Chapter 10: Liszt

I knew previously that Liszt was the first to give complete programs and perform from memory, but I think it deserves special note as it is his standard of concertizing that has transcended to today.

What fun would life be without a little competition? It is interesting that the Parisian public could be in love with Liszt one minute, and as soon as he ventured out of Paris, their attention diverted to Thalberg. I suppose everyone needs a celebrity to idolize. I smile at the audacity Liszt had when vying for the attention of Paris; countering Thalbergs performance to an audince of 4oo by performing to an audience of 4,000. Liszt of course came to be the shining star.

Liszt seems to be the comparable celebrity of those in today's society. He was famous. One can infer that women oohed over him, and bowed at his feet as they collected his cigar butts and coffee dregs into vials.

I never realized, despite knowing he has a large number of students, what a great pedagogue Liszt was. The exercises he suggests for strengthening the fingers and playing evenly are all very practical. I favor notes on his teaching: "He does not want purposeless mechanical study...," "...he does not want pressure from the fingertips near the nails but from the 'palm' of the finger because this little cushion is soft and resilient, which helps to give the tone of a lovely mellowness," "You spoil everything if you want to cut corners." He seems so insightful, patient, and dedicated. I feel that nothing was lacking in his teaching and that he covered all aspects. I once heard that Fundamentals are the building blocks of Fun, and I think this is part of Liszt's teaching philosophy. He concentrated so much on the fundamentals of playing the piano, which I admire. When the fundamentals are mastered, playing becomes all the easier, and therefore, fun.

I appreciate Liszt's approach to group/masterclass/seminar teaching and the benefits of such experiences for both performers and spectators. I often think that there is more to be gained from those watching the masterclass if those students are performing the piece being discussed or if they decide to play it in the future. If they never intend to play the piece being discussed, they can still take the principles and apply it to similar repertoire they are playing.

Chapter 10

It is hard to imagine a single person having such a spell-like effect on so many people. I wonder if the effects described really had to do with him alone or if it was mostly a result of the reputation that preceded him. And such a high level of fame cannot have been hindered by the compositions that emphasize virtuoso technique. Although these pieces may not be so highly valued today, the style was widely popular then, and musicians did have to make a living, even at a time when Beethoven's music was thought dull.

The controversy over whether Liszt or Thalberg was the better pianist is not the first of its kind that we have read about, but it made me think more about why there was such concern over who was best when the answer was likely a matter of taste. Were the participants in the arguments simply choosing sides, or were they concerned with the way in which piano playing would continue to develop?

The impact of Liszt's classes is obvious and are based on good philosophies, but I was surprised to read in the account of Amy Fay that a piece was only played once. While I understand that his students were already playing at a high level before they came to him, I would also think that it could be helpful to have at least a second performance after applying Liszt's comments.

Liszt's point on self-analysis was a good reminder of its importance. Sometimes it is hard to see or hear ourselves objectively or to take the time for this type of reflection, but I think the criticisms that I make of myself and react to positively are the most beneficial.

chapter 10

I was impressed with Liszt's teaching method.

Actually, I have very small finger and my little finger is uniquely short. So, I have some trouble when I played the octaves. Especially, repeated octaves and legato octaves are so difficult and hard for me to play them. Liszt emphasized the importance of octave study and he suggested several ways to practice octives. I will try these methods before playing the piece and I hope it will be helpful for me to play octaves.

Liszt also taught the posture importantly. 'Liszt wants the boby held straight, with the head bent slightly backward...... One must never play from the arms and the shoulders. He insists very much on these points.' I have a question regarding this article. Actually, I have learned from my teachers that I have to use my arm rather than finger if I would like to make a beautiful sound. Did I misunderstand 'Liszt's guidance'? I am so confusing..

I always knew that Liszt was the greatest virtuoso of the 19th century but I never knew that he was treated and seen b y people as an almost god-like figure. I enjoyed the story on how Liszt fainted on his page turner and how he was carried off stage after a concert. Also, how he mingled with the audience between pieces and then returned to play some more. Can you imagine a pianist today doing something like that? I actually think that famous pianists today seldom want to talk to their audience after a concert. It might actually be inspiring to young pianists to talk to a great musician. Why do great pianists today only seldom teach and if they do it would only be to a select few. So many good things can be learned from them and I feel that they too often conveniently distract themselves from ordinary aspiring pianists. Why don’t famous pianists give master classes more often and inspire others more. I don’t say that they should be doing this all the time but I think that so many pianists would benefit so much by even just hearing that person talk or say a few general things about a piece- like Liszt did in the ‘group classes’. Personally I would find that extremely inspiring. The other problem is that not all pianists can get to the top and be a concert pianist. The instance where Liszt stopped the girl while playing shouting “No!No!”. I actually feel that more teachers today should be doing this. Surely that girl probably never touched the piano again- I know I wouldn’t. But I sometimes feel that everything cannot just be great or fantastic. Somewhere somebody has to draw the line between good playing and bad playing. If it is bad- speak up! It is actually just encouraging the viscous circle of pianist to teacher if everything is always seen as a good job.

Something I forgot to mention in the previous chapters: Dussek writes on the importance of phrase endings at the end of the 18th century as one of the fundamentals of teaching piano. It is perhaps one of the most common aspects in music that, even professional pianists to this day often neglect. I know I do! I found it interesting that in the autobiography by Tomaschek he states that Dussek was the first to place the piano sideways. I thought it was Liszt. I am also curious why the reason for this is merely suggested be lay emphasis on his profile. I would think the main reason would be for acoustic purposes.
I find Chopin’s sister’s letter regarding Elsner’s thoughts on Kalkbrenner’s proposition most curious. Firstly, it seems that Chopin’s family must have been very protective over him. I could, however, understand that such a genius like Chopin could easily be a “victim” to be owned as a student. Especially after his first impression at the instrument was the performance of his own e minor concertos which is to this day one of the most beautiful, technically challenging , and most performed concertos. Secondly it caught my attention that one of the reasons included in this letter, that Chopin should not take lessons with Kalkbrenner, was that he should not focus on piano playing and composition but strive to write operas. I am aware that operas were considered a most profound art but what does make me curious is the possibility and nature of any past relationships between Kalkbrenner and Elsner.
It is hard imagining Beethoven was ever seen as dull and that List did not put his name in programs. I was not aware that Liszt was the first to give public concerts from memory. Well I guess hit is harder playing La Campanella from the score. It is interesting that Liszt is compared with sunshine and dazzling splendor but also that he never thumped! Who plays Liszt without thumping? Liszt seems to be the first super star like Liberace with his white cravat and so forth. The only difference is probable he’s fans, that included females under the age of 85.
Schumann mentioned that a great part of Liszt’s greatness was his stage personality. He mentioned that he must be seen to be fully appreciated. I am not sure if this is an insult but to me it does emphasize Liszt to be less of a “poet” than Chopin.

Chapter 8-9

It’s fun to see how people try to invent ‘magic’. They all claimed how beneficial are the devices to the students. I don’t believe that’s quite the truth but instead just a marketing strategy. Ironically though they were definitely making good deals out of them.

I don’t believe there’s short cut in piano learning. The devices might have helped students recognizing the correct posture, but at the same time I think poisoned their mind. I think students practicing on these devices for extensive time would turn relying too much on the devices instead of actively learning the techniques. I have no doubt on the effect the devices brought on building strength but they’re also turning pianists to machines! In my point of view, technique is purely organic, physical acts are originated from the brain. In practice, pianist requires the greatest freedom to achieve the specific moves, but not to set up physical boundaries to ‘help’ controlling.

However I do see the benefit from learning not according the ease of notation but shape of hands. In my experience teaching Alfred’s method books, and comparing that to the more traditional John Thompson (or similars) stream, students starting with the black key position Chopin suggested tend to aware more of the shape of the hands than students starting on middle C, or all white keys. Yet the advantage accumulates as they grow in learning. I think the first impression of how the student approach the instrument set a solid ground of the techniques that come after. I prefer more on starting with physical approach than notational because I think visual ability can be developed in later stages.

