Discussing Technique without any actual musical context

[lostinidlewonder]

This was the OP's original statement that got this entire thread off to a nasty start.

I hope my strong stance was clear enough, I am sure it was, whether it is nasty or not is left up to opinion. I certainly am not ass hurt over any discussion here with anyone who disagrees with me or tries to defame me.

Paul, N and I (and perhaps others)  have given concrete examples of piano mechanic issues that are not only outside of a musical context, but likely BETTER to discuss and understand outside of a musical context since the addition of "musical enhancements" cloud the issues and makes them less understandable.

There is evidence for the contrary also discussed. This is a discussion where opposing stances clash together, some try to debate, some just try to share knowledge. Either way agreeing on a topic is never a requirement for a good discussion, in fact if people all agreed then there would be no discussion.

This is why you have people who are confused about the mechanics of basic technique that do not change from piece to piece and composer to composer.

I play a large range of composers from all the musical periods (yes even ancient Greek music on that tomb stone which is the oldest form of music ever written lol), from my experience of 30 years playing the piano I can say that there are similarities of course there is, but they are often similar BUT different. It is not all exactly same, broad experience of repertoire will prove this. Musical context commands our technique, just tagging a movement as something that should be treated the same all the time sets us to play like a robot not a human sensitive to their hands, ears, dealing with contextual example via experience of other contextual examples and coming to a solution through broad knowledge of many contextual examples. Understanding what is similar is easy but the difference that is key, without that you do not understand and are limited.

One person opined that he fundamentally plays the piano mechanically different in Beethoven than in Chopin. This is a subjective impression or illusion, and not fact.

It is a fact for that musician, how can you say it is not real? That really is silly. I also admit that it is different, it is not the same, the sound you need to produce is different, the context of a scale is different for both music, they both wrote different music which sounds different. Sure you might find passages which are similar but you are talking about very minor instances, the majority you need to work with is not.

Up to a certain quality and level of achievement -- playing popular music written for non-advanced players -- one can go about playing the piano in just about any manner mechanically and achieve some personal satisfaction.

However, if one is going to play classical music especially of the classical and baroque era, a complete understanding and mastery of the mechanics MUST be accomplished using first the intrinsic hand muscles and eventually adding other mechanics. This must be made automatic through training so the player no longer has to think about it and can apply the correct mechanics to yield the desired musical result.

I find no difference between playing popular music and classical with inferior technique. In fact everyone does play their first collection of pieces with bad technique, this improves over time as you learn more and more pieces and put technique into more and more contextual examples.

There is no mechanical difference in playing a C scale in Bach than in Prokofiev, and if you can't play it in one you can't in the other.

The sound doesn't magically change if your mechanical movements remain identical. If you start saying more pressure here or there or move this part of the body more blah, boring. The overall feeling is different, there might be instances of sameness but it is not often. If it is often then they should sound the same which they do not.
 

How many times have you read bios of pianists and when asked how they started they said something like this:

"...well, my first important teacher had me do nothing but scales and trills, arpeggios and such for the first couple of years along with numerous Bach works... Inventions.. Preludes and Fugues and such... before moving on. He/she insisted on this solid background before moving on to the romantic composers..."

Yep these are good contextual examples to first study.

A scale is a scale is a scale -- mechanically. And once you realize this and learn which muscles to use and how through training... you do NOT have to learn Beethoven scales, Bach scales, Chopin scales, Prokofiev scales... etc., etc., etc.

You certainly must learn the scales for different composers and treat them differently, there is musical context to pay attention to. They don't sound completely the same and the execution are all subtly different. This refinement to technique is important, it is not just one square block dealing with everything the same.

[lostinidlewonder]

Performing the exercise as I described (rather than ignoring it in favour of idle talk) it is what is useful. Op 10 no 1 is what is specifically applies to here (although it achieved comparable results both in beginners and in a diploma level student working at the g minor ballade of chopin) We are done until you have the courtesy to try it and present your specific opinions rather than repeat your generic assertions out of the context of my precisely defined example. Unless you do so, it is clear what empty pretence your request for specifics was- and that the truth is that you are not secure enough in your opinions to argue on a case specific basis rather than on a generalised basis. I've given you a specific case. The ball is in your court.

