How Many Hours A Day......

At least half an hour, 3/4 of an hour a day...... my teacher always says to always do daily technical exercises before starting to study pieces.

Having a good technical level is essential to be a modest pianist... one must always play while carefully checking that the technical gesture is correct even from the first speeds.....that is what my teacher always tells me.

She has never made me do Hanon or Beyer exercises (at least for now)....but I have done many Czerny pieces and many piano technique exercises.

An old Church organist once told me "technique is the means to achieve the end"...from this, I believe that in order to succeed in playing the piano professionally, it is indispensable to have a good technical level.

Musicality is an innate ability that is forged through study and listening....I read in a book that classical music is that with the highest musical level and I fully agree.

So to be a good musician, it takes soooooooooooooooo much study, passion, and intelligence!

(Three things are necessary for a performer: intelligence, heart, fingers - Mozart -)

This is more or less what I have understood from my humble experience......looking forward to new opinions that will surely be interesting! see you soon 😕

DanielePiano wrote:

(Three things are necessary for a performer: intelligence, heart, fingers -Mozart-)

Very good! He thinks well about what Mozart wrote and especially about the order!

Well, guys... well!!!!!! Go, forward!!! Other opinions!!!!!!

When talking about order, the first thing that comes to mind is Bach!!... in this regard, I recommend watching this interview with Ramin Bahrami, who certainly knows how to speak better than me!! 😕

Open content (youtube)

DanielePiano wrote:

When talking about order, the first thing that comes to mind is Bach!!... in this regard, I recommend watching this interview with Ramin Bahrami, who certainly knows how to speak better than I do!! 😉

This pianist's interview is absolutely stunning, ...oops sorry, I meant musician! 😕

I agree with him 100%; music is a universal language because it breaks down any ethnic, social, racial, religious, linguistic, cultural barrier, etc... and penetrates the soul of every living being! Beautiful words and a great artist, whom I didn't know; his way of communicating with sounds rather than with a mechanical instrument deeply touched me!

Returning to the theme of the thread, in my small experience, I admit that during the first few months, partly due to passion and enthusiasm, I studied 4/6 hours a day every day, but lately I have looked more at quality than "quantity"; I have taken to heart the warning of my teacher who says: "Better half an hour done well than 6 hours done poorly!" Regarding technique, it's true, there are different schools of thought as I have also read in some books: those who say that technique is acquired by diving straight into compositions without any kind of preparatory exercise like Hanon, Pischna, etc... and those who instead consider these methods valid; both paths aim to eliminate the technical concerns of the performance difficulties encountered in a score, but I wonder what dangers technique can have on music? Because if I am not mistaken, technique is within music, not outside of it, or am I wrong? I mean, one must know how to do the technique, or must one know how to make music? Happy to be proven wrong by my immature ideas and happy to mature with your authoritative opinions!

Thanks to Paolo for this beautiful discussion!

Davide

Open content (youtube)

PianoScholar wrote:

Returning to the theme of the thread, in my small experience, I admit that during the first few months, partly due to passion and enthusiasm, I studied 4/6 hours a day every day, but lately I have looked more at quality than at "quantity"; I have taken to heart the warning from my teacher who says: "Better half an hour done well than 6 hours done poorly!" Regarding technique, it is true, there are different schools of thought as I have also read in some books: those who say that technique is acquired by diving headfirst into compositions without any kind of preparatory exercise like Hanon, Pischna, etc... and those who instead consider these methods valid; both paths aim to eliminate the technical concerns of the performance difficulties encountered in a score, but I wonder what dangers technique can have on music? Because if I am not mistaken, technique is within music, not outside of it, or am I wrong? I mean, one must know how to do technique, or one must know how to make music? Happy to be proven wrong by my immature ideas and happy to mature with your authoritative opinions!

Thanks to Paolo for this beautiful discussion!

