Music or Technique?

Demetrio, Welcome!

I was about to respond to your introduction when I saw your question.

And so?

It seems to me that you already have a ready answer yourself, so my advice is, as it should be, just a way to allow you to compare your ideas with those of others.

I notice that you have read the magnificent book by Gyorgy Sandor; a pupil of Bartok, emigrated to the USA and became an American citizen, in his book he does two things:

1. he addresses the problems of piano technique, correlating them to the physiological structure of man and to the activities naturally executable by such anatomy;

2. he describes a technique based on coordination and the absence of fatigue, which destroys the old prejudices of study done through toil (and not commitment, which is something different!).

With this book, he destroys learning theories based on long and burdensome hours of study, introducing a very healthy concept: that of enjoyment which, along with mastery and serenity, can lead to musical poetry.

It is not therefore just the fact that you work and that when you return you cannot start practicing technique.

The fact is that technique alone is useless and that music is not technique, exactly as mathematics are not numbers.

Furthermore, there are a lot—really a lot—of works that have as much technique as you could want and that, moreover, also possess an immense amount of pleasure when you are immersed in them (e.g.: Grieg Op. 40, Holberg Suite).

Sometimes, I confess, I too had to pass through the narrow corridor of technique, having started later in life and not long ago: for example, the first time I had to do a chromatic scale (Bb-2 octaves-Cb-return back). But, once I understood it, there was nothing left to do: the vast majority of the work awaited me, which was not technique, but making it sing as the composer intended (and perhaps they don't exist yet): a sweet, loving lullaby. Before, however, they were just sequences of impulses to the fingers, which is something else entirely.

As my great friend Paolo often says (I am paraphrasing him here, because part of the saying doesn't quite apply!), there are people here walking around with a suitcase full of brushes who desperately want to sell you what they have left, while you would like comfortable shoes!

In short, if you do not possess the music, you teach technique!

Anyway, if you are missing any of the 6 volumes of Czerny's 740 or 229, let me know!

I am joking, as always.

In reality, even our [composer] composed things to delight oneself with, such as the "Chanson sans Paroles" or the Fantasies Brillantes on Donizetti's Parisina.

Ciao, welcome again and see you soon.

Dear Demetrio,

you are touching on a hot topic. Forgive me if I don't answer you immediately, but the answer requires long articulation and at this hour.....

Perhaps I will make a tutorial on this subject, but not yet.

Anyway, I strongly agree with you.

P.S. Op. 740 is beautiful regardless. I wouldn't speak of exercises, but rather of real pieces of Music, to be performed and.. interpreted.

We will talk about Technique and Music

Ciao Paolo

Dear Demetrio,

I would like to respond to you in a more detailed way.

First of all, it is a good decision to have started studying again. I do not quite agree with studying with two different teachers. Sometimes there can be differences in views that would only create confusion.

In my approximately 55 years of Music, I have formed convictions regarding piano technique and more.

I will say immediately that a good Master is at the foundation of a good education. A good Musician also takes inspiration from a passage to talk about Music. And talking about Music means talking about the purpose we set for ourselves: making Music. Someone might say: "Fine, but to make Music or anything else I must know how to do it..." Of course, and so, the first thing is to start even from guided listening, especially from examples that the Master must make available to the student. From the very first study books, I believe, it is useful to identify the musical sense of small compositions, in order to be able to "motivate" the sound we begin to produce... which must indeed transform into Music. At the beginning, the hand will be deficient, like the voice for a singer, like the bow for a violinist, like the lip for an oboist. Musical thought will always be ahead of the "means" available, which we do not yet know how to use with mastery. So, certainly, at the beginning, there must be a period of "implantation" during which the Master suggests and transmits to the student the fundamental principles, from which they must no longer separate.

The choice of books and Authors of didactic books is important. What is important is their gradualness, because through gradualness skill grows in a calm way.

Many teaching methods separate the technical training period from the musical one. They separate them in time, such as daily or within the same study session. Sometimes some Masters do not go, for years, beyond technical study, demanding a sublime overcoming of skills from the student, announcing that only after that can one talk about Music. I have personally heard some Masters say that they do not teach Music but rather technique.

Technique comes from the Greek "Theknè" (I believe it is spelled this way...) which means "Art" "Art of doing" "of how to do"

Now, how can one learn how to do if we don't know what we have to do? It sounds like a play on words, but it isn't. I believe that only Music, the music we must make, can help us understand and suggest "how to do"

So what are the means to be able to do? Technique and Music marry perfectly; the text itself suggests which "gesture" to perform in a certain passage to achieve it with musical effectiveness. "Gesture". I call "fundamental basic gestures" those that we must perform to realize a fragment or a musical phrase. In this way, I strongly agree with Sandor in classifying some "elements" such as staccato, legato, pronation and supination of the hand, finger articulation, pressure, etc.... The right movement we must perform to find ourselves well ahead of the keys to be played and knowing where to create supports and lightenings that create accents... where contractions and releases... how to de-tension our muscles and generate energy from relaxation. These and perhaps many other principles to assimilate... and forever.

