Teaching students to listen

[pianoman53]

So there is this story from my school, about a violin teacher who was about to retire.
Before he did, though, he had to listen to the auditions to the school.
When everyone was finished, and the jury was about to leave, he told then that there was one tape left. "This girl if from Korea, she studied this and this long, and she couldn't come here because of this and this blablabah..." so then they listened to the tape. The jury then decided to lay a vote, but because of her lack of technique and bad intonation, musicality was okay, but not enough. So they decided to not let her come to the academy.
The retiring teacher then smiled like never before and said "Gentlemen, you just dismissed a young Heifetz from studying in our school!".


So this story has two sides. One is the ability to hear genius, beyond intonation and technique. The other one is to be able to listen beyond the name of the performer.

There are plenty of examples on, say, youtube. A big name slaughter a piece, but still gets loads of good comments, because of the name.


How do we teach students to listen "Subjectively", and not first think of the performer and then decide if it's good or not?

[j_menz]

To be fair, Heifitz was probably not yet a genius in the recording. And listening for potential genius, rather than evident genius, is quite a challenge.

The name vs result stuff is valid, though. Indeed often you see someone defend a rather poor performance with "but, it's X, it MUST  be good".

There is a certain burden of preconception we all bring to a listening experience, but I feel confidence in one's ability to actually know whether something is good goes a long way to overcoming that. In other words, to teach people how to listen beyond the name of the performer you must teach them what to listen for. What makes a good performance. And that's a big question. Some performances are great notwithstanding their faults, and some are pretty ordinary notwithstanding they are faultless.

How to teach an ability to discern? Lots of listening followed by discussion. I'd also suggest that that be argument, rather than agreement. If the student likes it, you hate it. If they hate it, you love it. Get to the why. The detail. There are, after all, the right ingredients to an opinion, even if there are no "right opinions".  The last thing you want is your student just accepting your opinion without forming their own.

[keypeg]

At the student stage, we are taught what kinds of things we must aim for in music: good timing, even tone, solid bow stroke (since it's Heifetz), straight bow.  So at a student level including an advanced level, that is what a student will listen for.  A teacher, however, will have heard students at all levels, and knows how to identify potential in the raw.  I don't think this kind of listen can be taught..  It comes from experience - in fact the experience of teaching many students and watching them grow.

[soitainly]

 I would expect any student applying to any top school is supposed to be pretty complete these days. You can teach technique, but I am not so sure that you can teach intonation or musicality, they can be learned, but not necessarily taught. So do you turn down a player that has great technique and intonation, but is a little dry, I don't know. A violin player in an orchestra doesn't have to be especially creative. If you can't play in tune and don't have good technique, there isn't going to be much of a place for you as a violinist. Maybe that student who was turned down needs to go back to the woodshed and see if he can raise his level of playing.

[keypeg]

But it wasn't about being able to listen to what sounds good and musical.  It was about being able to her the potential in an unformed musician.  Why should a student be able to do that?

[awesom_o]

A violin player in an orchestra doesn't have to be especially creative.

Sorry, I found this comment to be particularly dimwitted. Do you have any idea how a professional orchestral audition works?

No, I didn't think you did  Cause you wouldn't say something so stupid if you were more enlightened.

[j_menz]

Maybe that student who was turned down needs to go back to the woodshed and see if he can raise his level of playing.

Did you actually read the original post? "That student" was Haifitz, one of the greats of the violin. That was the point. 

[timothy42b]

Did you actually read the original post? "That student" was Haifitz, one of the greats of the violin. That was the point. 

If the story really happened.

Which it didn't.

[timothy42b]

I found this:

Jascha Heifetz was born in Vilna, Russia (now Vilnius, Lithuania) on February 2, 1901. His father was a concertmaster and violinist who had no formal training. Heifetz got his first violin (quarter-size) and lessons from his father at the age of three. The young Heifetz' face would scrunch up if he heard dissonance and he would throw a fit when a wrong note was played. His natural ability was evident early on. He easily held the violin under his chin and prompted it with his left hand, things that usually take several lessons to master. He amazed audiences by playing the Mendelssohn Concerto without difficulty at the age of six.

His mother shielded him from all the praise and attention he was getting. It was not until 30 years after his American debut and after his mother had died that Heifetz discovered a sealed chest full of critic's reviews all carefully arranged in chronological order.

