What was included of the Lebert and Stark method described a technique that seems as though it would be very uncomfortable and, as confirmed by personal accounts, very tiring. While this school of playing may have been easier to teach, I wonder how successful it was. It must have resulted in a certain amount of success for it to have been popular, but the account from Amy Fay emphasizes its failings, much as a current audience would expect to read. A suggestion from the Lebert and Stark method that I think is useful, however, is the practice suggestion of playing slowly and loudly at first (p. 231). Similar to Liszt's approach to learning a piece, it reduces the number of elements requiring attention so that you can focus on the just the notes initially.
Deppe's (and Mason's) approach sounded much more natural. Although I am not the first to wonder why it was not more widespread, I am also not convinced by Fay's reasoning in regard to Liszt. It seems unlikely that he wouldn't have noticed the difference at some point in his teaching career. Either way, it provides support for the idea that technique and musicality are connected. Deppe even relates beauty of tone to beauty of movement (p. 263) I think that 'natural' can be a form of beauty because it is pleasing, physically or visually or aurally, and the records of his teaching confirm a natural use of the body -- use of the whole arm, maintaining a good hand position as often as possible, alternation of muscle contraction and relaxation/efficiency of movement.
I also admire Deppe's specificity in teaching, as claimed by Fay, and not only in explaining a particular passage but also in applying it to to other situations. Teaching principles in addition to details will better serve students as they become more independent.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
(Insert Muppet Arms Here)
Well, here we are, folks. After chronicling hundreds of years of piano technique, we finally arrive at the people who advocated arm weight, and something closer to our style of playing. Leave it to the late romantics, with all their wives and concubines to finally start to shake things up.
First, however, we have the relatively novel idea of hand gymnastics, the exact execution of which I am still foggy on. Depending on the nature of the exercises, it strikes me that they might not be such a terrible idea; athletes exercise their bodies in other ways than just their own particular sport, so why shouldn't we exercise our hands away from the piano? I think, however, that with today's lifestyle of texting and typing at all hours of the day and night, our hands may occasionally be more in need of an hour's break than anything else.
We move on, then, to Mason and his exercises for two fingers. I found these interesting, and while I would most likely have to work with them to decide whether they're really worthwhile, it occurred to me that since the two-note slur is the smallest unit in music, moving from one finger to the next could be called the smallest musical action. If this be the case, then why not make sure that our playing with only two fingers is absolutely solid?
Ludwig Deppe was the most fascinating discovery in this week's reading. The description of his "feather light hand" technique and the usage of the arm muscles was surprisingly clear. Perhaps because Deppe was one of the first to actually advocate this style of playing, he had to be extremely clear, but we who use arm weight in our playing may do well to learn to articulate our style as well as he did.
The inclusion of a chapter dedicated to Leschetizky baffled me slightly. He did not seem to contribute much to the advancement of technique, and wrote no method himself. I suppose it was his many students who merited him special attention, and here we have a glimpse of his genius. Leschetizky's claim that the technique and "method" should be suited for and tailored to the individual student was brilliant. While there are certain principles that apply to all technique, everyone's hand size, physique and temperament are different. Because of this, suiting the technique and style to the student is vital. Of course, this leaves more work for the students, since only they can tell exactly what works with their own bodies, but then, independent thought is a good thing on occasion, right?
First, however, we have the relatively novel idea of hand gymnastics, the exact execution of which I am still foggy on. Depending on the nature of the exercises, it strikes me that they might not be such a terrible idea; athletes exercise their bodies in other ways than just their own particular sport, so why shouldn't we exercise our hands away from the piano? I think, however, that with today's lifestyle of texting and typing at all hours of the day and night, our hands may occasionally be more in need of an hour's break than anything else.
We move on, then, to Mason and his exercises for two fingers. I found these interesting, and while I would most likely have to work with them to decide whether they're really worthwhile, it occurred to me that since the two-note slur is the smallest unit in music, moving from one finger to the next could be called the smallest musical action. If this be the case, then why not make sure that our playing with only two fingers is absolutely solid?
Ludwig Deppe was the most fascinating discovery in this week's reading. The description of his "feather light hand" technique and the usage of the arm muscles was surprisingly clear. Perhaps because Deppe was one of the first to actually advocate this style of playing, he had to be extremely clear, but we who use arm weight in our playing may do well to learn to articulate our style as well as he did.