Hey you can say your exercise can give you the strength to lift up aircraft carriers, I really have no need to change your mind. Lets just let everyone know you think your exercise works for Hanon and Chopin etudes and now even a Chopin Ballade, the vast difference in technique required for hanon to Chopin master pieces both should make others really wonder how your amazing exercise really has benefit for such a broad scope. It must work for thousands of other pieces too then, it must be the single most important discovery of piano technique ever.

[pianoman53]

So what is the problem with giving examples on technical exercises?`I get the point of practicing technique seperat from other things, but I don't get the whole writing part about it. There are soooo many books on how to play piano, without musical examples. If it was a successful formula to simply write "Use your finger like this"-sort of posts, everyone would know everything there is to know.
Also, if one read interviews with big teachers or big pianists they almost always say that they don't talk about the scientific part of technique because 1) It's stupid and doesn't really make any sense, 2) There are so few things that will work exactly the same for everyone that it would just be a waste of time to come up with a formula.

The great ones always says that they look at every example, and take it from there. Obviously they have a few tricks, but never more than that. Then they come up with a trillion examples of how one thing can be done.

[lostinidlewonder]

So what is the problem with giving examples on technical exercises?

Exactly, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If the technical exercise is truly useful it has application. Often you will find certain exercises are only very specific for certain situations thus laboring on single exercises is often not a good idea if you want to learn a lot because you are only studying small situations you find in real music.

I get the point of practicing technique seperat from other things, but I don't get the whole writing part about it. There are soooo many books on how to play piano, without musical examples. If it was a successful formula to simply write "Use your finger like this"-sort of posts, everyone would know everything there is to know.

It is like thinking you can teach painting by just talking about how you hold the brush and move it on a medium, it won't work. As soon as you add the color and the canvas, the context, it all falls down if there isn't past contextual experience to draw from. Just knowing how to create a line doesn't mean you can manage to draw a picture.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hey you can say your exercise can give you the strength to lift up aircraft carriers, I really have no need to change your mind. Lets just let everyone know you think your exercise works for Hanon and Chopin etudes and now even a Chopin Ballade, the vast difference in technique required for hanon to Chopin master pieces both should make others really wonder how your amazing exercise really has benefit for such a broad scope. It must work for thousands of other pieces too then, it must be the single most important discovery of piano technique ever.

I didn't ask you to change my mind. I asked you to have the courtesy to try the example you have been claiming that you wanted and present views. Clearly you were lying and had not the slightest interest in considering any specific examples . It was all about arguing for a side that you had already decided to unwaveringly align yourself to. If you had sincere interest, you'd follow up on the specifics in response to your feigned request. You have now clarified beyond any slightest doubt that you are a simple troll-who only pretends to be seriously interest in debate.

Personally, I indeed believe it's one of the most important discoveries I've made. I've yet to find a single piece where the exercise has not aided both ease and tonal control. For someone who claims to have studies sets, I find it most odd that you persist with argument that portrays the false logic that because two things are different in details, they cannot share substantial common ground. It's on a par with the logic that two people with differences dna cannot also share the bulk of the dna that makes them both human and not different species. Totally devoid of logical reasoning. There is no polarisation between completely identical or completely different in all ways. To falsely portray only two possibilities and use that as a basis for supposed reasoning is deeply ignorant. I don't know whether to believe someone who studied maths would make such a glaring error of foundational logic or whether you are just making dishonest arguments, as if that would further a preordained stance. Either way, shame on you for attempting to use such transparently bogus logic as a basis for an argument. It reflects very poorly upon you.

[lostinidlewonder]

I asked you to have the courtesy to try the example you have been claiming that you wanted and present views. Clearly you were lying and had not the slightest interest in considering any specific examples .

Please don't be hurt if I don't discuss your technique in detail I'd rather discuss my own. You are of course free to discuss your own technique instead of thinking you have to defend yourself against me.

It was all about arguing for a side that hade you decided to unwaveringly align yourself to.

I haven't aligned myself anywhere, I am offering my strong stance as a professional musician and teacher.

If you had sincere interest, you'd follow up on the specifics in response to your feigned request.

