Chapter 18

Ortmann’s work seems incredibly valuable… this was probably the most interesting chapter so far for me… I’d love to read his writings when I have some more time. I agreed with almost everything he wrote, and it’s good to see a lot of ideas supported with clear scientific data.

One thing that I am reluctant to agree with is his view on tone production… He writes that tone is only a result of the speed at which the hammer hits the string – so that the difference in tone is equivalent to the difference in dynamics, at least for any single note. Even though this may be proven and accepted as fact, I find it detrimental, in a practical sense, to how we approach playing the piano. Music must be expressive, not calculated in decibels. I would worry that if teachers do not believe differences in tone are truly possible they might try to teach students to interpret music by organizing the notes into a hierarchy of dynamics. We have to believe in “brilliant” vs. “velvety” tones on the piano – this type of interpretation will best result in achieving differences in tone color and expression. In other words, musical thought must dictate dynamics, rather than dynamics determining tonal contrast.

Ortmann also describes the differences between listeners’ reactions to music on page 440, suggesting that the visual aspect of the performer is largely responsible for often contradictory audience responses. I think the differences of opinion in judging a performance result from some people just being better judges than others, not to mention subjective preferences. People might differ in how they rate the visual aspect of someone’s playing, but still agree on the sound.

Matthay Addendum

There is, I think, a bit of an omission in Gerig's chapter on Matthay and the English School, particularly where the upper Midwest is concerned.

While Myra Hess is undoubtedly the most famous concert artist Matthay's teaching produced, one of his most important disciples deserves mention with regards to the piano landscape in the United States - Frank Mannheimer.

There is a great deal of biographical information on Frank Mannheimer here at the Matthay Organization website.

Of interest to those here in Iowa City is that Mr. Mannheimer, upon returning to the United States, taught summer classes at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, IA. He was concertized and taught in the Chicago area, and held additional classes later in Duluth, MN.

Among Mr. Mannheimer's students were John Perry (professor of piano at the University of Southern California, who also studied with Cecile Genhart, who I believe also has a Matthay connection), Constance Carroll, and Anne Kocielny (formerly at the University of Maryland.)

I would encourage everyone to watch this video of Anne Kocielny discussing Beethoven. At the end of the video, there is a brief clip of her playing, and I think you'll see in it some of the ideas that Matthay and Mannheimer cultivated in their students.

American Man Ortmann

Fortuitously on this week of April, on the 25th day, 2010, I have reluctantly absorbed some of the genius of Ortmann. So what, he performed some studies, who cares? I could do that. Ah, but alas, I have spoken out of turn, because I believe I have been outdone by this dear sir.

Apparently, Ortmann is one of the most influential scientists, and has done quite a number on our modern piano technique. My first critique, however, will be that he seems to be more of a scientist, than of a pianist. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, and his information can do nothing but help us! But I wonder, if one studies the exact mechanics and science of pianism to the extent in which Ortmann did, can there still be a natural freedom that comes along with playing the instrument? It seems to me that if one were to spend that much time dedicated to the pure mechanics, it could not only make you paranoid, but also completely in your head. In a way, I agree with some of his critics, that perhaps this could be too much of a mechanical approach, myself, being an "emotionally dominated pianist" as well. I think while we can learn from his extensive work, it needs to be taken, like everything else, in moderation.

For example, we don't tell our feet to move, one at a time, left, right, over and over again to walk, they just do it. Our brain sends signals so quickly, we can't be consciously aware of everything! And just like walking, we don't think, A, C#, E over and over again to form A Major arpeggios, we can just think A Major, and BAM, we do it. I'm not trying to discredit his work, because it's incredibly fascinating to see how even the best pianists can have completely wrong perceptions about what is going on in their body while they play(p.420). My argument, or rather, question is, does it matter? If you can't play the difficult passage, thinking about thousands of seconds in attack time and minute differences in degrees of attack angle can't do much but frustrate you. The only way that we all figure out the difficult passage, for the most part, is to sit with it until we figure out what the problem is, in our individual body which is different from everyone elses, and keep making adjustments until we can do it.

This said, there are many, many interesting points in the chapter which I think we can all benefit from. Such as,

A. Massage may help relax the ligaments and muscles, creating more freedom in the joints (p. 416).

B. Muscular activity should not be carried out beyond moderate fatigue. Incorporate rest periods in practice.

C. Weight transfer demands fixation of joints, not relaxation

D. Teachers should train resistance in opposition to the desired movement. VERY INTERESTING.

E. Free arm drop has no use in piano technique other than for an exercise to feel relaxation.

F. Strong fingers for arpeggio, and arpeggio-like passage work.

G. Our fall-boards suck. Also, why don't all of the practice rooms have adjustable benches? I mean REALLY. After all of this work?

H. And finally, " Purely gymnastic training of the small muscles of the fingers, hand and forearm, in order to increase their absolute strength, is, therefore, from a mechanical stand-point, highly desirable for piano technique.

That's it, I'm going to the gym!

Chapter 18: Ortmann: Piano Technique Comes of Age

It seems interesting that we have moved from the invention of specific devices that attach to the piano to a specific piano (The Tekniklavier) designed for specific practicing. The Tekniklavier sounds like a good idea for passage work, but almost seems like a revisitation of the finger school.

It seems like piano schools just exploded in America, and became popular after World War I. I find it strange that piano was centered in Europe for hundreds of years, and in a few decades some of the most prestigious schools in America were established.

I find Ortmann's work fascinating. I have often considered pursuing such research myself in attempt to combine my love of music and interest in science (which I will be graduating with a second degree). Since studying piano at Iowa and gaining more awareness of my body and how it works while playing the piano, I have wondered if it was possible to enhance my understanding from a scientific approach.

I think the importance in Ortmann's method is not necessarily being able to understand all of the science, but to be exposed to it to have a more clear understanding of how our joints and muscles work. Knowing that muscle-tone does not allow for complete relaxation, and knowing the range of motion for a particular joint are all very helpful in playing the piano. A very basic knowledge of these concepts can save one from injury. I found the point on warm-ups to be interesting. Many authors of methods presented previously suggested daily warm-ups for specific amounts of time, but never really gave reasoning beyond limbering the fingers or to build finger strength. I think it is an important point that our muscles, nerves, and therefore, reflexes will work much better when vascularized, and these warm-ups will increase vascularization to the areas we use most when playing piano.

I thought it was particularly interesting that Ortmann claims that a teacher moving a students finger or arm won't be trained because the muscles are not being engaged, and if a teacher wants to teach a certain movement they should put force in the opposite direction of the movement desired in order to engage the muscles needed for the movement. Also, thinking about which muscles are best suited for certain movements can be helpful. Smaller muscles are best used for rapid and small range movements, and larger muscles for power and wide range. I think this can be helpful, particularly for the rapid movements as we often cause more tension by thinking it takes more power to play fast, and therefore, use the wrong muscles.

Ortmann's explanation of coordination and incoordination are interesting. Prior to reading this passage, I had tried to identify places in the music where I could take a second to relax, but never thought about the relaxation that occurs (or should occur) after each movement. Perhaps if we thought of using the smallest and shortest amount of contraction possible, followed by relaxation after every note, our playing would be more fluid (or coordinated) and certainly be less worry for injury.

It is interesting that Ortmann believes that the variances in tone production between two pianists are in the different lines of their movements. I appreciate his very scientific views and also his considerations for musical art. I did not find his explanations dry, and felt that his research in the end was to explain the variances between artists and maintain the heart and soul of music making.

Chapter 17

This chapter is quite a conclusion of the previous ones. After the explosion of the ‘golden period’ of numerous renowned pianists, then the decades of intensive studies on piano studies, Matthay finally decided not to again establish a ‘new school’ or ‘new technique’, but instead comment and criticize the former studies. By doing this he finally was the very first one to have try to embrace all those diverging schools of technique and make a balance among them. I think Matthay has done a pretty good job in this respect despite the super long and clumsiness in his literature.

Yet this is not the heart of his thought. The real innovative idea by Matthay I think is the thinking of being a pianist both inwardly and outwardly. He is simply saying we should be a truthful pianist inside out. I think the table he used to illustrate this matter is pretty clear listing out everything we as a pianist should know and should do. I wish I could have learnt this table earlier in my life, though maybe I won’t be able to comprehend it back then. Curious though, did Matthay have this sort of table in mind in his piano studies to list out the hierarchy of how he should learn or think while playing the piano? It would be interesting if he really did..