The inclusion of a chapter dedicated to Leschetizky baffled me slightly. He did not seem to contribute much to the advancement of technique, and wrote no method himself. I suppose it was his many students who merited him special attention, and here we have a glimpse of his genius. Leschetizky's claim that the technique and "method" should be suited for and tailored to the individual student was brilliant. While there are certain principles that apply to all technique, everyone's hand size, physique and temperament are different. Because of this, suiting the technique and style to the student is vital. Of course, this leaves more work for the students, since only they can tell exactly what works with their own bodies, but then, independent thought is a good thing on occasion, right?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Chapter 11
Virtuosity vs Musicality! I guess a problem every pianist struggling with. I personally find it pretty hard to find a good balance in between. No one would object the ultimate goal of performing music is to explore the expressiveness in music, but most of us can’t help ourselves leaning on either side. Ironically we need them both. We need expressiveness to keep the music interesting, yet we need good technique to express the music. Maybe this is inborn, rarely there’s a person strong at both sides. So far as we read, almost everyone encountered this problem. Beethoven was fame of his passion and energy in his piano playing but also was criticized his craftsmanship not good enough. Chopin might be an exception because people said he’s ‘perfect’. Thalberg was thought too mechanical. Even Liszt found himself couldn’t express music well enough at a point. And here now Schumann ruined his finger because he lost the balance in his practice.
I couldn’t imagine how could Schumann insisted his career as a musician after the injury. It takes so much courage. For this one single reason he’s already a very respectable musician. In this generation we just don’t have this patience and the obsession of one thing to persist like Schumann did. Frankly if one day I couldn’t play the piano anymore I would simply switch to other fields, probably one that could earn more or doesn’t have to lock myself up always.
Before reading this chapter, Clara was just ‘a famous female pianist’ in my understanding. This is so overly understated! She was good enough to being compared with Thalberg and Liszt and etc. She must be really good. Again, I couldn’t imagine how she went through her childhood under her cruel father’s torture... I think she deserve more than she’s having nowadays.
Schumann Triangle
I never knew Clara Schumann had eight children. I am sure she could not practice or compose much during this time. Perhaps that is why her father opposed to the marriage at first.
I like reading that so many great pianists in this book, like Clara Schumann, are said to have an absence of personal display and strive most importantly to comprehend the meaning of the composer. One of Clara Schumann’s students mentioned that her playing was never in disregard to the score even when she performed from memory. I find that to really be an impressive quality to have, especially when you are a famous pianist of your time. I think of the many famous pianists of our day. One often hears true interpretation in several recordings but one can often hear an exaggeration of “personal display” by many famous pianists in live performances. A lot of times this is evident with more familiar repertoire that has become overplayed. Pianists try to interpret these works in unnatural ways, not being true to the score, and seem to perform them in merely for the sake of being different. I think even great masters such as Rubenstein can be “guilty’ of this. I think this is a phenomenon which did not exist until the 20th century with the development of recordings and an abundance of pianists being judged on their individual interpretation. I like the quote that Clara Schumann above all secured….”An interpretation of the composer’s work which as it once intelligible to the listener-this certainly formed an essential element of her playing, and it is worth while insisting on this, since the absence of that strict accuracy and perspicuity is too often mistaken for evidence of deep emotional intention.”
It certainly seems that Clara Schumann was the first female pianist to be reckoned with in the 19th century as she was frequently mentioned among great virtuoso such as Liszt, Thalberg and others. I wonder to which extent she had published her own compositions under Robert Schumann’s name. Was it truly exceptional for female composers to publish their work so late in the 19th century? I would be curious reading more recent scholarship regarding this.
I like reading that so many great pianists in this book, like Clara Schumann, are said to have an absence of personal display and strive most importantly to comprehend the meaning of the composer. One of Clara Schumann’s students mentioned that her playing was never in disregard to the score even when she performed from memory. I find that to really be an impressive quality to have, especially when you are a famous pianist of your time. I think of the many famous pianists of our day. One often hears true interpretation in several recordings but one can often hear an exaggeration of “personal display” by many famous pianists in live performances. A lot of times this is evident with more familiar repertoire that has become overplayed. Pianists try to interpret these works in unnatural ways, not being true to the score, and seem to perform them in merely for the sake of being different. I think even great masters such as Rubenstein can be “guilty’ of this. I think this is a phenomenon which did not exist until the 20th century with the development of recordings and an abundance of pianists being judged on their individual interpretation. I like the quote that Clara Schumann above all secured….”An interpretation of the composer’s work which as it once intelligible to the listener-this certainly formed an essential element of her playing, and it is worth while insisting on this, since the absence of that strict accuracy and perspicuity is too often mistaken for evidence of deep emotional intention.”
It certainly seems that Clara Schumann was the first female pianist to be reckoned with in the 19th century as she was frequently mentioned among great virtuoso such as Liszt, Thalberg and others. I wonder to which extent she had published her own compositions under Robert Schumann’s name. Was it truly exceptional for female composers to publish their work so late in the 19th century? I would be curious reading more recent scholarship regarding this.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Schumann Circle
This chapter is the most interesting chapter I have read in this book up to now. It includes many composers and pianists whom the author called Schumann circle. This circle nearly includes three generations of musican.