------

I don’t have much to say about Chopin.. He’s great, I love him. He’s always one of my favorites. I’m just not sure about saying he started a whole new school of piano playing is right. I feel like that’s a bit overstated because probably his other contemporaries play better than he did. Definitely he’s a unique in style though. However Chopin without doubt deserves all credit in combining and expressing technical and musical issues in a very artistic gesture. Thank you Chopin :)

Chapter 9: Chopin

I would have liked Chopin as person. From the description giving by Gerig, it is hard not to imagine him as genuine. Perhaps it is the sympathy we connect with, only wishing that Chopin had lived longer; identifying what a tragedy his ill health was.

Although short, his life appears to have been fulfilling in many ways. He was in the presence of many great composers like Mendelssohn and Liszt, traveled, concertized some, and had a decent social life. I smiled and imagined Mendelssohn, Chopin, and Hiller attending an oratorio together, associating such an event with similar happenings today as we attend recitals with our music friends. For the first time, I was able to picture what the life of a composer being discussed might have looked like.

Most of this chapter discusses the aspects of performance, composition, and daily life of Chopin. It is not until the end of the chapter where we have a glimmer of Chopin the pedagogue. We know most of his students were of the aristocracy, which explains why not many of his pupils became famous musicians, and also why his pedagogical teaching is not discussed in depth. However, I think it is obvious in the descriptions of touch, articulation, expression, and phrasing, that Chopin was an adept teacher.

I had never thought, but agree, that the B major scale is best to start with. I suppose that because I started with the C major scale, I never considered how awkward it feels under the fingers. When I though of scales, hand position, and fingering, I realized my favorite scales to play are those with the most black keys. However, I had never thought I favored these scales because of the natural placement of the fingers on the black keys. If we all started out on scales that enforced a more natural hand position, it may prove to be better for our technique in the end.

For me, I find Chopin's technique to be revolutionary and most closely mirrors the technique I have been taught. He seems to enforce the whole arm, rotation in the wrist, etc., all of which assist in efficient coordination of the fingers. The idea of suppleness has certainly helped me. I think this is the first instance the word has been used to describe one's technique, and creates a good image of what we should feel and look like.

Chopin

 

 

Chopin's teacher Elsner said: "All imitation is as nothing compared with originality" I totally agree with his opinion. Music should come from everyone' heart, not simply do some imitation. Pianist should convince his audience by his own "natural" music. The more natural, the more convinced.

 

According to the tempo of Chopin's piece, Liszt made a very good explanation on Chopin's "rubuto". Chopin also mentioned that left hand should conduct and maintain a strict beat. So I believe that left hand played an important role in most of Chopin's pieces although audiences usually focus on his right hand's extremely beautiful melody.

 

Like some pianist before him, Chopin advocated his students to learn both singing and Italian opera. His nocturnes are regarded as "a singing of a piano tech". As we can see, Our most inward feeling could be drawn by Singing while playing.

 

Chopin spent most of his career life outside of his motherland, from Vienna to Paris then to England and Scotland. Although he obtained fame and made his circle including Liszt and Kalkbrenner, his heart was always with his family and his country. Chopin was lonely. This kind of loneness couldn't be gotten rid of until he found his national root.  I think he earned great success on music in Paris, but he was not successful in his personal life. Furthermore, his bad health situation and the final break between him and George sand made Chopin even weaker before his death.

---

更多热辣资讯尽在新版MSN首页！ 立刻访问！

Mister Logier's Miracle Machine

"...In the Book of Instructions will be found a regularly arranged series of lessons and exercises calculated for the gradual advancement of the pupil, which will save the master much time and trouble..." (127).

"...as well as an immense saving of time and trouble to masters..." (128).

"Soon I decided to try reading while exercising my hands each day" (134).

"...it keeps people from making faces, from playing from the arm or the shoulder; it makes the fingers independent, corrects the position of the hand which makes it as graceful as possible. I shall add as a last recommendation the fact that I still use it myself all the time..." (135)- Kalkbrenner, in regards to his own version called the "Hand guide".

Is it just me or did I just witness a late night infomercial? Sit and watch t.v, while eating whatever you want and have a little electric belt shock your fat away! The pounds will melt off! I can hear it now, Logier and Kalkbrenner on their very own T.V special, selling Hand Guides and Royal Chiroplasts galore! "You barely have to teach your students, in fact, they teach themselves, in groups of 30-40, sign here!"

Fat? You could go to the gym and eat well, or you could just buy an "Ab Contour". Tired? You could sleep, or you could just drink coffee! Hungry? You could cook, or you could go to MacDonalds! Don't have time to watch your students? Put their hands in a metal device so they can't move!

These "machines" were nothing more than pure money making schemes. While they make more sense in the days of the finger school era, the number of skeptics at least gives me faith that there is, indeed, a force of nature more powerful than a good salesman.

I don't know what's worse, the "Ab Contour" or the "Dactylion".

Poor Man Chopin

It seems as though the significance of Chopin was created more through his contribution to the repertoire, than that of his donation to pedagogy. His incredible subtlety in shaping and pedaling is his gift to the modern piano technique. In many ways, his doleful repertoire is the top of the "most expressive" list (Though I would argue Beethoven pretty much had the "passion" button down pat). In many ways this chapter addresses something that has been on my mind for a while; the question of truly "understanding" the music.

Is it possible to truly comprehend the nuance of Chopin without having experienced a life similar in large amounts of grief and suffering? Or at least to have experienced the ups and downs that life has to offer, something that can hardly been done in 20 years? I have heard many people say that while many pianists can perform many difficult and wonderful musical compositions, but few can play Chopin with the tender profundity in which it was created.

There is a documentary made in 2006 called “Before the Music Dies”. It’s main premise is that many of the successful performers and “musicians” of today cannot compare to those of the previous generations, when musicianship was considerably more important than how you look in a bikini. Now, the “voices” of our generation are much younger, much more “beautiful” and have experienced little outside of their Beverly Hills mansion. Someone in the film suggested that if Aretha Franklin were to walk into American Idol, she would never place because of how she looked, despite her raw talent, and years of experience that give her the understanding and soul in her music. Would Chopin's fate be similar in modern times? My question is that what if our flashy technique and cheap thrills are the pretty faces we're hiding behind in order to celebrate more success.

This idea of musicality being just as, if not important than technique is something that was discussed in our Beethoven chapter. However, this idea comes up during the consideration of Chopin. Again, what if the early study of Chopin needs to be restricted to the simplest technical form, in order to concentrate more upon the meaning underneath, even if that proves to be a lifetime long process (which it surely will)? Chopin was most concerned with a supple technique, a singing cantabile (again, he suggests the study of Italian singers) and the "ceaseless reptition of a passage till it was understood..." (164). He also forbade his student Madame Dubois to practice more than 3 hours a day. Escpecially for the study of Chopin, what if sometimes, we were to spend smaller, very focused portions of practice time dedicated ONLY to the expression and musicality? I think the results could be tremendous.

Arthur Rubinstein says: "...that even the most difficult figurations of Chopin belong to creative music. Liszt cultivated technical previosity; the difficulties he contrived were a camouflage, and he exploited them for greater effect. Chopin was interested only in the musical idea, and the difficulties of his works are logically inherent in his thought...I can play a pyrotechnical Liszt sonata, requiring forty minutes for it's performance, and get up from the piano without feeling tired, while even the shortest etude of Chopin compels to be an intense expenditure of effort" (162).

When was the last time you were drained after a two minute long piece?

Chapter 9

Kalkbrenner was a bastard. Just kidding, I jest.

So, Chopin. I love to listen to Chopin's music. I think it's very personal and quite beautiful. Playing it, on the other hand, I can usually do without. Playing Chopin feels so awkward to me. Music that looks like it should be easy is often deceptively very difficult and who really wants to read all of those tiny little notes in odd groups of say 28?! Maybe it's because he didn't write technique for technique's sake. It's odd virtuosity and odd technique. His technique is always musically based and this, in my opinion, makes performance harder. Whereas in Liszt, you can gloss over sections of filigree, the luxury is really not there in Chopin. Maybe it also has to do with the size and shape of my hand, I don't know. I would like to see a mold of Chopin's hand. I firmly stand by my thought that playing Chopin feels awkward and angular to me.

