About my "Chopin is done" comment, it is something I really believe: playing a minute of Chopin after you complete studying his style is a complete waste of time to both the pianist and mankind. Exceptions do exist, but they are very few indeed.

Sometimes I think that people forget or have no idea, maybe, with people like me.  I wasn't put on a track when I was a fetus, I wasn't put on a track when I was an infant, I wasn't put on a track when I was a toddler, an adolescent, nor even a teen.  I wasn't even exactly put on a track when I was in my twenties.  I was *drawn* to what I am doing now.  After having loved the piano and music already, after having had a perfect freedom to NOT be on a track (not that I am exactly on a track at this point, either, but there is certainly more structure to my learning path anyway) and for some reason I have "chosen" (in some respect only because my soul did not have a choice) what I am doing now.  And, why did I not choose only Garth Brooks?

But that is what I'm talking about. I am quite like this myself: although many attempts (parents, teachers, university) to put me on the track, I kept always off. Perhaps that's why I can't take it seriously.

In terms of why certain musics are considered Classical, I don't understand fully the idea that things are the way they are, simply because certain people decided it that way.

Here I understand I have a point: actually, history is what other people tell us it is. Pick any example, let's say...the French revolution. What do you know about that? Probably, information you kept from a book or - if you are a curious and/or committed person - from several books. However - let me speak for myself - I didn't do any research of the primary sources so I don't have any access to the facts themselves. I have only what was told to me. The same happens with music. Have you ever put your hand on a Beethoven manuscript? Or in his correspondence? Or in newspapers from his Vienna days? If not, all you know about him comes from an individual who have a personal viewpoint, namely, a scholar. So, what we understand by Classical is what scholars tell us Classicals are.

So, perhaps it gets back to your idea of a "canon" ... I am not opposed to that idea, necessarily, as far as I understand what you mean, but what I can't currently get myself to feel at peace with regarding it is why I would wake up each morning to spend my life practicing for the pure sake of a canon.

Well, I can't take the credit for this idea. It is a concept in musicology that I find very important. And I agree with you: it's not an interesting idea to spend a life for the sake of a canon, but that is precisely what the vast majority of students do. There is the canon, then the syllabus that grant access to this canon, then the institutions that widespread these syllabi, then the teachers who are trained to apply it as perfect as possible and then - but only then - the student. Going backwards, the student spend his/her life practicing what teacher says, and s/he says it because it is the institutions's policy, and so on.

That is the most perfect description I can make of a traditional path (transmitted through traditional lessons).

Of course, you know, the story is not about chocolate cake, just as it's not exactly about Chopin, I guess, either, it's about what comes from it all.  If you don't like chocolate cake (you are missing out  ), then obviously choose something else that you do like.

In the end, I think it is all that matters. Choose something you like and enjoy!
Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

I would like to know what this means to you?  Also, what does it mean to you to "move beyond" Chopin and/or tradition? I guess I feel like this is something that is fun to say, either as a fish, or a hint, but I'd like to know what is the substance or foundation in doing it?  Thank you .

Dear m1469,
The traditional repertory is necessary and, very important, a source of music you will probably love. I am very fond of my Mozart's K. 332 and it is difficult to find a more traditional repertory than Mozart's works. We can put Chopin here as well. However, here we have a division point to myself: although I have studied nine sonatas by him, as well as some variations, fantasias, and other works, I don't feel I have nothing to share but in this sonata and a couple of other works. And it is not due to my incompetence or lack of talent ( ), but of available options. Let's pick Sonata K. 331 as an example: I play it very well. However, I know so many good recordings of this work that I don't feel any need in playing it in public. The reason is simple: I can't find a version to call my own.

That said, I think it come clear what I mean by traditional objectives. Another example comes to my mind. The most recent example of general goal is the eight-night-cycle of Beethoven's Sonatas. It started with one, a couple pianists. Then we have more. Now, there is a somewhat great list of that. I don't think it is wrong and I'm currently enjoying very much Barenboim's DVD. Nevertheless, I think it is only a matter of time until conservatories and the like will demand the students to have the complete cycle themselves. Some demands the complete WTC already, so it's not a huge difference. The question is: what is the point of that? Becoming a virtuoso? Being prepared to face the music industry? Well, it probably have a motive I can't understand, but it is also irrelevant. I think that when we talk about lessons in a general way, trying to copy this in a soft way leads to disaster.

Let me give an example. In my undergraduate, you have no option but to play a major Bach work on the guitar in your final recital. I mean, not in the exam, but in the concert itself. Live, loud and proud! You can imagine how many horrow shows I did testimony due to this ridiculous idea. In my humble opinion, that is the face of traditional objectives, and they contribute nothing that justify them.

(It's getting long again! Sorry!!!)

Finally, I said "It's cool to learn the traditional repertory, but not in a traditional way." The former is above, the latter is simple: drop the syllabus, and drop anything else that come close to it (scales, hanons, exercise-like-studies). Let your student know as much repertoire as s/he can and lead his/her path through it in an individual way. Of course it is not intelligent to play a WTC prelude and fugue in the first year of study, but by no means you have to have any prejudices such as "you must play the WTC only after AMN, inventions, suites,partitas...". Construct something new with every student is my favorite challenge, and the one that keeps me teaching.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Also, what does it mean to you to "move beyond" Chopin and/or tradition?

Almost forgot...to move beyond the traditional repertory is to go beyond what is taken for granted. Let's pick up poor old Chopin as an example, again: why every single student play a nocturne or waltz by him? And why so few play nocturnes by Field, or waltzes by any composer you mention? Back to the industry issue, if everybody knows Chopin complete works, it is easy to sell music: concerts, lessons, CDs, usw. Few would be interested in a recital of 19th century music without Chopin, Schumann. But that is a major task for the teacher.

You have a student for five, six years, sometimes even more. You can - and actually you must - show him/her that we have two sides of the repertoire: the battlehorses (Bach's Invention n. 1 is a fundamental work) and the untouched works. There is some danger in that because many neglected composers are just horrible composers, but many are not. Even when we talk about the mainstream, there are many oversimplifications. For instance - picking up an example of the last post - Beethoven sonatas. I think that Schubert wrote sonatas that are in a pair with Beethoven, and sometimes even more interesting. Why, then, the majority of students play a bunch of Beethoven and no Schubert? Isn't it the time to shwo your student Schubert before Beethoven? Or, for the sake of this argument, Hummel before both Schubert and Beethoven?

These are question I make myself. Can't provide an answer yet. 

