What has dramatically transformed the teaching of piano students?

[rachfan]

Hi,

Teaching piano has apparently changed radically for the latest generation of young pianists.

Using myself as a probably typical "Old School" example, I started piano lessons at age 8 with an excellent teacher who was a graduate of the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston and who had studied piano performance with notable professors of piano there. I participated for 10 years in the adjudicated National Piano Playing Auditions sponsored by the National Guild of Piano Teachers, playing programs annually of 10 or more memorized pieces from all periods in the repertoire at appropriate grade levels and demonstrating the requisite competency in music theory at each audition. During that time I participated in very numerous student recitals in my teacher's studio and elsewhere in the region. I was one of three finalists in a competition sponsored by the New England Pianoforte Teachers Association adjudicated by New England Conservatory faculty. In the 10th year I was awarded the Paderewski Gold Medal by the American College of Musicians and the High School Diploma in Artistic Piano Playing by the National Guild. I played a senior recital and received a scholarship, although I did not choose to continue music studies or to make as career of it. (In my 40s I studied privately for seven more years with an artist-teacher with an MM in Piano Performance from Boston University.) For eight years I've contributed recordings here at Piano Street Audition Room and for the last few years I have been on the Artists roster at Piano Society. Although piano was not my vocation, it has always been my avocation.

OK, so that was the typical focused and progressive path of piano study for serious students back in the 50s and 60s, and many teachers here probably recognize it well and perhaps followed a similar path during their own early years.

Again using myself as an example, here's what I was NOT doing: playing Liszt's "La Leggeriezza" in 6th grade; playing Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto at age 14; playing all of the Chopin Ballades as a freshman in high school, etc. But this seems to be the track many young piano students are on today. And it appears to be commonplace, unless I'm greatly overestimating the situation. I cannot help but greatly admire their hard work and achievements, and their teachers and parents should be very proud.

So that brings me to my question, assuming that serious piano students both then and now were equally motivated--what is so radically different in the approach to teaching piano today that has created this phenomenon of so many piano students becoming prodigies? It seems as if they skip the intermediate learning stage and move directly to advanced repertoire and pianism.  To be honest I cannot fathom it, so am hoping to get insights here into this phenomenon.

Thanks!

David

[smoothsound]

Good question. my guess internet and you tube.  All these little prodigy's showing up all over the place , each one trying to out do the next one. They all become great little robots with wonderful technique. Fifty or sixty years ago , you had a more formalized method you had to proceed on to achieve fame. Not anymore.  Im not saying this is a good or a bad thing, just times are changing.

Great post though. I have been looking at this forum as a guest for about five years and never felt the need to join, until now. 

Personally i think the trend is awful. but what do I know.  I would rather hear Horowitz play Mozart or Richter play Haydn.

Mitch

[lostinidlewonder]

... I was NOT doing: playing Liszt's "La Leggeriezza" in 6th grade; playing Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto at age 14; playing all of the Chopin Ballades as a freshman in high school, etc. But this seems to be the track many young piano students are on today. And it appears to be commonplace, unless I'm greatly overestimating the situation. I cannot help but greatly admire their hard work and achievements, and their teachers and parents should be very proud.

I think it is easy to overestimate how many people are capable of playing at this high standard. Although youtube and other piano websites might make it seem like there are countless numbers of us, the real fact is that there isn't that many at all. From the average students I teach probably only 1 in 40 play at a high standard. Students in school playing a musical instrument I would say on average only around 1 in 100 choose to do piano. So to have a school student who plays at a high standard is around 1 in 4000.

We can take it a little further and say of those that play at a high standard how many of those actually play with not only mastery of technique but of musical expression? I would say that is again 1 in 4 of the high standard students, so that makes it 1 in 16,000 that you have a young student to plays at a masters level.

Of course these are rough odds but what I feel it is around from the hundreds of students I have taught. I still have not met one student that plays everything they do at a high technical and musical level. They might be able to pull off a couple of pieces at that standard but the point is that they cannot learn everything at that top level at a very fast rate.

Some students I have taught who demonstrate to me what they can play usually play something that they know very well. Often they play it great overall control, but then when we start learning new music we can see how slow they can often be and how they achieve such a high standard with known works is a product of countless hours.

I think we shouldn't really rate students how good they are by how they play only. That is one side of things, but the rate in which they learn their music music be a much more important factor contributing to a musical students overall ability.

There are very few youtube postings from amateurs that amaze me. Many of them are at a acceptable level but they are not at a masters level. Who is to say that we really have to play at a masters level but anyway, the fact remains that many clever students study hard on certain pieces and produce what looks effortless, but the actual amount of time they have invested is never known.

So that brings me to my question, assuming that serious piano students both then and now were equally motivated--what is so radically different in the approach to teaching piano today that has created this phenomenon of so many piano students becoming prodigies? It seems as if they skip the intermediate learning stage and move directly to advanced repertoire and pianism.  To be honest I cannot fathom it, so am hoping to get insights here into this phenomenon.

Thanks!

David

I think today we have a great deal more information to build upon. Students these days can listen to any recording they want with a click of a finger, they can have access to vast library of music from their very homes as well! I can remember in the 80s when I was learning piano how difficult it was to get sheet music and how expensive it was to order it in from overseas. It was really amazing to be able to walk through a music store and read through all sorts of sheet music. Nowadays however sheet music is plentiful on the internet, it has sorta killed the feeling I get from going through music stores now since most of the music I see there is already on the internet. It is no longer difficult to access information, and information is certainly power, we can take short-cuts, be revealed secret tricks from recordings, observe how the masters do it and learn from them.

Even with all this help still the amount of pianists who actually can LEARN and PLAY at a masters level is very few. Of the 1 in 16,000 that can play at a masters level probably only 1 in 20 of them learn their music at a masterful rate, thus you have 1 in 320,000 that play and learn at a masters rate.

Then you can go further again Of the 1 in 320,000 that play and learn at a masters rate maybe 1 in 10 of them want to take piano performance for a living. So you have 1 in 3,2000,000 that decide to take on a concerting career. Of the 1 in 3,200,000 that take piano as a career probably 1 in 50 of them will do it for the rest of their life and be known for it. So that makes it 1in 160,000,000. I think

[dcstudio]

maybe they discovered the rep really is easy enough to be played by a freshman in high school.  that is why they play it, because they can.     I think it is great to tell a student that they are free to play anything they choose...only my opinion of course.   

[stephenv]

Pose the question:  how many of these present day "super" students will be burned out in say 15/20 years? 

And we know there exists a great difference in "playing/performing" a composer's work and truly interpreting the work as the composer wished it.  To become a "musician" doesn't happen overnight.

Its not just about flashy technique and facility....is it?  Maturity comes to mind, insight and understanding that Living with a work can bring. 

I think of Dame Myra Hess...all that she experienced playing in the National Gallery during WW2, and her final performances of Beethoven's last 3 piano sonatas.   (She presented them toward the end of her career)  These recitals were memorable..why? because of the depth of understanding that she could convey.   She had "lived"  with these pieces for so long a time, thought about them....studied...worked with other great Pianists..Schnabel for one..to achieve a greater understanding. 

[lukebar]

I'm not so worried about an over-abundance of stellar performers. I'm more concerned about building an audience for them. Unfortunately, it seems like we currently have a supply of great performers that greatly exceeds the demand...

[nyiregyhazi]

Who says there are more of them now? How would we have known about them before the days where any old fool can make a video on their mobile phone and make it available? Just because we're more exposed to pianists, doesn't mean there weren't many similar talents before. In the past we probably just heard about a smaller handful of the prodigies around.

[rachfan]

Hi Everyone,

Here is a link you can copy and paste into your browser's URL address field.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/arts/music/yuja-wang-and-kirill-gerstein-lead-a-new-piano-generation.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=piano%20dime%20a%20dozen&st=nyt&scp=1

This is an article that appeared in the NY Times.  I believe the title is "Virtuoso Pianists Are Now a Dime a Dozen".  