I didn’t ever relate tone with harmonic and overtones. I believe there’s some truth inside this thinking but I also am not totally convinced by Matthay’s suggestion. Absolutely agreeing though it’s achieved through different speed of the key hitting the strings. I think this is an interesting topic to study more on.

Chapter 17

I think Matthay is important for his efforts to scientifically approach and solve problems in piano playing and document the results. Apparently he “could not leave a fault uncorrected.” This pianistic perfectionism is something I also strive for – that any mistakes encountered must be given full attention. If something is unable to be corrected in one session due to time, it must be remembered and attended to later.

I also agree with Matthay that in general we should try to keep the fingers in “constant contact with the keys.” Townsend also writes that the best touch is one which produces the least amount of noise when the finger contacts the keys. This might seem obvious enough, but it is a useful reminder for me, since sometimes I will forget about keeping close contact with the keys when playing.

On page 373 Matthay talks about how every note must fit perfectly in time in relation to the whole piece of music, and therefore we must constantly have the entire piece conceived in our mind. I know I could benefit from working towards this type of memory, as sometimes I find myself just thinking about which notes come next. This relates to rhythmic precision, in which imperfections are often a result of a lack of mental concentration, I believe, rather than “trained” fingers.

English School

This chapter emphasized on English school, Matthey's Act of Touches. On page 374 shows the entire structure of the Matthey's system. His system includes intellectual and emotional perception, controlling key treatment and physical executions.

 

The chart for theoretical intensity of the partial tones of strings is really interesting to me (on page 377). Although we always mentioned the tone, no one really formulate it to the accurate statistics before Helmholtz. Of course, no one would recall these statistics in this chart when we need a kind of tone. But it helps us more understand the tone color if someone investigates and explains the length of time piano hammers remained in contact with strings which determines the nature of tone quality. In a sense, Matthey likes a physicist who attempts to investigate the nature of musical sound and the structure of piano itself.

 

Hand position is an anther important part in the Matthey's system. Matthey mentioned two opposing finger attitude, the thrusting finger attitude and the flat finger attitude. I don't both of these two finger attitude should be put in an opposing position. In my opinion, both of them are acceptable. Which finger attitude should be used totally depends on what kind of the tone you want and what kind of piano you play. I think the flat finger attitude only works well on a more sensitive piano. And flat finger attitude should employ with weigh touch by lapse arm support. To me, I prefer natural hand finger attitude, an attitude between thrusting finger attitude and flat finger attitude.

 

I think arm rotation is very important. If I am not able to employ front arm and rotate it when I play the piano, it must cause lots of stiffness and makes some hand motion on the piano hard to do. Arm rotation helps us to have good muscle coordination and relaxation. But I couldn't understand how to have an invisible rotation in fast movements. It is impossible to feel the arm rotation when I play a fast finger passage.

---

更多热辣资讯尽在新版MSN首页！ 立刻访问！

Chapter 17

I found Matthay's level of detail to be somewhat overwhelming at first, but also helpful. There are so many factors involved in playing the piano and his breakdown of these factors is a good starting point for developing awareness of them. Although it is sometimes difficult to explain and understand by written or verbal explanations on performing music, attempting to do so at least encourages further thought on the subject.

Matthay's belief that good position is a result of proper muscular actions rather than the opposite, where position allows for good techniuqe was interesing and does make sense. Good position must be maintained throughout playing and there will be variations in the position depending upon a given passage. However, it would be difficult to encourage good technique in a student without first giving them some basic guidelines on what to strive for in regard to position. In reference to technique, he also made the point that it is a means to achieve a musical goal--anthoer good point that coincides with his belief in a method of teaching rather than a method of playing. The approach will vary according to the music and the performer.

He was also very concerned with timing and placement--each note should be played at the correct moment with the exact quality desired with the ultimate purpose of creating a unified whole. I like his use of the word "shape" when discussing this. The word is used frequently and can be somewhat vague, but I do think that a performer or listener gets a sense of shape through good performances; it becomes more than a series of sounds.

A Musician's Sentiment

Matthay was indeed, the most important figure of the chapter, with overabundance of charts and writings, I was definitely impressed, and completely altogether terrified by the sheer volume of the sort. A fact I find most promising is that Matthay began his intensive study of the piano technique by listening a great pianist's playing (Rubinstein) (p. 370). The best way for us to advance our technique is to listen, to ourselves and to the great masters, a fact Matthay himself encouraged.

Matthay was a proponent of a great many things, including, most interestingly in my opinion, the speed of attack. It's possible that the idea has been toyed with before, but no one before Matthay has made such an impact on the connection of attack and tone production. Many of his ideas are useful, and the knowledge and constant evolution of attack types can shape great musicians. I would argue that Matthay's principles could be more helpful for slower tempos, when one is trying to create a sweet, or "sympathetic" tone color, which is what he seems to talk about, for the majority.

The main problem that I have with this school of thought is that it is just that. Thinking. Yes, thoughts are definitely a part of piano playing. But categorizing 42 specific varieties of touch? In my opinion, no one will particularly benefit from that. Matthay himself claims that all of the techniques form into one once we are in tempo and in front of an audience. So why not spend more time listening and less time writing? Matthay of course, advocated much listening, and I'm sure, has a counter argument for my argument, but while I find many of his writings fascinating, I think that about 90% of what I read was pretty much useless (but perhaps this is because I also don't completely understand it).

The emotional side; which I would argue is very closely related to the intuition of pianism; is in a separate, very small area on the left side of his chart on page 374. It is labeled under conception, separated from the other half, execution. Is the purpose of creating a "sympathetic" tone not because of the emotion that inspired it? Isn't emotion one of the MAIN factors, contributors, and dare I say, the main point of most pieces of music? How can it then, be separate from execution? Of course we wouldn't be able to play if we were completely overcome by emotion at all times, but isn't the main point of music to relay our heart, and perhaps an infinite amount of mechanical actions all rolled into one?

For me, the most powerful musical statement is that of emotion, rather than a perfect technique. But that is just my opinion. I don't believe that Matthay was creating an unmusical method, but I believe that some ideas were too convoluted. As Ching says later, Matthay couldn't help him, he had to figure out the problems himself. This doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with Matthay's system, but it just illustrates how everyone's experience is different. Matthay was so specific, and yet, it still cannot work for everyone. In my opinion, there is no point trying that hard to explain incredibly subtle aspects that anyone who will ever understand them will have to figure out, for the most part, on their own. I believe that teachers can guide, inspire, and challenge, but when it comes down to it, if you're going to master something, you are going to have to do most of the teaching yourself.

Insert witty title here.

Wow. There was a lot in this chapter about Matthay. He was quite the prolific man and had some interesting things to say about technique. I like his chart about Conception and execution and how it breaks down. He said we shouldn't hit or squeeze the key as it affects our tone production. He tried to advocate weight and relaxation in a more convincing way than Breithaupt. As far as clarity in articulation goes, he blows Briethaupt out of the water. But as far as being able to execute everything, it's not exactly possible. I liked that he said technique is so much more than posture, position and movements.

While reading this chapter, I realized why so many treatises lost favor. Because it is so hard to articulate exactly what you mean without some form of demonstration or individual instruction. This means we will all have jobs in 50 years because people will not be able to teach themselves. *Whew*

He seemed like quite a successful teacher. His suggestion to practice slowly with exaggerated gestures is quite practical and beneficial. As you progress in tempo, the gestures shrink to they point where you can't really see them at all, but psychologically they are still there and aid in relaxation and ease of execution. He also emphasized the importance of listening as we practice and perform. In this book, we've seen just about every technique possible (aside from extended techniques of the 20th and 21st centuries). To resurrect Ivan's question, What technique is right? Well my answer, whatever technique works for you. We all have our individual tricks that come from many different techniques and different style periods. We're all eclectic technicians, and I wouldn't want or expect anything different.