Davide

Hi Davide,

I believe that everyone has their own learning method and their own inclination toward studying a subject as intense and massive as piano technique. I therefore believe that one cannot draw up a universal table of commandments to follow to define a perfect technical path. Moreover, I believe this also depends heavily on the anatomy of the hand. We do not all have the same hand! There are those who naturally have looser ligaments and wrists and those who are stiffer, those who have a very large hand and those who have a very small one. Therefore, thinking of standardizing piano technique for all these types is a highly controversial subject. You have rightly illustrated different lines of thought: the first which says that one must ignore technique to move immediately to performance, and those who instead interpret it as the Our Father and the Hail Mary of the rosary. In such distinctly extreme cases, I always refer back to the Latin maxims: "In medium stat virtus". Virtue, the right way, is in the middle... It is unthinkable to start playing without having any kind of technical foundation, which gives you finger independence, the split between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, fluidity, etc. etc. But it is also absurd to use technique as a Chinese torture. Instead, I believe that technique should be studied side by side with performance, which suggests the technical principle to adopt in certain situations, but to do this, obviously one must know technique (and with this I refer back to the first example). As you see, then, things are bijectively linked and one is not at all the corollary of the other. By doing too much technique, one loses out on interpretation because the pianist's attention shifts psychologically more toward cleanliness. It is also true that on one hand, one must dive in! You certainly cannot spend 1 year on a single page of Mozart!! And it is this tendency towards the realization of the piece being studied that provides the starting point to be able to overcome particular passages that themselves suggest the specific technique to adopt. In short: a pianist who respects himself must certainly know piano technique in the smallest details but must not make it an instrument of self-torture. We are musicians to play, not to do technique; let's give the right importance to things!

Best regards,

TheSimon wrote:

Hi Davide,

I believe that everyone has their own learning method and their own inclination toward studying a subject as intense and massive as piano technique. Therefore, I believe that one cannot draw up a universal table of commandments to follow in order to define a perfect technical path. Moreover, I believe this also depends heavily on hand anatomy. We don't all have the same hands! There are those who naturally have looser ligaments and wrists and those who are more rigid, those who have a very large hand and those who have a very small one. Therefore, thinking of standardizing piano technique for all these types is a highly controversial subject. You have rightly illustrated different lines of thought: the first says that one must ignore technique to move immediately to performance, while others interpret it as the Our Father and the Hail Mary of the rosary. In such distinctly extreme cases, I always refer back to the Latin maxims: "In medium stat virtus". Virtue, the right way, lies in the middle... It is unthinkable to start playing without having any kind of technical foundation, which gives you finger independence, the separation of the right hemisphere from the left hemisphere of the brain, fluidity, etc., etc. But it is also absurd to use technique as a form of Chinese torture. Instead, I believe that technique should be studied side by side with performance, which suggests the technical principle to adopt in certain situations, but to do this, obviously, one must know the technique (and with this, I refer back to the first example). As you see, then, things are bijectively linked and one is not at all the corollary of the other. By doing too much technique, one loses out on interpretation because the pianist's attention shifts psychologically more toward cleanliness. It is also true that, on one hand, one must dive in! You certainly can't spend 1 year on a single page of Mozart!! And it is this tendency towards realizing the piece that is being gradually studied that provides the starting point to be able to overcome particular passages that themselves suggest the specific technique to adopt. In short: a pianist who respects himself must certainly know piano technique in the smallest details, but must not make it an instrument of self-torture. We are musicians to play, not to do technique; let's give things the right importance!

Best regards,

Thanks Simone!

You also touched on a very particular point that sometimes escapes us: playing any instrument is also an anatomical factor in expressing what we have inside; truly, I hadn't thought of that. And then I believe that technique begins only with a simple gesture, in pressing a piano key, and ends with the way that key was pressed, but in the middle of that gesture there is a universe! 😕

Dearest friends,

Each of you has given me a gift. Hearing these responses from young people entusiasms me. Already the fantastic interview of the great Musician suggests many answers to us, but you have confirmed them. Perhaps the time has come to make a first video on the principles of ....musical.... and ...pianistic technique.