Best regards,
Jay.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

For instance - picking up an example of the last post - Beethoven sonatas. I think that Schubert wrote sonatas that are in a pair with Beethoven, and sometimes even more interesting. Why, then, the majority of students play a bunch of Beethoven and no Schubert? Isn't it the time to shwo your student Schubert before Beethoven? Or, for the sake of this argument, Hummel before both Schubert and Beethoven?

These are question I make myself. Can't provide an answer yet. 

Best regards,
Jay.

You bring up an interesting topic. I don't want to take this thread into a different direction (say, for example, who the better writer for sonata form at the piano was), but I have to add one bit of information. I am more impressed by a great performance of a Schubert sonata than Beethoven (especially the Appassionata. we get it, it's amazing! play something else!) Schubert's last 3 sonatas are simply remarkable pieces of work and, in my opinion, require a deeper sense of the word virtuosic compared to ANYTHING of the same era. This of course is not meant to "dethrone" Ludwig, but I think SO much attention is brought to Beethoven everyone forgets about Schubert and just how much he contributed to the world of music. In my experience of studying (not playing) every one of their sonatas, Schubert contributes more to the education of the student. As said before, so much attention is brought to Chopin and Beethoven because that's what everyone loves. And, as Gerry mentioned, you can't have a performance containing 19th century music and not include Chopin; no one skips a breath if Brahms or Tchaikovsky aren't included.

I think there is a deeper psychological meaning to this, however, that I will try to keep short. The young pianists I know all want to play the same thing: Fantasie Impromptu. It's the end all be all of piano playing. If you can play that, then you've made it! This mentality, in my opinion, is the fault of the teacher; then again, how can you tell a young musician to not be passionate about something? "I have to play Chopin" is imbedded into young pianists from the start. He wrote specifically for piano and he's "flashy" (I hate that mentality towards his music). So, as teachers (in my case aspiring, I have a couple very young students that I tutor), how can we change this behavior without discouraging a student?

My two favorite pianists are Glenn Gould and Marc Andre Hamelin (mix in some Brendel from time to time and I'm happy). I admire those two so much because of their mentalities towards music and their originality (especially Gould). I find Hamelin's recordings to be absolute treasures simply because they are mostly off the wall composers. Anyway, it's the responsibility of the teacher to diversify the student. As I asked before, how can this be done?

Best wishes,

[gerryjay]

You bring up an interesting topic. I don't want to take this thread into a different direction (say, for example, who the better writer for sonata form at the piano was), but I have to add one bit of information. I am more impressed by a great performance of a Schubert sonata than Beethoven (especially the Appassionata. we get it, it's amazing! play something else!) Schubert's last 3 sonatas are simply remarkable pieces of work and, in my opinion, require a deeper sense of the word virtuosic compared to ANYTHING of the same era. This of course is not meant to "dethrone" Ludwig, but I think SO much attention is brought to Beethoven everyone forgets about Schubert and just how much he contributed to the world of music. In my experience of studying (not playing) every one of their sonatas, Schubert contributes more to the education of the student. As said before, so much attention is brought to Chopin and Beethoven because that's what everyone loves. And, as Gerry mentioned, you can't have a performance containing 19th century music and not include Chopin; no one skips a breath if Brahms or Tchaikovsky aren't included.

I think there is a deeper psychological meaning to this, however, that I will try to keep short. The young pianists I know all want to play the same thing: Fantasie Impromptu. It's the end all be all of piano playing. If you can play that, then you've made it! This mentality, in my opinion, is the fault of the teacher; then again, how can you tell a young musician to not be passionate about something? "I have to play Chopin" is imbedded into young pianists from the start. He wrote specifically for piano and he's "flashy" (I hate that mentality towards his music). So, as teachers (in my case aspiring, I have a couple very young students that I tutor), how can we change this behavior without discouraging a student?

My two favorite pianists are Glenn Gould and Marc Andre Hamelin (mix in some Brendel from time to time and I'm happy). I admire those two so much because of their mentalities towards music and their originality (especially Gould). I find Hamelin's recordings to be absolute treasures simply because they are mostly off the wall composers. Anyway, it's the responsibility of the teacher to diversify the student. As I asked before, how can this be done?

Best wishes,

Although it is m1469 turn ( ), I must comment you have quite a point here: playing Schubert will not dethrone Beethoven. Quite the contrary. If a generation or two of pianists focus on Schubert, Beethoven would sound fresh then. For instance, I can't stand a single performance of opus 27 n. 2 any longer (the complete sonata, let alone the detached first movement), but I think - and I'm not contradicting myself - the music is beautiful. However it is so often played, by everybody, that it starts to annoy. Starts not: it keeps annoying, and again and again...  
Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

Dear Jay,

OK.  Where I am at is that I have to narrow my search a bit, narrow my perspective, and bring it to just what is currently my very own objectives.  I obviously can't even begin to speak about what conservatories are doing and why.  I can't even begin to speak about syllabus, tracks, and an actual meat and potato of what are considered traditional lessons.  I don't know if I ever will be able to, no matter what I study or where I would possibly study, at this point, because already my perspective it seems is so entirely different and there is only very little I can do about the fact that I raised my own pianist self for so many years.  You mentioned in relation to my mentioning that I wasn't raised on a track, that you felt you were similar since you never wished to get on one no matter who tried to put you there.  While perhaps there could be some shared empathy, in my case it is not as though anybody ever tried to put me on one and that I denied, it's that life itself seemed to keep me off one almost no matter what I do.

Now, that aside, I want to know what it is, but for my very own reasons, even if never formally I go on it in the same ways other people have.  And anyway, how could I even possibly do it?  Already I am not a child, and although I am still developing and could learn from particular influences, no matter what, I will always, always, always, know what it has felt like, know the road for what it's been (which has not been at all a breeze), to NOT be on that track.  To feel absolutely and completely on my own.  I understand there are the certain problems which come with a track, but in many ways, I don't imagine that having ZERO sense of direction is the leading one.  Perhaps I am wrong.  And, I don't know how to say which is better or worse, and I find it difficult to fathom that anybody who was raised on a track (not necessarily meaning you) could knowledgeably tell to somebody like me that my way of no track was better simply because it didn't necessarily lead to the same pitfalls the track might.

As a side, I have to add that sometimes through the years, I have felt such a strangeness about all of it.  I can't tell whether people want me on a track or want to keep me off.  Sometimes I suspect that a person wants me on and thinks I don't want to be on, and so they think to use reverse psychology to put me on.  Or, sometimes they think that I must need freedom and so they try to keep me off as though all I've ever done was be on.  Please, don't make these guesses!  In any way, I certainly do not even come close (and how could I?) to having a dream to be exactly on the track and the best at it.  How is it possible that I could ever think that, at this point?  But, there is something much more to me that from my perspective looks like is part of the traditional world, and if anything I'd like to learn from it what I can.  But, I also believe there are other ways ... at least through some crazy bushes and up hills and over oceans and mountain tops ... and, well, let's let time tell, I guess  .