Information Vegetable, Animal, and Mineral

Back in the day, the English were a wild set, always fighting wars, writing bawdy plays, beheading people, and marrying multiple times (two of King Henry VIII's six wives were named Anne, incidentally, proving he had at least some taste :)). But as the centuries progressed, they got a good deal more straight laced and proper, culminating with the nineteenth century and the reign of the intensely decorous Victoria. This taste for the correct carried over into the English piano school, and in particular the teachings of Tobias Matthay.

Matthay was extremely interested in the science and mechanics of playing the piano. At what velocity and angle do we hit the key for a certain tone, and how, having struck the key, do we release it? He had a great many theories and exercises on these points, most of which seem a little incomprehensible and beg the question; are we to be expected to think of all of these things in the split second we hit each note? Matthay himself admitted that his species of touch all blend together when a pianist is playing real music. What is the point then? Other than that we should all experiment with and think about how we are hitting the keys, I think that it is good for pianists to have a basic working knowledge of the mechanism of the piano. It only makes sense, if we know how the key mechanism works, we will be able to do more with it.

What interested me in particular about Matthay, however, was his chart on p. 374 of Gerig's text, outlining the different elements that go into playing the piano well. I like how he differentiated the emotional aspect of interpretation from the intellectual aspect. While it is extremely important, and I would say indispensable, to have a firm grasp on and conception of the emotion in the music we are playing, it is also vitally important to have a firm grasp of the music on an intellectual level. To understand, as he says, the form, the phrase structure, rhythm, etc. This is what separates us from Liberace, ladies and gentlemen. This, and another one of his sections on the chart; artistic-judgment. It is vitally important that we know when enough is enough. The only way I know to study this aspect is, what many of the musicians in this book have already recommended; listening to other great performers, and to singers.

Perhaps, if we pay close attention to these aspects, and to tone production, we will reach an emotionally complex and yet precise art at the happy medium between Henry VIII and Victoria. Cheerio!

In addressing Matthay and his methods one thing that stuck out to me was the fact that Matthay arrived upon his teaching methods from making a study of Anton Rubinstein’s playing. Matthay says, “I found he [Rubinstein] played a great deal getter than I did. So I discovered many things in listening to him, which he perhaps could not have explained to me” (370). I think this goes to show just how much we can learn and take away from just observing and listening to pianist better then ourselves.

Is it always necessary to follow an exact method school? This is one thought I had while reading the summary’s of The Act of Touch and also how Matthay put great emphasis on both weight and relaxation because he was still haunted by the old German school of finger technique. All methods seem to have both good and bad side to them. This is seen just in the German school and the repercussions it had on those like Matthay and Breithaupt and there over emphasis on relaxation sometimes. On the other hand Gerig points out that Matthay was constantly stressing the importance of listening, “sensitive listening throughout is coupled with sensitivity in the touch” (393). I would say that I agree with this. The ear holds a lot of power. But not all methods work for the same people. As a teacher do you encourage your students to use their ears more and to practice slowly and critically? Or is there technical form more important and understanding how it is that they are making those sounds?

I liked what Matthay's student had to say about his teaching, "Technique takes on another meaning in that it reveals to us the impossibility of separating technique from Music...which union forms a perfect marriage never to be dissoved" (394).

The English School

"The noise of the blow of the finger spoils the tone quality". I really agree with William Townsend's saying from his book 'Balance of Arm in Piano Technique'. I think it is dangerous if we make a sound using just fingers. The sound might not loud and the sound might be too hitting sound. I think we have to use arm, shoulder and wirst if we would like to make a loud and deep sound. On the other hand, he tells that the fingers must be kept in constant contact with the keys in finger action. I was little confusing about that. How do I understand his meaning? Do I need to make my fingers diligent? or do I need my fingers to stick in the keys? I think if my fingers stick in the keys constantly it might little hard to play freely.

Also, he emphasizes about true independence of the fingers. The most important thing is if the piano player feels easily, comfortable and freely when they are playing in terms of the true independence of the fingers. Therefore, it is important for student to learn this technique and posture at the begining of playing the piano. Also, I need to always think that "if the finger is raised above the key, the balance is destroyed because of the resulting tension." My fingers usually are raised up when I play the piano and it causes more mistakes and too light sound. Above all, the fingers become too moving if the fingers are very raised up. Then it is difficult to use arm and wrist and it causes the lack of sound. I think it is one of the my main problem so I will keep thinking about that so that I could avoid the lack of sound.

Chapter 17: The English School: Matthay; His Pupils and Colleagues

The main point of Townsend's book is arm balance, however, I have concerns with his statement regarding finger independence. He states, "The training of the hand therefore, must, from the beginning of study be based upon the idea that movement in any finger which causes simultaneous movement in any other finger is not independent enough." Perhaps it was not yet known that the third and fourth fingers share the same tendon, and that isolating the movement of the fourth finger in particular would likely cause strain or injury. The main concern with the statement is the lack of clarity in the type of independence desired. I believe that if all the fingers are in contact with the keys, depressing the fourth finger without movement of the other fingers will not be harmful, but the potential problem is when lifting the fourth finger independently. Even though Townsend emphasizes the fingers remain in contact with the keys, an extra clarifying sentence would have been helpful.

I admire Bauer and the self-taught nature of his playing. One comment I find particularly important even for pianists with formal training is this: "There was the preconceived idea of a certain kind of tone and it was necessary to find the gesture that could produce it." As pianists, we may have the sound we want in our head, but do not always know how to create that sound. I think there is a lot to be learned by discovering the technique needed to produce the desired tone by experimentation rather than specific directions from our teachers.

Moving on to the method of technique presented by Matthay. I think it is interesting the he looked to the studies of Helmholtz in order to decipher the variances in tone production. It is probably possible to differentiate between famous pianists just by listening to them, as they each have a very individual sound. However, I am not convinced that there is a complete scientific explanation to the differences in tone between Chopin and Liszt or any other two pianists. I realize that it is the way in which a key is struck that produces the tone, but I think the differences come from the various thoughts and images associated with a particular piece of music (and it's notes), and for me, it somewhat cheapens the listening experience if one tries to codify the weight and distance require to produce exact tones.

The "Key-Treatment from its Muscular aspect" contained a particularly interesting point: "The third Species is available in either of two Subgenera: either as 'Weight-touch' or as 'Muscular touch.' This, because the combination of the three components may, in this Species, be started either (a) by Weight-release--that of the arm, or (b) by Exertion--that of the finger and hand. The first makes for roundness of tone; the second for brilliance and even hardness." I had never really thought before how different types of tones are produced, and was probably something I did subconsciously, or without thinking about the actual mechanism of doing so. In thinking about this statement, I came to agree with Matthay in that tones produced with arm-weight have more of a round sound, and if I want a more brilliant or harsh sound, the action comes more from the fingers and the hand.

I appreciate that Matthay viewed technique as a means to a musical objective, and that the technique and interpretation of music go hand in hand. I also found it to be interesting that he seems to have been a nurturing teacher who aimed to inspire and motivate his students.

Chapter 16

It is obvious that Gerig does not think very highly of Breithaupt’s method, probably because of its drastic exaggeration of arm involvement and relaxation… but I think his method is useful, not in spite of the exaggerations - but because of them. Breithaupt “goes as far to the left as the stiff finger school went to the right,” which I think was a natural (and essential) historical progression. Had Breithaupt not been so influential pedagogically, I think it would have taken much longer for pianists to take full advantage of arm weight and relaxation. After he went to such extremities, other pianists could more quickly realize the practicality and necessity of a compromise between the previous “finger” schools, and Breithaupt’s seemingly “anti-finger school.”

I like a lot of ideas in Breithaupt’s method. He is concerned with avoiding straining the hand in daily activities, and conditioned himself to be very relaxed at all times. As with anything else, this may be taken to an unhealthy extreme, but even simply recognizing unnecessary amounts of tension in holding a pencil, for example, can be quite helpful and applicable to piano – it has definitely helped my own playing.

I do not like how he would often keep the piano lid closed. I think this suffocates the sound… In any case, pianists should practice playing correct dynamics in the most natural acoustic setting; the ear should dictate the volume level, and not the piano lid.