It's fascinating reading.  It points out that technical proficiency in pianists has grown exponentially over the last decade.  Jerome Lowenthal says that his 16 year old students were inspired by the movie "Shine" and now they're playing the Rachmaninoff Third Concerto.  These are not necessarily prodigies, but his regular students.  That's what I'm getting at here.  Yes, prodigies have been around forever and it magnified by YouTube, but this trend seems to extend beyond the scope of prodigies per se.

David

[rachfan]

Hi Mitch,

I'm glad I was able to attract you to this topic and to respond.  Thanks for your thoughts!

The prodigies have existed long before Mozart showed up as one.  No question.  But this trend in technical proficiency seems to be more widespread than limited to prodigies.  For example, a decade ago at competitions, audiences and commentators were talking about the astonishing technique displayed by the contestants.  Ten years later, technique is deemed to be merely a given.  A virtuosic technique was expected and taken for granted.  So recently at competitions the focus has been not on technique (merely a tool), but rather on artistry.  Among young pianists an evolution seems to be occurring.

I hear you on Horowitz and Richter.  In former times we used to listen to the poetry and magic of  Cortot playing Debussy, or Serkin playing Schubert, or Gieseking playing Ravel, or Horowitz playing Scriabin, or Rubinstein playing Chopin, etc.  These great artists had amazing interpretations, but their playing was not flawless.  That didn't matter to us, because a technical slip did not in our minds detract in any way from a magisterial and exciting performance. Nowadays there is a feeling that if those greats were to apply to conservatories now, they might not make the cut!

I believe you're correct when you say the tread is awful.  I think that is particularly true when teachers move beginners to advanced repertoire, thereby skipping the entire intermediate level which is where the fundamentals of teaching are practiced and gel.  It makes no sense to me.

David

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

It's easy to focus on the qualitative aspect of this question, so I appreciate your bringing in the quantitative aspect as well, as it serves as a reality check on impressions.  Your estimates might indeed be rough, but in that final extrapolation, it doesn't seem too far off the mark.  Only a very few make it into first tier of pianists with big careers.  If worldwide you consider the six most important international competitions--a major point of access for those competing for a professional career--perhaps 10 or less are able to launch a career through the prize money, concert management booking engagements, opportunity to release CDs, etc. But not all of them will have continuing appeal, motivation, and staying power.  So after fallout, the number could be less than 10.

I agree with your comment of technical mastery and expression.  When I was a young student ("back in the day") I recall in my teacher's studio a few students who loved playing prestissimo.  But when they had to play a lyrical, poetic piece, it was awful--no detectable feelings whatsoever.  Expression has to come from within the person--it cannot be imposed from without--and not every pianist can conjure that quality. Similarly, it was a great effort for some pianists who played lyrical pieces very beautifully, to play pieces at fast tempos without evenness and control issues.  And then, there were those few gifted students who could do both--with adequate technique and expression too.

Your point about rate of learning pieces is interesting.  Along with playing a piece, that is an important indicator.  You know, when a gold medalist leaves the competition, management will expect that he or she will quickly assemble a minimum of six completely different recital programs and four concertos just for starters.  And then will come an invitation to play a concerto which must be learned by a tough deadline.  A slow learning rate will not expedite responses for any of those demands, and not everyone will stand up to the pressure.

You're right about students having instant access to sheet music online and performances.  I my early years we had to beg and borrow 33rpm LP records, and would be satisfied with an old 78rpm record with scratches, crackles and pops in it just to hear Brailowsky, Lipatti, or even Paderewski play a piece that we hankered to play. 

It's great, lost, to hear from a teacher like you who has taught a great number of students over the years and who can bring the long perspective to a discussion like this.  Thanks!

David

[rachfan]

Hi dcstudio,

maybe they discovered the rep really is easy enough to be played by a freshman in high school.  that is why they play it, because they can.

We can't rule it out that some freshmen might have the capability to undertake big repertoire pieces because they are within their grasp.  Now, whether they have the maturity to understand the composer and to read the score and between the lines in developing an interpretation is open to question.  That's an area where a teacher can help decide whether it's impractical, or if that advanced level of understanding of the composer's intents can be imparted at the lessons.

I think it is great to tell a student that they are free to play anything they choose...only my opinion of course.

In general I don't disagree, but I would add a couple of caveats: 1) They should be able to choose their pieces as long as they aim at becoming well-rounded students of the piano literature. 2) They should know that selecting a "stretch piece" for raising their level of playing is indeed desirable, so long as they can produce a creditable performance.  In my mind it's always better to play an easier piece very well than to make a mess of a difficult piece, so it becomes a judgment call and I think that's an instance were a teacher can give good advice to the pupil.

David

[dcstudio]

I think credible performance is a matter of opinion at best.  For those who can grab it as a freshman they should.  Does it matter if someone who has no shot of giving a credible performance still takes a crack at the Hungarian Rhapsody?  Should they play it only if the have the prowess of Horowitz or Richter?  Do you think Franz Liszt would only want his music played by so called credible  performers? the idea was to sell their sheet music-  sold only to concert pianists--would limit sales a bit.

[rachfan]

Hi dc,

I'm not trying to suggest that a student should never get his way.  Teacher's advice is advice, just that. Anyone can get onto a stage somewhere.  Once there, he or she will have a lofty duty to put the piece across to the audience through interpretation and competent execution of that interpretation.  If the student can put the piece over, good for him or her!!!  If the piece is a mess because the difficulties are too daunting and the audience is not receptive, then that's a valuable lesson learned by that pianist. Realistically there are many people in this world who are not amenable or open to sound advice.  They learn only by experience--good or bad. You can't live their lives for them.

If the student has no desire to perform in public and simply wants to learn the big piece at home, then the question becomes would the time and effort be worth it at the expense of other more feasible and accessible pieces that could be more readily added to the students repertoire.  Again it's a judgment call.  

David

[rachfan]

Hi lukebar,

I'm not so worried about an over-abundance of stellar performers. I'm more concerned about building an audience for them.

You raise a real conundrum.  There's no denying that interest in the art of piano is declining in the recital hall.  You can visually see it in the overwhelming number of "gray hairs" sitting in the audiences.  One thing that used to bolster interest was community concert associations.  These sprouted up in numerous small cities in the U.S.  These venues were not Symphony Hall in Boston or Avery Fisher Hall in NYC. Instead, these piano recitals occurred in city hall or school auditoriums, local theaters, churches, etc. It presented wonderful opportunities for lesser known pianists to tour and build audiences.  Costs were kept low, venues often gave the nonprofit organizers breaks, and the artists accepted lower fees and expenses. I can recall seeing many pianists this way--Jean Casadesus, Nicole Henriot, Ruth Slenczynska, Leonard Pennario, Eden & Tamir duo-pianists, and others.  These events were usually sold out, as many enjoyed attending a local recital than having to travel into the big city.  So what happened?  Eventually the artists' managerment firms (the impressarios) charged fees that were too steep for the concert associations to afford, and they folded one after the other.  It's going to take some creative thinking, especially for attracting younger people into the halls to hear classical piano recitals.  I'm not sure what that answer might be.

David

[lostinidlewonder]

It's easy to focus on the qualitative aspect of this question, so I appreciate your bringing in the quantitative aspect as well, as it serves as a reality check on impressions.

This reality check hit me hard when I was studying with Woodward. When I was asked to study the complete Chopin etudes in quick time it really revealed to me how far I still had to go in terms of rate of learning. After going through the monumental task it was revealed to me how far one can actually push their learning rate, however of course balance in life is very important, once should not play piano for the rest of their life until they die day in and out.

...If worldwide you consider the six most important international competitions--a major point of access for those competing for a professional career--perhaps 10 or less are able to launch a career through the prize money, concert management booking engagements, opportunity to release CDs, etc. But not all of them will have continuing appeal, motivation, and staying power.  So after fallout, the number could be less than 10.

Exactly, how many major competition winners do we actually remember? I can only name a few!! And every year we have big competition winners. It just becomes too much for the world community to regard every single big competition winner as an up and coming famed concerting pianist worthy of buying tickets for a concert from.