As far as his technique, I'll buy it 100% money back guarantee. We are now free to use our whole arm!!! It makes perfect sense (as we all know) to change position of fingers (lengthen/curl), to move the wrist laterally and to use the forearm and arm to execute the musical passage. Welcome, pianists, you are now free to roam about the keyboard. I think it would be beneficial for students (including myself) to listen to some of the vocal music of the time to truly understand the vocal quality of his music...

Maybe as I get older, I'll appreciate the value of playing Chopin's music. It is really great music and if I absolutely had to, I guess I could suck it up and play some Chopin.

Liberace He Was Not

Frail, delicate, short lived, and passionate, Chopin stands as the herald of the Romantic era in piano music, leaving in his wake starry eyed lovers and nary a dry eye. I myself succumbed to melancholy while reading this chapter, and am relying heavily on the therapeutic powers of chocolate, as I complete this post.

Though Chopin never published a piano method, or taught any enduring star performers, and gave relatively few public performances, the legacy of his philosophy on music and performance lives on. I found it particularly interesting that he was not especially fond of playing public performances, and instead preferred to give small concerts for friends. While certainly some are well suited for performing for hundreds, I don't think this is the talent of every pianist, and there is something to be said for the value of an intimate performance given to only a few. Some of the most beautiful performances I have heard have been for only small audiences, and there is a charm in that which I think should not be devalued.

In addition to his fondness for more intimate settings, Chopin also used technique only to further the music and achieve his goals in expression. While this means that we should labor especially hard over the poetical aspects of his music, it also means that the music can assist the technique. If Chopin didn't write a run just to show off, why should we labor to play a run just to show off, when it may become more beautiful, and somewhat easier, when played more musically?

I found it interesting that so much was said of Chopin's physical flexibility, and it makes me consider even more the aspect of physicality involved in playing the piano. Would it make us better pianists if we took ballet, yoga, or pilates, and worked to improve our flexibility? Besides merely making us healthier, I think that more flexibility would help relaxation in playing, and by consequence improve technique, not to mention decreasing risk of stress related injury.

So much more could be said and suggested about Chopin's life and technique, including the observation that perhaps studying organ would help us to gain a style of fingering similar to Chopin's, but if I eat any more chocolate, I will have to spend precious practice hours working out instead. But then again, perhaps an hour of exercise and stretching would improve my playing of Chopin. In any event, it would probably increase my chances of living longer than he did.

Kalkbrenner & Co.

In chapter 8 of Gerig's text we are introduced to the 'devils, and black sheep and really bad eggs' of piano pedagogy's history. These are the Dr. Frankensteins of the pedagogical world, who sought to engineer good pianists by hooking them up to fantastic mechanisms which irrepressibly bring to my mind visions of Beyonce's famous hand jewelry in her even more famous video about single ladies.

Kalkbrenner, maker of one of these mechanical monstrosities for 'enhancing' technique is the poster boy for these sorts of machines, so it is on him I will concentrate. Firstly, while these contraptions had many problems, not least of which are the possibility of injury, and weakening of the muscles, it is interesting to note why they were invented, and to remember the tradition they came from. Up until around this time, the finger school of playing had been almost universally acknowledged, and the correct treatment of the hands was of paramount importance. Playing the piano, to increase one's polish and education, was also in the public consciousness, increasing the need for ways to teach good technique, quickly.

In to this situation steps Kalkbrenner, snapping his suspenders and flashing a cheesy grin, ready to improve everyone's technique. But while he certainly made money and reputation off of his invention, what he says about its use is interesting to me. He speaks about issues with his trills, tension in his hand, and seeking a way to reduce tension. Reducing tension is something I have thought about for years, and I have recently been considering its value in trilling; I trill only with my hand, relaxing the rest of my arm. This aspect of trilling made reconsider what Kalkbrenner was trying to do with his invention. Yes, resting one's arms on a bar while playing sounds terrible for the health, but perhaps the relaxation it would achieve in the arms is worth thinking about, and attempting to emulate in certain aspects our playing.

This idea of finger technique seems to pervade most of the philosophies on playing of the people mentioned in this chapter (a fair number of whom, I should mention in all fairness are neither devils, black sheep nor bad eggs). These are the last of the older finger school, and some, like Moscheles should be congratulated for for beginning to welcome in the new style of music that was emerging.

Why did so many great pianist write method books and other published works like treaties? Was it a trend or did it have something to do with prestige and success? If they did not have a method book published did it mean that one was not a succuessful musician or teacher? Also, are all great pianist of today still publishing method books? I got started thinking about this because after reading in chapter eight about yet another method book by Turk, they all seem to be generally stating the same thing. How many concepts on hand position and bench height can there be and are they all relative? Were the ideas of fingure position, "slight movement in the hands and arms," and being relaxed while playing relitively new ideas back then as to not be ingrained in all good pianist yet? Is that why they all needed there own method on these things. I feel as if these ideas of finure position and such have been ingrained in me forever so to have many different method books on the same thing seems repetitive. Yet, maybe it is a good reminder to have it always brought up because I for one am not a master of keeping my wrists and arms still.

I don't see the usefulness of Logier's invention of the Chiroplast. I think the invention would be rather clumsly and in the end could be a handicap rather then helpful. The student would be better off I think to learn from a good teacher who is diligent in keeping them on task rather then an invention.
As for Kalkbrenner and his Hand-guide he struck me as a man who only had room in his thoughts for himself. I think he only wanted to promote his hand-guide in order to promote himself and his success. I got this impression from his conversation with Gottschalk following his debut program.

Chapter 9

There are multiple references in this chapter to the politics of having a successful career as a musician. Although Chopin was known for compositions and performances that solely served the art, he was not naive when it came to ways of advancing his career. When considering study with Kalkbrenner, he acknowledged the influence the pianist would have on making him better known, and he notes that first becoming famous as a pianist would enhance later success as an opera composer. (p. 146) He also credits his association with "...the highest society -- among ambassadors, princes, and ministers..." with helping his reputation of possessing great talent. (p. 152) Perhaps it is possible to suggest that some of his short compositions were intended to appeal to females, the largest consumers of sheet music at the time. Although such pieces may not have resulted in favor by critics, they would have been a source of income and a means by which to become more widely known.

Because the method book that Chopin worked on is incomplete and seemingly unorganized, I am not sure if the first paragraph from the quote of the manuscript is the beginning. If it is, I find it interesting that familiarity with notation and "the mechanism of the piano" comes before playing. Modern method books promote playing from the outset, and when I give a student's first lesson, I feel pressure to get to the playing part as soon as possible for fear that they will lose interest or because I think the parents expect their child to be able to make music right away. However, taking into account the student's age, it might be more efficient to begin with learning notation completely; it would save a lot of 'relearning' required when progressing through reading by finger number, then letter names, then staff notation.

chapter 9

Personally, I love Chopin's music. Chopin's piano works need pianists to high technique. I have usually frustrated when I played Chopin Etudes because it was so hard to play faster and perfectly. But, I felt I made a step forward when I master Chopin's etude. According to this book, " His technical dexterity was complete; his physical coordination and freedom were of the highst quality." He got a perfect technique, thus he was be able to compose the musics which require high technique.

Also, I impressed that Chopin's music has a true natural feeling that could express a wide range of emotion. I really agree with that. When I was playing Chopin sonata No. 2, it was difficult to play musically as well as technically. Chopin composed piano sonata No.2 with missing his country, Poland. I was able to feel his emotion when I played this work even though it was so hard to express the feeling.

