Curious scenario…

[jamienc]

So, I often browse YouTube for masterclasses given by famous pianists since I find them very interesting in both the way the master may teach a specific concept, and the direction upon which the master will drive the instruction. I have found that very much more often than not, the student in the masterclass is a super high-level musician with very few technical and musical problems, and the master will focus the instruction on interpretive issues that are (to me) obviously based upon the opinion of the master and their own personal taste in music.

I posted a comment in one of those videos recently, and I thought I might stimulate a conversation here to get your feedback on the nature of my post. My question is, wouldn’t it be much more instructive and beneficial for students everywhere to have a master pianist teach a student who actually has musical and technical problems? I understand that students placed before world-renowned pianists would want to be the best that the area had to offer, but I just wonder how much more benefit there would be to everyone if a “normal“ student was given instruction in a master class from someone like Lang Lang or Kissin…

The rationale behind my thought process is that pianists of all shapes, sizes, and ability levels might love some insight on simple concepts like articulation and dynamics (and how to physically achieve good results) as opposed to hearing interpretive practice on one passage of the piece being performed that is often high-level stuff that most students wouldn’t quite detect in the first place. For the sake of the argument, let’s assume the master is able to teach such things because they are fully aware of how they do it. Wouldn’t that be much better for young or developing musicians on the verge of quitting out of frustration?

I’m interested in the responses.

[brogers70]

I agree. You can find something like that (although not for piano) with Benjamin Zander's INterpretation class. The musicians are very good high school or college level musicians, but not at the level that would do a masterclass with Barenboim or Fleischer. Sometimes soloists, sometimes chamber ensembles. It is impressive how big an improvement he can get out of them in 30-45 minutes, and I find them quite inspiring. Here's a link to one at random. You can find lots more.

&t=2s

[fignewton]

Yeah that would be really interesting. If you search for masterclasses with college professors, they can sometimes be even more interesting than the ones with the concert pianists for the reasons you mention. Sometimes the student has some technical problems, and so the pianist will focus more on foundation kind of things instead of the interpretive aspects. But I agree that I'd love to see Kissin just giving a lesson on technical foundations or how he practices something like the Brahms Paganini variations.

[lelle]

Masterclasses are an interesting conundrum. I have participated in a few and watched many more. The problem is that it's just one lesson with no followup and there is only so much you can do in one lesson.

I have noticed that many pianists skip giving technical advice in masterclasses and I can sort of understand why. If there is a fundamental issue with technique I find it unlikely that it's something you can just fix in one lesson. And as I mentioned there is no followup so the pianist cannot check that the student has properly understood what they're supposed to do. I have made the mistake once of blindly trusting that I correctly understood technical advice I was given in a masterclass, and sadly messed up some aspects of my technique quite badly because of that (the advice was given by a very good pianist so it's me not understanding the advice rather than the advice itself that was the problem). In short, if somebody has big technical issues I don't think a masterclass is the proper forum for solving that. I remember another masterclass where we worked on chord technique and there simply wasn't enough time to look at it carefully and make sure I had fully grasped what I needed to do, we simply needed to move on to not have the audience sit and watch me trying to play a chord for an hour.

When it comes to musical issues it could work better, but at the same time I have noticed that when there are big musical issues with what a student is doing it often becomes clear that they're not really hearing what's wrong, and that it's yet again something you need to work on for many lessons, to develop hearing and understanding of how you even construct a phrase based on rhythm, harmony, upbeats and so on. Sometimes, musical issues are also an issue with technique, where you simply don't have the command over the instrument to easily produce the desired musical results. Then again, you can try to sort of chop away at it during a 45 min masterclass, but in reality, what's needed is to develop technique quite a bit further so the desired results start happening on their own. I can certainly relate to getting feedback on musical stuff I'm well aware of - like I could hear on the spot that the music didn't come out as I intended - but the issue was a lack of technical resources, not that I didn't know how it was supposed to sound.

With those things in mind, all that remains is to bring a student who is already quite skilled technically and musically to work on interpretation and understanding the particular piece using the experience of the master pianist, rather than working on fundamentals. The lesson tends to be much more productive in terms of quantity of information that gets worked through and relayed to the audience in those cases. And keep in mind, in many cases the purpose of a masterclass is often part lecture/entertainment, meaning that you want to keep things moving and give as much as possible to the audience.

To clarify, I'm not opposed to having masterclasses with students who have technical and musical issues. I'm just relating some of my experience of why these things can be problematic.