If you had interest you would discuss it without me having to do anything at all. I already told you I am not going to jump through your hoops, I will do as I please, if you want to think that means anything that is just your rambling opinion.

You have now clarified beyond any slightest doubt that you were are a troll-who only pretends to be seriously interest in debate.

Don't be hurt people think differently from yourself. Your piano science is not all encompassing, it is not mainstream so that fact should not surprise you.

Personally, I indeed believe it's one of the most important discoveries I've made. I've yet to find a single piece where the exercise has not aided both ease and tonal control. For someone who claims to have studies sets, I find it most odd that you persist with argument that portrays the false logic that because two things are different in details, they cannot share substantial common ground. It's on a par with the logic that two people with differences dna cannot also share the bulk of the dna that makes them both human and not different species. Totally devoid of logical reasoning. There is no polarisation between completely identical or completely different in all ways. To falsely portray only two possibilities and use that as a basis for supposed reasoning is deeply ignorant. I don't know whether to believe someone who studied maths would make such a glaring error of foundational logic or whether you are just making dishonest arguments, as if that would further a preordained stance.

This is just opinionative drivel. Why don't you discuss your technique without arguing with me?

[pts1]

Pianoman

There's nothing wrong with giving examples of technical exercises. Pick one.

Take Hanon #1. After sitting with good posture, elbows at least as high as keyboard, forearms "floating" lightly at the keyboard, hand a mostly straight continuation of forearm line, fingers in natural slight curve: without rolling hand to left or right, nor holding it stiffly, keep fingers on the keys and pull down each key with a quick brief effort. By the time the finger reaches the key bed, all effort has ceased and the finger just played will pop up of its own accord by means of the key's back weight and the natural inclination of the finger to raise back to neutral position. Next finger the same.

Now, if you can do this with all fingers, evenly no louder than mezzo forte, with even sound, and make it a habit that is enduring and automatic, you've learned a good deal about playing with finger technique having isolated this correct basic mechanical requirement from other possible "bad" ways of producing sound.

Likewise, you could jog the wrist up and down with each key played and turn the hand and arm to the right and left when playing the fifth finger or thumb and make a nice robust sound bouncing your way up and down the keyboard and teaching yourself something that would fail utterly once you try and use this in music playing.

The list of nuances that can be done are endless, while the list of basic mechanics are quite finite.
And without the basic mechanics, the nuances are unattainable.

The reasons advanced teachers and pianists don't talk about mechanics are not because the subject is stupid and doesn't make sense or that things work differently for different people, it is, IMHO, because either they can't because they learned it and can do it but don't know how they do it and/or they would much rather talk about artistic issues.

In walking, we all do it basically the same, though one can be difficult and esoteric and say that no two people on the planet are the same and therefore don't walk the same and therefore each must devise his own basic mechanics -- which are different from everyone else's -- in order to learn to walk.  

Really?

It is good that we learn to walk as toddlers by trial and error with guidance, help, instruction and example from parents, is it not?

If we all had to wait until say 10 years of age or later, no doubt there would be soooooo many books telling us all the different ways one must walk and the many "schools of walking": the gravity school, the toe school, the foot school, the momentum school.... and so forth... and many would be wrong and the result would be that orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists would be living in the golden age of medical careers.

There is a very, very, very  narrow window of "how to play the piano" if your goal is to play classical piano the way it is meant to be played. And this starts with the finger and hand, using the smallest, quickest and most efficient muscle/movements to control the keyboard... period.

There are precious few ways to do this.

A handful, one might say.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please don't be hurt if I don't discuss your technique in detail I'd rather discuss my own. You are of course free to discuss your own technique instead of thinking you have to defend yourself against me.
I haven't aligned myself anywhere, I am offering my strong stance as a professional musician and teacher.
If you had interest you would discuss it without me having to do anything at all. I already told you I am not going to jump through your hoops, I will do as I please, if you want to think that means anything that is just your rambling opinion.
Don't be hurt people think differently from yourself. Your piano science is not all encompassing, it is not mainstream so that fact should not surprise you.
This is just opinionative drivel. Why don't you discuss your technique without arguing with me?

I'm done. Every response is about you- not the issues. There is no point that warrants a response.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm done. Every response is about you- not the issues. There is no point that warrants a response.