Chapter 9

Elsner’s suspicion that Kalkbrenner would want to use Chopin for his own ambitions at first seems considerate… but he too reveals his own ambitions by trying to direct him into opera rather than piano. We are fortunate Chopin did not take this advice…

…But I do like Elsner’s quote on page 145, “Those things by which an artist, always taking advantage of everything which surrounds and instructs him, arouses the admiration of his contemporaries must come from himself, thanks to the perfect cultivation of his powers…” For me this means that the influences of other people’s playing, teaching, etc., is to be encouraged, as long as it is not just a copy - it must integrate into one’s own already unique artistic personality.

“His desire to make good music predominates noticeably in his case over the desire to please.” (p. 149) Considering that Chopin did not even like to perform in public confirms this... His control of pianissimo dynamics, shading, subtle rubato, etc., set him apart from the other leading virtuosi of his day, and I would much rather have heard Chopin play than Liszt. Maybe this is a good place to debate Liszt’s [superficial?] showmanship by comparison? Rubinstein points out something similar on page 162, that “even the most difficult figurations of Chopin belong to creative music. Liszt cultivated technical preciosity; the difficulties he contrived were a camouflage, and he exploited them for greater effect. Chopin was interested only in the musical idea…” We have often heard comparisons of the technical aspects in the music of Chopin and Liszt - but why is Beethoven not included in these discussions? His music can be highly technically demanding, but as with Chopin I believe, only in service to a musical idea.

I love how Chopin would play Bach before giving concerts… I also often go to Bach to help organize my thoughts, sometimes before or after recitals. His music is so perfectly composed it always helps to solidify my fundamental musical understanding.

It was interesting to read Chopin's advice that “since each finger is formed differently it is far better to develop their special characteristics rather than attempt to destroy their individuality.” (p. 168) This struck me since I am sometimes guilty of practicing to make all the fingers work the same, rather than taking advantage of the uniqueness of each.

As the piano evolved a parallel obsession with technique and position of hands and fingers arose. All these inventions including the Chiroplast and the Hand-Guide seem obscure to us today, but it makes sense in a strange way because people at the time were interested in becoming successful musicians like the true virtuosos of the time. We have evidence from this book that all these mechanisms sold like hot cakes. Today people would not allow their children to put their fingers into metal rings attached to a spring- it would seem like a torture chamber. Nevertheless I can see some method in the madness in helping a beginner to play with their fingers without tension.

Upon reading it was interesting to find that Dussek, even before Liszt, turned the piano sideways for recitals and was seen as handsome with a noble profile. Liszt is always given credit for these changes in the recital hall. This goes hand in hand with the obsession with how the hands and fingers looked while playing and to show it off to an audience.

To write a method book seems like something that all pianist-teachers attempted to do. Czerny's statement that the student should play what is appealing to him is interesting. One would think that teachers at that time did not care if a student did not want to play technical exercises or a piece that seemed too difficult. Another statement by him which I agree with is that one can practice a technical difficulty within a piece. It would be far more interesting for a student to practice something that would actually feel like an accomplishment if he achieves it, rather than mindless drilling of an unmusical or uninteresting idea.

Straightjackets

It is interesting to note what composers thought of one another. Personally I think Schumann's comment on Czerny is quite bad. "A good man but nothing more" I am also going to investigate the idea that one can sight read by instinct such as Liszt. It must certainly help if you can anticipate the music and therefore a sense of comfort in reading unfamiliar works. In reading Czerny's description of Liszt it seemed obvious that Czerny had a slight case of sour grapes. How could be in any sense a better pianist or composer if he remained under the tutorship of Czerny, who he surpassed in every way, for 3 more years. I think Liszt did fairly well. It is probably a good thing that he left when he did. I appreciated Czerny's view on the importance of true interpretation regarding each composer.

I was also amazed to read about the artistic piano teaching of Türk, the emphasis on a good sound not harsh or without presence, and the awareness of correct hand position and posture by many teachers of the time. I also enjoyed reading that the highest aim in piano playing according to musicians of the day was to express the character of a work and to transmit it to the audience. (That is the characters of the work of course not the performer's own) I think it was Arrau who said that technique is formed by the character.

Lastly, it seemed that Logier was one of the first teachers interested in making money with a piano method. (It is better to teach 30 students in one hour than 30 in 30 hours right?) And I bet he charged quite a bit for his apparatus. I really like the idea of the chiroplast, especially for small children. I understand how hard it is to teach young ones to keep up their wrists. You simple cannot run around picking up wrists all day if you have a class of 30! The only additional material that I would use personally, in teaching 30 children between the ages of 7 and 10 at the same time, would be 30 straight jackets and ritalin. Make them sit nice and still.

Chapter 7 & 8

Although I do not hold Czerny in such high esteem as the author clearly does, I do think many of his writings are still applicable today. For example, his eloquently phrased remarks on the importance of practicing, “Practice is the great Magician, who not only makes apparent impossibilities performable, but even easy” is encouraging. His statement that in teaching subjects should be distributed across lessons is obvious enough, but shouldn’t be overlooked. I think it is particularly important to have a systematic approach to teaching young students… at least in theory, history, and technique.

Again we find the importance of avoiding all unnecessary movements, a concept he must have inherited from Beethoven…

“We shall gain nothing by torturing the young Pupil with Compositions which must appear to him as old fashioned, unintelligible, and tasteless, or as too difficult and troublesome; every Pupil makes much greater progress when he plays all his lessons willingly and with satisfaction.” I agree that the student should work on music that appeals to him or her… but often music that seems unintelligible or difficult at first becomes more fulfilling than what is quickly playable.

Turk recommends thinking of each note as a spoken tone, which I think is essential for piano. His ideas about agogic accents in moderation is important to consider as well. Much of the chapter was devoted to the Chiroplast and similar devices, which I believe are all horrible… for obvious reasons... I also strongly object to Logier’s teaching classes of 30 to 40 students. I believe the piano should be taught individually whenever possible. Kalkbrenner did have some useful ideas about tone though, specifically “the manner of striking the key must exhibit innumerable variations corresponding to the various emotions to be expressed” which is even more important today on our more sensitive pianos.

Chapter 8: Early Methodology

I question why this far it seems as though every pedagogue mentioned does not allow vertical motion of the wrist. Many state that the wrist is never to move in perpendicular motion, but to always remain parallel. This idea is particularly apparent in the creation of Logier's Chiroplast which he describes: "The rails must be adjusted by means of the screws which will be found in the cheek pieces for that purpose, so as to admit the hands of the pupil passing between them nearly as far as the wrists; being so regulated as to prevent any perpendicular motion of the hand, though sufficiently wide to allow a free horizontal movement when required." Possibly, perpendicular motion was avoided as a finger technique was still mainly enforced, and it is not until later when a whole-arm technique emerges that we see vertical motion of the wrist.

In Logier's description is also the first incidence I have found of teaching by rote. "In this situation he might play the first lesson without knowing a note of music, by merely observing the marks 1, 2, 3, 4, engraved over the fingers, with a x over the thumb, and the corresponding marks over the notes of the lesson." However, the following lessons to come indicated that five-finger patterns are introduced starting in the key of C and then G, a similar progression found in many of todays methods.

Wow. Kalkbrenner makes some harsh remarks the preface of his Methode, when he states "Very often a whole lifetime is scarcely long enough to correct the bad habits contracted during the first three months of lessons." I find it possible, with discipline and dedication, that students who have learned bad habits in the beginning years of their training, can correct these habits. I understand the importance of having a quality training initially, but I find it to be discouraging when told you have no chance of fixing your bad habits that you acquired early on. Here, I think Kalkbrenner underestimates the ability of the human mind and spirit.

Chapter 6-7

Unquestionably Beethoven is one of the most influential pianists and composers in the world. With his revolutionary personality, he alone had changed the whole trend of piano playing, yet still have time to compose many of the greatest works in the world.

When I was reading I found out how differently 'pianist' meant back in Beethoven's time and in our time. They were all expected to compose, improvise and sigh-read. Nowadays we are barely required to do any of those. We can play a piece without knowing the harmonies or even notes. In comparison with Beethoven and his contemporaries, our playing are way lack of creative power. How different would the perspective be when one approaches the piano with the knowledge and ability to construct the music he/she's playing. In my point of view, the reason that led us to nowadays' custom is simply being economical. At some point in the history, probably starting from Liszt, the act of playing piano itself earns far more than any other part of the music industry, thus pianists are solely trained to perform. I think this is still a true phenomenon in present.