Anyway, every part of all of that aside ... I am finding it difficult to address the subject one-dimensionally.  To me there are layers.  There is the very fundamental layer of why a person plays at all, and then there are all of the other layers that this essence goes through, out to whatever is the very surface.  Fundamentally, I don't play a piece because it is popular nor do I play it because it's unpopular.  Also fundamentally, I don't believe that's what *my* belief is when I consider what I think is the traditional way (but, I accept that perhaps I have no idea what is actually traditional). 

Underneath everything, let's say, I think that those good ol' guys who are these days considered great and traditional, that there was some kind of goldeny, intangible beauty that I want to somehow get to know about.  Fundamentally, I am not closed to any particular composer, even the lesser known dudes.  Also fundamentally, though, I seek a kind of grounding force in my life, and a foundation to stand on, and a perspective to look from.  That to me is ONE purpose in studying the works of whatever are considered traditional and currently part of a syllabus, whoever those guys happen to be (though they happen to be who they are).  So, yes, it could perhaps be somebody else, but the point, to me, is that it is SOMEBODY(s), and a selected (for awhile) somebody's, and not EVERYBODY(s), all at once.  In that respect, yes, Bach is better known in many ways these days and in many cultures these days, than some other contrapuntal writers, but then again he is a good example of contrapuntal writing and can serve a higher purpose very well.  So, why not?  Sure, it's possible that perspectives of other individual's stop at some point before finding a bigger view, but I don't think that's all that "traditional" ways have to offer.  I think that's rather the shortcoming of an individual or a school of thought, rather than a musical Movement in humanity.

Secondly, what I think I am getting out of my current studies, which I think is at least crossing paths with something traditional if not actually on the exact path forever, is a standard in sound.  And coupled with that, a standard in technique for the purpose of achieving those sounds.  And along with those, a standard in listening.  And, even still, all those ways can be deepened and sharpened for hopefully the rest of my life, even if I become deaf.  What I think eventually matters MOST in these is not necessarily THEE particular standard of sound that it is, or THEE precise form of technique, or THEE precise focus of listening, but rather that I AM doing these at all.  If there is no goal, and if those goals are not precise, then the mechanism is not actually being used and these muscles, mental, aural, and otherwise, are not actually being exercised and used and developed.  Hopefully, anyway, that to have a standard (and sure, let's make it specific and, sure, let's make it "great") is actually to push one to grow beyond themselves, not impersonally actually, but even more towards the person.  I don't believe the standards exist to make everybody be the same, actually, but rather to push them even more to be themselves by exercising the very faculties which make them so.

In any way, it is not freeing to me mostly, at this point nor for years now, to think "do whatever I want."  That doesn't mean that just because I don't experience freedom in that, that I want to be caged in the opposite of "do what I tell you to do and nothing else" ... it just means that somehow knowing there is *some* standard gives me greater freedom, whether I walk that path or not (for whatever reason).  And, it's not because I want to rebel, and lacking the desire to rebel doesn't mean I wish to follow the crowd, either ... "you" see?

hmmm ... I have to collect and form more thoughts and come back.

[m1469]

A next point is part fundamental and part society.  Yes, okay, I get your point about programming and what a crowd expects and that there is a market.  But, outside of that, back to the fundamental purpose in why a person plays, or let's say, even, why a person performs.  And, then to narrow it down to myself (since for moments, anyway, I am at least some form of authority on my own matters more than I am on other people's), if my purpose in playing, if my purpose in performing, is to connect with other individuals, to share something, to connect with my audience, then it's important that our languages at least remotely coincide.  So, market aside (be that, for a moment, whatever it is), I want to share musical experiences with other people.

Okay, when I was young a naive I believed in sublime musical connections.  Okay, maybe even when I was less young and naive I had some.  Okay, maybe even still I hope to know better this particular aspect of music, immaturity or not, I guess.  But, I have a cynical side, too.  Audiences connect sometimes most with a dress.  Fact.  Audiences connect most, sometimes, with a pair of shoes, with speed, with a hairdo, with a tuxedo and cute buns, with animated movements.  Fact.  My naivety grows up a little over the years, as it turns out.  Sometimes, even, some of the most profound happenings can be unnoticed right under a nose.  Still, maybe for another year, maybe for another two or longer (who knows?) I will believe in these connections.  And, in this world of connections, somehow everything else nearly disappears to me.  But, I see, not to everybody, and if there are hangups, then there is no connection.  My point?  I don't know by now  , other than I sympathize with the need to speak in a language others can understand, in a practical way, even, rather than just saying "it's a matter of the heart".  Yes, I do believe the heart will eventually speak louder than the words.  But, what does that matter and what does that mean?

hmmm ... time to collect again.

[mike_lang]

I haven't been through the entire thread, and would like to answer some of Gerryjay's points, but in response to the title question:

1) Development of a healthy and efficient basic piano technique
2) Development of the ability to read notes
3) Exposure and study of a selection of works from the master composers of the classical repertoire
4) Training of the ear through the study of such works
5) Training of the memory through study of such works

More to come . . .

All the best,
Mike

EDIT:
6) For more advanced students, guided exploration of other repertoires (pre-Baroque, contemporary, lesser-known composers . . . though these may also be touched on along the way)

[m1469]

Now, the only reason I can practically figure for NOT learning complete works is time, or lack thereof.  Or, maybe we could even call it perception of time.  In that respect, in terms of overall learning order (syllabus), I nearly wonder if it is rather best to wait with certain complete works until one can take them in quickly, vs. doing something like learning all of the inventions, one by one, or two by two, whatnot, to build towards something.  From my perspective right now, since I have never actually fully studied all of the inventions and sinfonias, I believe I might gain more from the complete study now than if I had studied them on a track earlier on during a time that I would have struggled much more greatly with them, technically.  Yes, I've learned a few prior to even attempting a WTC, and though once I believed that to be a pianist one must have these as a complete work ready for performance, I do see as time has pushed me to see, that moreso it is important to have a very working knowledge.  And, I find I begin to think that way about many complete works.  

I used to believe it was important to learn and be capable of playing ALL of the Chopin's Nocturnes, etc., now I have little desire to play even one.  And, that desire was lost not because of an overdose in learning (as I have officially learned only 1 (though I've taught a number of them)) nor a saturation in listening, but because it became uninteresting to me as a pianist who DOES -- as in, they are more interesting to me now in a scholastic/academic way rather than an in the act of playing them way.  I have a confidence that I could probably tackle them without tremendous struggle for the most part, and again I feel that perhaps my study of them would be most beneficial under this circumstance.  I actually have more desire to play a Field Nocturne than a Chopin.