Yeah well when every quote I used had the word "you" in it, it becomes difficult not to discuss myself but at the same time try to put it back to the issues we are talking about. I do not talk about YOU or anyone else, I talk about the knowledge. I don't guess what YOU do, I just talk about what is said. Maybe stop using the word YOU when addressing someones post and you might get better responses.

[thalbergmad]

Is anyone reading this crap???

[keypeg]

You are right, thalbergmad.  Post deleted.

[keypeg]

Would anyone like to start a thread which is about discussing technique without musical context, that will actually be about the topic?  This particular topic was actually about PAST discussions by one or two individuals, without directly saying so.  Therefore things that are actually important just get swallowed up.

I regret my own contributions.

[hfmadopter]

I regret my own contributions.

I don't blame you, I thought it was ridiculous it went to the third page and now I see 5. Please don't reintroduce this  !

[j_menz]

Is anyone reading this crap???

I'm looking forward to the movie version.

[chopin2015]

Lost, why are you arguing with people? Who cares if people want to discuss technique? If an example was needed, people who discuss technique with regard are most likely willing to give examples. They probably do not always do this because they do not have the desire to waste anyone's personal time. Now if there was a demand for the videos, we could make a section just for that, or simply request(challenge) whoever is being skeptical to providing physical proof. Seriously, relax.
 Personally, I prefer to write out an analysis of technique being discussed by pianostreeters, because it makes me feel poetic if I am able to describe in a graceful manner. Using words and writing can trigger feelings as well. This is similar to studying music away from the piano, or reading about piano music to see further into the topic. You are being completely unethical; This accusatory thread has wasted people's time more than the freeform discussion of technique.

 It is serious topic, but is also done for fun by many people. This is a place for people to share their experiences and expressions, and we should not be hated for it.

 I get anxious when my practice time is up because I physically should not go on or i will hurt the next day, or if I have no energy. So, I come to pianostreet to continue thinking about piano and maybe find a place where I can learn something or discuss it with someone who is learning something I am or have worked on, and learn from listening, talking, looking, thinking, reading, anything really. Musicians are sensitive people, some are plain schizophrenic. Excuse those! People are stimulated by interaction on here, and should be allowed to express themselves in any way they please, if it is appropriate.
 
I do think that talking about technique is appropriate, even without physical examples. See, some people can't or dont have the means to record. Or maybe they don't like to share. Maybe they have asthma and their recording are disturbing. Who cares! Let people be who they are and get over it. If you need examples in video or audio, just ask. I am sure we would be willing to help you out IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

Love, Yulia.
 
 

[hfmadopter]

I'm looking forward to the movie version.

Well I hope they have a really good director.  They don't have much to work with !

[j_menz]

Well I hope they have a really good director.  They don't have much to work with !

Alan Smithee is being signed up as we speak.

[hfmadopter]

Alan Smithee is being signed up as we speak.

Oh no, not more Living Dead !!!!!!!!

[pianoman53]

I'm actually on the phone with Mr Grant. He is, as we know, fond of stories with bad scripts. Just gonna get reese witherspoon and we're on!

[keypeg]

All I will say is that if I understand the opening opinion correctly, if any teacher follows this advice for all students categorically, I would avoid that teacher as a student.  I would be less blunt, but what I wrote was totally ignored while these hypothetical ideas which affect students were being poured forth.  This issue affected me to a huge degree - as written in my previous posts.

[lostinidlewonder]

All I will say is that if I understand the opening opinion correctly, if any teacher follows this advice for all students categorically, I would avoid that teacher as a student.

You probably don't understand correctly then.

[keypeg]

You probably don't understand correctly then.

In that case, can you explain.  You have my posts as reference.  In fact, I think a number of people are confused.

[thalbergmad]

Rooting for Page 6.

Almost there.

Thal

[hardy_practice]

Me too, long as I don't have to read 'em.

[lostinidlewonder]

In that case, can you explain.  You have my posts as reference.  In fact, I think a number of people are confused.

I don't have the time/interest to respond to all of your posts so can you please highlight which are the most important questions.