Although Beethoven dedicated most of his time creating music, he also had the desire to write technical studies for solving pianists' problems. From the fragments he left for us, we can see how much his distinctive approach to the piano differs from his contemporaries. While most of his contemporaries are still indulged in Mozart and Hummel's school of piano playing, Beethoven emphasized the involvement of the arm as well as body movement. The significant of his piano study fragments I felt is that the exercises themselves forced you to play not only with fingers but the whole arm. Although the pedagogue value of Beethoven's exercises is not particularly remarkable, the master still has left us an enormous resource towards piano playing - Carl Czerny.

Cznery basically inherited most of this ideas from Beethoven. Thanks to him we will never again run out of exercises for practice, and thanks to him we all spend much more hours of our childhood and youth in front of the piano. I found myself was raised rather according to the traditional stream: Bach, Clementi and Czerny. These are the names that I grew up with. When I tried to recall the days I was messing with Czerny, I found the studies not as beneficial to me as Cznery said they should. Part of the reason would probably because I'm not talented enough, but the other part I think is also because I wasn't taught and did not understand the philosophy of the technique behind the studies. I won't doubt the function and effect Czerny's studies could bring, but I strongly believe the studies have to be taught both physically and mentally, even at the very young ages of the students.

It is interesting to see Czerny himself suggested "we shall gain nothing by torturing the young Pupil with Compositions which must appear to him as old fashioned, unintelligible, and tasteless, or as too difficult and troublesome". I don't know if Czerny could have imagine 99% foe the young pupil (at least from my experience) indeed found his studies BORING! Anyways, my point is, having seeing Czerny saying that opens up my mind towards introducing, or indeed compromising to students more interesting pieces, e.g. pop music, musical, or even 'high school musical'..?, which obviously they''ll so much more willingly practice. It's just sometimes quite frustrating not being able to find substitution for Czerny. Could anyone suggest, what other choices do we have apart from Czerny, preferably more interesting, for students before being able to play Chopin's?

Chapter 7: Czerny

The majority of musicians mentioned thus far have come from musical families. Often, fathers are musicians, recognize musical talent in their children, and poof, a musical genius is created. Okay, so maybe not every child that studied music because their family was musical was a genius, but I envy those children who came from musical families. So my dad played trumpet in high school, but it didn’t really have much importance in my own education. Had I not chosen to play the piano, I can’t say I would have ever played a musical instrument. I appreciate that Czerny’s father strived to develop his sight-reading ability and musicianship through continuous study of new music.

I like how Czerny was able to create such skill in Liszt’s ability to sight-read by having him learn music rapidly. I have heard teacher’s talk about the importance of sight-reading, but it never seems to be suggested as part of our practice sessions. I am inspired to sight-read new music for an hour each day (if I had an extra hour), or learn music faster while maintaining the same accuracy and sensitivity. If sight-reading was incorporated into daily practicing, then maybe we could play at sight in public.

I don’t know if having a lesson every day of the week is such a good thing. Students need some time to digest the information they are learning, think about it, and to make new information meaningful to themselves in their own way. I do think that two lessons a week would be beneficial. If an advanced student is studying a large amount of repertoire, I could more easily see having a lesson each day if it were on a different piece of music, but it still seems somewhat excessive.

It is highly important, as Czerny states, we should “easily perceive that the works of each Composer must be executed in the style in which he wrote.” It is important that we play Bach differently than Beethoven, and Beethoven differently than Chopin.

Gerig: Chapter 6

Gerig’s assertion that Beethoven respected musical integrity above all else is easily confirmed by accounts of his playing and teaching; even more important, a survey of his piano sonatas reveals his concern only for the most sincere and deep expression. In an attempt to attain this “integrity” of interpretation central to the Beethoven Sonatas many influences must be considered. A pertinent idea to me now is that Beethoven would advocate the ability to hear the tones before they are struck. Considering all the masterpieces he wrote when he could no longer hear, he could probably do this better than anyone…

Beethoven’s physical approach is also a good model, being described as “masterfully quiet.” Extraneous motion seems to be avoided, he insists that the fingers should not be raised more than necessary.

Gerig’s discussion of Beethoven’s relationship with the metronome is a myopic one. The majority of this discussion involves a single quotation from Schindler, who is not the most reliable source. I believe Gerig underestimates the importance of the metronome to Beethoven... In his compositions, rhythm and pulse are paramount. As he became older he went through increasing trouble to describe specifically the way his music should be performed. Indeed, in his correspondences regarding performances of his works we find his question, “how were the tempos?” often the first thing asked, as if everything else was less important. His metronome marks therefore must not be dismissed.

Outside the realm of jazz, improvisation has become largely unknown in music. I think this is unfortunate… I wish it could be a part of the standard classical curriculum, as it incorporates so many essential elements of our art including ear training, technique, theory, spontaneity, and of course, creativity.

The Czerny Journey

"When I was barely ten I was already able to play cleanly and fluently nearly everything by Mozart, Clementi, and the other piano composers of the time; owing to my excellent musical memory I mostly performed without the music" (p. 103).

WELL. Decipher THAT rhetoric. Still alive and already overcompensating. Ahh Czerny, why do we all hate you so? Even Gerig couldn't hold back the quote, " ...but the good was produced with the bad- and the bad tended to dominate" (p.107). Schumann agreed: "... Had I enemies, I would, in order to destroy them, force them to listen to nothing but music such as this..."(p. 107).

So how did he make the book? Why hasn't everyone BURNED the "School of Velocity"etudes? Liszt. That's why. So he had some insights, and he was a great teacher, blah blah blah. He still hated children.

The highlight of the chapter:

"From this historical sketch, the reflecting Pianist will easily perceive that the works of each Composer must be executed in the style in which he wrote; and that the performer will assuredly fail, if he attempts to play all the works of the Masters above named in the self-same style" (p. 118). So let's all play harpsichords and learn to dance the allemande and shut up already.

See Beethoven article below for real composer.

Chapters 6-8

Chapter 6

I love Beethoven. I love the music. I love how he was grumpy much of the time. I love how he was a tortured soul that expressed deep meaning through music. He is truly one of the greatest composers of all time and the first real pianist that brought us out of the "finger school." It was fun to read about how he freakishly played his compositions. He would most definitely used the modern piano if it was available in his time. His piano often had broken strings and looked quite beat up but I think that just shows his passion for music. I don't know if you've ever broken a string, but it's a pretty freaky event. As far as his teaching, I thought it was interesting how he didn't much care if the student missed notes, but if musical expression was ignored, he stopped the student straight away. It makes me feel better that I can miss a few notes in Beethoven, but I'll still try to hit them all. Obviously he used more pedal than was noted, but I think this just makes it more important to observe pedal markings that he did put in to get the real idea he had in mind.

Chapter 7

Czerny had some interesting things to say as far as pedagogy. All though none of them were epiphanic they gave a good picture. I thought it was quite interesting that he had Liszt study Clementi, not Mozart (perhaps Clementi won after all...). I didn't quite agree with his style of teaching where students played until their hands hurt. Playing the piano should never be harmful and if you are practicing to that point of exhaustion everyday, you must re-evaluate your practicing. Maybe he really was doing some sort of "survival of the fittest" where only the strongest survive. I though it was very important that the teacher must understand the student. I think this really is the hardest thing about teaching piano. Understanding your student well enough to explain what you want them to do, and choosing pieces that will challenge them but not put them off to music. Although with time this comes much easier. I also liked the people thought he didn't like children so he composed a bunch of etudes!