The ones that last are those that provide some type of service in the world of music. They find a niche and continue throughout their life. A famed concert pianists life is in all reality and honesty not a very exciting or extravagant life. Sure the dinners and VIP meetings are nice but your work is work afterall, the concert preparations, management and travel scalps the majority of people after a while who try to have an international concerting career. Personally I could never do this for a living travelling the world for the rest of my life, but who is to say we cannot create these opportunities ourselves when we want to do it?

I am not one person who follows tradition or rules and regulations, I honestly believe people can create their own pathways with inspiration and persistence. I started my first public solo concert in a major concert hall of over 900 people and the manager asked me if I wanted the smaller hall because they have never sold all the seats in a show and it can be expensive. We didn't care and took the large hall, then worked our asses off selling the event until it was a full house. It has nothing to do with playing the piano although the 2nd concert was much easier to sell since the 1st made a good impression.

Because of this the students I have taught that want to become performers I encourage them to learn the ins and outs of how to set up concerts, learn about business and money management. I am sure there are other teachers in the world that are also teaching their students about the business side of performance and we have a lot more knowledge in this respect than in the past. We can even read about Chopin doing piano solo concerts which where a financial failures! CHOPIN!?!?!??!?

I agree with your comment of technical mastery and expression.  When I was a young student ("back in the day") I recall in my teacher's studio a few students who loved playing prestissimo.  But when they had to play a lyrical, poetic piece, it was awful--no detectable feelings whatsoever.  Expression has to come from within the person--it cannot be imposed from without--and not every pianist can conjure that quality. Similarly, it was a great effort for some pianists who played lyrical pieces very beautifully, to play pieces at fast tempos without evenness and control issues.  And then, there were those few gifted students who could do both--with adequate technique and expression too.

I still find this in the students I teach. I call it "musical maturity" some of them just do not have it, or have not cultivated an ear to be able to listen to the subtle touches of music. As a music teacher I have found it is better not to hound a student to produce musical sounds if it does not come naturally to them. Make them aware of it and try to push them in that direction but do not get overly fussed if they do not crack it completely. In time as they develop and progress it will happen, but I have found slowing down lessons and focusing on musicality can be very boring and useless more often than not.

What I find really frustrating is when students play technically very strong but their musicality is trash. These are the toughest students to improve because of how some of their minds are actually wired. Some of them actually treat piano as a game of button pressing, and so long you get the right button with not too much physical effort you are doing things right. To deal with these students often I have to break down the musical phrases into smaller parts and identify individual issues that contribute to the musical expression of the phrase. The difficult thing however is that we can reveal to them how to do it in certain instance but to transfer the ability to make musical decision in a new piece you learn, this is the difficult point. You can lead them but they need to be able to lead themselves eventually and from my experience oddly enough, some students who play technically at a very high standard will never develop a natural musical understanding to match (One 55 year old Hong Kong Chinese lady I teach is a perfect example, she plays musically wonderful but only if she is shown what is the way, if I make her study parts on her own she flounders about and is insecure about what to do. I've taught her for over 12 years and she just feels comfortable using a teacher to guide her although I keep trying to make her do things on her own. I have to admit she has made some development into learning the musical expression herself but it will never match her technical prowess.)

Your point about rate of learning pieces is interesting.  Along with playing a piece, that is an important indicator.  You know, when a gold medalist leaves the competition, management will expect that he or she will quickly assemble a minimum of six completely different recital programs and four concertos just for starters.  And then will come an invitation to play a concerto which must be learned by a tough deadline.  A slow learning rate will not expedite responses for any of those demands, and not everyone will stand up to the pressure.

I think this is the most touchy subject when I discuss it with students aspiring to become pianists. Many of them must realize that the rate in which they learn their music is paramount to their development as a musician. Too many believe that you can simply play a piece for the rest of your life and improve it, yes this is very true, pieces grow with us over the years and improve, age like fine wine what have you. But the initial rate in which we acquire mastery needs to be accelerated. It is like an exponential line graph which tapers off near the top, that is how pieces should improve over time, not improve a HUGE amount but small touches and effects improved. The majority of the mastery needs to be learned in fast time and it is via past experience of other pieces that we can achieve this feat.

You're right about students having instant access to sheet music online and performances.  I my early years we had to beg and borrow 33rpm LP records, and would be satisfied with an old 78rpm record with scratches, crackles and pops in it just to hear Brailowsky, Lipatti, or even Paderewski play a piece that we hankered to play.  

I can totally relate to this, I remember getting my hands on cassette tapes of Beethoven Sonata's from the local library and listened to them every day for weeks on end while I had them! Now I struggle to listen to a performance on youtube and only now and then listen to people on pianostreet. Now there is just too much music to listen to, your senses get swamped. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing, I really think it is a double edged sword, but certainly it provides us with much greater benefit than not.

It's great, lost, to hear from a teacher like you who has taught a great number of students over the years and who can bring the long perspective to a discussion like this.  Thanks!

And thank you for posting such interesting links and though provoking issues!

[rachfan]

Hi nyireghazi,

I believe you have a good point there.  Certain famous prodigies from the various stylistic periods are well known to us in the literature--famous ones like Mozart and flashes in the pan like Pepito Arriola (1897-1954), a famous piano prodigy in his time who dropped out of sight, but emerged several years later as a fine violinist.  It might be that in a pie chart the prodigies in any era occupy the same small sliver of the pie.  The only reason it seems there are more of them is because their number has grown in proportion to the growth of the world's population.  And media like YouTube have drilled them more into the music world's consciousness.  

The broader question though is why the piano students in general entering music schools today seem to have far stronger technical capabilities than previously.  That's a tougher question to answer.

David

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

You make many good points here.  Very informative!

I still find this in the students I teach. I call it "musical maturity" some of them just do not have it, or have not cultivated an ear to be able to listen to the subtle touches of music. As a music teacher I have found it is better not to hound a student to produce musical sounds if it does not come naturally to them. Make them aware of it and try to push them in that direction but do not get overly fussed if they do not crack it completely. In time as they develop and progress it will happen, but I have found slowing down lessons and focusing on musicality can be very boring and useless more often than not.

I think that this has been a piano teacher's on-going frustration through the generations!  My sense is that a teacher can only do the doable, not the impossible.  We would like every pianist to reach the top of their potential.  But if there is not enough talent and capability to do so, then a cross-roads appears up ahead.  The student who cannot play with musicality will likely not progress much further in that regard, but there is still an open pathway available.  If this pianist cannot become an accomplished pianist, then he or she might find it personally rewarding being what we call a casual or social pianist.  This is the pianist who buys some music albums at an appropriate level and can play some tunes at home for their own enjoyment.  There's nothing wrong with that!  And the teacher should be pleased to have at least made that option possible.

David

[lostinidlewonder]

Another thought I have is that although we have an increase in the numbers of talented performing pianists this makes one part of concert presentation very important. To be able to speak to your audience and connect them with the performer, the music and the composer. In all honesty I would not return to a concert of a soloist if they did not speak to the audience effectively and sadly enough witnessing some big stars and their concerts have left me very disappointed. In one respect it makes me happy because when I do my own concerts I feel I can freely speak to my audience and make them enjoy the event more so, but it is very saddening to see these new big stars who really have no idea how to address the public but with their fingers.

[lostinidlewonder]

I think that this has been a piano teacher's on-going frustration through the generations!  My sense is that a teacher can only do the doable, not the impossible.  We would like every pianist to reach the top of their potential.  But if there is not enough talent and capability to do so, then a cross-roads appears up ahead.  The student who cannot play with musicality will likely not progress much further in that regard, but there is still an open pathway available.  If this pianist cannot become an accomplished pianist, then he or she might find it personally rewarding being what we call a casual or social pianist.  This is the pianist who buys some music albums at an appropriate level and can play some tunes at home for their own enjoyment.  There's nothing wrong with that!  And the teacher should be pleased to have at least made that option possible.

This is exactly what I feel as well David. We have to take a step back and not expect results from our students that might be too far from their natural understanding. I feel that natural understanding of musical expression is an important skill to cultivate but really there is limitations to students. I do not however believe it is something that cannot be learned, however the discipline required is quite monumental and what separates those who are really serious about it and those who are not. The younger you are the easier it is to instill this musical understanding, the older you get the more you tend to try to put everything into logical terms something that does not always work with musical expression which is something you can feel like a language not a mathematical proof.