Together we will review everything that has been said, along with some other convictions of mine. Do you want to?

If so, I will do it soon.

Compliments on your observations and reflections.

Paolo

pianoexpert wrote:

Dearest friends,

Each of you has given me a gift. Hearing these responses from young people thrills me. The great Musician's fantastic interview already suggests many answers, but you have confirmed them. Perhaps the time has come to make a first video on the principles of ....musical.... and ...pianistic technique.

Together we will revisit everything that has been said, along with some of my other convictions. Do you want this?

If so, I will do it soon.

Compliments on your observations and reflections.

Paolo

Absolutely yes Paolo, for my part I am in eager anticipation of these videos! I can't wait! 😕

All right. I will do them. I will do them with great respect for everything that has already been said by many others. Mine can only be a point of view, a connecting link. What the interview confirms regarding my convictions is that, first and foremost, one must become "musicians". I too, like my distinguished colleague, am opposed to any "practice" that places the student or the already trained pianist "far from Music". One must never forget that it suggests solutions to us!!!!!! Working hard on the musical aspect makes us grow more than three hours of "sterile exercises" a day. The two things (the mechanism and musical technique) are linked, yes, but the "light" only turns on when we do not lose sight of the fact that we are making Music and that for that purpose we "use" our instrument. The Maestro's observation is absolutely correct: he "looks at" the Musician and not just the Pianist.

In short, we will talk about it.

In the meantime, I will continue to gather indications from your questions and observations to approach and choose the various topics.

Dear Paolo, dear friends,

I have just come across this very serious discussion and I greatly appreciated the beautiful interview published.

My ideas stem from long ago and, in an attempt to explain them, I will start with an example A ): 2+3=3+2=5.

We all believe we know this, but how many would agree with me that B ): 2+3 not = 3+2 not = 5 ?

Well, if we are counting, A is true and B is false; but if we are walking first forward and then to the right, A is false and B is true; in fact, 2 steps forward and 3 to the right brings me to a different point than 3 steps forward and 2 to the right, and the distance I have moved away is not 5 (5 is the number of steps taken).

In short, the symbols in the absence of an interpretation mean absolutely nothing, because they do not transmit information, but only misunderstandings.

And interpretation means nothing other than communicating and evoking in others sensations and feelings that are hoped to be common, but which could also be quite different! (how many times is what we say misunderstood?).

Only in the presence of an interpretation that is considered reasonably shared can the meanings represented by symbols be discussed, never forgetting that (assuming there is a reality) reality is not the symbols, but only the meanings that the symbols attempt to make accessible.

This is why there is no technique outside of music and, anyway, symbols (durations, notes, dynamics, etc., up to the movement of hands on the keys) are only tools for a, hopefully, easier communication of reality (not the one we claim exists independently of us, but the one that is created in our so-called mind).

Simon rightly cites, referring to the hand, anatomical differences, but let us not forget that among these are also cerebral ones! We assume that brains (thought) are all equal, but perhaps it is only true that they perhaps resemble each other a little!

Therefore (starting from the basics), not only does everyone have their own training path and/or finds their own technical solutions, but everyone also has their own musical sensibilities!

Does this mean then that music is "relative"?

Well, yes, I confess, even music, like any form of human activity—artistic, humanistic, historical, economic, positivist, etc. etc.—is nothing more than the world that is in our personal perception of the intellect (be careful not to assume that it is real!).

But, so what? Why play? Why compose? Why express oneself?

Very simply, because this is how we tend to understand more and better and, ultimately, to improve our race.

Finally, regarding the wider dominance of music over other arts or human activities, I believe it is nothing more than a "beautiful illusion"", which I too love to share. It is worth remembering here Giambattista Vico, for whom Music belongs to the first stage of the evolution of human language; which then leads to its wider dominance.