Chapter 8 was interesting to hear some of the other important piano methods. I never knew that Dussek was the first to turn the piano to the side. I loved the fact that Gerig mentions that he was handsome (that's obviously why he did it). And now for something completely ridiculous: The Chiroplast. What a bizarre contraption. I'm not really sure how beneficial those things were. I think resting your arm can be harmful as you move your wrist too much or strain your fingers. Obviously, they didn't do too much for your technique or we would still use them today. I kept picturing some torture device in the back of my mind... The other pedagogues were interesting. I'm glad Fetis decided that it was alright to use the thumb on the black key if necessary. I wasn't completely sold on mastering every style of each pedagogue because I think there's a lot of carry over between technique. And we don't really play some of those guys anymore...

Beethoven and that Other Guy, the One All Pianists Hate

Beethoven. Stop, just for a moment, and consider your gut reaction when you come across that name. The name means something to nearly everyone, even those perhaps not so well acquainted with classical music; "that song for some girl I played way back when I took piano lessons," "a large dog" (O.o) "disco music" (!). As classical musicians, who have been trained to assume a pose of rapt adoration and awe whenever even part of Beethoven's name is mentioned ("No, guys, I meant Van Cliburn, you can get up off the floor now."), the relative ignorance of a world who, although they may not all be as naive as the above exaggeration suggests, rarely listen to Beethoven or give him a thought, is shocking. But they do know his name. And that, in this generation of rap and hip-hop, speaks to the indisputable greatness of the man.

It is fascinating that, for such a great composer of piano music, Beethoven was not considered to be a polished pianist early in his career. His early seeming devotion to the organ is interesting, and makes me wonder how much of an effect it had on his pianistic style. Organ playing ideally has a very smooth legato, and Beethoven began the tradition of a default legato setting in piano playing. Could this, as well as some of his fastidious fingerings, be in part the result of his early organ playing? Whether this is at all the case or not, Beethoven certainly pioneered a new age in pianism, writing pieces that required more than just finger technique. It is interesting to note, however, that despite his huge works for piano it is said that when he played "His hands and the upper portion of his body were held quiet" (Gerig, Famous Pianists and Their Technique, pg. 96).

It is sad that Beethoven never published a method book. His attention to fingering, and the worth of the few exercises we do have seems phenomenal. Whereas Clementi and Hummel published huge volumes of exercises, Beethoven's few would almost do the trick. Not long, or overly complicated (in most cases), they teach the necessary skill quickly. What is more, they encourage good fingering, and the ability to find good fingerings, as well as finger dexterity.

In stark contrast to Beethoven's modest output of pedagogical exercises, there stand the volumes of his student, Carl Czerny. And volumes. And volumes.And volumes. These copious works have caused Czerny's name to be that most likely to be uttered in conjunction with an expletive by pianists. Perhaps this is not entirely fair; Czerny was after all by most accounts a warm-hearted man who tirelessly taught piano. Furthermore, he was a student of Beethoven, and his method books begin to break away from the finger school, and even advocate some movement by the body, as the music calls for it. Most important is his exhortation that "each musical piece. . .is an Exercise in itself" (quoted in Gerig 115). He encourages teachers not to overburden their students with mere technical exercises. Of all of Czerny's teachings, perhaps this has the most worth; there are so many good pedagogical pieces of music these days that I wonder, is there a need to rely on books of exercises any longer? What is more, Czerny's 'survival of the fittest' style regimen of exercises may drive away young pianists, even those with talent. Why sit and repeat endless difficult exercises when you could use that dexterity to kill more rivals in Halo?

Czerny and Early Methodology

 

 

Czerny might be the most celebrated piano educator after Clementi and Beethoven. He devoted himself to write several valued piano pedagogy books on piano fundamentals and beginning of technical material. In addition, he successfully taught one of the most famous pianists Liszt in the 19^th century.

 

From his point of view, diligence and professional training is very important to a piano student, even though this student is very gifted. As one of Beethoven's students, he was taught to be faithful to the original edition which author made. That's why we are always asked to use Urtext edition by our teachers. And we don't reading music very carefully sometimes and make a lot of changes on the work. The lessons Czerny learned from Beethoven also warn us that we should be responsible to the music which author wrote.

 

After observing Clementi's teaching methods and Beethoven's technique fundamentals, Czerny developed his own methods to teach the students. Through his teaching methods, he made Liszt an awkward boy to a fabulous pianist in the 19^th century. However, looking insight his methods, I found nothing too much special. The points he focused on were rhythm, touch, fingering, musical phrasing, sight reading. He also mentioned it was important to make a good choice of piece and keep listening sensitivity.

 

Of course, the development of piano pedagogy in history didn't just rely on several pianists and teachers we are familiar with. In chapter 8, a lot of names were mentioned such as Turk, Dussek. Because of all of these people's efforts, the piano technique, methodology was keeping going.

---

使用Messenger保护盾2.0，支持多账号登录！ 现在就下载！

 Reading Czerny's story from his own recollection was interesting.  It seemed sincere, he was a great teacher and musician but he didn't need to wear it on his sleeve.  I guess he learned his lesson liked he mentioned when he got in trouble with Beethoven.  I also loved his description of Liszt!  He says about Liszt, "while playing he swayed on the chair as if drunk so that I often thought he would fall over." (105) This little excerpt along with the other things he writes about Liszt were most interesting.  I have to admit I do not know much about Liszt but from reading Czerny's description of him he must have been an extremely gifted man.  I also thought Czerny was insightful in his idea that he should instill in Liszt a good habit of solid technique.  Geniuses mental gifts are ahead of their physical strength so they then tend to slight solid technique says Czerny.  

I imagine that Czerny must have been a great teacher.  His chapter on expression in his treaties and the knowledge of music he possessed was impressive.  What he writes I think can still be applied today in our studies of those past composer and musicians. As well to twentieth and twenty first century music for Czerny says that what my be sufficient for one piece is not for another.  

In addressing chapter 8 and Logier's invention of the Chiroplast it sounds as of his intentions were good in wanting to improve wrist motion but I have to agree with the skeptics.  I think it would be better to have a good and careful teacher who instilled solid technique into the student.  Plus taking Engel's point into consideration that it is not always good to hinder movement.  The freedom of movement can help us with the expression of a piece.  If one has a stiff touch expression my be cramped.    

Ch. 7&8

For Czerny, who composed so many exercises, to write that a composition is an exercise itself was a bit surprising, as the author indicated it would be. This statement may give some insight into how he may have wished exercises to be used -- selecting appropriate ones as supplementary material rather than going through an entire book as a course of study. Concern with a student's ongoing interest in playing the instrument comes up again, as he encourages working on pieces that will be pleasing to the student, not too difficult, and presented with minimal emphasis on the structure at the outset. I think this could also extend to advising against waiting too long to explain harmony, form, etc., as an understanding of these elements can also enhance appreciation of the music.

Concluding Chapter 7, Czerny's summary of the differing styles of playing piano is a passage that still could be useful as a reminder of these approaches to technique and that they should be applied to corresponding compositions.

Logier's description of his Chiroplast in Chapter 8 was actually somewhat convincing and may have been helpful in the group classes that Spohr described. With so many students at one time, it would be very hard to give adequate attention to everyone's hand position. Nevertheless, I can't imagine having your hands shaped by a metal contraption could be very healthy. The student would eventually have to learn how to maintain a good position without the tool anyway. It seems like such devices might also emphasize the mechanical side of playing over the expressive in the minds of beginners.

Ch. 6

There are at least two accounts (p. 87 & 96) of Beethoven remaining fairly still and without facial expressions in performance while still playing very expressively or even "hard and heavy" early on. Avoiding unnecessary movement has been a recurring theme thus far, and I think it is telling that Beethoven chose to maintain this tradition while making such distinct changes in his approach to articulation and pedalling.

Although I would not wish deafness on anyone, I'm not sure I would agree with labelling Beethoven's deteriorating hearing as a tragedy (p. 89). If it hadn't happened, his compositional output would surely have been different, but who knows that it would have been better. At a personal level, it could not have improved his life; but from a historical perspective, it makes his achievements all the more impressive.

Chapter 6: Beethoven

It is truly amazing the power music has over emotions. Beethoven was able to comfort a pupil who had lost a child, just as many feel joy, excitement, sadness, suffering, and a vast array of other emotions when listening to music. Playing piano allows me to go to a different place, away from the stresses of daily life, and can often act as an emotional outlet. Pianists, and musicians alike, have the ability to convey their emotions to their audiences and infuse their soul into the music.