As a teacher however I want to be able to teach expression as measurable science not something I only describe with mysterious symbols. We certainly have had much discussion throughout pianostreet on specific issues relating to this enormous topic. There are axioms that we can abide by, like what Liszt suggested for crescendos, start softer than you normally would and get louder, but although this is a very simple instruction the actual use of it needs to have context to the phrase of music you are playing.
If we consider something more complicated like tempo control, the use of rubato in composers such as Chopin or Debussy, then see other tempo control usage in Bach to Scriabin, we notice patterns, we notice ways in which the tempo is controlled through different styles.

The more pieces we learn it paints a picture for us to understand how music works as a whole. I have always naturally seen everything I learn in a macroscopic view, when I learn one piece I can see where it fits in the entire works I have done in my past. Some people however do not have this perspective in their work and I guess that limits their potential. If you treat each piece as a totally new challenge then you will find progress so very slow and in will limit your ability to naturally understand the language of music. As spoken language requires that you understand the sound subconsciously music requires that you also understand certain phrases as speech that you should be familiar with. However if one cannot take in this musical language and understand it without conscious effort then how can they ever speak music as if it where their mother tongue? They never will be able to but only ever recite it with great effort.

I have found this cycle impossible to break in students. Those that cannot see everything they have learned in piano with a macroscopic perspective. Too many get caught up looking at certain parts and their understanding is disjoint. Technical playing is separated from expression, memorizing notes is separated from technical control, understanding musical expression is not related to past experience strongly enough and thus they rely on tackling this aspect as a new challenge each time. The list goes on. The strongest students I have taught can bind together everything they learn to work as a whole, their practice method is in tip top shape.

Now there is another point especially with the pianists that come out of Asia. Many of them practice EXCESSIVE hours, and I mean excessive. The pressure to achieve is so great that most of us Westerners would not believe the amount of effort the Orientals put into their work if it where revealed to us. There are piano schools in China where thousands of young students attend trying to become the next world famous pianist. I remember watching a documentary on it and also one on ballet dancers in China. The amount of training would seem barbaric to most of us Western teachers.

So you have millions of Asian students all aspiring to become the next concert pianist and then you have a few trickle out, many which disappear into oblivion because they cannot connect with their audience but with their fingers.

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

I have found this cycle impossible to break in students. Those that cannot see everything they have learned in piano with a macroscopic perspective. Too many get caught up looking at certain parts and their understanding is disjoint. Technical playing is separated from expression, memorizing notes is separated from technical control, understanding musical expression is not related to past experience strongly enough and thus they rely on tackling this aspect as a new challenge each time.

Very well said, and so true!  The microcosm patterns always must fit into the larger fabric of the macrocosm.  We always need to be able to take a holistic view of it all.  How often do we master a detail in music--learning how to play a triplet, a polyrhythm, voicing a chord, connecting a voice leading, etc.? And once we learn any such detail, we ought never have to relearn it.  It will always be in the macrocosm as a permanent reference tool. Similarly, if we have a group of details such as the multi-layering of sound, that group also resides as an integrated unit in the macrocosm for future reference.  Thus piano theory supports piano practice which supports effective piano performance.  If someone cannot grasp those inter- and intra-connections, or connect to their own fingers as you say, then progress is going to be very arduous and might mean diminishing returns.   I think the teacher and student need to then jointly assess the problem together to reach a decision on how to proceed.  

David    

[rachfan]

I'll be missing in action for the next few days but will return to this thread soon.

David

[brogers70]

Rachfan, I don't know the answer to your question, but I hope you find it; it's important. It's really hard to do good controlled studies of teaching methods and approaches, so I think a lot of traditional ways of doing things get superstitiously turned into articles of faith. Some of them are useful, but some are probably not. Having a lot of intense competition will weed out the traditional, but wrong, approaches, at least to some extent. So having a lot of driven teenagers whose parents think the best way for them to get into Harvard is to play the Liszt Transcendental Etudes flawlessly, will put on some pressure to drive out less effective methods of teaching piano technique. The greatest resource we all heave is the amount of time we spend doing non-productive stuff, so if we can figure out what specific piano activities give the biggest bang for the buck in acquiring technique, then people will be able to acquire more technique faster.

It would be great to have large scale studies looking at different teaching approaches in a really controlled experiment, but since that rarely happens even for mathematics or language, hoping for it to be done in music seems like wishful thinking.

In any case I certainly agree that there can be global improvements in piano technique. I was a classical guitarist long ago, and in the 70's and 80's there was a dramatic improvement in the technical abilities of classical guitarists. There's also been a big improvement in the teaching of art in elementary schools over the past 30 years. Not that there were not good teachers before, but good teaching techniques have spread. So there's no reason piano teaching cannot have improved and cannot be improved even more.

[scottmcc]

David, I think that part of the reason for the rise in technique you are seeing is the result of the Internet making so many good recordings so instantly accessible, as others have noted above.  Furthermore, watching a video instantly gives someone insight into the complex techniques required for virtuoso pieces that would take months to learn on one's own or with a teacher.  Even seeing that something is possible to play gives one the impetus to at least try it once or twice.

Additionally, I think there are many kids today who go on obsessive quests, and use the brute force, gut-it-out method of learning something as opposed to the structured progression common previously.

As for lacking artistry, who really expects a 20 year old to have the depth of feeling to express complicated, subtle music perfectly? Most 20 year olds can barely form a complete sentence.  Surely this is something that grows over time, whereas finger dexterity peaks much earlier.  Look at Beethoven and his early works: technically flashy and brash, but nobody would compare the artistry of op 110 to that of op 2, stylistic differences aside.  Look at great writers, and ask how many wrote their masterpiece at 20 and then developed no more afterwards?  In many ways, the rise of virtuoso youths should be celebrated, because hopefully when they are in their mid-careers, they'll give richter a run for his money.

[rachfan]

Hi scottmacc

All very astute observations--and thought provoking.  It all makes sense to me. Thanks for your perspective!

David

[caioramos]

Honestly, I think this kind of discussion is very good and bad at the same time.

It's good because all you guys said are basically the truth. The bad part is that aspiring pianists can get overly discouraged reading all this, and in my opinion, I think if you are entitled to be one of the few, you will, but you have to try it first. Even if some don't give up piano having in mind all this information, they may lose some motivation in their study.

It's like the old talk about if age matters, it's not because one started at 2 and got into Juilliard that he will make the cut for international concert career. I believe that It happens what it has to happen to you, it does not matter if there are 1 billion chinese studying 24/7. Just go, do your best. I'm saying this part cause of myself that Is aspiring for this, but I'm quite decided about what I want way before I started playing, and I know how thinking about all this can hold someone back. But I just don't want people getting discouraged of their dreams.

[rachfan]

Hi brogers70,

While there are no large studies on effectiveness of methods, and probably none that are longitudinal (over a long time), there are ways that professional teachers can at least compare notes on what works and what doesn't work as well.  The Piano Guild and the MTNA offer their members publications, seminars, etc.,  and sometimes regional groups of teachers form associations for the purpose of exchanging information on pedagogy. And there are also some fine books available on piano pedagogy. But many of those viewpoints are often based on tradition as opposed to measurable results.  For example, take building technique.  There are those who believe that most of technique is learned from studying the piano literature and solving technical problems during practicing.  Others believe in scales, arpeggios, five-finger exercises and independence of the fingers drills.  When it comes to Czerny, some believe that Czerny etudes are essential while others believe that a student's time is far better spent learning a "real" etude of Moscheles, Chopin, etc.  Or take method books for beginners--some reviews extol the virtues of a method while others believe better methods are available.  Then there are the many volumes of interviews of virtuosos and important pedagogues--all with differing formative experiences and opinions on such matters.

Thus, it would seem that the teaching model is based on one's own education, training, experience, informal experimentation, ancecdotes, beliefs and inclinations--much of which might differ from the findings of the next teacher.  What has yet to be discovered, tested and verified is a set of best practices leading the teacher and student along a pathway assuring the best probability for success in learning and performance.  That is, more of an objective rather than a subjective approach.  But here again, every teacher is an individual as is every student.  And one student might have different needs than the next. So even an objective approach would need to have some flexibility built into it.