I feel this way with nearly most of the big guys.  Mozart Sonatas, Beethoven Sonatas, Haydn Sonatas, Scarlatti Sonatas, Chopin Preludes (getting to that point), Bach WTC(s) .... many things.  And, let me clarify, I know there are some things within those that I would still "struggle" with, but what I mean is that I start to feel with these anymore (though I'll probably still play some) that they are MOST interesting and perhaps even MOST beneficial to me as scholastic works with a deep and sound working knowledge.  Rach 3, I'm sure is quite something to play, and maybe for other reasons than my own level of interest I would never play it, but OK, yes, this along with many others I see the point that there exists already too many versions that even if I could "beat", I have actually little desire to do so.

You see though, this is difficult to admit on some level.  What is left?  Well, of course many things.  I do feel drawn to ... explore Scriabin a bit.  Liszt some more.  I'd like to play some Schubert sonata (I have for a long time had an interest).  I'd like a working knowledge of the Rachmaninov Preludes and Etudes.  Maybe to sometime play them all.  And anyway, why not?  Time.  Time is mostly why not.  Sure, interest level from others is one thing, but if I could learn them all in a week, interest level become obsolete because it's not like I've "wasted" that much time learning a bunch of stuff that has anything to do with the market or level of interest on the part of others.  The musical benefits would be quite something though, I would think.

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,
you are in such an insigthful day! I really did enjoy reading your three posts. Some ideas.

I think that the complete of absence of a track is a great challenge, such as having the notion that only exists one path. The difficults are quite opposite in nature, but in the end the fundamental question is the same: how to find your own self amidst the overwhelming crowd? If you feel like being just one more it is most likely impossible, but not knowing that the crowd exists is of no help either.

Your notion of layers is an interesting point of view. And I second the idea and the need of having a foundation to stand on, and a perspective to look from. In very specific terms, that is what I meant with the need for a traditional repertoire as basis for anything else. Let me pick Bach as an example. No matter what the order you did play his works, neither what works you actually play, it is fundamental to play his music. Even if you will never include a single piece in your concert repertoire. Bach gives you foundation and perspective in so many ways, that it makes him to me a fundamental composer. Perhaps the most fundamental one.

In any way, it is not freeing to me mostly, at this point nor for years now, to think "do whatever I want."  That doesn't mean that just because I don't experience freedom in that, that I want to be caged in the opposite of "do what I tell you to do and nothing else" ... it just means that somehow knowing there is *some* standard gives me greater freedom, whether I walk that path or not (for whatever reason).  And, it's not because I want to rebel, and lacking the desire to rebel doesn't mean I wish to follow the crowd, either ... "you" see?

Yes, indeed. That is the whole idea: you need reference to have some freedom. At least when we talk about an academic approach to music, because inside its boundaries, there is no complete freedom. It is not even desired, I guess.

(to be continued)

[mike_lang]

Bach gives you foundation and perspective in so many ways, that it makes him to me a fundamental composer. Perhaps the most fundamental one.

How so? (I happen to agree)

Mike

[gerryjay]

(cont.)

Yes, okay, I get your point about programming and what a crowd expects and that there is a market.  But, outside of that, back to the fundamental purpose in why a person plays, or let's say, even, why a person performs.  And, then to narrow it down to myself (since for moments, anyway, I am at least some form of authority on my own matters more than I am on other people's), if my purpose in playing, if my purpose in performing, is to connect with other individuals, to share something, to connect with my audience, then it's important that our languages at least remotely coincide.  So, market aside (be that, for a moment, whatever it is), I want to share musical experiences with other people.

(...)

My point?  I don't know by now  , other than I sympathize with the need to speak in a language others can understand, in a practical way, even, rather than just saying "it's a matter of the heart".  Yes, I do believe the heart will eventually speak louder than the words.  But, what does that matter and what does that mean?

I think you may rationalize this, but as far as I am concerned, making music is about two things: your pleasure (in whatever level you mean) and the extension of this pleasure to other people. That's the reason I quit doing competitions, and why I did resign as an undergraduate teacher: I never find any pleasure in both, nor a remote sense of sharing. So, these experiences turned into absolute nothingness to me.

There is a couple of years I don't play a concert, partly because the guitar (my previous instrument) reached its end, partly because I didn't find yet what I want on the piano. But I have a very precise objective, when performing is concerned: to share whatever I will call "my art" with people that will enjoy it.

And then, yes, I hope it will speak louder than words.

(to be cont.)

[gerryjay]

From my perspective right now, since I have never actually fully studied all of the inventions and sinfonias, I believe I might gain more from the complete study now than if I had studied them on a track earlier on during a time that I would have struggled much more greatly with them, technically.

That said, what is left of a syllabus? I think you have a nice idea, and you will probably learn a lot from the inventions. I'd like to do that myself (I never completed the set).

I used to believe it was important to learn and be capable of playing ALL of the Chopin's Nocturnes, etc., now I have little desire to play even one.  And, that desire was lost not because of an overdose in learning (as I have officially learned only 1 (though I've taught a number of them)) nor a saturation in listening, but because it became uninteresting to me as a pianist who DOES -- as in, they are more interesting to me now in a scholastic/academic way rather than an in the act of playing them way.  I have a confidence that I could probably tackle them without tremendous struggle for the most part, and again I feel that perhaps my study of them would be most beneficial under this circumstance.  I actually have more desire to play a Field Nocturne than a Chopin.

I feel this way with nearly most of the big guys.  Mozart Sonatas, Beethoven Sonatas, Haydn Sonatas, Scarlatti Sonatas, Chopin Preludes (getting to that point), Bach WTC(s) .... many things.  And, let me clarify, I know there are some things within those that I would still "struggle" with, but what I mean is that I start to feel with these anymore (though I'll probably still play some) that they are MOST interesting and perhaps even MOST beneficial to me as scholastic works with a deep and sound working knowledge.  Rach 3, I'm sure is quite something to play, and maybe for other reasons than my own level of interest I would never play it, but OK, yes, this along with many others I see the point that there exists already too many versions that even if I could "beat", I have actually little desire to do so.