In addition to Beethoven’s more gentle and caring side as mentioned above, he also seemed to have a sarcasm about him; a disregard to the norms of society. I laugh when reading the quote from his student when he recalls a story in which, Beethoven, after hearing Daniel Steibelt play a prepared “improvisation” of variations on a theme of his, continued to take Steibelt’s quintet score, turn it upside down, and improvise on it. I agree with Beethoven that one must have integrity in the music they play.

I find Czerny’s quote regarding Beethoven’s pedaling interesting, stating Beethoven…”could scarcely span a tenth. He made frequent use of the pedals, much more frequent than is indicated in his works.” I question if increased pedal use was because Beethoven could not reach a tenth, or simply because he wanted more pedal. I can span a tenth, however, am often asked to add more pedaling when playing Beethoven. This reminds me of what I know about Chopin pedaling, and that he did not clearly mark his pedaling as he thought it was too difficult to indicate on paper. Perhaps, Beethoven had a similar feeling, and did not necessarily indicate all pedal markings he wanted.

"No more metronome! Anyone who can feel the music right does not need it, and for anyone who can’t, nothing is of any use; he runs away with the whole orchestra anyway!” Is having correct and tight rhythm necessary? Yes. But, having an internal sense of rhythm is much more important than strictly using a metronome. If you cannot feel rhythm internally, it can possibly hinder on expression and interpretation. How boring would music be if everything were played completely precise and exact?

Rebel With A Cause

Americans. We love the hero. Whether it's fighting for freedom or just "sticking it to the man", we tend to enjoy those who love the revolution. Is it wrong that there's nothing I find more titillating than a bad boy who has ideas about "the way of the world"? Perhaps if he wore a leather jacket and wrote songs about "the bureaucracy"- with a half lit cigarette hanging from his moistened lips? It's important to understand, whilst studying Beethoven, that he is just that, a "Robinson Crusoe" figure(as Czerny remembers him, p. 89) though in my head he looks more like a James Dean rendition of "the Fonz".

Beethoven's first serious teacher, Christian Gottlob Neefe had this to say about his student : "He would surely become a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart were he to continue as he has begun" (p.82). But he didn't get to live the life like Mozart did he? No! While Mozart lived the equivalent of a spoiled suburbanite getting carted around in a minivan, Beethoven grew up troubled, without a mother and with a father who suffered from "moral deterioration" (p. 83). It was this life of angst and struggle that shaped him into the man we know and love, a fact that is crucial in the understanding of Beethoven's style and performance practice.

The biggest critique of Beethoven is his lack of polished delicacy. Though he was capable of imitation, his true style was that of a cathartic, naked passion that was far ahead of his time. The most important lesson that we can derive from this chapter, and our study of Beethoven in general is the importance of musical expression EVEN at the expense of technical facility.

Would you rather be able to play the most difficult piece in the world perfectly, note for note, or would you play the simplest children's piece with such expression that everyone in the audience was overcome with emotion, be it bliss or grief? If you honestly choose the first, in my humble opinion, music is not your calling.

If we sincerely call Beethoven one of the greatest musicians that ever lived, perhaps we can pay closer attention to the ideas that shaped him. Beethoven went as far as to say: "The increasing mechanism of pianoforte playing would in the end destroy all truth of expression in music" (p.98). His student Ries remembers: " When I left something out in a passage, a note or a skip, which in many cases he wished to have specially emphasized, or struck a wrong key, he seldom said anything; yet when I was at fault with regard to the expression, the crescendi or matter of that kind, or in the character of the piece, he would grow angry. Mistakes of the other kind, he said, were due to change; but these last resulted from want of knowledge, feeling or attention. He himself often made mistakes of the first kind, even when playing in public" (p. 90)

What if we encouraged our students to play much simpler pieces, with far more expression? What if we spent more time on Chopin preludes than on etudes, even at the college level? One could argue that at the college level, one should be able to play with both dexterity, AND musical expression, though I would reply that our expression suffers greatly as we try to progress in our technique so rapidly at the same time. Wouldn't it be interesting to devote much more time to conveying ourselves on stage, rather than just repeating all of the notes? What if we DIDN'T play the piece note for note, just as all of the masters before us did? What if we learned to improvise? These are questions that I am addressing in my own practice and composition. The study of expression within more elementary pieces is something I am exploring on my own, because as some of you may know, the last time I performed my Chopin Scherzo, it lacked both technical facility AND musical expression. :)

chapter 7&8

I was very impressed with the teaching attitude of Czerny. Actually Czerny said " I became familiar with the teaching method of this celebrated master and foremost pianist of his time, and I primarily owe it to this circumstance that later I was fortunate enough to train many important students to a degree of perfection for which they became world-famous." I think it is a right thought as a teacher. Actually Beethoven also taught Czerny enthusiastic and Czerny learned many technical fundamentals and musical ideas from Beethoven. So Czerny would like other students to hand the valuable teaching that he learned from his previous teacher and he discovered over. Nowadays, this attitude looks disappeared. Of course, there are many respected teachers. However, we who is going to be a teacher make an effort to not forget this attitude like Czerny.

I was interesting about fingering in chapter 8. Sometimes I was confused which finger I have to use in order to play easily and naturally. Especially, I have trouble with the end of phrase and exchanging between the right hand and left hand. There is no exact fingering number. I think the best fingering is the sound is agreeable by the ear and the performer feels easy and natural. It is still hard to find which fingering is best, but we have to try.

Chapter 5

Viewing teaching as a financial necessity seems to have persisted to this day and is a viewpoint that I don't relate to. Although success as a teacher may not be admired as much as success as a performer or composer, it is a profession in which someone can continuously learn, improve, and influence music-making. Perhaps Hummel's great success as a teacher and his treatise indicate that teaching was more than a source of income for him.

Within the reprinted portions of Hummel's Course of Instruction, there were many good pieces of advice even for the present day teacher, such as listening to good musicians, whether or not they are pianists, and studying the character of a piece. Good fingering was important to Hummel, as he included hundreds of exercises related to this point and largely avoided playing the thumb on a black key (p. 75). However, he also suggests a hand position that more easily allows use of the thumb on black keys (p. 73). I am curious to know the situations in which he would have suggested playing a black key with a thumb. Further, I am curious to know what he would think about playing today's arrangements of popular music for piano, seeing as he advised "avoiding only flimsy extracts from Operas, ballets, overtures, dances, &c: because they are not suited to the Piano-forte, form neither the hands nor fingers...and interrupt the progress of a serious and rational study of music" (p. 74). This statement may have some truth to it, but the role of the piano in society has certainly changed since his time.

Hummel & Beethoven

Legato technique is the Beethoven's one of main technique contribution to the keyboard. The "real" legato began to be used at Beethoven's time. In Mozart's time, this kind of  legato on keyboard is considered impossible. Also he wrote some exercises for special kinds of legato and legatissimo.
 
The dynamic changes in Beethoven's time was more developed. The expression that Beethoven focused on could be seen from one of his students words. He said Beethoven did allow some fault with regards to wrong notes even Beethoven made this kind of mistakes in the public performance. but mistakes regard to expression such as crescendi made him get angry, since Beethoven thought this kind of mistakes are the results from lack of knowledge and attention or feeling.
 
The most interesting thing is how Beethoven teaches his newphew. The basic elements such as patience, affections and being firm of this great composer's teaching methods had not too much difference from today.
 
Hummel's teaching methods which contains technical detail and instructions are very impressive to me. From elementary instruction to advanced guidance including ornamentation, pedaling, beauty of performance. All of these are very valuable.

---

使用Messenger保护盾2.0，支持多账号登录！ 现在就下载！

Chapter 5

I would love to be a fly on the wall for some of these old-fashioned rivalries that we've read about. The Clementi and Mozart feud was interesting but this Hummel/Beethoven fiasco is fascinating to me. You just don't really see that kind of behavior as much today. If there was, I think it would be fair to a duel to settle it once and for all and the winner should have to leave the country or something....Of course Beethoven is the victor of this feud, he's awesome.