His father had a "horror of mediocrity," Heifetz said. The perfectionism was passed from father to son and became a dominant character trait, showing up not only in Heifetz' music but also in his hobbies - ping-pong, tennis and even mixing drinks - all of which he took very seriously.

The family attended concerts, theater and cultural events which served, along with regular family musical evenings, to enrich Heifetz' musical experience and nurture the young prodigy.

After two years with his father and two more with a professional teacher, Heifetz was ready for the master, Leopold Auer of the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Considered the greatest teacher of his time, Auer produced a string of violin prodigies including Efrem Zimbalist and Mischa Elman. The story, possibly apocryphal, is told that Auer was reduced to tears and proclaimed Heifetz to be the best at the boy's audition.

[keypeg]

Again, the question is whether a student should be able to hear potential in another student who has not yet been properly trained.  Forget about Heifetz for the moment.  I DISAGREE that a student should be able to hear this, and I also disagree that it has anything to do with the ability to listen.  In fact, it is the metaphorical students' ability to listen which threw them off in the first place.  It is only with long experience that a teacher can hear what is not yet there, but potentially there.

[timothy42b]

Again, the question is whether a student should be able to hear potential in another student who has not yet been properly trained. 
<snip>
  In fact, it is the metaphorical students' ability to listen which threw them off in the first place.  It is only with long experience that a teacher can hear what is not yet there, but potentially there.

But there aren't any metaphorical students.  The story specifies a jury, and a jury is made up of faculty. 

[keypeg]

Oh yes, you're right.  I have to say that the whole post is confusing.  It begins with a jury and an unknown student who supposedly has poor intonation, while Heifetz is known for his good intonation. And then it asks how to get STUDENTS to be able to listen.....  I think the OP is actually asking how to gets students to hear........... but the story is about hearing potential, which has nothing to do with what getting students to hear or listen.  The post makes no sense.

[timothy42b]

Learning to listen for something that's not there yet would seem to be a challenge.

But learning to listen for what IS there is a major task that holds students back.  See the classic book by Gieseking and Leimer. 

[dima_76557]

Learning to listen for something that's not there yet would seem to be a challenge.

But learning to listen for what IS there is a major task that holds students back.  See the classic book by Gieseking and Leimer.

Sometimes, students listen very actively, but for the wrong things. We have this girl in class from Siberia. She's very capable, all the details in phrasing, tone, etc. are there, but the playing lacks "soul". I feel she could be helped with a crash course in the Abby Whiteside approach, but the circumstances are such that that is not possible. I gave this fellow student some hints a couple of times, and temporarily, she lightens up, but a week later, same thing. The more actively she works, the more detailed but energetically passive her playing sounds. What do you do in such a case? Only changing her body coordination can help her listen for more global lines and general pulse, no?

[timothy42b]

. The more actively she works, the more detailed but energetically passive her playing sounds. What do you do in such a case?

I don't pretend to have a clue.

I can't help wondering if a mild state of intoxication - maybe a glass of wine or too - would make a difference.  Could be risky, too, but...........

[dima_76557]

I don't pretend to have a clue.

I can't help wondering if a mild state of intoxication - maybe a glass of wine or too - would make a difference.  Could be risky, too, but...........

What I actually wanted to say is this: the command "you should listen to yourself" is in itself not clear enough. We don't just listen with our ears, but with the whole of our being. I even have the tendency to move with the musician if he or she is really good. I get really angry when pianists miss certain harmonic details of chords, etc., while others may not really care about that.

Now, if a violonist is raised in the more sentimental, "hugging" Perlman style, for example, then it is conceivable that he/she will reject the "straight", reserved, intellectual approach of a Heifetz, and miss the latter's pure intentions. Any unknown Korean girl that plays in the Heifetz style will consequently also be rejected.

Also, you mentioned the book by Leimer-Gieseking that recommends "listening" as of utmost importance. In this context, it is funny, that there is a recording by Gieseking where he transposes a certain part in the music for several pages (I believe it was Debussy) and doesn't seem to notice it himself. Question: what was he listening for when he didn't even notice what was going on? Other details, probably.

[keypeg]

Now, if a violonist is raised in the more sentimental, "hugging" Perlman style, for example, then it is conceivable that he/she will reject the "straight", reserved, intellectual approach of a Heifetz, and miss the latter's pure intentions. Any unknown Korean girl that plays in the Heifetz style will consequently also be rejected.