It was interesting to try a few of Breithaupt’s exercises in the chapter. In general, I definitely lost some dynamic and rhythmic evenness when playing with so much arm involvement and so little finger movement. Of course, that is only after trying the method once, so I’m sure with some practice it would become better. The exercises that focus attention to a single finger bearing the weight of the arm are useful, and I think still applicable today. The least these could accomplish is heightened awareness of the shoulder, arm, wrist, and hand. This is important because we must know how everything interacts in order to play with “economy of motion” as Godowsky describes, or as Breithaupt put it, to “waste no energy.”

Chapter 16

Briethaupt loves weight! His weight technique is certainly worth a place among all other methods. In my opinion, his studies have successfully brought out the idea of playing piano with the least tension. This is the basis of arm technique. Breithaupt has indeed gone to the extent of ‘no muscular movement’ which we all knew it’s a lie. But the microscopic analysis of the arm movements is definitely worthwhile to explore on. It’s true that among his books he published, he included quite a number of confusing ideas, yet the scientific observation is definitely very beneficial to all pianists. As a pianist I found myself too overly relied on feelings and lack of the cold-blooded scientific analysis of my own arms and also the instrument. Doing what Breithaupt suggested us to do might be a bit too much but having more knowledge of how our joints and muscles work while playing the piano would surely help improving our piano playing. As if we’ve discussed before, if we all have more critical self analysis and awareness towards our physical actions during practices, we could have saved a lot of time hitting our heads towards the wall.

There’re a couple of things that I am not totally agree with Breithaupt’s teaching. First I think the extent of relaxation is exaggerated. At some point I think he’s even suggesting anti-gravity, almost like your arms can float if you back off the muscular force. ‘Controlled weight’ sounds more realistic to me. The other thing I disagreed on is taking the weight technique totally out of musical context. I think technique always goes with what’s happening in the music. It is what the music demands the arms to do. At times we might need pure technical studies to brush up our tools, but we can never learn which tool to imply without learning music. Breithaupt’s studies neglected the necessity in knowing the implication of different techniques according to the musical context. In lack of this part of training would also resulted not being able to identifying the ‘good’ tones by ears, or even creating the sound image in the head before actually playing a piece. Also the attempt of giving everything a terminology complicates things. Maybe this is Breithaupt’s trick to make his studies sound more professional.

In my experience, learning and feeling the participation of arm weight in piano playing is a pretty abstract thing. But I think every instrument have its abstract part. For me, sometimes thinking of other instruments’ technique and sound might help in capturing the arm technique in piano. I also believe this is a life-long process. There’s not a point that ‘you now qualified as a perfect-arm-technique pianist’. The last thing I want to mention here is that the training of the arm weight couldn’t be separated with listening. After all, no matter what technique we’re applying on the piano, it is the sound produced that we want. We need to be first able to identify what good and bad sounds from the instrument first, then have the desire to produce that sound out of the musical context, and lastly know what technique to apply and execute it accurately.

Relax!

I think it is very helpful to be aware of the transfer of weight to the fingertips. I am not sure it is so good to be relaxed that you would not be able to hold a cup of tea though. Playing with a relaxed arm definitely makes it easier to produce a good sound, but I don’t think you can only rely on relaxation to make a beautiful sound. It has to come from ones ears first. Also, I don’t think all compositions require a relaxed arm. I would think Beethoven would require slightly less than perhaps Chopin and Prokofiev at times need a very percussive sound that needs a very direct or even stiff attack.

I think a potentially bad thing about Breithaupt’s school is the over emphasis on relaxation. We need some tension in playing piano. If you are too relaxed you would not be able focus on the most important aspects of music, which is surely the interpretation thereof. I would rather listen to someone that interprets music or “tells a story” or keeps me interested than to someone that looks very relaxed and comfortable at the keyboard. There are many pianists who seem very comfortable at the piano but the music seems to be easy as well. (If that makes any sense) I have also seen pianist that look less comfortable and with a slightly imperfect technique that could play very well.

I have benefitted greatly from ridding myself of tension at times, but it has not been the most prominent aspect of my practicing and playing. I sometimes see pianist that seem very relaxed and everything comes across so easy that I wish I could play like that. On the other hand it sometimes looks as if some pianists, that are “super relaxed”, just don’t care.

I went to a concert in Cleveland where I heard Radu Lupu perform a concerto with the Cleveland orchestra. He sat and walked to relaxed it seemed as if he just woke up or as if he is on his way to bed. Even after he played he stood up and walked of stage like he just had a snack at a coffee house! I think relaxation must be part of one’s practicing but it should not be the most important aspect of you playing.

Breithaupt and Weight Technique

In this chapter, weight technique was advocated by Breithaupt's school. It emphasized on arm participation, weight and relaxation. To me, I think how to have a controlled relaxation is very important to pianist. It not only helps us to create a good tone but also protects us from getting tired and hurt when we practice. Proper posture and hand position could make a totally different tone.

 

 I do believe in "relaxed weight". Carreno mentioned   "the secret of power lies in relaxation."  In a sense, playing piano is a kind of physical exercise for human being. Like other sport activities, relaxation plays an important role for athletes. Unfortunately, before the end of 19^th century, very few of people really noticed this and most of them more focused on fingering exercises. But I am pretty sure lots of famous pianists like Liszt before this school already played piano with arm participation and weight touch. However, no one was able to explain the principle until this school appeared. Frankly, I really get tired to read too many fingering training methods in the previous chapters. To me, this chapter is a new milestone in the development of pianism.

 

Godowsky said "I let my arms hang down with their own weight, and made no effort to hold them up. In short I was playing with relaxed arm weight." Also, I prefer "low seat". It makes me feel more comfortable and relax to play the piano.

 

According to the hand position, on page 340-341, I was totally trained by old methods in my childhood. But I can't play in "good pose" like the chapter indicated. I tried and felt very strange when I play in this posture. Also on page 345, I also can do Low-Fall, but can't do High-Fall. My wrist can't hold that high when I play the piano.

 

 

 

 

 

---

聊天+搜索+邮箱 想要轻松出游,手机MSN帮你搞定! 立刻下载！

Relaaaaaaaaxxxxxx Man.

This chapter was all about weight and relaxation, two supposedly different things that made up the same technique. Carreño was smart to discuss 'controlled' relaxation in her teaching to distinguish from the impossible total relaxation of playing. I really liked what I read about Godowsky, and wish there would have been more about him. He admitted that there was much more to playing the piano then just weight and relaxation and Breithaupt would have learned much from him...

My general impression of the Breithaupt method: meh. It wasn't all bad, but it when it comes to putting some of his ideas in to practice, it just isn't realistic. If there were no difference between the theoretical world and the actual world, perhaps his method would hold water. But this isn't the case. Good things were talking about "bridge support." I liked that he would have students practice this away from the piano. I learned this a different way and perhaps more effective but I still liked it and think it is very important to have proper bridge support in playing. Also, having students practice the rotations away from the piano is very helpful, and it worked for me. He took being relaxed to the extreme and while in theory it is a good idea and something to think about, it's physically impossible. Some of the weight technique would allow for freer playing but I think this sacrifices accuracy. The biggest thing to take from his method is the encouragement for arm participation as we wouldn't be able to play piano without arms....

Chapter 16

In general, the advocacy of relaxation is a good thing about Breithaupt's method. To a degree, his instructions on relaxing the arm, keeping fingers more or less curved, flexibility of the wrist, and arm rotation contribute to a more efficient, less tiring technique than the then wide spread high finger technique. The presentation of his method in a book is also important, as this allowed for wider dissemination and popularity of the principles. He was not the first to teach principles of relaxation, but is, perhaps, more responsible for making it better known.

The most basic fault of the method is the extent to which he carries relaxation. The degree of relaxation encouraged is not realistic, as Gerig frequently points out. In the exercise on p. 343 on playing and releasing keys, he writes that this must be done "without any contraction or muscular resistance..." However, movement of any kind requires muscle contraction. He also suggests eliminating "all mechanical finger-exercises" including scales, because the purposes of these exercises are achieved by using weight. (p. 355) It sounds appealing but impractical. Relaxing does not magically resolve technical problems; it takes practice to learn how to use it effectively--even for scales.

From the start I had trouble with his suggestions. In the exercise for realizing weight by supporting your arm with your hands and fingers on a table (p. 339) I was not able to fully transfer the weight of my arm to my hands without my elbow making contact with the table. With using only rotation to play a five-finger pattern (p. 349), it worked reasonably well at a very slow tempo but not at all at faster tempos, as Gerig also noted.