I think you raise a good point about the improvement in guitar pedagogy, teaching elementary art, etc. Thus, if there has been a breakthrough in piano teaching that is enabling younger and younger pianists to excel, then we ought not be too surprised by it all.  

David  

[rachfan]

Hi caioramos,

Thanks for adding your comments.  As I look through this thread, I haven't noticed value judgments being made.  That is to say, nobody has criticized prodigies, or otherwise asserted that there should be more or fewer prodigies among us, or that it's a good or a bad development in the world of piano. I believe that we're seeing a trend, and the question is how can we best account for it.  Or to what do we attribute it? So I believe that members are merely inquiring about the phenomenon, not attempting to condemn it. Thus, the emphasis is not to encourage or discourage, but simply to gain insights and a better understanding.

David

[ted]

As a rank outsider I was hesitant to post, but then I thought why not ? Sometimes an outsider can see in much more clearly than an insider can see out. So here are one or two thoughts.

Firstly, the obvious proliferation of improved physical technique per se in the general piano playing population seems to me wholly good. One also notes a similar pattern in some other genres, for example ragtime and stride, which  are burgeoning with very young people who easily play things once the preserve of seasoned professionals. Where I see a need to be very careful is in assuming that through some sort of psychological compensatory axiom, either they must necessarily lack musical depth themselves or lack the ability to communicate it. It might be true in many cases, but then again it might not be. The issue goes right to the heart of precisely why we play music and exactly how we choose to be moved by it.

An interesting example. A few years ago I switched on the car radio while waiting for my wife somewhere or other. I heard the first section of Islamey. This is just going to be another ninety miles an hour thumper, I thought to myself. On the contrary, I found it musically wonderful, the most sensitive playing of it I had heard. I waited eagerly for the announcement. "And after the last note he is throwing his hands in the air and jumping up and down." Lang lang. Ha ha ! In one bound I had grasped the nettle, as J.B. Priestley once said.

Several times I have bought CDs of classical music by a virtual nonentity and found myself moved more profoundly than through the same pieces played by a revered name. Stephanie Trick's playing of Waller I frequently find transports me better than the composer's own recordings.

At a piano party recently, a young Asian pianist played Liszt transcriptions beautifully. He then played a short piece I didn't know, but which took the attention of everybody in the room with its coherence and life. He was so reluctant, almost painfully embarrassed, ashamed even, to admit he had made it up on the spot. A piano professor was present, that might have had something to do with it. The point is that no way was this boy a shallow technician inside.

I can see the criticism coming. "Ted's responses to piano music are loony at the best of times." Perhaps, unorthodox certainly, but nonetheless, I think consistently and honestly so. I have great faith in the young regarding music and the world is changing more rapidly than any of us realise. The old educational paths might not suffice any longer and the concert platform might not be appropriate in the future as the centre of  personal musical experience, even in the classical realm.

I am certainly reluctant to see the explosion of technical ability - and you are right, of course, it is a real phenomenon - as anything but good in the long run. If imbalances exist at present I think they have been generated by imposed social, competitive and academic traditions of spurious musical validity in the modern world. Common sense and the universal power of music will surely set things right in time.

       

[rachfan]

Hi Ted,

the world is changing more rapidly than any of us realise. The old educational paths might not suffice any longer and the concert platform might not be appropriate in the future as the centre of  personal musical experience, even in the classical realm

Yes, this is at the heart of the matter, I think.  I imagine, for example, that a teacher steeped in "the old educational paths" who is with a 9 year old student wanting to start with a Liszt Transcendental Etude must have to make some major adjustments in thinking.  Once done, and if the student succeeds, I believe that therein lies the secret--it seems literally impossible thereafter for that same student to ever think in terms of difficulty.  Thus there are no barriers to progress or the pace of progress. A student, on the other hand, taking the traditional path of a beginner's "method" and graded repertoire is always aware, sometimes fearfully so, of difficulty.  Perhaps this suggests that the modern teacher needs to have a mindset of serving the student and his whims, no matter how seemingly outlandish, rather than serving the tradition of the established method and progressive repertoire.

David

[kellyc]

Hi David.  After looking at all these posts , it seems to me,  that while a great many technically proficient students are being created, the number of great artists hasn't increased at all. In fact, there may be fewer. I guess it all depends on what you mean by a great artist. 

One thing I do know from life is that when something is rare it tends to be very valuable. When you have an over abundance of something, not so valuable. 

We as pianists tend to think that playing lots of notes, big chords, fancy harmonies, playing really fast is what the public wants. Im not so sure about that.  It is mentioned often that Classical music is slowly loosing its connection to the main stream public.  These young prodigies play pieces that the average person can never try themselves.  It seems like playing a simple Chopin waltz beautifully just isn't the thing to do these days, even though your audience mighty actually have a chance at trying to play it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is just maybe musical education and Pianists in particular should take a close look at reasons why this audience contraction is occurring. 

Thanks, Kelly

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi Ted,

Yes, this is at the heart of the matter, I think.  I imagine, for example, that a teacher steeped in "the old educational paths" who is with a 9 year old student wanting to start with a Liszt Transcendental Etude must have to make some major adjustments in thinking.  Once done, and if the student succeeds, I believe that therein lies the secret--it seems literally impossible thereafter for that same student to ever think in terms of difficulty. Thus there are no barriers to progress or the pace of progress. A student, on the other hand, taking the traditional path of a beginner's "method" and graded repertoire is always aware, sometimes fearfully so, of difficulty.  Perhaps this suggests that the modern teacher needs to have a mindset of serving the student and his whims, no matter how seemingly outlandish, rather than serving the tradition of the established method and progressive repertoire.

I'm trying to make sense of this, but I'm afraid that I am totally at a loss. I think "once done" clearly needs to be placed with "IF done". If there are any psychological issues regarding difficulty at all, is it not vastly more significant that this 9 year old had the sheer talent to be capable of mastering a Transcendental Etude? If that's the case, the concept of difficulty was scarcely there to start with. How many 9 year olds would succeed here- and without having even learned some basics first?

The concept seems to be (correct me if I'm misreading it) that if a 9 year old learns a transcendental etude then nothing will seem difficult- therefore it will instil more confidence than building up slowly? Well how much difficulty would someone with that level of talent perceive in simple pieces? And where do we draw the line? Shall we start them on Sorabji so they have even less concept of difficulty? This whole argument is clearly in reverse. For most, difficult pieces make it seem harder, not easier. You cannot rationally construct the premise around casual assumptions of success in a Transcendental Etude. Most who attempted one would fail miserably and there's no question that it could possibly make things seem easier than taking the normal route. Whenever I've had students try to leap straight into hard pieces, they have done a poor job of acquiring proper foundations or transferable skills. They've just learned to survive their way through things, with a catalogue of poor movements. And the difficulty has remained with easier pieces.

Here's a classic example:

Rather tragic, considering that he clearly has some degree of talent. Clearly not a terribly amazing talent, but it's really quite sad to see someone fooling around that way in a bid to impress- without having learned any basic fundamentals whatsoever.The geniuses who can master a transcendental etude would not find it hard to master pieces on a traditional route. The only "secret" lies in a student actually being both talented and ready.

[rachfan]

Hi nyireghazi,

If that's the case, the concept of difficulty was scarcely there to start with.

That's exactly what I'm surmising.  If a talented young piano student is unaware of gradients of difficulty and is immediately started on advanced repertoire, say a Liszt concert etude such as "La Leggierezza" and plays like a prodigy, then maybe the teacher can use that as leverage in the learning process.  So could it be that if the student is then offered another advanced piece (but it is presented instead as a normal beginner's piece), and the child likewise succeeds very well with a creditable performance, might that then be the level at which the student continues to learn the art of the piano?  Or instead should the teacher reverse course and cover the basics with pieces at the level of "The Busy Turtle",  "Ghost Dance", "Gypsy Caravan", etc.? Or would they go to intermediate level works of Bach, Clementi, Heller, Schumann, Grieg, etc.?  I cannot argue against the fact that they absolutely need to know all scales, arpeggios, cadences and independence of the fingers and learn etudes in honing their technique.  

