how to tell how good someone's technique is

[sumpianodude]

hi guys,
i am very curious about this . is it even possible to tell how good someone's technique is just by playing? obviously, if they are just playing the c major scale at quarter notes @ 100bpm it would be difficult since even beginners learn it. i also know that you cannot just look at the difficulty of the song they are playing.
is there a way to look at, let's say, how they hold their hands(or the rest of their body) or how they execute their passages? tension? dramatic/incorrect wrist movement?
if you can, is there a way to place their techique on a scale on something like the royal school of music tests or something?

[dcstudio]

this lady has fine technique--you can tell by the relaxed hands... and the smooth lines that she plays.  You can tell good technique because it makes for good playing...  without it things sound bumpy and uneven...

   ok that's me...lol  and I have pretty strong technique


here's great technique

and here's some bad technique

 
 
 notice the stiffness in the hands and the tension--most on this site will heartily agree that this is POOR technique on an advanced player...and you can hear it.

[schumaniac]

^ the example of bad technique 

[dcstudio]

it was a beautifully bad example you must agree...lol

I just couldn't resist.   

[sumpianodude]

i have looked over your links but am still a bit confused.
my observations:
Ms. Wang had lots of arm movement(i suppose that is good?), but her wrists looked a bit tense when she stayed in a position for more than 3 notes( 1:51, left wrist, i think) ? and she was tense when hitting those base notes repeatedly in the beginning?
and dcstudio in your first link (of yourself playing) at 1:40 your right hand was tense too?
what i noted for the two above was that their wrists moved. that was really it.

the only thing that i found different in the bad example was how his wrists and elbows were locked, and also i could tell something was wrong but coudn't place what it was.
sorry if the first two observations were absurd. i'm just trying to make sense of this.
 

[sumpianodude]

also, is technique just how relaxed you are or is that just an indicator? are there other ways to tell?
sorry for all the questions. i'm just trying to figure it out

[outin]

You could spend days browsing through old threads here with people arguing about technique...

The point is, good technique consists of so many things it's not easy to simply define. My definition consist of:
- Playing as physically effortlessly as possible while still bringing out everything you want to bring out in the music. And this is not always easy to tell from outside unless you are really on expert in assessing the human body and movements. Why? Because we come in different sizes and shapes. A girl with small hands has to develope different technique than Rachmaninoff when playing large chords. It will never be as effortless, but it should be as effortless as physically possible.
- Skillful pedalling to both create the sounds one wants and also use the pedals as an extensions of one's hands. There are countless of different pedalling techniques to master.
- Having enough tools in one's box to execute everything in the music one plays without having to take short cuts.
- Also having mastery over the instruments which not only includes handling the keys and the pedals, but the ability to immediately hear the piano's and the hall's properties and adjust one's playing to those to achieve the best sound.
- The physical part of technique one has is so well internalized that one can concentrate on musical matter and interpretation and so solid that one doesn't keep on missing what one is trying to do.

Here's an example of exceptional technique (probably only possible for someone with exceptional physique and mind):

[outin]

You could spend days browsing through old threads here with people arguing about what is good technique...

The point is, good technique consists of so many things it's not easy to simply define. My definition consist of:
- Playing as physically effortlessly as possible while still bringing out everything you want to bring out in the music. And this is not always easy to tell from outside unless you are really on expert in assessing the human body and movements. Why? Because we come in different sizes and shapes. A girl with small hands has to develope different technique than Rachmaninoff when playing large chords. It will never be as effortless, but it should be as effortless as physically possible.
- Skillful pedalling to both create the sounds one wants and also use the pedals as an extensions of one's hands. There are countless of different pedalling techniques to master.
- Having enough tools in one's box to execute everything in the music one plays without having to take short cuts. There's no one technique, but one should have plenty of different techniques available that one can employ according to the demands of music.
- Also having mastery over the instruments which not only includes handling the keys and the pedals, but the ability to immediately hear the piano's and the hall's properties and adjust one's playing to those to achieve the best sound.
- The physical part of technique one has is so well internalized that one can concentrate on musical matter and interpretation and so solid that one doesn't keep on missing what one is trying to do.

Here's an example of exceptional technique (probably only possible for someone with exceptional physique and mind):

[josh93248]

Outin's position is one I agree with almost entirely, but I don't see why he needs to virtually double post it 

[outin]

Outin's position is one I agree with almost entirely, but I don't see why he needs to virtually double post it  

Because I obviously lack some good technique in posting  

Why do the modify and quote links have to be so close to each other  

It used to be possible to correct such mistakes later, but not anymore...

[keypeg]

Outin's post is excellent, and I couldn't think of much (anything) to improve it.

In regards to the question of whether you can tell by how relaxed somebody looks or is:

The physical side of technique is functional.  If you can produce the sounds that you want to produce - that is, the right notes at the right speed, rhythm, articulations, dynamics etc. - if you can produce these with ease, then you have good technique.  Two pianists can look very different when they play, and yet both have good technique.  The same principles may be at work, and yet they appear different.

"Relaxation" is easily misunderstood.  If you were totally relaxed, you'd be a limp rag doll unable to play anything.  Rather it's a matter of not being locked up anywhere, being supple, having ease of motion, and if there are moments where something must tense, that there will be a release the next instant.  How to acquire good technique is not done overnight.

You can have someone with beautiful swan-like motions who also plays with control, and another who also looks lovely, but it's ineffective.  Or rather limited looking motion and yet the playing is wonderful.  There may be tiny subtle motions in the wrists that are easy to miss, but they are there.

