Time-wasting routine teachers indulge themselves in

[simombarerus]

My fellow piano aficionados, please think of your favorite recording of a monumental work (e.g., Rach 3, or Liszt B Minor). Do you like or agree with the pianist's interpretation of every bar, every phrase, every minutia?

I certainly don't when I think of my favorite. I probably disagree with the articulation at bar x, or the rubato at bars x-y, or some other minutiae here and there.

Then why do I still consider the performance and the pianist superlative? That's because of the totality of his musicality and virtuosity, which is predicated on his level of secure technique and memory, and the time he needs to prepare for such a performance (the less time he needs, the more capable he is).

There could also be a performance I don't like overall in terms of idiosyncratic interpretation (needless to say, there are many minutiae I don't like); however, if the performer's technique and memory are secure enough, and he doesn't need much time to prepare for that performance, I must admit he's a really good pianist.

Generically speaking, in higher-level study and pedagogy, teachers spend most of the time in lessons pointing out and "correcting" the interpretive minutiae they don't like in each piece students play, but teachers don't have effective instruction and advice for students to upgrade their fundamental pianistics (security of technique and memory, duration of preparation).

[dcstudio]

Interpretational minutia
Idiosyncratic interpretation

You consider the performance superlative? Do you mean superior?

Put away your thesaurus and just state your case or ask your question. What are you saying?

'

[vaniii]

My fellow piano aficionados, please think of your favorite recording of a monumental work (e.g., Rach 3, or Liszt B Minor). Do you like or agree with the pianist's interpretation of every bar, every phrase, every minutia?

I certainly don't when I think of my favorite. I probably disagree with the articulation at bar x, or the rubato at bars x-y, or some other minutiae here and there.

Then why do I still consider the performance and the pianist superlative? That's because of the totality of his musicality and virtuosity, which is predicated on his level of secure technique and memory, and the time he needs to prepare for such a performance (the less time he needs, the more capable he is).

There could also be a performance I don't like overall in terms of idiosyncratic interpretation (needless to say, there are many minutiae I don't like); however, if the performer's technique and memory are secure enough, and he doesn't need much time to prepare for that performance, I must admit he's a really good pianist.

Generically speaking, in higher-level study and pedagogy, teachers spend most of the time in lessons pointing out and "correcting" the interpretive minutiae they don't like in each piece students play, but teachers don't have effective instruction and advice for students to upgrade their fundamental pianistics (security of technique and memory, duration of preparation).

A good teacher concerns them self with giving their students tools.

There is no right way to play a phrase, but many acceptable compromises.  I tackle this by asking my students to play a phrase in a variety of ways determined by what is present on the page and listening.

More often than not, they will pick the most appropriate if they listen carefully.  A governing law of life, regardless of the situation, is that we will always find the most efficient way eventually.

The best teachers I have ever studied with guided my learning, they did not try to teach me anything.

That said, correcting should be kept to a minimum; simply pointing out 'mistakes' is not a useful exercise.  Highlighting a point of error, and getting the student to think about how it can be improved would be more useful; after all, do you always want your student to ask you: "Is that correct?"

[brogers70]

My teacher does, certainly point out issues of articulation and phrasing and little details all the time. But she's also just as likely to ask me how I conceive of a piece as a whole, what I think I should do to make it all hang together and give it coherence. Recently had a long discussion about the first movement of Beethoven's Sonata #12 in Ab as to whether the variations were expressing sincere emotions that Beethoven felt or were intended as play-acting or even caricature, or some mixture of both possibilities and how the answer would change what sort of sound I should aim for in the different variations. I can't speak for other students, but my teacher certainly sees both the forest and the trees.