Do you play violin?  (trying to place the "hugging" vs. "straight")

[dima_76557]

Do you play violin?  (trying to place the "hugging" vs. "straight")

No, not at all. I wouldn't even know how to hold that instrument. The word choice is how it feels emotionally when I listen to those people. Perlman - heart, Heifetz - mind, no-nonsense.

[timothy42b]

No, not at all. I wouldn't even know how to hold that instrument. The word choice is how it feels emotionally when I listen to those people. Perlman - heart, Heifetz - mind, no-nonsense.

I don't know if you ever listen to virtuoso recorder players.

The world's best is of course Michala Petri, and has been for decades.  I've heard her in person twice, and enjoyed it immensely.  She certainly communicates the heart side. 

I also have at least one CD, which I never listen to.  It just doesn't reach me.  And she does have a bit of a reputation for being on the dry side. 

I think the problem is that she is technically so skilled she plays music beyond what most players can handle.  And music of that difficulty level is inherently less accessible. 

[timothy42b]

Back to Gieseking/Leimer for a moment. 

He suggests using scales to teach listening skills, by requiring you to listen and produce exact evenness of tone and timing.

My interpretation of that is the feedback paradigm.  We learn to improve by 1) having a fixed target in our brain 2) listening to what we produce 3) calculating the error between target and produced 4) making a correction continuously. 

The analog might be your home heating system.  It has a thermostat that you set to 70 F.  It "listens" to the actual, which might be 65 F.  It calculates the error, 5 F.  It makes a correction, turns on the furnace.  Etc. 

The problem for beginners is step 2.  There is just too much going on, and it is hard to listen to both the sound in our head that we want and the sound we are producing, at the same time.  One or the other seems to override.  So hearing really well is a learned skill, and it may be the primary difference between the great players especially prodigies, and the rest of us who struggle.

There is a small caveat with this theory.  I conceptualized this process long before realizing that I am actually a high functioning Asperger's/autistic spectrum,  and therefore my sensory processing is by definition nonstandard, but I don't know all the places it varies from the norm.   

[dima_76557]

So hearing really well is a learned skill, and it may be the primary difference between the great players especially prodigies, and the rest of us who struggle.

There is a small caveat with this theory.  I conceptualized this process long before realizing that I am actually a high functioning Asperger's/autistic spectrum,  and therefore my sensory processing is by definition nonstandard, but I don't know all the places it varies from the norm.

Did you watch the excellent BBC clip faulty_damper posted here? If we forget for a moment about creativity, then I think it's the body/kinestetic intelligence (the test starts at 38:12) that makes the great INSTRUMENTALISTS great, not their ears. Points in space and how we react to them with our movements. This requires that the vestibular system not be deceived when the circumstances would force it to deceive us (everything is upside down in that test). This requires a very precise memory of movement and a very precise perception of new points in space to adapt to. The ones who did badly on that test will require much more training in playing the piano than the ones who did well, and their success is not even guaranteed. Train for too long to overcome your natural lack of this kind of intelligence, and you get the "typewriter" syndrom (only mechanics, no music), even if you have good listening/hearing skills, etc. (= you are able to hear what is required/present in the performance by others in great detail, but are unable to do it yourself).
P.S.: A great example of someone with very good ears and loads of creative potential would be George Gershwin, who never became the virtuoso pianist he wanted to be, notwithstanding his training.

[dima_76557]

How do we teach students to listen "Subjectively", and not first think of the performer and then decide if it's good or not?

I'm sorry it took me so long to answer your question and went into a seeming off-topic.
I think only forced exposure can help here, in which the good points of certain playing styles are systematically examined and gradually recognized. The rest is not up to us students, because it is partly taste. An unknown person that meets our "requirements" will be accepted, and an unknown person who doesn't meet "requirements" will be rejected, regardles of their name. If we know in advance that we are going to hear performer X we hate, we simply decide in advance that the performance must be bad, while performer Y we love will always be good, and if he's not really good this time, he'll be justified/excused.

[keypeg]

No, not at all. I wouldn't even know how to hold that instrument. The word choice is how it feels emotionally when I listen to those people. Perlman - heart, Heifetz - mind, no-nonsense.

