I am about to read Pianosophia (technique and art) by Paolo Spagnolo and Giovanni Stelli; it seems compelling to me given the succinct explanation provided in "musical supports" "The text explains how the opposition between piano technique, identified with a complex of psycho-motor skills, and interpretation, entrusted to a so-called 'musicality', is a false opposition. And this is because all technical problems are set up and resolved starting from the music: indeed, from the very first exercises, the problems of interpretation present themselves and develop." I find these words to be genius.
I agree with the Authors, even though I haven't read this essay. I have always, in my view, maintained that Music can dictate technical solutions...."thank you," said the skiing student, while the teacher shouted to close the skis—don't get angry, dammit!—thank you, you know how to ski!!!!! He wanted to shout: think, you just have to think!!! But it seems like Columbus's egg!!!! So what? It is true that "the field of interpretation remains a significant minefield". By listening a lot, trying to understand the phrasing, developing musicality, enriching familiarity with the Author's writing style etc.. And through "music" one can find technical solutions. Even Arrau and a few other Greats said this in an interview. Often it is believed that these Greats affirm this... precisely because they have overcome all problems... but how to overcome them? We could spend our whole lives playing all the "technique" books all day, every day... but without solving the problem. Sometimes, I believe, one can attempt to solve a difficult passage by putting our "possibilities" at the service of the music. We might discover that by modifying a weight, a position, or marking certain accents and/or arriving early on a chord, this allows us to overcome the passage. Often, for example, playing with lightness allows us to glimpse the "micro-movements" necessary for the speed of that passage and also "sketching" the solution can help us "enter" into the right solution gradually. As far as my own personal experience is concerned, I found myself with passages that seemed insurmountable and I discovered, back when I was a student, that I was insisting on repetitive practice, demanding, for example, perfect note definition. I remember one of many: the end of Pagodes, the first of Debussy's three Estampes, which you can listen to in the Recorded Audio section from one of my live concerts. I decided to surrender completely to the lightness of the forearm and seek the right, yet present sonority necessary and sufficient to accompany, in the manner of an arabesque, the theme, for the last time and with a sense of distance, enunciated by the left hand. At first, naturally, because the micro-movements were not correct, they generated disturbing accents, but after a bit of study, the balance of the hand and forearm perfected themselves following the needs of "Music". Little by little, all the notes became more uniform, albeit in a "background" setting. The choice of dynamic layers also helps. Listen to the final chords: to arrive at the pianissimo with three p's, it was necessary to choose a starting "piano" that was not too soft. I discovered, in fact, that what governed the effect was not so much the absolute "color" of the "piano" as much as the difference in the succession of dynamic layers. The small Yamaha grand piano was not of great help to me!!!! So I asked the technician at the time to sensitively adjust the escapement distance and to lighten the repetition springs.