Please understand, I'm not advocating that all new students skip beginner and intermediate training and piano literature. Recall from my initial post that I came to play the piano through the most traditional route (as you might have as well) and truly believe in its efficacy and endorse it. But I'm having trouble understanding how so many young students these days can take on very difficult literature very early, play it remarkably well, and continue to thrive on it.    

I watched the video link you gave me, which I appreciate.  Yes, I could only watch for about one minute as the performance was so painfully inept.  The young pianist was obviously far out of his depth.  But now, let me return the favor.  Kindly watch this 8 year old playing Liszt's "La Leggierezza".  Yes, there are a few rough spots for him, but he maintains musicality at all times. Could a seasoned artist play it better with deeper understanding?  Of course!  But I believe you'll still find this talented 8 year old's capability quite remarkable and creditable nonetheless.  Did he perhaps begin piano study at age 3?  Maybe, I don't know.  But he is an example of the phenomenon that seems to be growing, and which I've not yet been able to fully comprehend.  You probably saw the NY Times article "Concert Pianists are a Dime a Dozen" which touches on a related issue, abundant and flawless technique and artistry in today's crop of virtuoso pianists.  If you've not seen it, I can give you a link.  But first, here is a link to the 8 year old I mentioned playing a Liszt concert etude.  Link:

Please let me know what you think.

David

[nyiregyhazi]

"That's exactly what I'm surmising.  If a talented young piano student is unaware of gradients of difficulty and is immediately started on advanced repertoire, say a Liszt concert etude such as "La Leggierezza" and plays like a prodigy, then maybe the teacher can use that as leverage in the learning process."

Immediately? Does this ever happen? Don't you think they'll have excelled at some easy stuff first? Who gives a kid La Leggierezza as their first piece? Wouldn't they at least have learned a Mozart sonata? There still has to be some form of progression.


"So could it be that if the student is then offered another advanced piece (but it is presented instead as a normal beginner's piece), and the child likewise succeeds very well with a creditable performance, might that then be level at which the student continues to learn the art of the piano?"

That's an equally significant "if" as the last one. Who starts a child on something difficult on the off-chance that they are a genius? And if they are, obviously they will do well in easy pieces and get moved along quicker.


"I watched the video link you gave me, which I appreciate.  Yes, I could only watch for about one minute as the performance was so painfully inept.  The young pianist was obviously far out of his depth.  But now, let me return the favor.  Kindly watch this 8 year old playing Liszt's "La Leggierezza".  Yes, there are a few rough spots for him, but he maintains musicality at all times."

Do you think he was started on that? I'm sure he excelled in plenty of easier things first. Anyway, as for "maintaining musicality at all times" it's not even close. Not that I enjoy laying into an extremely talented kid, but the important thing is that he would be far better off playing easier repertoire and learning to shape that with deep musicality and technical control. His teacher ought to be shot. It's very lumpy and while far from unpleasantly unmusical, there's really very little concept of musical phrase. It doesn't stray into much that is truly vulgar but neither is there anything very musical. It's just notes played in a middle-of-the-road fashion and with far too many accents. Also, he looks rather uncomfortable physically. Remarkable for an 8 year old, certainly. However, he'd be far better off saving up for a few years before stretching himself like that. If he grows to be a great pianist and musician, it certainly won't be from punching out difficult pieces in that kind of fashion.

This is worse still:

&list=UL

In many ways it pains me more to hear a kid with that level of talent spinning out notes with so little music going on, than to hear that kid fake the mephisto. Cliched as it is to say this about a prodigy, he doesn't seem to have learned much at all that relates to real music yet.

[rachfan]

Hi, I watched the "Kreisleriana" and cannot disagree with your assessment.  By musicality I was referred to a young child's musicality which is rarely as ever developed as that of a seasoned artist.  But for an 8 year old, it does give one pause.  Schumann's pieces are like novels, and require a deep understanding in order to effect a meaningful interpretation for performance   Yes, probably he did start on less demanding pieces, but given that he is 8, he certainly must have progressed very quickly. 

His teacher ought to be shot.

Is that to say that for every prodigy, there is a misguided teacher who ignored best practices of piano pedagogy?  There are so many prodigies on YouTube.  Are almost all of them victims of poor teaching?

David

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi, I watched the "Kreisleriana" and cannot disagree with your assessment.  By musicality I was referred to a young child's musicality which is rarely as ever developed as that of a seasoned artist.  But for an 8 year old, it does give one pause.  Schumann's pieces are like novels, and require a deep understanding in order to effect a meaningful interpretation for performance   Yes, probably he did start on less demanding pieces, but given that he is 8, he certainly must have progressed very quickly.  

Is that to say that for every prodigy, there is a misguided teacher who ignored best practices of piano pedagogy?  There are so many prodigies on YouTube.  Are almost all of them victims of poor teaching?

David

Maybe. Perhaps teachers really believe that it's somehow of benefit to get a kid to punch out notes with what is effectively an outright absence of musicality and poor technique (I'm not referring to the accuracy but the quality of movement- which leaves much to be desired). A teacher ought to make some kind of serious intervention when someone with that level of talent plays something quite so poorly.

I've heard very few real prodigies- musically speaking (Benjamin Grosvenor was one of the few real ones). That kid is not simply underdeveloped musically. He hasn't even begun to illustrate anything truly musical. All those accents after at the start of the Liszt show little grasp of the most basic issues of cantabile. And to have him whacking out Kreisleriana that way is simply senseless. He doesn't understand a single note of it. There's scarcely a single thing I could honestly be positive about other than accuracy. Not even one musical idea is on display. Maybe he isn't actually terribly talented at all musically speaking- and perhaps fares just as badly with shaping simple pieces? Either way, he's being led along completely the wrong path. It will do nothing but harm to play Schumann so poorly and without truly listening.

[rachfan]

Hi,

Maybe he isn't actually terribly talented at all musically speaking- and perhaps fares just as badly with shaping simple pieces?

You might have a point there.  Long ago there was an older girl my first teacher's studio who had a skill and preference for playing all music marked prestissimo.  The only problem was that it was all flawless note spinning.  There was never a tap of dynamics, phrasing, expression, lyricism or a sense for nuances.  And none of the coaching, demonstrating, urging and inspiring that my teacher gave her helped at all.  Looking back now, the likely problem was that she had an impressive mechanical facility at the keyboard, but nothing musical beyond that in terms of artistic playing; that is to say, she played in one dimension only.  And, for her it was the same in any piece of any grade of difficulty (she studied there for several years).   

Of course 8 years old is a tender age, so we can hope that "Magnus" can develop a better sense of musicality over time so that he doesn't likewise end up as a one-dimensional pianist.  For that he might well need a more grounded teacher.

David

[aintgotnorhythm]

It is arguable whether or not Mozart was a prodigy. He had the good fortune of being the son of Leopold Mozart, an established musician and composer of the day who had the time to school his son intensively in music from a very young age. If Mozart had been born into the family living next door we would probably not have heard of him.

If you provide a young child with good quality musical teaching and they put in the commitment and hours then it's no surprise that within 5 or 6 years they appear to others as prodigies. Now that the world is (in general) a wealthier place with more developed economies it should also be no surprise that more families have the time and money to put their children through this process, hence the apparent emergence of large numbers of "prodigies".

[nyiregyhazi]

It is arguable whether or not Mozart was a prodigy. He had the good fortune of being the son of Leopold Mozart, an established musician and composer of the day who had the time to school his son intensively in music from a very young age. If Mozart had been born into the family living next door we would probably not have heard of him.

If you provide a young child with good quality musical teaching and they put in the commitment and hours then it's no surprise that within 5 or 6 years they appear to others as prodigies. Now that the world is (in general) a wealthier place with more developed economies it should also be no surprise that more families have the time and money to put their children through this process, hence the apparent emergence of large numbers of "prodigies".

Taking dictation of a complex choral work as a child is certainly prodigious enough as a talent. And the fact Mozart went on to be a great composer suggests that he was a true musical prodigy, rather than merely a kid with a remarkable brain. My argument is not whether feats such as that of the kid in the film illustrate some kind of remarkable brain capacity. They most certainly do and it's simply not true that any old kid can do that if pushed. What0 I'd argue is about whether what they are doing illustrates genuine talent for music or a talent for playing notes.

