# Fundamental problem with higher-level piano pedagogy



## Fenestella

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. I probably disagree with his articulation at bar x, or his 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.

Speaking from experience and observation, in a generic setting of higher-level piano study (e.g., in a conservatoire), the teacher spends most of the time in lessons pointing out and "correcting" the interpretive minutiae he/she doesn't like in each piece the student plays, but the teacher cannot give effective instruction and advice to upgrade the fundamental pianistics of the student (security of technique and memory, duration of preparation).


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Fenestella said:


> 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. I probably disagree with his articulation at bar x, or his 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.
> 
> Speaking from experience and observation, in a generic setting of higher-level piano study (e.g., in a conservatoire), the teacher spends most of the time in lessons pointing out and "correcting" the interpretive minutiae he/she doesn't like in each piece the student plays, but the teacher cannot give effective instruction and advice to upgrade the fundamental pianistics of the student (security of technique and memory, duration of preparation).


I wonder if it's always a matter of "cannot". I was never conservatoire standard so I can't speak from experience, but I'd imagine such places expect a very high level of competence in such matters already before the student even arrives and it's perhaps not surprising that they'd spend the majority of their time developing subtler elements of the musician's art. If a student needs more than minimal guidance in the basics, should they have been enrolled at a conservatoire at all?


----------



## Fenestella

Animal the Drummer said:


> I wonder if it's always a matter of "cannot". I was never conservatoire standard so I can't speak from experience, but I'd imagine such places expect a very high level of competence in such matters already before the student even arrives and it's perhaps not surprising that they'd spend the majority of their time developing subtler elements of the musician's art. If a student needs more than minimal guidance in the basics, should they have been enrolled at a conservatoire at all?


 You're idealizing the fundamental pianistics of generic conservatoire-level students.
Generically, in a conservatoire, only the few top students have the technique and memory secure enough to publicly perform a piece like Rach 3 (or Liszt B Minor, etc.), and the time they need to prepare for such a task varies, could be forever; average students are simply unable to tackle a piece like that, which the teachers can't help to enable.


----------



## Taggart

Fenestella said:


> 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).





Fenestella said:


> Generically, in a conservatoire, only the few top students have the technique and memory secure enough to publicly perform a piece like Rach 3 (or Liszt B Minor, etc.), and the time they need to prepare for such a task varies, could be forever; average students are simply unable to tackle a piece like that, which the teachers can't help to enable.


I think you've answered yourself. The difference between a good pianist and a great pianist is not just technique it's also musicality - the ability to understand the composer's intentions and translate them into a performance. Simple example might be Gershwin where he has a lot of enormous chords - runs of octaves and tenths. OK good octave work will help but as the man said - it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. That's something that can't necessarily be taught. Lovely comment from Liszt on this - 'Do I care how fast you can play your octaves?' he once thundered… 'What I wish to hear is the canter of the horses of the Polish cavalry before they gather force and destroy the enemy.'

Technique does play a place - you can look at the exercises by Tankard who was a professor at the London College of Music for example then there's Hanon, Czerny et al. Do you need technical exercises, scales whatever ro will the pieces do it for you? That's your judgement.

When it comes to memory, what are you talking about - muscle memory or knowledge of the score or both; and which method works best for you? Can you scan a score and remember it or do tyou need (lots of) analysis to master it. Do you prefer to play through a piece many times to get it under your fingers? These are the sorts of things that a student must learn about and not something a teacher can necessarily help with.


----------



## Fenestella

Taggart said:


> I think you've answered yourself. The difference between a good pianist and a great pianist is not just technique it's also musicality - the ability to understand the composer's intentions and translate them into a performance. .


A generic piano teacher thinks he understands the composer's intentions best.
A generic music critic thinks he understands the composer's intentions best.
Invite them to listen to a recording (without telling them who the performer is) where some details are quite a ways from what the printed music suggests or how they are supposed to be played (dynamics, rubato, pedaling, etc.), after they decry the performer's poor understanding of the composer's intentions, reveal to them the fact that the performer is the composer himself.


----------



## hreichgott

Reading between the lines here. 

First, it's important to seek out a teacher whose artistic approach you generally admire, even if you wouldn't make every decision the same way as the teacher. If the student doesn't like the teacher's approach at all then there is indeed little to gain.

Then, it's important to try things the way the teacher asks. I know we all form opinions on our own before bringing a piece to the teacher and many of us end up arguing with the teacher because we got to like our opinions better than what the teacher is asking for. (I certainly have.) But it's much more productive for our learning to try things another way. That is how we learn to take in new ideas. Even if we end up playing the piece one way in lessons and a totally different way in every performance forever afterward, we'll still have learned something. Definitely more than we'd have learned from just arguing.


----------