Now onto Hummel the teacher. I remember only briefly learning about Hummel as one of those transitory composers that got a passing mention. In fact I think I've only heard his A minor concerto once (though it is a dazzling piece). He had some good philosophies for teaching. I liked his idea of daily musical instruction, though in this society it's just not practical as music is "just" and extracurricular activity. I might mention that most other extracurricular activities have daily instruction such as sports practices and the like, but I digress. I think it would be beneficial to do multiple lessons per week if it works for the teacher and student. That way the student gets positive reenforcement and less space for learning bad habits. This would also make the student practice more, but who really has time for that?

I like the point that he suggested students listen to other distinguished musicians, not only pianists but other instrumentalists, vocalists and ensembles. This is indispensable advice and most certainly would help the student become a better musician. Imagine learning a Chopin nocturne without any thought to the vocal origins. And in many cases if you sing the melody, you get a much better idea on how to shape it. One last thing to mention from his treatise. He, like the others we have seen, mentions that music should speak for itself. Any unnecessary movements or attempt to show off do not make you a better musician *ahem*.

At first I wondered why his treatise (and treatises in general) has fallen out of prominence. But after thinking about it for a while, I understand why people don't really need treatises anymore. For one, you may not agree with everything it says. Secondly, if you've been teaching, you figure out your own way to present technique and musicality to your students with your own un-boring exercises. And who really wants to read a multi-volume book on teaching when we really should be practicing! Maybe someone will one day make an abridged version as Gerig suggests and we can reference if we choose without having to sift through hundreds of pages.

Gerig: Chapter 5

Hummel describes in his “Art of Playing the Piano Forte” how mastering great technical difficulties alone “surprise the ear but do not delight it; they astonish the understanding without satisfying it.” While he seems to be making a point that technical displays without musical direction create superficial interpretations, a closer look at this quote reveals something even more interesting. I would actually argue that “astonishing the understanding without satisfying it” is exactly what music should do. Can music ever be completely satisfying? Should it be? The greatest performances I have seen left me in a state of wonder, curiosity, even “astonishment” - but not, I think, satisfied. This does not mean music should be dissatisfying, of course, only that if it were able to be completely understood, it would probably fail to astonish at all. Indeed, we should not forget that a complete “understanding” of any of the Beethoven sonatas (to use a completely random example…) is not possible for anyone, even the best musicians.

Also... I do like the idea of having daily lessons… I wish that was still commonly practiced today. I think it is much better for a teacher to meet with a few students frequently than to meet with many students for just one hour per week...

The "Common looking" One

I would like to have met Mozart, taken lessons from Beethoven and, as a small girl, sat on Haydn's knee. But I would like to have been friends with Hummel. There is something amicable in the description of a "common looking" man with no sense whatsoever of style, a penchant for laughing at inopportune moments and a beautiful but humble artistry. This artistry seems to have been a large part of what Hummel is remembered for. Before this point, the vast majority of famous keyboardists we have studied were equally famous as composers; this was not so much the case with Hummel. Although he did compose, he is more a model of a complete pianist. Starting at a young age, and entering into a kind of apprenticeship with Mozart, embarking on a long career as a pianist, and completing the picture with a piano method, and a long list of fine students, Hummel offers the blueprint for a successful and distinguished career as a pianist.

Before I comment on the pedagogical ideas of Hummel himself, I would like to muse for a moment on those of Mozart. Mozart's thoughts on the business end of piano teaching are the earliest I have read, and they seem to me not bad. Although his policy on canceled lessons seems a tad harsh, his insistence on fees and payment is an attitude we may do well to remember. Piano teaching is a business, after all. Matters of his fees aside, the frequency and duration of the lessons he conducted were slightly stunning to me. What could one possibly teach a piano student for an hour a day?? And, assuming that he did actually teach music for that hour, how much did his students practice?

Hummel also espoused the idea of an hour long lesson a day, but only for the first six months or a year of instruction. This idea seemed rather ridiculous to me until I considered the rest of his teaching philosophy; Hummel stressed the vital importance of correcting and warding off bad habits at the outset of a student's instruction. His attention to reading, meter, and a fine sense of pitch are notable. If I had had this style of teaching with a lesson every day in my first months of training I would (if I did not dissolve into angry tears and quit first) have learned not to rush every piece of music I learned to the fastest speed I could play it at the moment I attained any level of proficiency at it. I would have learned to sit up correctly, not slouching, not tensing my shoulders. And I would like to imagine that had the piano I learned on been tuned at all times, I would have developed a much finer sense of pitch. Therefore, in Hummel's most basic thoughts on pedagogy, I find usage for a lesson a day for beginners. And with a devoted teacher, the experience would be even more beneficial. In this regard, Hummel went beyond the business of music to the artistry. Music teaching isn't just a way of making money, it is a continuation of the art. And in this age where the demand for classical music is lessening, and children are teased for playing it, a measure of the duty of preserving the art form falls to the music teachers, who must invest all they can in the task of imparting a love of this music in their students.

As a closing note, I would like to note Hummel's thoughts on beauty vs. correctness in performance. A piece of music isn't just notes, like a poem isn't just words, and the exhortation to listen to as much good music as possible, and not just keyboard music, is a good one. I am a musician, after all, why not take time to enjoy the art every once in awhile?

Chapter 5

In my point of view, Hummel is so much more interesting from the pedagogical standpoint than performance. There is no doubt about his capability and virtuosity in piano playing, but I would say his importance as a performer was just too much shadowed by the two big stars, Mozart and Beethoven, at his time. However his treatises unquestionably earn a significant place in pedagogy history.

It is truly surprising to find out so many of nowadays teaching strategy and philosophy are all reflected from Hummel. He acknowledged the role of parents, teachers and students taking part in the educational process; he introduced ‘grading’ compositions according to the compositions; and also the idea of mixing exercises with stylistic repertoire for progressive learning . I don’t know if Hummel is the first to mention these thoughts but obviously they’re something so important that indeed we’re still following them nowadays.

I don’t feel like the technical part, or so to speak the physical description part, in his treatises are significantly helpful to pianists nowadays (probably more valuable on the historical perspective, alike Clementi’s exercises we discussed last week) as the instrument and technique we’re using advanced so much from there.

I disagree from the chapter ‘on musical performance in general’ Hummel’s intention in separating mechanism and musicality in piano playing. This thought is rather contradictory to what we’ve been thinking on musical solutions towards technical problems. I also doubted if the expressiveness and beauty of music ‘can neither be taught nor acquired’. It sounds mean.

Nevertheless I respect Hummel the person very much. I can imagine how much pressure he was suffering throughout his time, yet he never give up and keep working truthfully towards himself. Even though he did not earn as much fame and popularity as some of his contemporaries, still he absolutely is an adorable musician.

Hummel had some good ideals about the teaching of piano in his treatise. I appreciated how he said that a teacher should demonstrate eagerness and interest in there students in order for them to make rapid progress. I have always felt that it is important for a student to feel applauded or at least respected by their instructors. I think students will really work and practice harder for a teacher if they are made to feel important.

It surprised me to read that Beethoven could be such a patient and good teacher as shown through his students letters, Ries and Therese Brunswick. I have always thought of him as a musician prone to excitement and a bad temperament. But this was not always the case for him. His good nature was again proven in the letter to Czerny about his nephew and also in his admiration toward Weber.

I found the rival between Hummel's followers and Beethoven's to be interesting. On the one hand there is Beethoven the new innovator and on the other Hummel with his cleanness and clarity. Beethoven the "fascinating personality in music history" and Hummel following in the shoes of Mozart. Both were great musicians and teachers yet so different in there approaches to music. Hemmel states "I said to myself that it was best to remain true to myself and my own nature." I think this really represents how both Hummel and Beethoven felt about their playing and music. Moreover, both really held to there true selfs. Beethoven being the passionate composer conveying and expressing his feelings. And Hummel being the classic one.