There are times, though, when he acknowledges that there can be a balance between arm weight and finger playing, particularly on pp. 355-356 when he calls his method a starting point--that one must learn relaxation before fixation rather than the other way around. I do not know if this is true, but it at least demonstrates that he knows that some tension is beneficial.

Although Breithaupt was influenced by Carreno, I think she, Levinskaya, and Godowsky were more on track. Carreno believed in "controlled relaxation" and Levinskaya's method from a previous chapter sought to combine high finger and weight, which must have been somewhat influenced by her visit to Breithaupt. And Godowsky believed in an eclectic approach. While it would have been nice if he had written a book on technique, his hesitancy is understandable considering the breadth of such an approach.

Breithaupt:"Seriously people, relax!"

What does "the profile of a musician" look like, anyway? What defines it? What features stand out? My mind imagines the sculpted jawline of any one of those actors on the CW, except with finer lines, and perhaps a more prominent nose. Whatever a musician's profile is, I'm pretty sure I don't have it, but I do know, because Florence Leonard told us, that Rudolph Maria Breithaupt did. He also had a very popular piano method which influenced the technique of his day, and which provoked a rather vitriolic response from our esteemed author, Reginald R. Gerig.

Before we get into Breithaupt, however, we find out a little about the other pianists and pedagogues of his day. What Godowsky said on the nature of technique versus virtuosity is interesting to me. If we look on technique as encompassing all aspects, including artistic, of good piano playing, then the term is not quite as upsetting as it is if we associate it more with scales and doubled thirds. Also, his exhortation to listen to oneself and to emphasize all musical ideas clearly, so the audience can understand them, is good. I find often that what I feel is enough voicing, or sufficient cadence, when playing to myself, is not nearly enough when I record myself and listen from the perspective of an audience member.

Moving to along Breithaupt himself, however. Although Gerig deplores Breithaupt's inability to notice the fallacies inherent in his writing, there is still something to be learned from this extremely relaxed, 'weight' technique. One of the most important points in this chapter is on page 343 (after depressing the key) "leave the (finger) hand on the key and let the descent be followed by instant relaxation." The hand, therefore, is relaxed, as soon as the force needed to depress the key is exerted. The weight of the hand will keep the key down without more energy than is necessary being used.

The majority of the chapter, then, is spent dissecting Breithaupt's method and the exercises therein. I found these exercises to be interesting, and not a little confusing. Breithaupt focuses a great deal on the movement of the whole arm dictating the movement of the fingers. While I certainly think that the whole arm should be involved in playing the piano, I found that it was actually more difficult, and uncomfortable, to execute a scale or a tremolo using only the "rolling" arm motion he described. While it is possible that Breithaupt just wasn't completely adept at expressing his ideas, I think that the main critique of his school is that it was too relaxed. Relaxation is a wonderful thing, but jellyfish cannot play the piano. We must endure a little tension, and it is immediately after that tension that the relaxation comes in.

The Yoga of Pianism

There is a small yoga movement, within the larger branch of Kundalini called Lasia Yoga. It was started hundreds of years ago when yogis would hold single poses, or "asanas" until they literally collapsed and fell out of them. This is a process that can actually take hours. The point is that only while you're in the asana can you figure out what muscles you need, and those muscles that you are only using because you aren't conscious of the fact that you were using them in the first place. When you develop awareness like a yoga master, you are aware of so much, and the practice of yoga becomes so efficient, that you can stay in the same pose for hours on end. All the time, we all use muscles, some large and some very small, that we aren't consciously aware of. I would argue that, just like in yoga, the mastery and continued study of the piano involves a conscious, efficient application that involves mastery of muscle control on a finite level.

In terms of Breithaupt's exercises, perhaps some of them could have merit if you, for the most part, ignore his instructions. I believe that any of the exercises which ask you to sit and focus on your body and the execution at the piano have some worth. Anything that widens your awareness of what's going on while you play will only make you stronger, with better technique. In my experience with trying Breithaupt's way of free fall, and others as well, I never found it to be very useful. Over the years, I have definitely gotten better as utilizing the weight of my body and understood what some of my teachers were getting at. However, I can't completely agree with the idea of an ACTUAL free fall, because relaxing every single muscle is not only terrifying when trying to hit an actual note, it's actually very imprecise. As Gerig and many others agree, you cannot have a complete relaxation at the piano. Even when you get close to an actual free fall (which I would argue that while it's not a completely true free fall, being as relaxed as possible is ideal) your hand needs to prepare whatever you are about to play when you land.

While the idea of weight in piano playing is crucial, especially as we come to more modern repertoire, the problem with Breithaupt's method is that he doesn't fully understand what he's trying to express. As Gerig points out, there is an extreme contradiction, and even fallacy in that one could be completely passive muscularly while still DOING something. Even the usage of the word "passive" is incorrect and not specific enough. If we were to be completely passive when sitting at the piano, we would fall off the bench and crumple on the floor and not move. And even then, our involuntary muscles would continue to contract and release, keeping us alive.

Another problem that Gerig also points out is that Breithaupt explains things very poorly. While I was reading, I had no idea by what he meant about forearms "oscillating". The first joints of your finger bent it? If he means what I think he means he's going against SO many things Dr. Nosikova has been trying to drill into my head for the last 4 years. I also have no idea what it means to "play from the shoulder". I found it extremely interesting that Levinskaya, who advocates arm weight, decided to study with Godowsky because Breithaupt's playing was so imprecise. With the poor explanation and understanding of the coordination and the extremely fast and subtle details at the piano, Breithaupt seems to have done away with some of the things that can make our instrument so magical, with a sloppy, loose hand.

In order to fully understand these muscles and how they work, practicing consciously is not enough. We must devote ourselves to the study of our physiology as well. My yoga teacher says that a person could master hatha yoga (yoga of the body) in shavasana (when you lie on the floor on your back and try to relax every muscle that you possibly can). Of course it would take decades to develop that kind of awareness, and some would ask what's the point? The mastery of so many things in life are interconnected, and the committed study to evolve, developing awareness of yourself and what is around you is the only way to make a life genuinely worth living.

Some of the things from Breithaupt’s method that I thought could be applicable to my playing and helpful were his ideas of relaxation throughout the whole arm. While at times I found it hard to follow along with his ideas I think that relaxation in playing is a key element. When one is too stiff injuries may occur and also ones playing runs the risk of sounding too technical and thus unmusical.

However, when I sat down to play with relaxation being the focus of my playing I found that it was not so easy. My wrists tended to be low because I was really thinking about relaxing my arms and shoulders and so the weight of them brought my wrists down. This did not feel so comfortable or like good form either. Therefore, like Florence Leonard puts it ones first thought is of instant rebellion. So I feel that one must have some variety of ‘stiffness’ in order to play well. But the right balance is necessary.

I liked how Carreno puts it “Relaxation does not mean to flop all over the piano; it means, rather, to loosen just where it is needed and nowhere else…” Did Breithaupt understand this concept? He seems to promote not only relaxation but floppiness as well. This I think was the downfall of this method. He went too far towards relaxation. We must have some stiffness in our fingers and wrists to execute quick passages and runs. I was also very surprised when he suggested abolishing scales and mechanical finger-exercises. I don’t understand what one would gain from eliminating scales. I think scales are more beneficial then harmful. They have taught me not only finger development but steadiness in tempo as well.

Chapter 16: Breithaupt and Weight Technique

The term "controlled relaxation" coined by Teresa Carreno is better than the generic "relaxation" and prevents the floppy playing she refers too, however, I think there can be better terms to describe the sensation she is describing. As a student in Alexander Technique, we use the word "release" instead of "relaxation" when referring to ridding ourselves of useless tension. Of course playing the piano requires some tension, but it is possible to play more efficiently with little tension, thereby, decreasing the likelihood of injury.

I kind of like Godowsky's thinking about technician vs. virtuoso, and while I agree that artistic piano playing encompasses fingering, phrasing, pedaling, dynamics, etc., I do not believe that any "fool" off the street can learn to play the piano, at least with the success of the virtuosic players mentioned in this text. I also think that while many virtuoso's have flashy technique, it doesn't go without saying that they probably thought about and, if not included, at least thought about phrasing, fingering, pedaling, etc.