Thank you for explaining.  I really couldn't picture those kinds of things as being a basis of rejection for violin, in something like a jury.    Personally I have never found Heifetz' playing to be cold.  He is able to draw out of the music what he perceives, while Perlman (whose playing I adore) draws out other things.  By chance I remember Perlman talking about Heifetz, and managed to find the clip.

(I was a violin student, and am resuming where I left off when I stopped some years ago).

[dcstudio]

so many don't teach students to listen....

they reward them for hearing what they want them to hear.   For having the same opinion of what is good. 

it's like brainwashing..  I think..lol.   tough to get them to have their own ears after that too.. it's like they are betraying their instructor if they like Richter more than Horowitz..   

how do we make it stop?

[keypeg]

The whole question of listening to which performance (or performer) is "good" to me is not listening.  In fact, when this thread came up I first didn't understand it, because I've never thought that way.  Ok, I've heard Joe Public talk that way, but didn't expect it in the context of teachers and students.

Listening first of all means to listen FOR something. And to listen for something you need a certain understanding of the music, and you also have to learn how to hear.  On piano you don't create pitch.  But you will learn to hear whether your notes are in control, or if some of them are fading.  You learn how to be with the beat or syncopate, and also be deliberately off the beat or stretch the beat without losing pulse, for effect.  These are not things we start off being able to hear.  I have listed some things that I am learning now, and others that I have acquired as a student.  If you can't hear those things, then all you can go by is a vague impression of "this seems better than that, but I don't know why - maybe it's the big name".

Understanding the music - why you might stretch a note or make a note louder - that's theory, discussion, discovery.  All of this depends much on the teacher who himself/herself has that understanding.

And THEN you go to your various performers, after examining the music, and see what they have done with the music.  Where, at any point, are you asking which is "better" or which is "beautiful" etc?  Should you not be asking "What is it that he is doing with this music, why is he doing it, and would I want to borrow some of that?" ?  And THIS depends first on having learned to listen for (and work toward) some of the specific somewhat technical things that I have mentioned.  Is it done?

[awesom_o]

The whole question of listening to which performance (or performer) is "good" to me is not listening. 

This is extremely important!

keypeg, I'm glad to hear you are resuming your studies on the violin! I have recently done the same with the cello, and it has brought me much joy!

I look forward to hearing the fruits of your labour!

[dcstudio]

even though teachers know the difference ... or assuming as much..  they aren't always 100% fair now are they?  would it not be in the best interest of an instructor in a large university to create a "flock" of people who think like they do?  would it not stand to reason that this is in fact an underlying cause of so much "musical neurosis?"

so many get programmed to think those department heads "walk on water"... for lack of a better reference.  students follow their every word..because they want to pass.   piano instructors get an hour of one-on-one alone time each week...
most instructors spend at least a few minutes of that time... discussing music "political" department matters .most of the time they do so to help insure that the student will speak well of them to their boss.. because they want to feed their kids.

   that has not changed one bit in University since I was a student.  it is why they don't teach LISTENING in music school...   lol.

[timothy42b]

Students (and even more so, teachers) need to listen for those fine distinctions.  They need to know what the differences are, in detail, so they can improve their execution. 

Joe Average is okay with "this one is better than that one." 

But there's a subtle trap here for some.

The purpose of music is not to learn to control notes or fade, to play on the beat or syncopate or stretch the time. 

The purpose of music is to move Joe Average, who will never hear how you're doing it, but will respond if you do it correctly. 

[keypeg]

But there's a subtle trap here for some.

The purpose of music is not to learn to control notes or fade, to play on the beat or syncopate or stretch the time. 

The purpose of music is to move Joe Average, who will never hear how you're doing it, but will respond if you do it correctly. 

And how, as a music student intending to play for Joe Average, do you learn to move Joe Average, if you don't learn these tools?  Spare me the teacher who tells you to feel the music, but doesn't teach you the means to create that feeling.  Joe Average may not know how you do it which is fine ---- but if YOU don't know how to do it, you also won't do it, and Joe Average won't feel anything, because you didn't know how to bring it across.

[timothy42b]

And how, as a music student intending to play for Joe Average, do you learn to move Joe Average, if you don't learn these tools?  Spare me the teacher who tells you to feel the music, but doesn't teach you the means to create that feeling. 

Nope, you're wrong. 

And, you're right. 

I'm an analytical type by nature and it does seem that I need to learn the tools (mechanics) to do it.  But I'm not the only type of student, probably not even the most common type.  Many do fine with a more goal oriented, "inner game of tennis," Arnold Jacobs "Song and Wind" approach.