Very different is the discipline that for hours forces us to strengthen our fingers. Hours of exercises and studies of passages according to rhythmic variations that contrast with the original rhythm that must be executed. Furthermore, the panacea of slow study which should prepare for precision and infallibility during speed.

I wonder, for example, how one can learn to run by walking for hours!?

There is something, for example, beyond the "wall of speed" that can only be known... by overcoming that wall and "going to find" speed!

For now I will stop here, because I would like to talk about this in a video.

Dear Demetrio, personally I agree with your approach. One can study "technically" by playing. When we seek the right touch and the way to achieve the right sound.... etc.... we are doing "technique". Naturally, it is useful sometimes to separate a difficult passage, studying it "up close" and immediately, however, "reassembling it" in the context of the work.

Happy studying

Paolo

pianoexpert wrote:

Dear Demetrio,

I would like to respond to you in a more detailed way.

First of all, it is a good decision to have started studying again. I do not quite agree with studying with two different teachers. Sometimes there can be differences in views that would only create confusion.

In my approximately 55 years of Music, I have formed convictions regarding pianistic technique and more.

I will say immediately that a good Maestro is at the foundation of a good education. A good Musician also takes inspiration from a passage to talk about Music. And talking about Music means talking about the purpose we set for ourselves: making Music. Someone might say: "Fine, but to make Music or anything else I must know how to do it..." Of course, and so, the first thing is to start even from guided listening, especially from examples that the Maestro must make available to the student. From the very first study books, I believe, it is useful to identify the musical sense of small compositions, in order to be able to "motivate" the sound we begin to produce... which must indeed transform into Music. At the beginning, the hand will be deficient, like the voice for a singer, like the bow for a violinist, like the lip for an oboist. Musical Thought will always be ahead of the "means" at one's disposal, which we do not yet know how to use with mastery. So, certainly, at the beginning, there must be a period of "implantation" during which the Maestro suggests and transmits to the student the fundamental principles, from which they must no longer separate.

The choice of books and Authors of didactic books is important. What is important is their gradualness, because through gradualness skill grows in a calm way.

Many teaching methods separate the period of technical training from musical training. They separate them in time, such as daily or within the same study session. Sometimes some Maestros do not go, for years, beyond technical study, demanding a sublime overcoming of skills from the student, announcing that only after that can one talk about Music. I have personally heard some Maestros say that they do not teach Music but rather technique.

Technique comes from the Greek "Theknè" (I believe it is spelled this way...) which means "Art" "Art of doing" "of how to do"

Now, how can one learn how to do if we don't know what we have to do? It sounds like a play on words, but it isn't. I believe that only Music, the music we must make, can help us understand and suggest "how to do"

So what are the means to be able to do? Technique and Music marry perfectly; the text itself suggests which "gesture" to perform in a certain passage to achieve it with musical effectiveness. "Gesture". I call "fundamental basic gestures" those that we must perform to realize a fragment or a musical phrase. In this way, I strongly agree with Sandor in classifying some "elements" such as staccato, legato, pronation and supination of the hand, finger articulation, pressure, etc.... The right movement we must perform to find ourselves well ahead on the keys to be played and to know where to create supports and lightenings that create accents... where contractions and releases... how to de-tension our muscles and generate energy from relaxation. These and perhaps many other principles to assimilate... and forever.

Very different is the discipline that for hours forces us to strengthen our fingers. Hours of exercises and studies of passages according to rhythmic variations that contrast with the original rhythm that must be executed. Furthermore, there is the panacea of slow study which should prepare one for precision and infallibility during speed.

I wonder, for example, how one can learn to run by walking for hours!?

There is something, for example, beyond the "wall of speed" that can only be known... by overcoming that wall and "going to find" speed!

For now I will stop here, because I would like to talk about this in a video.

Dear Demetrio, personally I share your approach. One can study "technically" by playing. When we seek the right touch and the way to achieve the right sound... etc... we are doing "technique". Naturally, it is useful sometimes to separate a difficult passage, studying it "up close" and then immediately "reassembling it" in the context of the work.

Happy studying

Paolo

Which is the best explanation? Sorry for intruding, but the discussion seems interesting ... Paolo, I think the video regarding this will be welcomed with enthusiasm ...

I also share the technical study method "by playing", meaning trying to improve our technique while playing ... without excessive technical exercises like Czerny, which although sometimes "melodic and musical" I believe is still a "technical book"... though always necessary, even if perhaps we would gladly do without it... 😆

In any case, Demetrio... I saw that you subscribed ... you'll see, you won't regret it. That's all for now. Bye!!