Also, he mentions that pianists do not listen to themselves with enough attention; if they did, "they would hear what they do and correct it." I think it is easy to get caught up in all the, notes, rhythm, technique, phrasing, articulation, and our brains is trying to process so much information at the same time that we often forget to actually listen to what we are producing. It is a very liberating experience to take the time and actually listen to your sound, and it is quite amazing what one can notice about their own playing. I think this is the a key aspect to becoming an individual artist, as we will not always have our teachers to correct our mistakes or misinterpretations.

Breithaupt has some good things to say regarding relaxation, however, possibly due to influence from the author, many explanations are quite confusing, which unduly gives a sense of discredit to his ideals. His exercise of dropping the hand on the table to release the tension in the shoulder joint is a good one, and allows a pianist to feel the mobility in the shoulder joint by letting the arm swing. I think this, and many of the other exercises, are good for loosening the joints of the arm, but will not work effectively in when actually playing.

Later, Breithaupt basically discusses the two releases of the key when directing the pianist to let the key push the finger up. However, I think that our fingers and arms weight more than the key itself, and therefore, we actually have to release our fingers in order for the key to come up. Otherwise, the weight of our arm will continue to depress the key. In the same section, the preliminary exercise is good because the octave position allows more focus on arm weight and the oscillating wrist movement more than the same effect that is desired from the action of single fingers.

I think that Breithaupt's methods strongest aspect is to loosen up all the joints in the arm. I think he fails to mention that playing piano requires muscle tension and that the arms must be supported by the back muscles and the core. With this support the arms can be light and devoid of useless tension. I think the method is also weak in describing how fingers are used. Some of the rolling and rotation descriptions will not depress the keys alone, and while these movements are necessary, they also require finger action.

To answer Dr. Huckleberry's third question, I mostly felt confused when at the piano. His descriptions are very wordy, and I had to ready them multiple times to try and understand the basic idea he was trying to convey. I felt I had to use my own knowledge and ideas in order to extract what he was really trying to explain. I think that had Breithaupt been more clear in his writing, the author would have been less harsh when critiquing his method, as it was rather easy to find faults in the descriptions.

Chapter 16

I think an over awareness of relaxation is worse than being stiff. How can you play if you are constantly aware of how your body feels. I’m stiff as a piece of wood. (Which is not good I know.) But I think it’s better than playing with such relaxation than it feels like you are sitting on the toilet.
I never knew that the principles of playing with relaxed weight were only taught by Godowsky in the late 19th century. How do we know Liszt did not teach this way? I think the principle of weight and relaxation is something that needs to be understood from a very young age. I think it is something that would be very hard to apply if you were not taught to play in such a way. It would be like changing the way you walk. It is something that you have to be comfortable with from the start. Godowsky went as far as writing that “Weight, relaxation and economy of motion are the foundation stones of technique or interpretation and mechanism in piano playing.”
I also like Godowsky’s overview of technique. “Technique is something entirely different from virtuosity. It embraces everything that makes for artistic piano playing- good fingering, phrasing, pedaling, dynamics, agogics, time and rhythm-in a word, the art of musical expression distinct from the mechanics. Godowsky mentions that 90 percent of playing relies on the weight principle. But right after he makes the latter statement he mentions that is most important to make a good sound and to listen. It seems clear that relaxing is important but not as important as a good sound and listening to your own playing. Now can you learn how to make a good sound from listening or relaxing? Can you learn how to listing by feeling relaxed. If that is the case I am buying the strongest horse tranquilizer on the market tomorrow and I will inject it directly into my aorta. Is relaxation something that comes after a good sound and attentive listening? Why did Schnabel not realize that he is playing with his shoulder weight? Is it then something that comes naturally?

Breithaupt and Weight Technique

"Stiffness seems to me the most reprehensible thing in piano plying, as well as the most common fault with all kinds of player." Especially, when we are very nervous, we usually become stiffened. It is not helpful for us to play the piano at all. So, I usually try to relax my arm and shoulder consciously before the performance so that I could play the piano with relief.

I think Breithaupt very emphasized about the relaxation of arm, wrist and shoulder as well as the finger and hand position. I really agree with her guidence. I think the hand and finger positions, and the relaxation of wrist, arm and shoulder are the most important elements to play the piano very comfortably, beautifully and stably. Actually, I am not well-trained about these piano techniques, so I have frequently faced with making the sound and octave or repeated notes eventhough I have played the piano about 23 years. Especially, it is too difficult when I play repeated octaves very fast. The begining goes pretty well, but after one pages, my arm and shoulder cannot support my fingers and finally I do not finish the piece. In my experience, the relaxation of the arm, shoulder and wrist is crucial interms of piano techniques.

I mostly agree with the Breithaupt's instruction. But I have one thing I worry about. We usually say that this performance was so impressed and perfect if the performance was very musical and technical. We cannot say the performance was so good if the performance was perfect just technically. In my case, it is easy to miss the whole line of the piece if I make much of the relaxation of each note and technique. So I think it is really important that the body has to relax always and we have to think the music when we play the piano.

It seems like Anton Rubenstein was quite a giant in the music industry. It is interesting to note that he missed so many notes but made up for that through playing perfectly in the next piece. Rachmaninoff’s quote that he made up for his mistakes through millions of other musical ideas and tones proves that it is not only about playing all the right notes. “When Rubenstein’s playing was over-exact, it lost some of its charm.” That is not something that still applies to piano playing today- or at least the general public would probably feel that if a pianist misses notes etc. that he is not a good musician. We compare everything to the last perfect recording we heard and and if it doesn’t match up we feel that it is not good enough.
I think a lot of times we overlook Faure as a prolific composer. Playing his violin and piano sonata in A major definitely changed my perspective of him and I thoroughly agree with Marguerite Long’s statement that the lyrical qualities should not get lost in playing it with a percussive like technique. I think it is actually harder to play French music in some sense. The sound should not be weak but still reflect an elusive quality. The violin and piano sonata- one of the only works I played by Faure so far- actually makes more sense to me now after I read “the even lightness of the fingers” (that famous gliding), the rapid, winged action”.
I found the quotes on accepting women into the Conservatoire de National in Paris interesting. Only three classes for women?
Marmontel being one of the greatest teachers at the Consevatoire, not even being able to demonstrate on the piano is quite controversial. I would imagine that someone who teaches there would still be able to play really well no matter what age. I guess he had a good ear then and as they say “impeccable style”. But then also being arrogant enough to look into the heavens and say something in French when he felt irritated. I don’t necessarily think that a good teacher should be able to demonstrate everything perfectly, but still I would assume that you need to have somewhat of an ability to show what you meant.
Marguerite Long made it to the top, although she was a woman. It is quite impressive that she knew Faure, Ravel and Debussy! But I don’t think that she has the right to say that she has been chosen as the interpreter, and assuming that if it weren’t for her nobody would have a clue on how to perform these works. I did not quite understand what she meant by saying “to let go” your fingers? What did she mean by that?
It is interesting that both Debussy and Ravel were not the greatest of pianists. Perhaps this is the first instance in the book where we come across this? I enjoyed the part about Ravel’s mom giving him money to practice. And he still didn’t.

Chapter 16

In this chapter, you will find a very detailed account of Rudolph Maria Breithaupt's school of thought. I would like you to read it at the piano and experiment with his suggestions and directions. In your comments, address these points:
1. What are the good things about Breithaupt's school and why?
2. What are the (potentially) bad things about his school and why?
3. What was your experience at the keyboard like, when dealing with his school?
4. Other comments about the chapter, leading up to Breithaupt

Vive La France!

It's no wonder that the French school seems to consist of a bunch of skinny dudes playing without very much power at all; their diet consists of 40% butter. Personally, I prefer more BAM when I listen to music, however, it's hard to deny that the work of Debussy of Ravel is gorgeous.