Let us not forget that perhaps the only human activity without boundaries is the cerebral one, since each language (and therefore also musical, pictorial, poetic, mathematical, etc. languages) is just an attempt to define symbols and an interpretation to communicate.

And so? Nothing, just follow what makes us feel better day after day and do not be enchanted by false prophets!

In other words, seek oneself and be proud of who one is and what one does.

For me, this means that when I play, if I am moved it is music (mine) and if I move others it is music (others'); when I read a score enjoying it it is music (mine) and—listen, listen—one day a lovely lady, passing by me while I was reading a little something by Grieg, told me that I had a happy face (we had a music of our own).

Just a moment. Just a moment......

Dear Gennaro,

First of all, I remain admiring of these profound considerations of yours.

I strongly agree on some, ...less so on the "relative" part.

Art, in general, in my opinion, is not just what is beautiful and makes us happy. Sometimes it is unpleasant, denunciatory, heartbreaking... it makes us suffer.

I agree on our improvement through practicing Art. Emotions, moods... our entire emotional heritage must be known by us. And what better way is there than through an artistic and non-verbal language like Music? Music was born with man.

However, I would use the term "coherent" instead of "relative".

Let's take a piece: how to recognize if an interpretation is acceptable and right, even in the midst of many other different yet equally correct ones? ..Precisely through coherence. There is a way of expressing Art, and Music in particular, that accounts for coherence. Artists know the elements of this coherence, the dosage of ingredients, the right amount of "sugar". Not always what appears pleasant and causes us pleasure, ecstasy, or well-being is artistically correct. We could say it makes us feel good. Okay. But it is something else.

For example, in the study of Music, as the young and very talented Maestro in the interview implies, one must have a Musician by their side—someone who, regardless of their "greatness," has trained and grown artistically with coherence and knows what is in the "room" of musical ideas and decisions. Interpreting the "codes" is not enough... one must reach the point of penetrating and understanding the reasons and motivations that led the Author to compose that piece, with that tempo, with that phrasing, with those agogic indications.

Perhaps we have spoken much about this in person, and I believe the novelty you present to us is "becoming better" by breathing, once in a while, those languages rich in eloquence, which suggest to us and color our lives.

I greatly appreciate this intervention of yours, full of profound sensitivity. Perhaps we have just touched upon an "infinite" discussion that I hope we will have the chance to continue.

.......What a wonderful group, dear friends.

Greetings to all

Paolo

Dear Paolo

Thank you for your frequent comments.

But beware: just because something is relative does not mean it should be frightening: it only means that it does not exist independently of our minds, not that everyone thinks or acts as they wish. In other words, we must be careful to the fact that it can manifest in different ways in my mind and yours. For this reason, communication and ethics in interaction with others are important.

Regarding the impression that for me Art coincides with Beauty, I believe I have given a wrong impression.

Pleasure is not necessarily Beautiful: for example, being alive can be a painful pleasure.

On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, the great Oscar Wilde asserted: Before judging a masochist as aberrant, ask yourselves if it does not give him pleasure.

Regarding coherence, attention: it is, as you realize, exactly what I say: it is a discourse entirely and solely internal to You. You know if it is coherent for You, but you have no guarantee that it is for everyone else. If it were not so, we would be lucky and tens of thousands would intervene at Your concerts like at a stadium (Author's note: Instead, only some football matches provoke musical emotions).

A fraternal greeting

What a beautiful exchange of opinions... May I intrude?