You see though, this is difficult to admit on some level.  What is left?  Well, of course many things.  I do feel drawn to ... explore Scriabin a bit.  Liszt some more.  I'd like to play some Schubert sonata (I have for a long time had an interest).  I'd like a working knowledge of the Rachmaninov Preludes and Etudes.  Maybe to sometime play them all.  And anyway, why not?  Time.  Time is mostly why not.  Sure, interest level from others is one thing, but if I could learn them all in a week, interest level become obsolete because it's not like I've "wasted" that much time learning a bunch of stuff that has anything to do with the market or level of interest on the part of others.  The musical benefits would be quite something though, I would think.

I think that sums up mostly everything we are talking about. You did use an expression I am very fond of: working knowledge. That is a fundamental concept you must develop both as a listener and as a performer - well, together is even better. The motivation is both the question and the answer. Why must you do that? In my humble opinion, just for its own sake. I'll use your Rach example: you will only know if you are able to play them if you try, and - most important - you will only know if you have something to say through them after you did try. And a couple of preludes studied to an audition are not enough: these experiences normally take years. But that is where the fun hides!

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

1) Development of a healthy and efficient basic piano technique
2) Development of the ability to read notes
3) Exposure and study of a selection of works from the master composers of the classical repertoire
4) Training of the ear through the study of such works
5) Training of the memory through study of such works
6) For more advanced students, guided exploration of other repertoires (pre-Baroque, contemporary, lesser-known composers . . . though these may also be touched on along the way)

Dear Mike,
I think you listed the objectives of any well-balanced piano class, traditional or not. The main question to me is how we do each of these points. What do you think about that?
Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

How so? (I happen to agree)

I didn't understand your question. How so what? 
Undecided regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

Dear Mike,
I think you listed the objectives of any well-balanced piano class, traditional or not. The main question to me is how we do each of these points. What do you think about that?
Best regards,
Jay.

Briefly, assuming that the student is not an adult beginner:

1) As for a healthy and efficient piano technique: Careful teaching of selected exercises from Czerny, Moscheles, Moszkowski, and later on, the études of Chopin, Liszt, Debussy.  Scales, arpeggi, etc. of increasing complexity.  Vigilant observation of motions, touch, pedaling, and so forth in repertoire.  This is the manner in which I've seen the best results accomplished, bearing in mind the ongoing debate over the value of exercises, scales, and so forth.

I'll get to the others soon, but it seemed appropriate to touch on technique first, since it is what enables all else.  

I'm not sure I see the distinction between a well-balanced piano class and a traditional class, as I tend to think automatically of well-balanced when someone mentions traditional.

Mike

[mike_lang]

I didn't understand your question. How so what? 
Undecided regards,
Jay.

How does Bach lay a foundation and give perspective?  I am always interested to hear people's thoughts on it.

[m1469]

(cont.)I think you may rationalize this, but as far as I am concerned, making music is about two things: your pleasure (in whatever level you mean) and the extension of this pleasure to other people. (...)

There is a couple of years I don't play a concert, partly because the guitar (my previous instrument) reached its end, partly because I didn't find yet what I want on the piano. But I have a very precise objective, when performing is concerned: to share whatever I will call "my art" with people that will enjoy it.

And then, yes, I hope it will speak louder than words.

However, it seems you suggest, there are plenty of listeners who have heard it all before.  Even, they will plug their ears, I guess, assuming before the first note that there can't be anything cool or great left to say  :-.

I do want to thank you for your thoughts and your posts, as it's helped me to think more deeply.

[m1469]

I guess I have to post at least one last thing for now.  There are several points in your posts, Jay, that I don't try to deconstruct, because at some point it would become about trying to convince you rather than myself, and with myself perhaps there are at least some point where I don't need the actual convincing, and I don't even need the act of trying to convince somebody in these circumstances.  

However, I must say that just because I was not on a track at a certain age, doesn't mean that the one particular mentality which comes along with feeling as though I've been mostly on my own, is that I then believe or "misconceptualize" that there is a certain particular path which everybody else is on and that I have simply missed -- at least not *necessarily* in the exact way where a person's rise to whatever form of musicianship will come always from a syllabus or a very set form of rules, etc..  I think those things can be helpful, sure.

What I feel I DID miss were the years of somebody pouring over my development as though it were worth it.  What I did miss were years in which I could have been gaining more repertoire study, earlier advancements in technique, etc..  Yes, in a way, all the things that are seemingly on that path.  And, I feel, a particular aspect of that which nobody who was living and breathing on that path of development would understand is the feeling and ramifications of what a life is when those things are missing from it.  That's what I think people don't understand.  It's not as though I was merrily skipping along in my life with a smile on my face, enjoying the sun, and then ... ooops!  I bumped into something interesting.  It is more that something was very deeply wrong with my life and caused many problems for me because something was missing and I could feel it.  And, sure, maybe on the surface there are some things that are evening out, like perhaps I could "catch up" in *some* ways regarding repertoire and technique (that will of course continue to be a haul), but there is nothing which will actually turn me into a 4 year old playing a Mozart sonata for an adoring set of supporters.  

OK, maybe from my adult perspective I can see both pros and cons to that scenario.  But, I am an age enough where at certain times in my life, I had heard people talk about the idea of me having missed a particular path, having missed THEE opportunity, because even in my undergraduate days, the path was still very different than it might be now.  That was not *that* long ago when I had a particular conversation with a particular friend, who was a hot-shot player in my University and going the competition route, etc..  It was about 12 years ago, I guess (wow, that seems like a long time   ).  There were not any internet starz like Valentina Lisitsa, there were not particular influences in my life like Marik and my in-state teacher, it was a very different landscape.  Anyway, I actually don't hurt over these things anymore, so much has been progressed out of for me as I have plodded along and thank you deeply to my dear friends here and to my very dear teachers.  But, anyway, I guess there's still far to go, too .

In my own teaching, I do aim to be better at formalizing my own thoughts and I see that in many ways I need to raise my standards.  I admit that I feel it's easier sometimes to let students "get away" with particular things, and sometimes these particular ways of letting them get away with such, have particular reasonings behind it.

I also must say quickly that yes, I need to get my hands on diaries and journals of Beethoven's, etc..  I will.  But, yes, I do currently read about the histories which scholarly people are giving.  Yes, fact must be ... belief.  But, there are certain things which I accept, like the development of the instrument and the way Bach wrote particular pieces to explore particular tunings, etc..  There is obviously much more to all of that, but yes, there are particulars which I do let myself accept, especially if I branch out, too, into some form of studies into the development of philosophy around those times, and related issues.  There are some things which come together and can make some sense to me, actually, even from my standpoint here.  And, even still, through reading I grow some of my own suspicions and thoughts, if you could imagine that  .

In any event, I sign off for now.  Cheers .