I think that it is interesting that both Ravel and Debussy seemed to have wanted to sit down and improvise, rather than practice their pieces. While I don't blame them, as the exercises from the area like that of Cortot seem like the Artillery version of Hanon, I think it's important to understand this when studying their pieces. They are, of course, difficult, but I think that after reading this chapter, I would proceed with caution. It seems as though they might only be good for people who understand how to study French music, and who already are good enough pianists to be able to practice good technique and fingering. Perhaps much of the French music is not the place to go to find ways to work on technique, but more of a venue for those of who have already mastered it.

From what I know of the French, and what is confirmed in this chapter, much of the music from the culture is refined and delicate. Pour moi, reading about this brings new meaning not only to how I play the works of French composers, but could perhaps influence how I interpret Chopin as well, as he spent much time in Paris, and was also a very delicate man. As much as I respect much of this music, in response to Long's belief that the French are "...unsurpassed in depth of inner feeling," (320), I would ask, as music expresses a great range of all of our inner feelings, how can we ever be satisfied without ever really yelling?

Chapter 14 and 15

I never knew Anton Rubenstein was considered such a pianistic giant. According to von Bulow he was not only a “bear” but even Liszt could not match him. It is interesting though that several pianists are said to perform their “musical” best when they play wrong notes and have to improvise. Rachmaninoff recalled that Rubinstein performed Balakirev’s Islamey with wonderful charm until he had a memory lapse and improvised himself back into the second half which “somehow lacked the charm” of the first half. I must add that I have also heard many of Cortot’s recordings that are very special but full of edits and wrong notes. Its easy to hear edits when there so much noise in the background. But I feel it doesn’t mean, of course, that playing wrong notes and having memory lapses make you musical. Otherwise I will be as musical as it gets!

Faure’s technique is characterized as being light, rapid, and winged as well as lyric. The violin sonata comes to mind. I wonder how it will be possible to play opening of the work with a German “digging” into the keys. It is much easier bringing out the lyrical melody with the arpeggios lightly flying by so to speak. It was also interesting reading Moskowsky’s opinion about the pianists of his day. For a Russian pianist and composer his etudes certainly seem to have been influenced by the French technique. As far as the French pianists are concerned I feel the chapter could have mentioned much more about the technique and pianism of Ravel, Franck, Debussy, and Poulenc.

Also, perhaps Cortot and Philipp’s ideas on transposing exercises date back to Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier. But I found it most interesting that Marguerite Long worked with Debussy on his works. I think Cortot also worked with Ravel, or perhaps another pianist, and broadcast his entire repertoire for piano on radio. (It is also published if I remember correctly) Is it not a much different idea to work with a composer on his works than without? Also to what extent does the performer influence the composer? I know that Ravel throughout his life felt that he would never be able to as good a pianist as Cortot. Chopin for instance always performed his own works, thus he probable had not much pianistic influence from others. I think it is quite a reality that some of the great pianists may have influenced some of their contemporary composers.

I enjoyed the quote on pedaling. I have always been taught to practice without the pedal but never knew that it was Chopin who urged his students to do so. Lastly, after reading about Debussy’s strange behavior I feel much better about packing everything in my house symmetrically. I can’t function either if everything isn’t aligned. The only thing I cannot align is my girlfriend but I manage to make the bed around her while she is sleeping.

Chapter 15

Indeed the French school is very much different than I would have imagined. My old impression about the French school piano playing and their music is the extreme vagueness, lightness and blending. Obviously they aren’t all true. Or should I say, they approached such effect in a way that’s totally opposite to how it sounds like. The French school emphasizes the suppleness, but the lightness is not attained by the ‘getting loose’ technique, however the opposite ‘stiff fingers’. The vagueness is obtained by a very exact execution in key touch in order to get the precise voicing and tone color out of the instrument. The blending is not by overusing the pedal but listening to the room’s acoustic and varies the pedaling at each different venues. Having the knowledge of these is influential to one’s approach towards French music.

I prefer Debussy’s way of thinking fingerings than Long’s. I think the composers’ fingerings might have its own insight about the music, but I don’t think the same fingering is applicable to everyone as hand size and shape varies.

Cortot’s and Long’s piano method seem interesting for study. I also heard Cortot’s edition of Chopin’s work brings special insights to the music. However I never see any of them in print actually. Are they already not in print or they’re only popular in Europe?

I suspect Debussy is a person with OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), if not entirely, some symptoms of it. The way he decorated his work room and how he reacted when ‘untidiness’ happened point to this assumption. It’s actually fun and interesting to know these composers’ more human side. I like Ravel the most ever when I saw him being the last in class.

The French School

This chapter contains lots of information about "French touch" and "Debussy sound". Making Debussy sound is based on French touch or carezzando finger touch. This unique French technique emphasized on "softness in strength and strength in softness" yielding wrist and flat finger.

 

This chapter gives me some good ideas about how to play Debussy or Ravel's composition. The color of tone of French composer is so unique and totally different from other composers. Like Mrs. Long's words, "it is unsurpassed in 'depth of inner feeling'"

 

I think Mrs. Long is lucky, in her long performance career(seventy years), she could received interpretative suggestions directly from composers like Debussy and Ravel. This is the treatment all the modern pianists desire but couldn't obtain.

---

使用新一代 Windows Live Messenger 轻松交流和共享！ 立刻下载！

The French School!

I love the French school. Love love love...

Cortot had some interesting little exercises to do. I liked his thought about studying the difficulty behind a passage in order to understand it by reducing it to the elementary units. This brings about two ways in my mind to solve passage work, making the passage harder, or making it easier, both are effective in different ways. I don't know that an hour of warmups is necessary, but that may just be me. Phillip mentioned a supple arm with the full tone. Suppleness is paramount in French music.

Long was so lucky. I wish I could have learned from Fauré, Debussy and Ravel. So jealous. She had an interesting point about bad fingering choices being "ugly to the eye, ugly to the ear." French music is often very delicate and bad fingering choices will really screw up the sound. She didn't have really anything new but had some good suggestions for practicing to change things up; omit pedal, depth of tone, freedom through shoulder and slow practice.

Debussy!!! Alas, we find out why he did some of the things he did. He didn't write fingering because he didn't want us to become lazy, and because we all have different sized fingers and hands. He didn't write pedal because every piano in every room varies. This really stresses how important it is to listen when performing Debussy. You must be aware of everything that is going on and react to the space. I can't imagine him playing so pianissimo all the time, it must have really been interesting, making listeners strain and hang on every note. Could be very effective. His flat fingers, at times, allowed for unique tone colors, and this is something I always employ when I perform Debussy. As far as Ravel, he didn't say much, probably because he wasn't that good of a pianist. But he sure knew how to challenge us. He went back the finger school and suggested his music to be played like that of Liszt, which makes perfect sense.

Les Doigts Française

Mais oui, the French, with their precise language, heavenly baked goods, divine painters, three musketeers, Cyrano de Bergerac, sun kings, silly queens, and those little round, floppy hats. The French have a rich culture encompassing many art forms, among them music. While there are many French composers whose music I admire greatly I had not, until I read this chapter, given as much consideration to French musicians and performance practices as I had to those of other countries. The French are dancers and painters and bakers (and poets and lovers and fighters), thought I, others do music. The French school has, however, included many fine musicians, and there are in fact a few things we can learn from them.

First, Cortot, whose Rational Principles of Pianoforte Technique seemed that it may be a little like Hanon, except encased in an entire method, complete with graded repertoire. If this is the case, it may not be a bad, all encompassing method particularly for high school students. What I think we can learn most from Cortot, however, is in his quote on page 318 of Gerig's text ". . . the mechanical and long-repeated practice of a difficult passage has been replaced by the reasoned study of the difficulty contained therein, reduced to its elementary principle." If we, in searching for a solution to a problem passage in a piece of music, can pinpoint the exact issue (tension, fingering, the left or right hand) that is causing the problem, and directly address that, we will waste a lot less time in practice.

From Marguerite Long we are again reminded of the importance of slow practice, and also of practice without the pedal. Practicing without the pedal is, I think, often overlooked as a valuable tool for working on articulation. It stands to reason that if the blurring effects of the pedal are eliminated, we will be able to hear, and so improve, our articulation with more ease.