[goldentone]

I guess what I'm trying to say is just maybe musical education and Pianists in particular should take a close look at reasons why this audience contraction is occurring.  

That's an interesting point, Kelly.  I've never thought there might be a correlation between our modern day assembly line output and the dwindling classical attendance numbers.  The results of the last Van Cliburn competition are a perfect example of what the judges value--perfect technique over real artistry.

[rachfan]

Hi kellyc,

Sorry for my late reply.    You raise an interesting point--the dichotomy between what is being offered in the recital halls, and what audiences really want to hear.  There's no question that the classical audience is contracting.  Attend any recital and you'll see that most concert-goers are "gray heads".  So yes, some reflective and creative thinking is needed on how to attract younger people to these events.  I think once they're there, many are sold--it's just getting them there in the first place. I find it interesting, for example, that some of the people on YouTube who subscribe to my recordings are rock-'n-roll musicians!  Goes to show that you can't assume anything. Good music is good music. And yes, I agree that sometimes audience members become inspired and want to go home and try to learn the piece. They might well be inspired by an all virtuosic recital program--but there is a disconnect in that the average pianist/listener will have no realistic chance to learn much or any of this music.  So probably the art of recital programming needs reexamination too.

You're spot on too when you say that while they technical abilities are far higher today, the number of "big career artists" hasn't increased.  I think it all comes down to economics--the opportunities for performance are finite, not infinite, and so those artists who make the big career break-throughs are the ones appearing on stage and benefiting from the system.  Are there even better artists sitting at home?  Of course!  Fortunately there are other careers in music that can absorb some of those other fine pianists, but not all.  Conservatories and university piano departments continue to pump out MMs in Piano Performance and DMAs.  Unfortunately they're becoming a dime a dozen, and the number of competitions to weed them out has also grown exponentially thereby watering down their own effectiveness.

We're basically focusing here on how young pianists are becoming so incredibly proficient so early; but the issues you raise are more the macro picture outcomes.  We shouldn't lose sight of those either as the pertain to the future of the art.

Thanks for your thoughts.

David

[m1469]

That's an interesting point, Kelly.  I've never thought there might be a correlation between our modern day assembly line output and the dwindling classical attendance numbers.

However, "true artists" DO exist and if an audience is "smart enough" to not be drawn to the assembly line technicians, then they are also smart enough to follow and support those who are out there, giving them something more.  Is that really happening?

[rachfan]

Hi mayla,

Leonard Bernstein used to say that we as classical musicians are actually "museum curators".  We reenact and preserve the traditions of Baroque, Rococo, Viennese Classical, Romantic, Late Romantic, and Impressionistic music, most of which is historical music.  Modern music requires time and perspective to find the jewels.  That process is still underway and the jury is still out, as the modern oeuvre is enormous. Eventually the sorting process is what enables newer works to appear in the standard repertoire.  

So, is the lack of young people at classical concerts and recitals because they are bored of visiting recital hall-museums?  Or, if they could more frequently hear the best of modern music discovered to date, would it be a draw?  Or is it just far more cool to be at rock concerts?  

Pops concerts and festivals seem to be of interest to younger people.  They're often in open air venues during summer.  They can spread blankets on the grass, take off their shoes, enjoy the music, have munchies, play frisbee during intermission, etc.  Sometimes young artists are invited to perform at these events too.    

I wish I knew the answer, as it would seem that if young audiences continue to stay away, then classical music as part of our culture might be doomed. Something has to change for the better.

David        

[goldentone]

However, "true artists" DO exist and if an audience is "smart enough" to not be drawn to the assembly line technicians, then they are also smart enough to follow and support those who are out there, giving them something more.  Is that really happening?

That takes us to the question of whether the average concertgoer is so discriminating to affect the supply of true artists.  I don't know.  When I'm at the symphony, I know that everyone there loves it and is glad to be there.  But I don't know the level of their artistic discernment, or the percentage of those who can discern an assembly-line professional from a real artist.  But if all could, I don't know if this could alter the course of the river, which would seem to be controlled by the education system, the competitions, the teachers, and the rest of the guild.  So we may have a gatekeeping problem.  There is a great demand in our country for those who excel in math and science; but few there be who do excel. A wrongheaded system can destroy many and send away the great ones.  We only have to look to the last Van Cliburn competition to see this in action.  The judges, at least the Van Cliburn judges, seem to be Pharisees--they extol the artist, but on the inside they only desire to hear perfect, sanitized, indistinct, technically amazing playing.  They have their reward.      

[rachfan]

Hi,

I think the worrisome element is this: If we could wave a wand to fix the excesses of musical academia, weed out the competitions and eliminate juries' hidden agendas, and ensure that the best in artistry always rise to the top, there is still a problem: That is, unless younger people replenish concert and recital audiences as the old guard fades away, attendance at classical music events will likely diminish too.

David     

[fleetfingers]

Is there any data from earlier times of how many young people listened to classical music? I ask because I truly don't know, but it makes me wonder whether or not the numbers have actually changed.

I wonder how many of those "gray heads" listened to classical music when they were young. Maybe there is something about getting older that attracts people to the genre, or maybe they just have more time and disposable income on their hands. As people are living longer these days, maybe there will be a higher demand for classical concerts in the future.

[rachfan]

Hi fleetfingers,

Here is a good explanation from of declining classical music audiences by Greg Sandow, the former music critic, written in 2009 and based on data from a study by the National Endowment for the Arts.  Having read it, I believe that Leonard Bernstein was correct--we as classical musicians are truly "museum curators".  The article:


Dire data
June 19, 2009 By Greg Sandow

I’m amazed, from time to time, to see debates still raging in the classical music world about declines in ticket sales and the aging of the audience. You’d think we’d have settled these questions by now. How many cars does the US auto industry sell? We know that. So why don’t we know how many people are buying tickets to classical concerts? I’ll grant that the classical data is harder to assemble, since we have to gather information from many sources.

But still, it’s strikingly — well, pick a word: immature? unworldly? unprofessional? — certainly something not at all good that we in the classical music business can’t collectively point to data about some of our most urgent and hotly debated issues that all of us can agree on. Especially since the aging of the audience (as I’ve pretty firmly shown) can be established beyond much doubt.

And so now comes the National Endowment for the Arts with the latest of its periodic studies of the arts audience. We’ve seen numbers from 1982, 1992, 1997, 2002, and now 2008. (Later I’ll explain why I haven’t given links for the first two studies.) And what does the 2008 data show? It’s not good, though none of it, I have to say, should surprise anyone who’s looked at the earlier studies. But among much else, the new figures, as I’ll show, pretty much blow up any hope that the classical audience is going to be renewed — or at least renewed at the size it is now — by younger people coming into it in future years.

Why do I think that? Let’s start with some quotes from the NEA’s press release on the new numbers. (The press release is what the link in the last paragraph goes to. Though you can also read the actual study, and see the detailed data. I’ll show how later.)

Here are the quotes:

    “There are persistent patterns of decline in participation for most art forms.”

    “Between 1982 and 2008, attendance at performing arts such as classical music, jazz, opera, ballet, musical theater, and dramatic plays has seen double-digit rates of decline.”

    “Audiences for jazz and classical music are substantially older than before….Since 1982, young adult (18-24) attendance rates for jazz and classical music have declined the most, compared with other art forms.”

And then, as if all this weren’t bad enough, there’s one final, killer finding, the one that blows up the hopeful belief that younger people can renew the classical audience:

    “Forty-five to 54-year-olds – historically dependable arts participants – showed the steepest declines in attendance for most art events, compared with other age groups.”

But wait, it gets worse! If you look at the statistical tables that accompany the report, you’ll see that people 55 to 64 also show a steep decline in classical music attendance. So now we have people from 45 to 64 going less often to classical performances. That’s the core of the classical music audience! And they’re showing a greater decline than any other age group. Younger age groups, the tables show, had their most striking declines earlier. Now the core of the audience, people 45 to 64 — whose rate of attendance was more or less constant between 1982 and 2002 — has started to go to classical concerts less often. Only those 65 and over still go to classical concerts at the same rate that they did in the past.

