Russian Piano Pedagogy

[braintist]

I was wondering if anyone here had any idea of the Russian's pedagogy

[lelle]

I've heard of it

[keyboardclass]

There's a book called The Russian Piano School published by Kahn & Averill - I'd highly recommend it.

[ethure]

Is there any free copy or online reading that I can get for that book? sorry but I don't have access to buy it, and I only want to have a basic view of how Russian kids learn piano.

[arturgajewski]

and I only want to have a basic view of how Russian kids learn piano.

The same way they learn figure scating and tennis and master these. With discipline.

[raphaelinparis]

 

the russian way of learning the piano is still patended, and you are afraid of KGB if you disclose any "secret" or what ?

If you want some idea of what the russian method is, you might want to read Chang's free online book on Piano technique. From what I have heard of the russian method, some of the "tricks" are indeed given in Chang's online book.

That said my advise is to not take for granted everything that is in Chang's book (but that is another topic and I don't want to start a discussion on that here). Read it but keep a good deal of skepticism, don't believe that this book is the "magic bullet" that will make you the next Glenn Gould in 5 years time. There are some good ideas and also some counter-productive ones.
Beginners tend to be enthusiastic about that book when they read it first, usually in their first year of practice. But after they have taken lessons with a real piano master, they understand better the shortcomings of Chang presentation.

[keyboardclass]

Is there any free copy or online reading that I can get for that book? sorry but I don't have access to buy it, and I only want to have a basic view of how Russian kids learn piano.

In that case I don't think you'd appreciate it much anyway.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you want some idea of what the russian method is, you might want to read Chang's free online book on Piano technique. From what I have heard of the russian method, some of the "tricks" are indeed given in Chang's online book.

I don't recall anything much at all relating to it in Chang's book. Chang's book doesn't really have a lot to say on technique anyway. It's very good on organisation and practise methods. However, when it comes to technique he deals largely in superficial surface characteristics that do relatively little to get inside the important issues. The strengths of the book lie elsewhere.

[stephenv]

Regarding the "Russian" School of Pedagogy.  If you study the life of Theodor Leschetizky you will find that at one point in his career he spent time in Russia..transferred his students there ...and not only that,  took over the pupils of Anton Rubenstein and acted as head of the Saint Petersburg Conservatory while Rubenstein was away concertizing.  One of the main differences between the two men was that Rubenstien was interested in educating the masses and Leschetizky was interested in nurtuing only espcially "gifted" pupils.   

Leschetizky put his STAMP on the Russian School and brought it into prominence. If you want to know the basis for the "Russian School"  look to Leschetizky as the informal "founder."   Two of Leschetizky's pupils (both of whom he was involved with romanitcally) wrote books in which they attempted to define his "method."  These books are interesting documents which give you an idea of Leschetizky's approach.  (He is quoted to have said he had NO Method).   I think like most great teachers he tailored his approach to the student.  Also, Leschetizky really wasn't interested in teaching the average "Joe" pianist.  He had been born into aristocracy and his group of pupils formed an "aristorcracy" in the musical world.  Annette Essipoff (who taught Prokofieff) names such as Schnabel, Paderewski, Friedmann, to name a few.  Josef Hofman was influenced by Leschetizky's teaching.

So truly the Russian School carries that approach...and presupposes you are a gifted pianists to begin with, thus the rigorous requirements one sees in Peskanov's technical exercises.  I would stop short of accusing the school of snobbery.  (I have a bias in that I have been influenced by one of the most "democratic" of American teachers, Guy Maier, who believed that us less fortunate mortals could learn to play beautifully and competently if we worked "smart" and used our brains to THINK at the piano. ) 

[raphaelinparis]

(...) Leschetizky's approach.  (He is quoted to have said he had NO Method).  

There is an element of truth in this.
A couple of days ago I had a piano lesson with a russian teacher that graduated at the Moscow "conservatoire". In her opinion, the main strength of "russian" pedagogy, is that teachers have studied all the different piano methods, from 17th century to now, so in addition to be excellent pianist, they are excellent pedagogues that have learnt all the possible methods to teach piano, and they are able to quickly pick whatever exercise will best suit the need of any particular student. So they know all sort of things about how Cortot, Marguerite Long, Chopin and other great pedagogues used to teach piano, and they use this knowledge to teach you as best as they can. In that respect, saying that there is NO method is somewhat true...there is a lot of methods and they can use them all.

Btw the piano lesson was amazing. She was able to help me on some subtle technical details and I have learnt a lot in so little time. I am extremely thankfull to this woman. What a difference a great teacher can make...obviously the increments to my technique will probably become smaller and smaller with time, but I am already satisfied with what I've already learned, it will help me for the rest of my life as a pianist.

Also, I had the opportunity to look at an antique russian book that she uses to teach for children : this is extremely well designed. Quite short but quite smart. Very progressive exercises, quite quite good. Short pieces of music, lovely sound, with one new technical "trick" at each time...basically it seems to be designed to take a child at level 0 and to drive him to the "Small Preludes" from Bach in the shortest timeframe. I was so impressed when I compared to all the sh***y method that I had to use as a child.
The interesting thing is that it is not designed for "genius children". A genius child will simply do all the exercises much quicker than the average child, of course. It is just very very smartly organised small pieces of music and I was really impressed.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is an element of truth in this.
A couple of days ago I had a piano lesson with a russian teacher that graduated at the Moscow "conservatoire". In her opinion, the main strength of "russian" pedagogy, is that teachers have studied all the different piano methods, from 17th century to now, so in addition to be excellent pianist, they are excellent pedagogues that have learnt all the possible methods to teach piano, and they are able to quickly pick whatever exercise will best suit the need of any particular student. So they know all sort of things about how Cortot, Marguerite Long, Chopin and other great pedagogues used to teach piano, and they use this knowledge to teach you as best as they can. In that respect, saying that there is NO method is somewhat true...there is a lot of methods and they can use them all.