In Debussy, we have almost a school of piano technique all to itself. His gorgeous impressionist style for the piano is unique in the repertoire, and therefore must be given special attention when played. The overriding principle I shall take from the the section on Debussy, however, is the account of his overwhelming fastidiousness. His neat, precise, and perfectionist's personalty undoubtedly carried through to his music, and in light of this, perhaps I should attempt to take on that personality more in my playing of his music; his tempi, articulation markings, and many dynamic shadings.

Does anyone have a croissant?

Chapter 15

I think some amateurs let the art of subtlety and nuance be superseded by a powerful technique and impressive velocity. There is a lot of value in the French school by their sensitivity to each note, without of course trying to do too much in every moment.

Marguerite Long mentions how important it is to follow composers’ fingerings since they know what will best facilitate their musical ideas. I don’t think a pianist should blindly use the composer’s fingerings to help convey the musical content… Understanding the musical content can come before any choice of fingering has been decided. Every hand is different, so what brings out the musicality for one person may not for another. She cites how enlightened she was by following Ravel’s fingerings, but she should have mentioned Debussy as well… I don’t think Debussy would write fingerings in his music because he knew how different everyone is… this does not inhibit understanding of his music.

Long also mentions on page 320 that “it is not our mind which moves our fingers, but our fingers and their almost conscious movements which set our mind in motion.” This does not make any sense to me… The mind would always be behind the music, which is not at all helpful. Kinesthetic memory should never be the primary means of securing a piece of music in one’s body. Kinesthetic memory will be a natural consequence of enough practice, and of course it is useful, but to rely on this would be dangerous in performance. Fingers do not have a memory; I think all that happens is that with enough repetition an unconscious memory results in the brain, which we call finger memory. If we just learn music consciously it will not only be a deeper understanding but a more secure one too.

Marguerite Long’s method Le Piano was insightful, I think her methods can easily be applied in our studies and teaching. I liked her view on technique and how she stated, “there is nothing more important to strive for than finger articulation…this is an elementary truth.” (320) I remember how my teacher made me practice a new major and minor scale every week when I started playing piano. Looking back I am glad she made me practice them because they really are a strong backbone to playing the piano. I like how she compares diligent technique training to runners and dancers and their work toward developing their legs for strength. Once you have that strength you just keep getting stronger and faster as long as you are still working hard. Therefore, once we have the technique down we will continue getting better and stronger fingers if we keep practicing well.

Debussy was an interesting character, the way his personality is described in the book as being so neat and clean, a perfectionist puts his music in a new light for me. Now, I look at it as very precise and exact, only one way of executing it. I thought his reasons for omitting pedal markings was interesting and also what was said of Chopin. He wanted his students to practice without the pedal and to only use it sparingly when performing. Was this an idea that was still lingering on from the baroque period? Why was he against the pedal? One reason I though Debussy and Chopin might seem, lets say 'leery' of the pedal is because without it one has to depend much more on ones ears and fingers to get a beautiful sound.

Chapter 15

The focus on finger training, particularly emphasized in the description of Long's and Cortot's methods, contrasts with the increasing attention to the use of the arm that we have recently read about. Long may have been somewhat critical of the current trend in relaxation, but her encouragement of suppleness sounds comparable. Her comment, "Ugly to the eye, ugly to the ear," (p. 321) is also reminiscent of Deppe. Her quote on the fingers setting the mind in motion rather than vice versa is a good counterpoint to the many suggestions of the opposite. In the end, I think there needs to be a balance between control with the mind and leaving room for instinct to guide the body.

Camille Bellaigue's description of Marmontel as teacher was interesting: "Perhaps he had at one time been a virtuoso; he was now not even a pianist." (317) It sounds like he was an effective teacher despite the limitations of his playing abilities. While perhaps not an ideal situation, it goes to show that being a good teacher requires more than being able to play well.

I admire Debussy's principle behind not indicating fingerings and pedaling. The description of his personality shows that he was a perfectionist; thus, it would be in keeping with that trait to only indicate the absolutes in his scores. From a practical standpoint, though, his pedal markings in particular would be helpful starting points.

The French School

I really agree with Marguerite Long about Faure. " the depth of sound in the suppleness of the attacks, the even lightness of the fingers (the famous gliding over the keyboard), the rapid, winged action which characterizes the technique of Faure" Frankly speaking, I never play the Faure's ketboard music, but I played approximately fifteen Faure's lied. I felt that first, it is a little bit difficult to read and harmonies of Faure's pieces were not harmonized with the melody reasonably and clearly. It is also difficult to make a sound such as dreaming and grey sounds. Marguerite suggests how we play the Faure's music using the unique sound of Faure. He emphasized that the fingers and arm which is realted with the pianistic technique. I will try to his suggestion above when I play the Faure's work and I belive it is really valuable guidence.

I was impressed about Marguerite Long's teaching. She emphasized the finger activity and she said the fingers have to move with the mind in motion. I usually move the fingers unconsciously when I practice playing the piano. But I realized that it is unuselness. I have to practice consciouly with thinking in order to improve my techniques even though I play just dotted rhythm scale and so on. Also, I am having a trouble that each finger is not even and each finger has each problem. But she said "five fingers should be thoroughly trained for vigor, elasticity, firmness, and independence so that each can overcome common obstacle." I think it is the fundamental stage of the piano technique. If we know each finger's characteristic and problem, we could overcome each's finger's problem. Moreover, we could play the piano very comfortable and confident.

Chapter 15: The French School

Cortot's method appears to be one of the most concise and comprehensive. I appreciate his methodical presentation of five basic principles that are then divided into three sub-groups each. The importance of being able to play in all keys is apparent, and adds to the schedule of practicing, allowing 36 days for each chapter.

Phillip emphasizes slow practice to avoid tension. I know this has been addressed previously, but I feel it's importance should not be overlooked. So often we hear fast passages repeated over and over again in the practice room. There is much can be learned from concentrated slow practice, which in the end could provide more successful that repeating fast passages.

At this point while reading the text, a state of confusion came over me. We have been reading about so many successful performers and teachers, who all present a different take on technique. Is there ever an end? Who is right? I guess I just have to live in the comfort that we have all this knowledge that we can combine into our own individual technique. In a similar respect, I like Segonzac's aphorism, "One spends his entire lifetime building his house," meaning that we spend our life perfecting technique.

Debussy seems to be a very interesting persona, and I was hoping this chapter would have included more about him. I appreciate both his individuality and his non-conventional approach to performing and composition. I think the descriptions of his sensitive touch are an integral part in his music and something I will consider when playing his works.

Chapter 14: Russian Nationalism

"Before your fingers touch the keys you must begin the piece mentally--that is, you must have settled in your mind the tempo, the manner of touch, and above all, the attack of the first notes, before your actual playing begins. And bye-the-bye, what is the character of the piece? Is it dramatic, tragic, lyric, romantic, humorous, heroic, sublime, mystic--what?" I think this is something too often forgot about. For me, I perform much better if I take a minute and mentally prepare to play. If I think of the opening measures, the rhythm, character, dynamic, etc., I will usually start more confidently, which can then hopefully continue through the performance. I think Rubinstein is wise in saying this.

I enjoyed reading Lhevinne's description of the technical standards of the Russian Conservatories. Scales and arpeggios are important, and probably an important aspect of daily practicing. I think that these fundamentals are often forgotten about in the practice room, and would be something beneficial to add to our daily practice routines.

The production of tone at the piano I think is somewhat hard to explain. Recently, I have been experimenting with similar directions that Lhevinne gives. The wrist and arm are to be loose, but the fingers must be firm and direct. In trying to resolve my tension problems, I developed flabby fingers, which then produced a whimpy tone without much direction and substance. I am currently experimenting with finding the right balance between firmness in the hands and looseness in the wrists and arms. It is not easy, but I feel like my tone is improving, and therefore, think there is something to what Lhevinne has to say about tone production.

I like Horowitz's description of the process in practicing. It is more valuable to work on sections and details, rather than constantly playing through the piece. This is a hard think to do, and requires a lot of discipline and concentration. However, the outcome is worth it; by focusing on details and working slowly from one section to the next, provides a greater learning curve for the piece than continually running the entire piece. I also like the idea of working on parts of one movement one day, and then choosing a different movement or piece the next day. Variety in practicing keeps it interesting and allows reflection in between each session on a particular piece. Then, when returning to that piece, a fresh approach can be taken, rather than a monotonous one.