[fignewton]

Those are all great points, Lelle. I didn't really think of harm being done, but I can see how that could happen. And probably the more technical stuff is not fun for most of the audience. I just wish there was more info out there on how the pros go about polishing that last 5% and overcome plateaus in tempo. Something similar to that is this clip of Lazar Berman going over rhythmic exercises in Debussy's 7th Etude.

&t=70s

[anacrusis]

Those are all great points, Lelle. I didn't really think of harm being done, but I can see how that could happen. And probably the more technical stuff is not fun for most of the audience. I just wish there was more info out there on how the pros go about polishing that last 5% and overcome plateaus in tempo. Something similar to that is this clip of Lazar Berman going over rhythmic exercises in Debussy's 7th Etude.

Sorry for ressurrecting an older thread but I just wanted to add some input on this topic.

I think the unfortunate truth is that pros don't overcome plateaus in tempo, because they don't need to. They've mastered the craft to the point that playing as fast as is needed isn't difficult. Yes you might have to practice slowly or in fragments for a while to learn the notes and the patterns but that's it. Plateaus in tempo are caused by suboptimal technique and that's pretty much all there is to it. There is no quick fix to suboptimal technique other than working on your technique, preferrably under the guidance of someone who knows what they're talking about until it's not suboptimal anymore.

And if by polishing you mean polishing cleanness of playing, with better technique the less polishing is needed and the rest is taken care of by practicing so carefully and/or slowly enough that you don't make mistakes, and then you work 6-8 hours a day like a number of concert pianists do.

Someone can challenge or correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is not much more to it.

[fignewton]

I agree there is not an easy fix for technique, but I don't think you can group all pro pianists as having mastered the craft to the point where they stop worrying about polishing or technical limitations. For example, I am sure many pros would admire George Li's command of Chopin 10/2 and wonder how he practices it. Or same with Argerich's octaves..

I think I replied too hastily to the initial post. What I meant is that it would be interesting to me to hear Kissin work on just technical things with someone who already plays something like Brahms Paganini at a professional level. My guess though is that "overcoming" those last technical hurdles has less to do with dexterity, and more to do with having an extremely clear musical vision for each note. And going back to the original post, this is probably the reason most masterclasses do just focus on interpretive issues instead of mechanical ones. And of course, talent and consistent hard work are the main factors in overcoming plateaus. All that said, it would be really interesting to know how Kissin practices those left-hand 6ths, for example. Perhaps he practices them differently or to a different level of intensity than other pianists which allows him to attain his level of bravura.

Sorry for ressurrecting an older thread but I just wanted to add some input on this topic.

I think the unfortunate truth is that pros don't overcome plateaus in tempo, because they don't need to. They've mastered the craft to the point that playing as fast as is needed isn't difficult. Yes you might have to practice slowly or in fragments for a while to learn the notes and the patterns but that's it. Plateaus in tempo are caused by suboptimal technique and that's pretty much all there is to it. There is no quick fix to suboptimal technique other than working on your technique, preferrably under the guidance of someone who knows what they're talking about until it's not suboptimal anymore.

And if by polishing you mean polishing cleanness of playing, with better technique the less polishing is needed and the rest is taken care of by practicing so carefully and/or slowly enough that you don't make mistakes, and then you work 6-8 hours a day like a number of concert pianists do.

Someone can challenge or correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is not much more to it.

[ranjit]

My guess though is that "overcoming" those last technical hurdles has less to do with dexterity, and more to do with having an extremely clear musical vision for each note. And going back to the original post, this is probably the reason most masterclasses do just focus on interpretive issues instead of mechanical ones.

The reason teachers focus on interpretive issues in masterclasses, based on what I know, is because there usually isn't enough time to rework someone's technique in a masterclasses. That might take months or years, and so it's impractical to dwell on that. If there is a simple fix, teachers will mention that. However, most technical issues go deeper, and most people (although there are exceptions) aren't quick enough to understand a technical concept in 20 minutes. So teachers work on interpretation instead. However, the actual process of improving technique isn't about having clear musical vision in many cases, imo.

[lelle]

The reason teachers focus on interpretive issues in masterclasses, based on what I know, is because there usually isn't enough time to rework someone's technique in a masterclasses. That might take months or years, and so it's impractical to dwell on that. If there is a simple fix, teachers will mention that. However, most technical issues go deeper, and most people (although there are exceptions) aren't quick enough to understand a technical concept in 20 minutes. So teachers work on interpretation instead. However, the actual process of improving technique isn't about having clear musical vision in many cases, imo.

yeah that's my observation as well.