So why does this show that the classical music audience isn’t renewing itself? First, we should remember that these age groups are moving targets. As the years pass, people get older, and those who were 45 to 64 in 1982 aren’t the same people who are 45 to 64 now.

So let’s look at those people who were 45 to 64 in 1982, and whose attendance at classical music events hadn’t yet started to decline. They were born between 1918 and 1937, and grew up — which I’ll roughly define as spending their high school and college years, from age 14 to age 22 — between 1932 and 1959. During those years, classical music hadn’t yet become a problem, still functioned as part of the mainstream of our culture, still reigned unchallenged as serious musical art, and, most important, still had a younger audience. It was natural for younger people to go to classical concerts, and then to keep going as they grew older, and still to keep going now.

But what about people aged 45 to 64 now? They were born between 1945 and 1964, and grew up, roughly speaking, between 1959 and 1986. Those were years when interest in classical music started to decline, when popular culture rose up (starting in the ’60s) with a force and seriousness never seen before, and when the classical music audience was starting to age. Younger people, during those years, were increasingly less likely to go to classical concerts.

And so why should we be surprised that people in this age group are going to classical concerts less often now? What all this really means is that, as time goes on, people coming into what used to be seen as the prime classical concertgoing ages — 45 and older — increasingly grew up at a time when classical music had started to recede from the cultural mainstream. So naturally they’re less interested in classical music than the generations before them were. With each passing year, more people from 45 to 64 fit this description, and, no surprise, are less interested than those before them in going to classical concerts.

And thus we see the dire numbers that the new NEA study reveals. Unless we have reasons to believe that these trends will reverse — and what would those reasons be? — as time goes on, a smaller percentage of Americans in all age groups (even, eventually, those over 65) will go to classical performances, and the classical audience, rather than being renewed, will shrink.

[ted]

Hi,

I think the worrisome element is this: If we could wave a wand to fix the excesses of musical academia, weed out the competitions and eliminate juries' hidden agendas, and ensure that the best in artistry always rise to the top, there is still a problem: That is, unless younger people replenish concert and recital audiences as the old guard fades away, attendance at classical music events will likely diminish too.

David     

Firstly, classical music, in the general sense in which the word is usually applied is not going to die out; that just isn't going to happen. The ideas those people created and transmitted in their music are too deeply interfused in the tangled consciousness of the human soul, if you like, of too many human beings, young or old.

What are changing are the dominant social and economic means for the transmission and fostering of this consciousness. The concert hall and the conservatory are becoming secondary as means of intimate relations between man and music. Myself, I think that is a good thing, not a backward step. They were important a hundred years ago because there was no other way to go about it, but now, thanks to science, Beethoven, Chopin and the rest, and consequently their deepest thoughts, can be welcome and instant guests in my home, during times of relaxed serenity and mundane domestic ease, when I am most receptive to their meanings and messages. How can this be a bad thing ?

Anyway, wouldn't those old masters have preferred intimate, general contact, any time, any day, with everyman, to an arcane regimen of examinations, competitions and competitive performance with a few ? I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have.

You don't need to look any further than your own wonderful recordings, David, to realise the complete impossibility, even fifty years ago, of bringing Catoire, Medtner and the rest instantly alive to thousands around the world - and let's be factual, you have done just that, the responses show it . No way could you have done that through concerts and the old mechanisms.

So I'm afraid I am an incurable optimist for music in the modern age. Is there really a choice anyway ? It would be a pity if outmoded social and economic processes were to become objectives in themselves rather than simply means of transmitting ideas. Anyway, the old ways don't have to die out altogether, they will in fact likely continue under their own momentum for a long time yet before finding a stable place in a larger and more vital world musical consciousness.

[rachfan]

Hi Ted,

Yes, you're quite right.  The march of progress and wonders of electronic wizardry bring the music into the living room these days--which is a convenience.  Thus, no dressing for the event, no fighting traffic to the destination, no hassle with parking at the music hall, no admission ticket necessary, no coughing and sneezing (or snoring) around you along with the rustle of programs, etc.  There is something to be said for all that.  And in addition to one's CD collection (or old LPs as well), one can go online, as you say, to piano sites like Piano Street to hear a lot of fine music or watch music videos,  and even look up scores.  It has its advantages.

Still, the recital or concert hall has its traditions, a sense of presence often with beautiful gilded interiors created by artisans of an age gone by, and the excitement in the air of being able to see and hear a top tier artist in the moment. And it's well known too that often pianists take more risks during live performances than while making recordings.  

Having said that, undoubtedly the old masters would have welcomed their music being more universally accessible rather than available to the relative few in concert halls.    

So I'm afraid I am an incurable optimist for music in the modern age. Is there really a choice anyway ? It would be a pity if outmoded social and economic processes were to become objectives in themselves rather than simply means of transmitting ideas. Anyway, the old ways don't have to die out altogether, they will in fact likely continue under their own momentum for a long time yet before finding a stable place in a larger and more vital world musical consciousness.

 

That's indeed a bright and comforting outlook.  I think we could all live with that concept.

P.S.  Thanks for your kind mention of my recordings.  In the scheme of things, they are a minor effort, but even at that, they reach a surprising number of people--as do your improvisations.  Contrast that with a fine artist who has been unable to get management, engagements, and a recording contract and whose playing is heard sporadically by only a small few (if he does not also avail himself of the Internet).  You make a strong case.

Thanks for replying to this topic, Ted.

David  

[kellyc]

You know there is a very interesting question i have been thinking about after reading many of these posts. Why would anyone go to a modern concert hall , or recital hall to listen to a live performance, instead of listening to a recording or Horowitz, or Richter, or Agerich , or any of the other great concert pianists of the last 70 years or so.  Especially since most of the top competitions today turn out pianists who are as un Horowitz like as you can imagine.  NO guts, no glory.  Horowitz himself said he doubted he could ever win a modern competition. We have a bunch of technically proficient performers who take no artistic chances what so ever. In fact I will even go so far as to say that if your not making mistakes with the notes your not pushing your art hard enough. 

It seems to me that the one thing a live concert offers that a recording doesn't is that dramatic connection between performer and audience. If that performer doesn't bond with and touch the heart of those listening, why would they ever bother to hear that performer again. 

I think students may be the way they are, because institutional music, ( Conservatories, Competions, etc. ) Want them that way.  I think in todays modern competitions, it is so much easier to judge technical merit, rather than artistic merit. With rare exceptions most of those doing the judging are mediocre talents who wouldn't know true genius if it bit them in the __.

These are just some random thoughts that I think apply to this discussion.

Kelly

[m1469]

I wish I knew the answer, as it would seem that if young audiences continue to stay away, then classical music as part of our culture might be doomed. Something has to change for the better.
David

Well, I certainly can't say I know an answer regarding this, but I suspect that even though what you say about Pops concerts is true, that which is the less of a draw is not just in how it's "dressed up" ... I mean, I don't know that we could dress up a solo Classical Piano recital any differently to make the craft and fine art more accessible and appreciated, though perhaps overall younger generations would enjoy the concert experience more should it be as you describe.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like there's something more to it.  And, in related matters, think about the pianists these days who are not necessarily thought of fantastic artists but who are technically advanced and on top of that, there's a trend of them being sexier than ever (it seems) and "working" to be appealing on that level in a whole new(ish) way for Classical Musicians ... and, while some concert halls are full, the fact that there are blonds in flashy dresses *still* doesn't make young people flock to concerts in general nor appreciate the art and craftsmanship as a whole, necessarily, any better.

One thing I do find interesting, though, is this very idea of what you bring up initially of the prodigious advancements of students these days, and the numbers of pianists making great gains these days -and I don't think the world is actually thought of as lacking PIANISTS (and -true artists or not aside- generally pretty good ones) ... so, where are all of them in concert halls?  I mean, I would think that with the large numbers of young pianists/musicians, and just the number of pianists and musicians in general in the world now, there would be no shortage of young and not as young audience members who appreciate the art/craft/music!