The discussion regarding the relative (which, by the way, we also had that evening during dinner at Gennaro's) is very dangerous, because it opens up a vast world of considerations, among other things relative from person to person. The concept of coherence that Paolo mentions is correct in my opinion, but it must be taken "with a grain of salt" since even this can be seen from a relativist perspective. What may be coherent for me might not be coherent for someone else. If we all had the same coherence, there would probably never have been wars, or they would have always existed, who can say? Reading the motivations that led the author to compose a piece does not give us the solution to the problem because we who read are not the author and there is no way to know what their feelings were at that moment; certainly, it can be of help, but even knowing the history, due to a genetic code factor, I cannot be certain of feeling the same sensations as the author or deeply understanding their idea at that moment. The demonstration of the relative can be seen every day in all fields of intellectual interest and beyond. I might notice a man wearing a balaclava and say he is a robber, but maybe he just had a cold because it's February 15th! (Always take the essence of what I say). The extreme is touched upon exactly with what Gennaro was saying: we consider masochists crazy, but the solution lies in the term itself (masochist = one who feels pleasure while experiencing pain), therefore even physical well-being is relative. We don't understand it because we are not on the other side and we have no psychological point of comparison to understand what, for us, does not represent a reality. Another question could be: who can assure us that we all have the same way of perceiving reality? That shade of Red I see, will it be the same shade of Red that Paolo or Gennaro or Saverio or Davide or any other person on earth sees? Who tells us that even the 5 senses are common and work in the same way in all people? And assuming they are, who assures us that our 'I' interprets a signal received from the senses in the same way? By multiplying the 5 senses by the genetic code of each individual, we have billions of possible combinations. Citing the "way of expressing art" and "coherence," when speaking of Art, seems a bit reductive to me. And of course, there must still be a limit within the relative, a limit where the majority of people are found (in the example mentioned before, masochists are excluded as they belong to a specific class), as I also maintained that evening at dinner, it is unthinkable to overturn an author's idea! (In this regard, a pianist comes to mind, "Milena... I can't remember her surname," who recorded all of Chopin's waltzes in 4/4. Whether it was the habit of always having listened to the official versions or my musical taste, in my opinion, they were terrible! Perhaps the masochist liked them, just to stay on theme).

I don't remember which of the two spoke about one's own music and the music of others. I agree up to a certain point. As far as I am concerned—forgive my lack of altruism—I play music for myself. Stop! I don't care if my interpretation is shared by others, especially because music is the last field left where one can say "who loves me, follow me." Playing for the pleasure of others, besides being conceptually wrong, is also reductive towards music itself. Should we perhaps conduct a preventive statistical analysis before preparing a piece to ensure it pleases the largest number of people? (Do not read this sentence literally, but try to grasp the essence). In the end, Einstein spent his life discovering that the speed of light in a vacuum is an absoluteconstant, then groups of madmen arrived with electrosynchrotrons and hypothesized tachyons that would invalidate this hypothesis... Who knows if even Einstein's absolute will turn out to be a relative!

These are obviously just my opinions... What can I say? This is how I live life, reflecting and reasoning logically on what is right for me and respecting others according to my civil and moral norms. Is it right? As you can see, everything in this reality is relative...

P.S. I love talking with you all, dear friends; one always tackles topics of a certain caliber.

I was particularly struck by a statement made by Maestro Ramin Barhami in the published video: ....to give shape to one's own passion! This expression eloquently summarizes the sense

of the discussion that developed between Pianoexpert, theSimon, Gennarino, and PianoScholar. I strongly agree with the substance of what Pianoexpert asserts, namely that to find the right expression for one's own performance, one cannot do without "form," i.e., the analysis of what an author has written, seeking interpretation through the decoding of the musical writing.

Personally, I struggled for years trying to refine my vocal technique, thinking it was fundamental to achieving those artistic results I aspired to and toward which my

musical sensitivity led me—which, in part, I believe I have always been naturally endowed with, but in part sharpened by attentive listening, not only to the greatest voices of the past, but also to much