I elaborated on my position on contextual / non-contextual technical discussion in this post as well.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=50174.msg547145#msg547145

Clarification of what "musical context" means.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=50174.msg547198#msg547198

Introducing some context to "Repeated Octaves" as an example.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=50174.msg546823#msg546823
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=50174.msg546827#msg546827

[keypeg]

I don't have the time/interest to respond to all of your posts so can you please highlight which are the most important questions.

I read all of the posts in this thread, including yours.  That is what one does when participating in a discussion - otherwise how can it be a discussion?  Otherwise you risk having a monologue.  This is a discussion that you started, so one would think that you were interested in what people had to say.

I took a lot of time to formulate my thoughts.  I did not have "questions".  I DID highlight what the important issues are in my posts.   And I think that the number of my posts was three.

You have stated that I probably don't understand your position.  Yet you have not read my posts, therefore you don't know what my understanding is.  I only got your attention when I wrote that your position as I understand it would cause me to avoid a teacher with the position (as I understand it).  For you to know why, please read my posts.

Discussion forums are for discussion.  One cannot discuss without reading what people say.  That is not a discussion.  I dare say that I am disappointed and feel I wasted my time in taking this thread seriously, and writing in.  It is also a bit disturbing since teaching is about teaching students, who are not hypothetical recipients of lessons.  As a teacher myself, I have always been interested in input by my students, even soliciting it.

[dima_76557]

Don't worry if you don't understand the gibberish about piano technique in words that is spewed over piano street, you do not need to understand it, it will make you a lot more stupid if you try.

A totally useless venture this general talk about technique in words, it is anti-knowledge, a black hole of useless time wastage. You want to discuss technique then give some actual musical examples or what you are saying is utterly worthless except for eating up time with uselessness.

Describing technique in words is a load of useless ranting. It is pretending to be intelligent observations with ZERO context and tries to look like they discuss piano technique in a complete manner.

I bet one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what is said is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

*See reply 55 for a comparison between a context and out of context example.

You say A is good and B is bad because A is good and B is bad. Where are reasons? Other people say B is not bad because 1 reason, 2 reason, 3 reason.

Maybe you teach to use piano, not to play it? That is big difference!

I was ill in june last year: pain everywhere, not able to play any more. Too much work. Too many pieces. My teacher say I have to stop and sell slippers on market to get money. Assistent teacher Paul let me exercises without music:
finger control - instrument respond and listen/relax,
finger control - instrument respond and listen/relax, etc. for 3 month. No music.
In september I was better. No pain. Play much much better then before.

Also: scale is scale, octave is octave, chord is chord everywhere the same. Only style and music different. Very useful to know this.

[lostinidlewonder]

You have stated that I probably don't understand your position.  Yet you have not read my posts, therefore you don't know what my understanding is.

There is a difference between reading and responding to everything. I have read it but I am not going to address every single thing you said. If you don't want to recapitulate your most important questions then that's fine but don't expect me to respond.

You say A is good and B is bad because A is good and B is bad. Where are reasons? Other people say B is not bad because 1 reason, 2 reason, 3 reason.

Read my posts and a few others who agreed.  

Maybe you teach to use piano, not to play it? That is big difference!

Semantics.

I was ill in june last year: pain everywhere, not able to play any more. Too much work.

Injury must come from incorrect exertion of yourself, to combat it with non-contextual learning is just irrelevant. The greater problem you should immediately face is how to not hurt yourself in the future.

Paul let me exercises without music:
finger control - instrument respond and listen/relax,
finger control - instrument respond and listen/relax, etc. for 3 month. No music.
In september I was better. No pain. Play much much better then before.

One wonders if you are in pain how you manage to play even these. This is also an example of contextual drills to exercises so you are supporting what I am saying.

Also: scale is scale, octave is octave, chord is chord everywhere the same. Only style and music different. Very useful to know this.

Start to explore what this "different style and music" you talk about actually means and you will see that is requires contextual observation to properly understand how to play the scale, octave or chord you mention.

[thalbergmad]

My teacher used to say that exercises do not have to have any musical content, but it is more pleasant if they do.

I do most of my exercises on the steering wheel of my car when I am sitting in traffic jams.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

You like sit on the road holding a steering wheel don't you ?

[thalbergmad]

I even take the wheel off & take it indoors so I can carry on practicing.