[gerryjay]

Briefly, assuming that the student is not an adult beginner:
1) As for a healthy and efficient piano technique: Careful teaching of selected exercises from Czerny, Moscheles, Moszkowski, and later on, the études of Chopin, Liszt, Debussy.  Scales, arpeggi, etc. of increasing complexity.  Vigilant observation of motions, touch, pedaling, and so forth in repertoire.  This is the manner in which I've seen the best results accomplished, bearing in mind the ongoing debate over the value of exercises, scales, and so forth.

I'll get to the others soon, but it seemed appropriate to touch on technique first, since it is what enables all else.  

I'm not sure I see the distinction between a well-balanced piano class and a traditional class, as I tend to think automatically of well-balanced when someone mentions traditional.

Dear Mike,
that is a perfect description of the traditional approach. Its most deep foundation is the build of an unabridged technique, and it takes for granted that the way to do that is through exercises and exercise-like etudes. Furthermore, there are proves: many pianists did that way and are virtuosi.

Although there is no discussion about the results, its premises are false. Let me analyse it a bit.

1. Technique and music is a false dilemma. You can't be musical (whatever do that means) without technique, and you can't develop technique without the music. So, it's just two faces of the same coin. And a single sided coin is something that does not exist.

2. So, it arises the oldest question: how do you develop technique and musicianship? There are many ways, and you described one of them. Notice, please, that is only one of them. I don't use any exercises such as scales and arpeggi (let alone czernies and hanons) with my students for many years now. And there is a noticeable difference: they develop faster and achieve more impressive results now.

3. It makes me think about something you wrote: the lack of distinction between traditional and well-balanced. As far as I consider my approach (well, it is not exactly mine, but that is another discussion) non traditional and well-balanced, I think there is a difference. Again, I must talk about what do you want to do and how do you do that.

4. Let me pick your previous list, because it is cool.

1) Development of a healthy and efficient basic piano technique
2) Development of the ability to read notes
3) Exposure and study of a selection of works from the master composers of the classical repertoire
4) Training of the ear through the study of such works
5) Training of the memory through study of such works
6) For more advanced students, guided exploration of other repertoires (pre-Baroque, contemporary, lesser-known composers . . . though these may also be touched on along the way)

And then let me translate it to its simplest components:
1) Technique
2) Sight-reading/sight-singing
3) Literature
4) Ear training
5) Memory development
6) More literature

Finally, let me synthesize it:
1) Literature
2) Technique
3) Understanding of the score (sight-reading/singing, ear training, and theory combined)

I think that is a well-balanced way. Not the only one, but it is not important. The point is: it answers the question "what to do". Let's assume that we are talking about Classical music and an academic approach to it. We must now answer how to do that. You described the traditional way. Let me describe the way I try it.

5. I center the approach on the music. So, if my student will play, let's say, Mozart's K. 545 first movement, I won't propose her (I think about a particular student right now) to play general scales, arpeggi, a bunch of preparatory czernies or hanons. We will develop her skills from the point they are to the point they need to be to play this particular movement. It asks for the development of musicianship as well, but again I won't go with books of sight-singing, or abstract harmonic patterns: I'd use Mozart.

6. Perhaps a very specific example is handy. Why bothering with scales if this movement have everything you need? There are single octave runs and brief bursts on bars 35-41, a long scalar passage on bars 5-10 (transposed in bars 46-55), and a scale ending on trill (very important connection in Classical music) on bars 69-70. Mozart considerd, it lefts out only cadential like passages such as you find in the second movement of K. 457 for instance. The important thing is: two weeks of this approach and she was done with the movement. Another year and she will eventually master the minute details of Mozart technique as presented in this Sonata.

All that said, in the end I think that my only point against the traditional approach is that it tends to annoy the students and prevent them to play the piano. Sometimes, terminating any relationship with music they might have. I mean, it is not a safe approach and yet considering it may work, you can't say that beforehand. That is the reason why conservatories keep going with the most traditional goals and paths: given a thousand students with the will to play, it's complete incompetence not turning at least 50 of them in virtuosi.

Best regards,
Jay.

EDIT: in the point 1 above I first wrote "You can be musical", but it was a mistake. I mean (and now it is correct): You can't be musical.

[gerryjay]

How does Bach lay a foundation and give perspective?  I am always interested to hear people's thoughts on it.

Dear Mike,
I have this particular interest too, and that's why I'm so confident to say that. You listen the most distinct people telling the most distinct visions of making music through the piano. One thing in common, always: Bach. It had intrigue me since my early teens, when I face the fact that from Gould to progressive rock Bach was the common denominator. Why so? Many reasons, many ends: let me focus on the foundation-perspective issue.

1. Bach is a composer of synthesis. National styles, keyboard schools, textures, complexity...well, you have anything you like. Luckily enough, he was a keyboard player and produced a humongous amount of keyboard music. If you pick just the harpsichord/clavichord/fortepiano/lautenwerk output, it is huge enough. And varied enough. That is a fundamental point: to play a minimum set of Bach music as a study case you must have a suite/partita/sonata, a bunch of imitative works, at least a couple of lengthier works (toccata, fantasia). I'll give my own example:
 - several small works (preludes, dances);
 - several-almost-every inventions and sinfonias;
 - french suite n. 3
 - english suite n. 3
 - partita n. 2 (yet incomplete)
 - a handful of WTC preludes and fugues
 - excerpts from the toccatas, goldberg, french overture, italian concerto, sonatas.

2. In this selection, you will find mostly anything but a fundamental issue: polyphonic writing, even more imitative writing, even more Bach asks for control. You must develop a thorough control of movements from finger muscles to complex coordinations between hands (I really don't know how organists handle it with two more members in the equation ). So, when you do master these skills, well, you have the foundation to play any other music.

3. Of course (it reminds me a discussion about Bach technique and Beethoven technique), when you play music composed since his time, you must adapt yourself and develop new techniques and musicianship. Ok, let's go with the Beethoven example. To play his Sonata opus 101, for instance, you have many things you don't use in Bach music: some arm movements, some finger combinations, pedal use and control, usw. However, Bach taught you two things already: how to play the piano and - more important and the fundamental point - how to reach control in something you don't have. In other words, studying Bach develop your discipline and your attitude towards music in an academic approach.

I give my students the inventions early on, and the results are amazing. With a handful of two-part inventions in their belt, they have a solid basis and something that I really like: a sense of touch. After that, it's just a matter of choosing the repertoire with a bit of wisdom. 

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,

However, it seems you suggest, there are plenty of listeners who have heard it all before.  Even, they will plug their ears, I guess, assuming before the first note that there can't be anything cool or great left to say  .