classical and other music. Only at an alas advanced age have I understood (clashing more and more often with reality and trying beyond certain resistances I had previously opposed to listening to what my teachers told me in this regard) that only through understanding the "intentions" of the author, inherent in the score we are analyzing, can one find those technical solutions that the piece itself suggests. Clearly, those solutions can be applied with results that vary according to a scale of intensity that depends first and foremost on the degree of knowledge and artistic maturity possessed, beyond certain too-easy "personalisms" behind which, at times, unpreparedness and/or simple incapacity hide. Great authors intended to leave to posterity, and not just to their contemporaries, an artistic heritage that is not only representative of their emotions, and therefore does not legitimize us to want to express our own at all costs when we prepare to re-perform one of their works with little humility. A work of art is such because it goes beyond the emotional spark from which it was generated, and its universally valid contents are such precisely if one learns to read and decode the meaning of what the Author wanted to express. Ramin Barhami always says that even in Bach's music, which is less rich in technical indications for its performance, it has been possible to reconstruct the musical interpretation intended by the Author and thus decode the scores through what was said in treatises from the Bach era. What would this have served if not to allow each of the future performers of these masterpieces to perform them correctly, even if within an interpretive scope that cannot and must not, however, disregard their philological meaning.

I believe that everyone is saying the same thing, but perhaps we are analyzing samples of different sizes. I, and I think Gennaro too, am talking about interpretative nuances while staying within the original meaning of the piece. It certainly isn't being said that one can take the liberty of playing Chopin like Bach!!! The point is that, beyond objective considerations from the interpretive writings of the era that help us in this decoding—as Barahmi suggests—I believe that the nuances are then subjective in nature and therefore relative from person to person. And this is confirmed by the fact that every interpretation performed by a pianist is never equal to the next; I believe this is a matter of fact. After all, we aren't computers. My reasoning is therefore based on nuances. I don't think I have been clear enough on this point.

Guys... what a beautiful discussion!!! 😉

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Pianoexpert: the question "how many hours a day do you study piano?" seems to make no sense: music is not a crazy race of "who is better" ... furthermore, each of us needs different amounts of time to study the same piece, also depending on our tastes, our habits ... Certainly, to play the Piano one needs solid and well-acquired technique... but that is not all that makes the pianist ... as Mozart said ... "An executor needs only three things: intelligence, heart, and fingers." 😕

furthermore, I would like to join the opinion of the interviewed pianist (Ramin Barhami), who maintains that music breaks down all linguistic, cultural, ethnic barriers ... I remember once a friend told me: "If I sit at the Piano and play a sad and melancholy melody, even my cat becomes uncertain and calms down ... If I play a joyful melody, then, he won't stop jumping around the house!!!". In fact, let's think about it: what is it that manages to communicate to everyone, different people, different cultures ... without the need for "a vocabulary to understand each other"? Some say "painting", and certainly it is, but ... my friend's cat in front of Munch's "The Scream" did not react strangely ... he didn't react at all!! 😉

Now, let's forget about the cats... 😉 If a person does not know the subject depicted in a painting, it doesn't have much effect ... Perhaps this is the main difference between music and painting: in the former, for the listener, it is not necessary to know what a color value, a slur ... or a piano hammer is! In the latter, instead, it becomes more difficult to communicate if one does not know the subject represented... What do you think? It's just my idea, so you might not agree with it ... but after all, we are here precisely to exchange ideas and opinions ... right?

I would also like to compliment Gennarino for the splendid example he gave us ... "My ideas start from afar and, in an attempt to explain them, I start from an example A ): 2+3=3+2=5."

We all believe we know this thing, but how many would agree with me that B ): 2+3 not = 3+2 not = 5 ?

Well, if we are counting, A is true and B is false; but if we are walking first forward and then to the right, A is false and B is true; in fact, 2 steps forward and 3 to the right brings me to a different point than 3 steps forward and 2 to the right, and the distance I have moved away is not 5 (5 is the number of steps taken).

In short, symbols in the absence of an interpretation mean absolutely nothing, because they do not transmit information, but only misunderstandings.

And interpretation means nothing other than communicating and evoking in others sensations and feelings that are hoped to be common, but which could also be quite different!"

I also share Simone's idea ... "As far as I am concerned, forgive my lack of altruism, I play music for myself. Stop! I don't care if my interpretation is shared by others, especially because music is the last remaining field in which one can say "who loves me, follow me". Playing for the pleasure of others, besides being conceptually wrong, is also reductive towards music itself."