Thal

[keypeg]

There is a difference between reading and responding to everything. I have read it but I am not going to address every single thing you said. If you don't want to recapitulate your most important questions then that's fine but don't expect me to respond.

I made one general point, which I illustrated in various ways.  Does that mean you did not understand that point?  If so, I'll reword it.

I do not have questions.  That is, I did have a question about what you were actually saying, but you don't seem to be able to answer that.  What you do seem to be saying does not make sense to me.  If you are saying that it is impossible to ever consider technique of any kind away from musical context, that makes no sense to me.

[keypeg]

My conclusion at the moment is that no discussion was actually wanted.

[dima_76557]

Read my posts and a few others who agreed.

"I agree" is not reason. You repeat. No reasons.

Semantics.

No, no, no!
Use piano = press keys loud, soft, fake "feeling" tricks and so on. It is like accountant, not interesting. People not listen but sleep.
Play piano = make instrument respond. Pierce into heart and soul of persons in hall with one tone so they start to cry.

The greater problem you should immediately face is how to not hurt yourself in the future.

p2u_ teached me well for all life, thank you.

One wonders if you are in pain how you manage to play even these. This is also an example of contextual drills to exercises so you are supporting what I am saying.

No, no, no! You say musical context. I told no music when I exercised! Before was too much musical context. So much that almost killed me.

Start to explore what this "different style and music" you talk about actually means and you will see that is requires contextual observation to properly understand how to play the scale, octave or chord you mention.

You think I am in conservatory and do not know these simple things? Good joke! :=)

[pts1]

LIIW

Wow... you started this thread off with a hostile and indefensible assertion, and have defended it for 5 pages now, with virtually no agreement from your "peers".

Your defense has now taken on some aspects of a ridiculous trial and the jury is not convinced.

We're pretty bored. We think "you did it.... not the butler".

We think you stabbed your girl friend with a butcher knife a number of times.

We're not buying your story that she was jogging in the house and accidentally ran into your knife 32 times!!!

The jury sure would like a change of pace here... could you bring in some dancing girls or something... maybe sing or play the zither... some snacks and champagne perhaps?

I mean... you're just delaying the inevitable... and I'm sure that even as the authorities drag you off in chains to the dungeon of "pianistic truths"  to serve your long "re-education sentence", you'll still be offering up keyboard fallacies to impugn the jury.

Sigh

[keypeg]

Ok, Lostinidlewonder, as best as I can word it.

Your opening post seems to be saying that technique (any kind of technique at any level) can never be discussed or considered outside of musical context.  At the same time, it's no secret that you are irked by a very specific kind of discussion on technique led by one member.  Your post might well simply be a rant about that, in which case you are not actually discussing the subject in the title of your post - it's more of a venting.  If it's a venting, then there is no point in discussing anything.

I am going to assume that the subject actually is the subject.  In that case I understand the following: That you are saying the technique of any kind cannot ever be considered without musical context.  That means that teachers cannot discuss such things as height and distance from the piano affecting playing, unless they mention a piece.  If you are saying that, then I disagree.  Obviously there are central principals which will affect everything.

At the same time, if you are saying that context must always be in the  middle of it, I will argue that where the student is at and what the situation is, will determine that.  I gave you examples from my own experience.  I do not want to rewrite those examples.   If I have not explained them clearly, then please ask questions.  Personally I need to work on technique separately, and then apply it to music globally, and for anyone in my situation this may be similar.  This is what was found effective, and trying to start with a musical context impeded my progress for several years.  Additionally, I tried to stick with that regime as it was presented to me.

I have to stop here because I am feeling frustrated.  I took you and your thread seriously.  To put in the effort, and then being ignored - nobody likes that.  And such a thing is bad both for a teacher who gets ignored with assumptions made, or for a student.

[hfmadopter]

I have to stop here because I am feeling frustrated.  I took you and your thread seriously.

Keypeg,
This is the smartest thing you can do, stop here and cut your losses . Always remember as great as these forums are, in the end it is the internet after all. We get a bogus thread sometimes.

[j_menz]

My conclusion at the moment is that no discussion was actually wanted.

IMO, in any forum people may be after different things. A non-exhaustive list would be:

A pedestal
A pulpit
A party
A debating forum
A comedy store
A boxing ring