Many of the most successful performers don't have a clue how they do what they do.  That's why they can be the most abyssmal teachers.   

[dcstudio]

Nope, you're wrong. 

And, you're right. 

I'm an analytical type by nature and it does seem that I need to learn the tools (mechanics) to do it.  But I'm not the only type of student, probably not even the most common type.  Many do fine with a more goal oriented, "inner game of tennis," Arnold Jacobs "Song and Wind" approach.

Many of the most successful performers don't have a clue how they do what they do.  That's why they can be the most abyssmal teachers.   

that's the fact jack! or rather...Timothy.      those that can do..  how effortlessly they play.  few can teach.

[keypeg]

Many of the most successful performers don't have a clue how they do what they do.  That's why they can be the most abyssmal teachers.    

Nor may they have a clue about how they have been taught.  I bet that every one of them had a teacher who gave them the tools however subliminally.

In any case, the thread here is called "teaching students to listen", and the largest part of the thread is centered on not teaching students how to be judgmental.

[dima_76557]

In any case, the thread here is called "teaching students to listen", and the largest part of the thread is centered on not teaching students how to be judgmental.

I wonder if that can be done, though. The only way to do it as I see it is forced exposure through analysis of the good stuff in this or that playing style, as I said earlier.

A "finger-oriented" teacher/student (very often an intellectual approach to music) will listen for different things than a "whole-body" teacher/student (very often an intuitive, emotional approach to music), and I think that during an audition (s)he may think: "I cannot possible work with such a [fill in a nasty noun], and will reject that candidate, even if there is potential present. It would therefore be wise on the part of the student to know what type of teacher he/she is going to audition for; what artistic ideals they have, what school of thought/playing they are from.

[j_menz]

A "finger-oriented" teacher/student (very often an intellectual approach to music) will listen for different things than a "whole-body" teacher/student (very often an intuitive, emotional approach to music), and I think that during an audition (s)he may think: "I cannot possible work with such a [fill in a nasty noun], and will reject that candidate, even if there is potential present. It would therefore be wise on the part of the student to know what type of teacher he/she is going to audition for; what artistic ideals they have, what school of thought/playing they are from.

I wonder if there's not actually greater reward to be gained if the teacher and student come from different approaches. Assuming they don't kill one another, of course. But both approaches have their limitations, and the conflict will go some way to stimulate a fuller approach/understanding.

[dima_76557]

I wonder if there's not actually greater reward to be gained if the teacher and student come from different approaches. Assuming they don't kill one another, of course. But both approaches have their limitations, and the conflict will go some way to stimulate a fuller approach/understanding.

Theoretically, yes, especially for those who are not involved it may seem like that. I can say for myself, though, that I would never go to a representative of the French School to learn the finer points in playing Rachmaninoff, that's for sure! The artistic ideals are just too far away from each other.

[j_menz]

I would never go to a representative of the French School to learn the finer points in playing Rachmaninoff, that's for sure! The artistic ideals are just too far away from each other.

Perhaps. But do you only go to a teacher to learn what they can teach? Surely as an advanced student, and I suspect a good one, you also go to learn from yourself - to test your ideas against a skeptical listener.  Musical performance is, after all, in part (and perhaps in the end entirely) about persuasion.

[dima_76557]

Perhaps. But do you only go to a teacher to learn what they can teach? Surely as an advanced student, and I suspect a good one, you also go to learn from yourself - to test your ideas against a skeptical listener.  Musical performance is, after all, in part (and perhaps in the end entirely) about persuasion.

First of all, they don't "teach" anything there. They mostly give you their view which you, if you are lucky, are merely suggested to try, but more often, they simply impose it upon you. Let's take an example to illustrate. The circumstances are imagery to prove a point, not events that really happened.

Let's say I play Franz Liszt's 2nd Ballade. I take the Arrau approach. It's a story about two young people who love each other against the wish of their "tribes". One dies in an attempt to get to his loved one, and the loved one throws herself into the sea as a result. Lots of whole-arm stuff involved as you can imagine.

"No", says the teacher, "I've got reliable sources that prove that this is actually about something else. It's actually King so-and-so riding in the woods, and that passage is not Leander drowning, but leaves rustling in the trees, but first I will put you on a diet of scales and Hanon, otherwise you won't be able to express what it is really about." Can you believe that a young person may have the wish to die on the spot if they come in such a situation?