Francesco1797Paris

Dearest Maestro Ferrarelli, I thank you for your authoritative intervention. It comforts me that the point of view I have formed on my own (but also by reading various books) finds you in agreement. I will certainly make a choice in September and follow only one teacher and....obviously the tutorials on the site (the Music Theory one is fantastic). So, in short:

analysis of the musical text to understand which technical formulas to use

in difficult passages, isolate the required technical module and study it separately in an appropriate manner.

Thank you for everything now....I'm going to practice ops! to play.

Study procedure:

1) first of all, realize the "character of the piece", read it, listen to it, love it, understand its musical meaning, ....

2) Then, if we are able to read it, begin to get to know it. Even studying hands separately is good, in fact, excellent. Even some easy passages can be played hands together. In this phase, in my opinion, acquaintance occurs, like between two friends. Through this phase, one must understand if that piece "is for us" or not, because, perhaps, it is too advanced or because it is not congenial to us. If we decide not to study it.... at least we have gotten to know it. (Of course.. we shouldn't do this constantly.. otherwise we will know a lot, but we will study and delve into very little) The Teacher must also intervene and, if necessary, advise the Student.

3) once this is done, one begins to divide the piece into sections (I will try to illustrate this in the video). For example, if it is a first movement of a sonata, identify the first and second themes of theexposition, then where the developmentbegins, where the recapitulationis, and where, within the recapitulation, the second theme reappears (which is what precisely in the RECAPITULATION presents itself in the home KEY)... This parenthesis is important!!!!! Even in Beethoven's early sonatas, some elements are misleading..... but this rule truly tells us where the SECOND THEME is. Then mark if the piece ends with a Coda.

4) Simultaneously with the third phase, identify the basic tempo and identify the rhythmic figures that seem most difficult to us. Before a solfeggio exam or before adequate theoretical preparation, which I recommend undertaking in parallel with instrument study, we will have some difficulty performing some or many rhythmic figures with the correct accentuation. It is the constant task of the Teacher to "supervise" and explain rhythm not only as "division (solfeggio)" but also as "interpretation" (for example, the same dotted figure, even within the rigor of division, can have an "heroic" or melodic character... etc., and for example, more or less accented and/or appoggiated......). It is better to examine all the "little problems separately (hands separate)"

5) Study can begin with small completed sections. I repeat: small. Always respecting the MUSIC. one phraselet + one phraselet = half-phrase. Half-phrase + half-phrase = Phrase. First hands separate and then immediately together. Small sections can be joined when they are truly known.

It is very important not to constantly move on!!!!! Think of a pot of water on the fire: what economy will we have if, while it is approaching boiling, we repeatedly turn off the fire?

6) in phase 5, the need to resolve technical problems or at least all those obstacles that arise in our "natural" path begins to appear. One must nonetheless "preciously save" (The Teacher must do this) what we naturally achieve. This applies to any level of ability. Some students or already trained pianists naturally and effectively use fingerings that are difficult for others. Every movement or series of movements (gestures) is different from pianist to pianist. It's fun to see how pianists with hands of different shapes differ in "gesture".... we will talk about this. In this phase, one must identify the fundamental basic gestures.... Well, this passage with rotation, that one with steady fingers and a bit of arm, that one with maximum pressure... shoulder involvement etc....... (The Teacher will habituate the student and use this "technical repertoire", which the teacher himself has already known in technical "manuals" and through the basic teachings of the Teacher himself, and will enrich it for the Student)

intermezzo: To assimilate a piece, two paths can be adopted.

- learn small cells by memory immediately, even naming them with letters or recognition signs. It becomes a game: Let's play A3 up to B1 now, etc...

- Always work in small cells, without ever leaving sight-reading.

I am opposed to an intermediate choice.

Personally, I believe that, even when adopting the second method, one must exercise memory, one must learn to play by memory, one must risk playing by memory.

Let's observe the phrase in French: "a memoria" = "par coeur".... perhaps when we know the work well by memory... it has truly entered "into our heart..."

second intermezzo: if we must test ourselves with memory... let's try to perform the piece from memory, hands separate..... we will discover some beautiful things!!!!!

7) now the piece is musically "up". Still some errors, small things or "little things to resolve" that we postponed. Music encourages us and during learning we must not, in my opinion, ever move away from it. The Maestro will give some examples and make us hear the difference between a good and a bad musical realization, suggesting phrases, the way to render them according to the Author's intention.

8) Perfection can and must occur by taking apart what is not working in order to understand, I say "understand" because that passage does not come or because we cannot play it with enough ease. Sometimes, this does not happen immediately. It depends on our maturity and the maturity of the piece. Indeed... Music is like a fruit... which even when picked... continues to ripen. Returning, after some time, to compositions studied in the past makes us realize that inside us, if well studied, a root has remained that has propagated and "ripened". Every now and then, even after having performed a piece in public, it is worth leaving it and studying it again after some time. Even the Greats did this. The great example of Bachaus, who in his life re-studied and re-performed, re-interpreting them, all thirty-two of Beethoven's sonatas and repeatedly the 5 concertos, must enlighten us.

I hope I haven't been prolix and boring.