I would also like to add something of my own, so I stop "copying" from others: All this discussion, in my opinion, encompasses the "Why we compose" (I always invite you to the discussion I opened in "Harmony and composition") ... perhaps "only for ourselves", or perhaps "to express ourselves in a universal language, which goes far beyond languages, cultures, ethnicities... perhaps it even goes beyond the greatness of all Humanity..." ... and then, even the ancient Greeks considered music a divine gift, superior to Man ... 😉

Compliments again, I love this type of discussion where opinions can truly be exchanged, and I extend my compliments once more to Paolo and Simone, who make all this possible in a society that seems to want to definitively marginalize culture ... thank you very much!!!

That's all for now, but I will certainly respond to this discussion again ... it is truly interesting! 😉

Bye!!!

Francesco 1797

Um... excuse me, maybe I went a bit off topic, I'm only realizing it now.

As far as the actual technique and my experience are concerned... my teacher (the last one I had, you already know the story 😆) used to tell me to do half an hour of technique (I mainly used Beyer and Cesi-Marciano) before playing. It was certainly boring, and sometimes it even made me lose the desire to play... in any case, I played anyway afterwards. But now, since I am no longer taking lessons, I have realized how important those little half-hour sessions spent on technique were: I am studying Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata," a piece that fascinates and inspires me, also at the request of other people who like the piece. And, returning to the subject, while studying I noticed how now, after four or five readings of a passage, it comes to me—perhaps not perfectly, but it comes (as far as details are concerned, I think I am like Beethoven: I "polish" passages for a while until they are fluid and smooth... I always tell myself that "I must make the notes come out of the staff through the piano, passing through me" 😆). Bye! Francesco 1797 Paris

PS Other opinions! 🙂

Hi. I am arriving last and I think the discussion has gone a bit off from what Paolo was reflecting on at the beginning, right? After all, these are the developments that arise, aren't they? Are we musicians or not? We were actually talking about technique, if I remember correctly.

I think in a very simple way that when a series of sounds reaches my ear, I listen more closely, and these sounds are arranged in such a "right" way that my eardrum receives incredible sensations. These enchanting sonorities then make me forget they have reached me, just as they make me forget how they were arranged in such a wise and persuasive way to involve me in that manner and listening. I listen further and everything spreads into my heart, taking me by the hand and guiding me on that wonderful journey that unfolds as I imagined it but without having known it, and I feel that this incredible music speaks of nothing but me! Of myself. Without ever having known me! It is my deepest and most intimate of feelings moving and traveling with these notes, and in that moment I can no longer understand where it began or where it will end, and I am left bewildered and moved before something greater than myself: "Music!".

Perhaps in the end it is only this but......... However, whoever composed it did so knowing a harmonic grid, even if they may have manipulated it at their pleasure, perhaps letting the small fish out of the net to keep the big one or vice versa by tightening the mesh to capture tiny aquatic beings; and besides this, no composer who has written for keyboard (without exaggerating on some bizarre creation) has ever written things unplayable by the human means available to the pianist, for example "HIS HANDS!" and therefore even their compositional poetics had to somehow adhere to a piano technique, perhaps the same one the composer had. With enormous hands, certainly, one can conceive compositions with large developments over distances etc. This is to say that technique and poetics are children of the same mother, music! I think one must know how to lift their leg to climb the step, but nothing more! Whoever lifts their leg too much or too little will sooner or later fall.

Furthermore, I think that technical study should be directed towards a poetic idea or an interpretive idea of the piece. I will not use brilliant technical study if in the future the piece must have soft and fast sonorities, so to speak, seeking that this technique supports me in reaching an aesthetic-performative idea. I think it is an alchemy similar to grapes becoming wine or something like that. But the discussion would seriously lend itself to vast considerations. It is beautiful to talk with all of you and share. Thank you.