Do you think that the early nineteenth century would have been stuck with the old finger school of technique thought if some of the "natural performers" mentioned earlier in the chapter such as Chopin, Beethoven, etc. had written a method book or treaties? Or even if it had not made a difference why did they seem so entrenched in their old school of technique thought when the "natural performers" like Liszt, Beethoven and Chopin were using more of an enlightened piano technique. These pianist were so revered why was not their technique or should I say form not valued as well?

This chapter has made me think more about the word technique and what it really all entails. There seems to be many different facet to this word. Yet, they intertwine sometimes too tightly to separate distinctly. Before this class and especially this chapter I would not have necessarily grouped technique and expression into the same category. However, from reading Deppe's teaching methods it seems to me that they can almost be one in the same. If one has good form and technique, one thing will lead to the next, out of technical form comes expression. Deppe stated that we must play with the weight of our fingers and that form has a lot to do with expression. When I begin teaching I would like to remember this and instill in students a good form and the importance of solid technique. Often times I pay much more attention to the sound of things rather than the form of my playing. Therefore, if I were to flip this and pay more attention to form rather then sound at the appropriate times I would know the right form for the right sound and expression I want. I also think this is applicable for teaching as well. Often times we might not pay enough attention to form when in all likely hood it may be the underlying problem for the students. Could I perhaps be right in boiling everything down to basically one catagory? If one has a good technical form the rest will readily fall into place. Or is this to simple of an approach?