I've addressed the physical side since that is what you were concerned with, but Outo has mentioned other aspects that go hand in hand.  You need to have some understanding of the instrument you are playing, and its characteristics.  Your ear develops as you go along, together with understanding of music, theory, interpretation.  The physical technique lets you produce the sounds you want to produce, but the other parts lets you know what sounds you want to produce in the first place, and your growing ear will help you tell if you produced it.

[sumpianodude]

  You need to have some understanding of the instrument you are playing, and its characteristics.  Your ear develops as you go along, together with understanding of music, theory, interpretation.

how is your ear and interpretation developed? does it just automatically get better as you play?
would it be possible to understand the characteristics of an instrument if you played on the same upright your entire life? (other than in recitals, i play on a grand, but i don't feel much different than playing on an upright)

[dcstudio]

i have looked over your links but am still a bit confused.
my observations:
Ms. Wang had lots of arm movement(i suppose that is good?), but her wrists looked a bit tense when she stayed in a position for more than 3 notes( 1:51, left wrist, i think) ? and she was tense when hitting those base notes repeatedly in the beginning?
and dcstudio in your first link (of yourself playing) at 1:40 your right hand was tense too?
what i noted for the two above was that their wrists moved. that was really it.

the only thing that i found different in the bad example was how his wrists and elbows were locked, and also i could tell something was wrong but coudn't place what it was.
sorry if the first two observations were absurd. i'm just trying to make sense of this.
 

I am in no way offended and no your observations are not absurd...   actually I meant to post Tiffany Poon... but I guess I shared the wrong vid

my technique is pretty strong all things considered--but that doesn't mean that it's perfect on every single note...   even after 46 years I still sometimes tense here or stiffen a finger there...  stuff happens..lol.
even among the most talented pianists...  you will see slips in their technique.. now and again.  even Horowitz kinda got sloppy late in his career;  technique is also the way you manage the energy in your hands while you play.   There are moments when your hands or part of your hand is stiff--but it's so quick if you have good technique.  It's also anticipating what level of force you will strike the keys with... hitting multiple keys together and making one sound louder than the others...   the telltale sign of good technique is the relaxed way the hands come off the keys--no energy being expended as they float above

there are really so many aspects to technique and the truth is everybody's hands are different--something that works for me may not for you.    It's also got to come from you...  you have to figure out (usually with the help of a teacher) what's the most efficient way for you to develop your technique

 




the bad example..lol... it's not just stiffness -- it's velocity and weight distribution to the fingers   the balance of weight from his arm -- you can hear the lack of technical prowess in the clunky chunky way he plays.

[roncesvalles]

The telltale sign is the music itself.  You can get all the notes with faulty technique, but good technique enables a suppleness and fluidity, a variety of tones, dynamic shadings, and the handling of multiple voices.   Bad technique often results in mechanical playing, and a poor differentiation of tone, voices, and voicing.   While the notes are there, it is quite often evident that something is missing.

Visually you can tell by watching the hands.   For virtuosos doing passage work, every finger moves in a smooth and fluid way.  The fingers look flexible, and there is a general economy of motion.   With someone with poor technique, finger motion can be quite herky-jerky.  The hand can look stiff, its motions sometimes violent.

[dcstudio]

The telltale sign is the music itself.

agreed!    

[keypeg]

how is your ear and interpretation developed? does it just automatically get better as you play?
would it be possible to understand the characteristics of an instrument if you played on the same upright your entire life? (other than in recitals, i play on a grand, but i don't feel much different than playing on an upright)

I will answer from my own experience.  I did not have the usual path of people who are taught from childhood.  That might even be an advantage here, who knows.  Exploring:

There are things we hear by ourselves and notice about the instrument as we start to play, and we use all that.  That's all good. I also found, once I got a (good) teacher, there were things I had noticed, I got insights into some of these things, what was behind them, and that brought me further.

One initial weakness was that the pulse in my playing tended to be uneven, but I couldn't hear it.  My teacher pointed it out, and gave me ways of practising it.  I'd practice, think I had it right, but I didn't and couldn't hear it, practised it more etc.  Eventually I could hear it and correct it.  Since I could now hear it, it means that my ability to hear this aspect had evolved.  Now I could hear it everywhere.  The radio was on: I delighted in the wondrous timing of the orchestra.  That timing had always been there, but I had not heard it.  Once I had control of pulse and timing, and could hear it, I also started to be able to use it expressively.  For example, there is the "agogic accent" where you play with the timing of a note to make it expressively, a bit like what a master orator might do.

So - as you work toward things that you were not aware of and could not hear before, your actual ability to hear and distinguish things improves.  This gives you more ideas on what to do with your music.  It also helps you hear what other performers are doing to pull off something amazing in their playing.

About the instrument:  Technique involves three elements.  Knowing what you want to do with the music (timing, dynamics, articulation).  And then how to physically act with the instrument in order to bring out the sound.  The nature of the piano includes the fact that strings vibrate after the hammer hits them, will stop vibrating when you release the key, but continue vibrating if the pedal is held down; the degree to which subsequent notes will blend depending on the timing of this (legato, staccato, unpleasant blur).  The fact of the pedal can allow for an early release, and thus possibly a looser hand, and smoother transition to distant notes.  Understanding how to time and coordinate all that allows you to make choices that will affect the music (its effect and interpretation).  As I started working with my teacher, I benefited from his experience.  There were things I would never have thought of, which came from these three elements.

It was hard to answer, so I hope this makes some sense.

[dcstudio]

It was hard to answer, so I hope this makes some sense.

it is hard to answer....