I'd be rather skeptical of that. If anyone told me they were going to use the "Chopin" approach to teaching, I'd know in an instant that the person would be full of hot air. While there are some insights to be gained here and there, nobody learns how to teach effectively because of reading up on such things. It's just that if you already have a good idea what you're doing, there's a fair chance you can spot genuine insights by using your own intelligence- and incorporate a few choice aspects into your own teaching. However, you cannot learn a thing about technique by taking a history type approach without prior understanding and intelligence. To get anything at all it's necessary to read between the lines and put into context what people really meant- especially as most historical descriptions are extremely superficial and often terribly vague.

If Russian teachers truly are bookish types who spend hours researching the history of technique (the majority of which reveals more about how hard people found it to convey what they really meant than about what is needed in a given situation), I'm surprised to hear it. I think most of it is based on their own teachers passing down a practical and effective tradition- which is where the real strength lies.

[raphaelinparis]

I'd be rather skeptical of that. If anyone told me they were going to use the "Chopin" approach to teaching, I'd know in an instant that the person would be full of hot air.

I think that knowing about the history of piano pedagogy can't do any harm to a teacher.
Let's take Chopin: we know things about Chopin as a teacher. A lot of his students wrote on that (I have a book of 200 pages of testimonies of Chopin students...) and also the tradition passed from Chopin to his students, then to the students of his students, etc. So there is nothing "magic" about that. So I don't understand why you'd know "instantly that the person would be full of hot air".
Then about Cortot, Marguerite Long...they are all 20th century pianists, they wrote books, they taught a large number of great pianists, so it is no mystery to me why their methods are known by professors at Moscow's conservatoire (just as they must be known by thousands of pianists in the world)!
Want to go back as far as the 17th century ? Take Couperin : he wrote his own book on "clavecin" technique...not really difficult to guess how he was as a teacher!
And there are numerous other examples.

Anyway, whatever the reason, this russian teacher I've met is very very good and she doesn't need complicated / vague explanations to improve your playing. It was as simple as "do this, do that" and...it sounded much better. That doesn't mean you have to be russian to be that good, of course, but this teacher that graduated from Moscow conservatoire is really good at teaching, that 's for sure, and she says it is because of her training as a pianist AND as a teacher.

[raphaelinparis]

If Russian teachers truly are bookish types who spend hours researching the history of technique (...)I think most of it is based on their own teachers passing down a practical and effective tradition- which is where the real strength lies.

no, misunderstanding. They had courses on history of technique or whatever we can call it, like any regular course in university. They don't need to do research and things like that, only their professors have to.

[nyiregyhazi]

no, misunderstanding. They had courses on history of technique or whatever we can call it, like any regular course in university. They don't need to do research and things like that, only their professors have to.

Okay, I could believe that. I'd just be very skeptical as to how much of a role that part plays. Great teachers don't do things because they heard that a quote about what whoever else did. They do them because they have an understanding of how and why they can get specific things to work. I'd imagine that the course is far more about showing how certain aspects of the standard approach relate to aspects of history- rather than being about actually using history to derive approaches to teaching.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I think that knowing about the history of piano pedagogy can't do any harm to a teacher.
Let's take Chopin: we know things about Chopin as a teacher. A lot of his students wrote on that (I have a book of 200 pages of testimonies of Chopin students...) and also the tradition passed from Chopin to his students, then to the students of his students, etc. So there is nothing "magic" about that. So I don't understand why you'd know "instantly that the person would be full of hot air"."

I'm not saying there's zero to be learned. I'm pointing out that the only way to utilise this in your own teaching is to have a whole wealth of general understanding first. You can't pick and choose successfully unless you know what you're doing. A person could read all 200 pages and still know nothing about how to teach- and particularly about how to address specific problems. You have to know a great deal to make sense of what some of these things really mean and how they can be used to help, as well as to know what to ignore. Great teachers draw on aspects of such things, but they are in no way dependent on them for their success. I'd call anyone claiming to use some "Chopin method" for technique a fraud because there's nowhere near enough specific information available to base a system upon it. There are simply hints and details that can be drawn upon and which we can try to put into a bigger picture. What we have to judge on above all is what works- not vague historical descriptions.

"Anyway, whatever the reason, this russian teacher I've met is very very good and she doesn't need complicated / vague explanations to improve your playing. It was as simple as "do this, do that" and...it sounded much better. That doesn't mean you have to be russian to be that good, of course, but this teacher that graduated from Moscow conservatoire is really good at teaching, that 's for sure, and she says it is because of her training as a pianist AND as a teacher."

Sure, I'm not bring into question her worth as a teacher. Just the idea that Russian teachers are better due to knowing about various historical approaches. I think it has far more to do with general training than anything that is either historical or documented in text. It's primarily passed on by simple demonstration.

[stephenv]

Just received the frist book of Peskanov's "Russian Technical Regimen."  Intro and guide.  In it he traces his "roots"  which start with Beethoven--->Czerny--->Leschetitzky, his pupil Yesipova--etc etc...and He states empatically that "the Leschetizky principals have been the basis for the "Russian School" for over a century.  The pupils of both Leschetizky and Yesipova were not only some of the finest virtuosos in the world, but also were composers who wrote some of the most magnificent pages in the history of piano playing: Rachmaninov and Prokofiev."  soooooooo...at least in Mr. Peskanov's view, we have some insight...

I think it a great oversight that he failed to mention Anton Rubenstein!