[j_menz]

but first I will put you on a diet of scales and Hanon, otherwise you won't be able to express what it is really about. Can you believe that a young person may have the wish to die on the spot if they come in such a situation?

That or rebel. And from rebellion comes great things. Those without a taste for it are doomed to mediocrity anyway.

[dima_76557]

That or rebel. And from rebellion comes great things. Those without a taste for it are doomed to mediocrity anyway.

Since they are the authorities, trying to transfer to another teacher within that same institution without offending anyone seems like a better idea.
P.S.: This example simply triggers the question: What is "listening" and how are we supposed to teach/learn it? I cannot "listen" without activating the rest of who I am.

[j_menz]

Since they are the authorities, trying to transfer to another teacher within that same institution without offending anyone seems like a better idea.

Not for those of us with a taste for argument.

P.S.: This example simply triggers the question: What is "listening" and how are we supposed to teach/learn it? I cannot "listen" without activating the rest of who I am.

Nor should you try. But originally the question was about listening without false preconceptions - this must be good because X is playing, or Y is playing so it's going to have these faults. If those preconceptions form part of the "rest of who I am", they need to be purged. We must listen to what is presented, and judge it on its merits - is it consistent, is it effective, is it persuasive? Am I moved (intellectually, emotionally or in some other way)? Am I the same after having heard it?

[dima_76557]

But originally the question was about listening without false preconceptions - this must be good because X is playing, or Y is playing so it's going to have these faults. If those preconceptions form part of the "rest of who I am", they need to be purged. We must listen to what is presented, and judge it on its merits - is it consistent, is it effective, is it persuasive? Am I moved (intellectually, emotionally or in some other way)? Am I the same after having heard it?

As I said, I see no other solution than forced exposure. I realize the genius of Glenn Gould, for example, through extensive listening and analyzing, but still - his ideas are not my ideas of how romantic literature should be played. Consequently, when I see or hear people with a similar approach, I cannot help myself thinking that this is not "in style", even if they pay me to be "objective". I repeat: if you target a certain audience (a future teacher, for example), you should be at least aware of their expectations and tastes, otherwise your efforts will be in vain. You should NEVER give a damn about the tastes of an audience that is not your target. My suggestion for this topic would therefore be the reverse: the burden of being accepted is on the ones that want to be accepted, not on the audience.

EDIT: Effectively, this means they should simply learn something about how the target audience listens. If they don't like that kind of listening, they should simply reject such an audience.

[j_menz]

My suggestion for this topic would therefore be the reverse: the burden of being accepted is on the ones that want to be accepted, not on the audience.

EDIT: Effectively, this means they should simply learn something about how the target audience listens. If they don't like that kind of listening, they should simply reject such an audience.

From the perspective of the pianist, no doubt that is correct. But from the perspective of the audience, I feel the burden is reversed. And we are, at various times, lucky enough to be in both camps.

[dima_76557]

From the perspective of the pianist, no doubt that is correct. But from the perspective of the audience, I feel the burden is reversed. And we are, at various times, lucky enough to be in both camps.

I think the audience is generally more intelligent than they are given credit for, and is always right in terms of taste.

One problem that hasn't come up yet in this topic is that so few instrumentalists have deep insight into how listening and acoustics work psychologically, and are therefore not able to communicate anything. They have their own what they call "interpretation" and simply push it down the throats of the audience, regardless of where they are (big hall, small hall), what instrument is under their hands (Steinway, Bechstein), etc. Such instrumentalists have no right to even be disappointed if the audience didn't get the message.

Can we say that they are not able to listen? Actually not. Can we say that the audience is not able to listen? Certainly not. There simply was no communication, and the one to blame is the instrumentalist, not the audience, waiting for something to happen.

[j_menz]

I think the audience is generally more intelligent than they are given credit for, and is always right in terms of taste.

That has been true of every audience of which I have been a member. 

I think a greater problem (even) than the failure to communicate for the reasons you have stated (and I agree it is a problem) is that all too often, all the player wishes to communicate is "look at me, I can play this!". If that ever did cut the mustard, which is debatable, it certainly does not do so in these days of ubiquitous recordings.