That is one of my main concerns. Why playing something your audience is tired of listen to, and in a second-hand rendering? I talked about my interpretation of Mozart's K. 331. It is basically Uchida's, with a touch or two of Gould's. Not enough to have something different. So, I don't think it is any use in playing it live to me or to anybody else.

I do want to thank you for your thoughts and your posts, as it's helped me to think more deeply.

Well, I must thank you too, specially for your generous approach.
Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

In any event, I sign off for now.  Cheers .

This last post make me think that, in the end, what counts is what we are able to do with the paths we are into. If I get you right, you resent a bit for not being on The Track. Well, I must admit I do it as well. From a complete different perspective, I regret about not knowing what I know now: did choose the piano when I was 12, instead of the guitar, and did commit myself limitless to the piano, the way I do now. However, this regret vanishes when I realize my life would be completely different, and I don't think I have the right to change anything. Furthermore, in the most deep account, I am happy about now and back then.

And yes, I do believe in God.

Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

1. Technique and music is a false dilemma. You can be musical (whatever do that means) without technique, and you can't develop technique without the music. So, it's just two faces of the same coin. And a single sided coin is something that does not exist.

I think we can agree that the separation of the two is a false dichotomy; sort of a chicken/egg deal.  That said, exercises can be treated musically (even if of little emotional depth), and are often the most efficient means of transmitting basic technical principles, especially at an early age.  I believe you'll find the combination you speak of becomes more apparent as we approach the études of Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, Scriabin, Ligeti, and so forth.  They respond to the need to address a certain technical issue (or often, several) without sacrificing musical force.

2. So, it arises the oldest question: how do you develop technique and musicianship? There are many ways, and you described one of them. Notice, please, that is only one of them. I don't use any exercises such as scales and arpeggi (let alone czernies and hanons) with my students for many years now. And there is a noticeable difference: they develop faster and achieve more impressive results now.

It's true, there is more than one road; I speak of the one I know.  The students in my studio were playing (with ease, confidence, and conviction) tricky repertoire such as the Mephisto Waltz, Tchaikovsky Concerto, Chopin études, Rachmaninoff sonata, and so forth, often already at the age of 10 or 12.  There were certainly other contributing factors, but I believe that our teacher's insistence on these exercises and scales helped a great deal.  That having been said, they developed their technique to an even greater extent through the repertoire that they concurrently and subsequently studied.

4. Let me pick your previous list, because it is cool.And then let me translate it to its simplest components:
1) Technique
2) Sight-reading/sight-singing
3) Literature
4) Ear training
5) Memory development
6) More literature

Finally, let me synthesize it:
1) Literature
2) Technique
3) Understanding of the score (sight-reading/singing, ear training, and theory combined)

I would even go so far as condensing it to two basic areas which FEED EACH OTHER (so please understand that this is a unity which has two fully complementary components): Means of study; means of production.  Means of study could be said to comprise analytical techniques, ability to read, aural abilities, and technique (an inextricable element of sight-reading).  Means of production could be said to comprise training of the ear/inner ear (to crave various types of sound and map in advance the blueprint of the piece during performance), keyboard technique, pedaling technique, study of phrasing and articulation as a means of communication, training of the memory, and probably a few areas which I am inadvertently leaving out at the moment.  All of these are DEEPLY related.

5. I center the approach on the music. So, if my student will play, let's say, Mozart's K. 545 first movement, I won't propose her (I think about a particular student right now) to play general scales, arpeggi, a bunch of preparatory czernies or hanons. We will develop her skills from the point they are to the point they need to be to play this particular movement. It asks for the development of musicianship as well, but again I won't go with books of sight-singing, or abstract harmonic patterns: I'd use Mozart.

I think you rightly integrate these various parts.  There is a time, early on when scales and arpeggi are well learned as such, but once we get into major repertoire, there is no need to take recourse to preparatory exercises (that would be out of sequence, anyhow!), and it is more appropriate to ask "Why am I not getting the sound I desire?"  "Do I have an extraneous movement?  Am I off balance?  Am I not hearing innerly exactly what I want to achieve?"

6. Perhaps a very specific example is handy. Why bothering with scales if this movement have everything you need? There are single octave runs and brief bursts on bars 35-41, a long scalar passage on bars 5-10 (transposed in bars 46-55), and a scale ending on trill (very important connection in Classical music) on bars 69-70. Mozart considerd, it lefts out only cadential like passages such as you find in the second movement of K. 457 for instance. The important thing is: two weeks of this approach and she was done with the movement. Another year and she will eventually master the minute details of Mozart technique as presented in this Sonata.

Let me expound upon a point that may not have been clear in my initial post: simple and more complex variations of scalar patterns, arpeggi, chords, and so forth are learned early on in order that the patterns are already in the fingers by the time they are encountered in repertoire.  To have these motions already assimilated saves an enormous amount of time later on; also, the time spent on exercises early on is negligible because of the speed at which a young mind can assimilate these things.  For that reason, it represents a very small portion of the practice time, but which proves to be invaluable.


All the best,
Mike

[gerryjay]

Dear Mike,
we have different approaches, but I actually enjoy reading your post because it shows a confident and reasonable alternative. Although I don't see in my future scales back, even if I think your approach proceeds.

Anyway, the fundamental point is there: your students do play. And, furthermore, your teaching is based on reasoning, something that becomes very clear reading your ideas. That is the kind of safety that any approaches need, because first you keep improving and, then, if you find something misleading, you simply change it.

The fact your approach is traditional becomes to me immaterial. It is just a label, and labels don't actually matter.

Just for the sake of my argument, I have problem with misconcepted or non-concepted paths. And I think that a great deal of traditional teachers and institutions feature this problem proeminently.

Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

This last post make me think that, in the end, what counts is what we are able to do with the paths we are into. If I get you right, you resent a bit for not being on The Track. Well, I must admit I do it as well. From a complete different perspective, I regret about not knowing what I know now: did choose the piano when I was 12, instead of the guitar, and did commit myself limitless to the piano, the way I do now. However, this regret vanishes when I realize my life would be completely different, and I don't think I have the right to change anything. Furthermore, in the most deep account, I am happy about now and back then.

And yes, I do believe in God.

Best regards,
Jay.

I am out of town for a couple of days (my grandmother's 90th) and reading and posting only from my phone, which is frustrating a bit especially when I've got big ideas, but I'll do my best.  There are a couple of points which first clarify themselves to me, one of them being that in a sense, I think this road of piano playing comes almost inherently with regrets, almost no matter what.  OK, that's life, but what I mean is that I'm sure there's plenty of people who wonder why did they spend their whole childhood days and years at the piano?  Those days are gone, never to get back, etc..  But, yes, I've had regrets, very deep sadness, even a kind of constant emergency and crisis.  Well, maybe in words it doesn't sound any difference than another persons regrets.

