Feeling like a trained dog

[virtuoso80]

   I've always had trouble with this aspect of playing piano. We applaud great players. We see them as artists, as geniuses, and as products of some incredible internal inspiration. But are they really? So much of classical instruction is forced into us. This is right. This is wrong. Over, and over, and over. If I taught a dog to juggle using electric shocks, would you applaud the dog for being brilliant?

   I recently played a piece for a new teacher. He remarked that he that my playing was beautiful, and that I was, "clearly a passionate player." I don't mind a compliment, but the only problem is I know what I went through with that piece with my previous teacher: 1000 details, all required of me, all had to be there, played exactly as was insisted. I was a good doggie, and I learned well, and so I was able to recite my training for my new teacher. "Passionate"? Don't make me laugh - I hate that friggin' piece now!

   Like I said, I'll take a compliment on my playing, but I can't help but think: Why in the world do I deserve the credit? It's not my interpretation, it's someone else's, forced into my hands. Go thank him for it. All I did was submit myself and allow my musical love and inspiration, the thing I hold most dear in the whole world, to be chopped up into little pieces and molded by someone else's hands. ANYONE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO DO IT...given enough voltage, of course.

   Perhaps one day I will be beaten down enough to let it all go: My love, my ideas, my inspiration. Every inch of it. Maybe then I'll be seen as "brilliant" too.

Problem is, I'll know better.

[j_menz]

Perhaps one day I will be beaten down enough to let it all go: My love, my ideas, my inspiration. Every inch of it. Maybe then I'll be seen as "brilliant" too.

Or maybe one day you'll have the technique to give full expression to your love, your ideas, your inspiration. Every inch of it.  Maybe then you'll be seen as "brilliant" too.

Or maybe even then you won't. But you'll know better.

[keyboardclass]

You have a good point.  Who is being assessed after all in piano exams?  - mostly it's the teacher.  Still, there's light at the end of that tunnel.

[jesc]

My issue is kinda familiar.

My teacher would tell me how do play a certain passage. I play it the way it was described but without emotion. Then, my teacher would react on how (insert adjective here: sweet, beautiful, expressive,) I played.

But there's one difference though. Immediately I would tell my teacher, "I didn't feel anything. I think I'm faking the emotion."

I received no direct reply to what I said though. But I'm not a master at emotion. Usually my emotion on the piano consists of banging the thing till the strings break again and again and again.

[Bob]

You're still the one actually playing it, actually pulling it off. 

I've heard the idea that a performer can actually feel the emotions in music (if it's that kind of piece) or they could act them really well.  The audience shouldn't be able to tell either way.  And it doesn't really matter which one they do.

[lostinidlewonder]

Many high grade students who have only learned piano through examinations come to me and show some great pieces played with mastery. This is to be admired no matter how much work you put into it, the fact is that they prove they have the discipline to produce music at a high standard. However many of these students who pass all their grades are still unsatisfied with their capability with learning the piano. When I assess their learning rate (how long it takes to acquire mastery for a piece) I often find there is much to be desired. This is the fault of the examination system throughout this world not so much the students fault. Exams are not designed to test a students learning ability/rate rather they are designed to test prepaired work. So you then have clever students who can master the small amount of material required to make that distinction mark. It is a good start and they should be proud of it but of course learning the piano is not only about exams, there certainly is a great deal more than that.

[oxy60]

The light at the end of the tunnel will appear when your ears take over. Believe me they will and you will be far more critical of your playing than any teacher. Record everything you do, in practice or performance.

[virtuoso80]

The light at the end of the tunnel will appear when your ears take over. Believe me they will and you will be far more critical of your playing than any teacher. Record everything you do, in practice or performance.

Of course, this level of refinement always begs the question to me...what is the point? In performance as well as composition, the classical world seeks levels of approach and refinement that alienate them from the rest of society. In the extreme: If I compose something that can only be understood and appreciated by a dozen people in the entire world, then what the heck is the point?

I remember having this conversation about the movie "Black Swan" with some dance people; they criticized all the things Natalie Portman was doing incorrectly (when it was actually her doing the dancing). As a non-dancer, I really couldn't tell. But as most people aren't dancers, to what extent does it matter? I think it's an open question that all musicians and artists should stay mindful of.

As to my own playing: Yes I have grown very critical of technical errors, and I can hear them in my own playing. At the same time, I feel like it's not just technical advice that I'm getting, but a pressure to conform to a certain sensibility. I mean, why am I supposed to be the conduit for someone else's ideas? If they want to hear it that way, then let THEM play it! I've got my own ideas, and the notion that those ideas might have merit is what brought me to music in the first place. Take that away, and I might as well go into Finance or something (it certainly would pay better).

 The best teacher I ever had, AND I think the one who most improved my playing, was one who respected me enough not to touch my vision of the piece. He would simply help me with technical hurdles, give me his own macro views of the piece (not try to make me change 100 details), and perhaps remark that he found certain passages "convincing" or "not convincing". Other than that, it was up to me. He also gave my confidence a desperately needed boost. I wish I had had the opportunity to work with him longer than I did.

[keyboardclass]

If only it was as black and white.

[cmg]

 The best teacher I ever had, AND I think the one who most improved my playing, was one who respected me enough not to touch my vision of the piece. He would simply help me with technical hurdles, give me his own macro views of the piece (not try to make me change 100 details), and perhaps remark that he found certain passages "convincing" or "not convincing". Other than that, it was up to me. He also gave my confidence a desperately needed boost. I wish I had had the opportunity to work with him longer than I did.

Yes, indeed, that's a great teacher.  Rosina Lhevinne at Juilliard taught that way.  If your interpretation was convincing, she felt no need to make you conform to her approach.  Turst your own heart and go with it.   Otherwise, what's the point?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Wow that's a good point and conversation!  Unfortunately, I've never had a teacher who makes me play exactly how they want to hear it, so I can't really say anything