[dima_76557]

I think a greater problem (even) than the failure to communicate for the reasons you have stated (and I agree it is a problem) is that all too often, all the player wishes to communicate is "look at me, I can play this!". If that ever did cut the mustard, which is debatable, it certainly does not do so in these days of ubiquitous recordings.

I want to raise another point. Do you remember the clip I posted of the incredible Umi Garrett in the "talent" thread? I was immediately judged for liking it because it lacked qualities of a certain kind. But my point is that the older Umi becomes (she's got another teacher now), the less personal space she has in her performances. I must be crazy, but for me she was more impressive as a raw talent in her far from perfect and fiendishly difficult "Gnomenreigen" than she is now, when she is learning the ropes of "listening for quality and perfection" in repertoire she can actually play. I probably need a crash course in "correct" listening to understand what's going on.
Here is her YouTube account. Judge for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/user/UMIPIANO/videos

[awesom_o]

Personally... what I feel is going on is this:

The technique which adults use at the piano is fundamentally quite different from the technique which small children playing advanced repertoire tend to acquire.

This is why small children who play other instruments start out on child-sized equivalents. 1/8 and 1/16th size violins and cellos are common..... because a seven year old child trying to play a full-size violin or cello would be like some sort of terrible joke.

This way, children grow into the instrument, the technique, and the repertoire quite gradually.

Not so on the piano! Children as young as 3 or 4 are taught to play on the same gigantic instrument that the great virtuoso plays!
By the time he or she is 7 or 8, having shown all of that 'talent' early on, the pupil is now working on advanced virtuoso material.

By the time he or she is 14 or 15, with an adult body....... the technique which the person learned to make their miniature hands barely get around Gnomenreigen almost a decade ago is now of little use.


They now need to discover the more advanced, efficient ways of playing the piano. Unfortunately, bad habits of movement, which worked so well when the hands were tiny and the pieces were huge, are often so deeply ingrained, that the situation becomes dire.


 

[dima_76557]

By the time he or she is 7 or 8, having shown all of that 'talent' early on, the pupil is now working on advanced virtuoso material.

By the time he or she is 14 or 15, with an adult body....... the technique which the person learned to make their miniature hands barely get around Gnomenreigen almost a decade ago is now of little use.


They now need to discover the more advanced, efficient ways of playing the piano. Unfortunately, bad habits of movement, which worked so well when the hands were tiny and the pieces were huge, are often so deeply ingrained, that the situation becomes dire.

Possible, although Cziffra, Rubinstein and others, for example, never suffered from this problem.

I think she simply transferred too soon, before her talent was strong enough to withstand the treadmill of standardized Juilliard/Curtis tricks she is learning now. I hope that with time, she will find the inner strength to rediscover her artistic self.

EDIT: Just to make sure that this is understood correctly: what I said has to do with communication from within, which was present before and seems to have been partly lost.

[awesom_o]

EDIT: Just to make sure that this is understood correctly: what I said has to do with communication from within, which was present before and seems to have been partly lost.

You'll need to expound on this, dima.

I listened to a recent performance of Umi's and found it to be vastly superior to her earlier playing. To my ears, it was more professional in every way.

How is it that the sloppier performances of her childhood showed more musical potential than this fine rendition?

[awesom_o]

I think plenty of people on this very forum could play Gnomenreigen as well or better than Umi played it at 9.

I don't think very many people on this forum at all can play Beethoven as well as she can now!:

[dima_76557]

You'll need to expound on this, dima.

First of all, she was only 8 when she did the Gnomenreigen.

I can easily forgive "sloppiness" if the instrumentalist has something very personal to say.

However fantasticly she plays it, the Beethoven is not her own; it's her teacher's idea of how it should be played, and kudos to her for being able to do it so well. Notwithstanding the high quality and professionalism, like the great Stanislavski I say: "I don't believe!". Why?

Sure-tell-tale signs of the image not being her own is the work she does before the camera: it's deliberate, unnatural, learned mannerisms, and what's worse: every time the same. Tiffany Poon suffers from the same kind of symptoms. Both girls are clearly being prepared for some important international competitions. Instead of thinking as I used to: "Oh, what a unique person" , I now think "Yet another one". That's my impression. Standardized tricks.

That is also part of listening, but my antenna apparently works differently. I really hope I am mistaken, and if I am, I hope the girls will forgive me for my wrong impression. I also hope you can forgive me for my perception of what is otherwise a very talented person.