At this point, just in the last year as some things have come a bit more into focus, I see another view which allows me to let go of the sadness.  I am by far happy to have the teachers in my life that I do.  Also, it seems to me to be divinely directed.  Of course, divine doesn't necessarily mean my loftiest dreams are reached, and it seems I am standing at some place, taking a good hard look at those. That act is not new, of course, but the view changes over times and experiences. 

What I think I would ever regret is the possibility that I have somehow been robbed of being my fullest self, and, yes, strangely enough it's at this point, when I become in paralyze of the dark view that maybe it's possible I could never realize myself, where I actually must find a way even that is beyond me.  A higher intelligence for my life.  Yes, by now I suppose my life could have looked at least several different ways, and there are some ways which are extremely clear to me that I am deeply happy it did not go.  Of course, the challenge of living didn't stop there, but still inhave a happiness that my life didn't go there. 

And again there are layers.  There is the layer of being capable to talk about these things with a cool head and a calmness, but then there's another layer where some part of me steps over an edge and everything must simply stand far out of my way -- that particular layer is not comfortable and comes at a time when my path must move and/or be changed.  What I can say, anyway, is that I gain the peace through my development.  There are some ways my life simply *had* to go, and when it has went, I can have some happiness.   

Well, I apologize if this is not clear. I am already in my blankets, now only I must close my eyes and fall to sleep, buti could not rest until these thoughts.   

[gerryjay]

Dear m1469,
congrats for your grandma!

I am out of town for a couple of days (my grandmother's 90th) and reading and posting only from my phone, which is frustrating a bit especially when I've got big ideas, but I'll do my best.  There are a couple of points which first clarify themselves to me, one of them being that in a sense, I think this road of piano playing comes almost inherently with regrets, almost no matter what.  OK, that's life, but what I mean is that I'm sure there's plenty of people who wonder why did they spend their whole childhood days and years at the piano?  Those days are gone, never to get back, etc..  But, yes, I've had regrets, very deep sadness, even a kind of constant emergency and crisis.  Well, maybe in words it doesn't sound any difference than another persons regrets.

At this point, just in the last year as some things have come a bit more into focus, I see another view which allows me to let go of the sadness.  I am by far happy to have the teachers in my life that I do.  Also, it seems to me to be divinely directed.  Of course, divine doesn't necessarily mean my loftiest dreams are reached, and it seems I am standing at some place, taking a good hard look at those. That act is not new, of course, but the view changes over times and experiences. 

What I think I would ever regret is the possibility that I have somehow been robbed of being my fullest self, and, yes, strangely enough it's at this point, when I become in paralyze of the dark view that maybe it's possible I could never realize myself, where I actually must find a way even that is beyond me.  A higher intelligence for my life.  Yes, by now I suppose my life could have looked at least several different ways, and there are some ways which are extremely clear to me that I am deeply happy it did not go.  Of course, the challenge of living didn't stop there, but still inhave a happiness that my life didn't go there. 

And again there are layers.  There is the layer of being capable to talk about these things with a cool head and a calmness, but then there's another layer where some part of me steps over an edge and everything must simply stand far out of my way -- that particular layer is not comfortable and comes at a time when my path must move and/or be changed.  What I can say, anyway, is that I gain the peace through my development.  There are some ways my life simply *had* to go, and when it has went, I can have some happiness.   

Well, I apologize if this is not clear. I am already in my blankets, now only I must close my eyes and fall to sleep, buti could not rest until these thoughts.   

Anxiety...well, sometimes I am there as well. There are days that I wake up thinking that it is time to make things different, and to compensate the wasted time. But that is an illusion, because there is no such a thing.

Which makes me think that it is not quite possible to you not being your fullest self. I truly believe that we all have a role in the universe and that our choices make difference in some superficial aspects. But down there, I think no matter what, you are what you must be. And if you have had that opportunity, well then you have had experienced something different in your life. But again something would put you back on your track.

Furthermore, I think we sometimes overemphasize some aspects in spite of another that seem less important but actually are the fundamental ones. If I did understand you metaphor of layers, I think sometimes one of those layers come to the surface and suddenly gain a relevance it actually does not have. Music, family, a cool head...what does really matter?

Best regards,
Jay.

[Bob]

There might be an app available for the phone to allow you to speak rather than type.

[m1469]

There might be an app available for the phone to allow you to speak rather than type.

That is probably true!  However, I'm sharing a room with others and have to be silent as a mouse .

Dear m1469,
congrats for your grandma!

Thank you, yes, she is quite a wonderful lady. Her own mother, my great grandmother, lived to 103!

Anxiety...well, sometimes I am there as well. There are days that I wake up thinking that it is time to make things different, and to compensate the wasted time. But that is an illusion, because there is no such a thing.

Yes, I suppose we are only just being ourselves, whatever that is in each day.  

Which makes me think that it is not quite possible to you not being your fullest self. I truly believe that we all have a role in the universe and that our choices make difference in some superficial aspects. But down there, I think no matter what, you are what you must be. And if you have had that opportunity, well then you have had experienced something different in your life. But again something would put you back on your track.

Furthermore, I think we sometimes overemphasize some aspects in spite of another that seem less important but actually are the fundamental ones. If I did understand you metaphor of layers, I think sometimes one of those layers come to the surface and suddenly gain a relevance it actually does not have. Music, family, a cool head...what does really matter?

Best regards,
Jay.

Well, yes, these things I think must come down to a sense of feeling them within our very make up of being.  And all of these other things really only matter in this very one way.  And here is where I start to feel a fabric in life and in all living existence, and this is like music staring right at me in the face and I can't ignore.  And though I respect very many things, I can say that view to me is ultimately more musically compelling than anything else.  Sometimes I'll take a step back to think things over, and I'll finally come to the conclusion that nothing will make sense to me fully, again, until I put my hands back onto the piano.  

 

[gerryjay]

Sometimes I'll take a step back to think things over, and I'll finally come to the conclusion that nothing will make sense to me fully, again, until I put my hands back onto the piano.  

Dear m1469,
that is a sensation we share. Although I think the piano and the music are neither the only nor the main things in my life, the sensation of peace I feel everytime I play or think about the piano is beyond my words to describe it.

I hope you can put your hands back on it as soon as you can!

Best regards,
Jay.

[m1469]

I hope you can put your hands back on it as soon as you can!

Best regards,
Jay.

I'Twill be soon, my pretty  .  I'Twill be soon.  And, perhaps it will not be a makeup of time or such, but it will be refreshed, methinks, and I will be slightly new .