In my country, piano professors usually switch their kids to teach. They don't think they are able to teach their own kids since these kids are not serious to what their parents teach them. In this chapter, we can see the most prestigious woman pianist Clara Schumann in the 19th century was cultivated completely by her father Friedrich Wieck. And Clara also became her daughter Eugenie's main piano teacher later. Clara might train her daughter in the same way as how Clara was taught by her father. I am not sure this method of teaching could be successful in any family. But Clara's family was surely a good example.
We always say that music come from our daily life. I found some interesting descriptions in this chapter. Clara told her kids: "… When he (Schumann)read poetry, resting on the sofa after dinner, it turned into songs. When he saw you children at play, little pieces of music grew out of your games. …" (p214) Zelter asked his friend to make a proper compliment before young Mendelssohn. "…please do so moderate, without too much noisy instrumentation, and in C major …" I can't help laughing when I read the way Zelter expressed something by using so many musical ideas and terms.
Although I doubt Liszt's "group piano" method in the chapter 10, I quite like Wieck's "group piano". I am in favor of the proper size of the "group piano" and the way how he taught "... he made three of them sing, one after the other, …,one of them he made improvise a cadenza, and a second sang the alto to it without accompaniment."(p210) Wieck was such a good trainer of so many good musicians. The way he trained his pupils was creative and efficient.
使用新一代 Windows Live Messenger 轻松交流和共享！ 立刻下载！
The Schuman circle
I wonder for how long and why the music of Bach was not regularly performed until Mendlesohn “revived” it. It seems that most of the composer/ pianists of the time were praised chiefly for their improvisatory skills. (It worries me that I have none!) I recently saw a video on Youtube of Hororvitz improvising before recording a Mozart sonata. When asked what the composition was he merely said: It is improvisation…I am a pianist but still a musician.” I imagine Clara Schuman and others who thought so highly of Mendlesohn playing must have referred to his performance of his own works as well as as other compositions? I feel embarrassed to admit that I have never played the piano works of Mendelsohn. Is it possible to restrain own tears in his piano music? It seems like Beethoven and Mozart were mainly critiqued or remembered for their performance of their own works, as Chopin had developed fame for his particular style and performance of his own compositions. Even Liszt, who played works of several composer’s, and transcriptions, was better known for his own compositions and their performance. Could Mendlesohn be one of the true great composer/pianists who shifted to specializing in piano performance seeng that his skills at the piano is seen in the same light as many of the greatest pianist. (Even Thalberg!) Mendelsohn certainly seems to have been a good teacher and musician. I admire his dissatisfaction for irrelevant interpretation of a composer and his emphasis on vocal expression as a means of creating true feeling at the piano.
Schumann’s injury might have forced him to focus on composition I guess but if he could still play he might have developed his composition skills even further. I am not sure the injury could be seen as beneficial in any way. I find almost everything that Schumann writes to be of the greatest value and I feel every pianist should make a conscious effort to read and understand what he writes.
I would like to make a copy of page 206 and 207 and put it in my practice room. Some of the points I like most are "rest from your musical studies by reading poetry", "often take exercise out in the open", "never miss the oppertunity of hearing a good opera" and "it is better to rest than to practice without joy or freshness."
I wonder for how long and why the music of Bach was not regularly performed until Mendlesohn “revived” it. It seems that most of the composer/ pianists of the time were praised chiefly for their improvisatory skills. (It worries me that I have none!) I recently saw a video on Youtube of Hororvitz improvising before recording a Mozart sonata. When asked what the composition was he merely said: It is improvisation…I am a pianist but still a musician.” I imagine Clara Schuman and others who thought so highly of Mendlesohn playing must have referred to his performance of his own works as well as as other compositions? I feel embarrassed to admit that I have never played the piano works of Mendelsohn. Is it possible to restrain own tears in his piano music? It seems like Beethoven and Mozart were mainly critiqued or remembered for their performance of their own works, as Chopin had developed fame for his particular style and performance of his own compositions. Even Liszt, who played works of several composer’s, and transcriptions, was better known for his own compositions and their performance. Could Mendlesohn be one of the true great composer/pianists who shifted to specializing in piano performance seeng that his skills at the piano is seen in the same light as many of the greatest pianist. (Even Thalberg!) Mendelsohn certainly seems to have been a good teacher and musician. I admire his dissatisfaction for irrelevant interpretation of a composer and his emphasis on vocal expression as a means of creating true feeling at the piano.
Schumann’s injury might have forced him to focus on composition I guess but if he could still play he might have developed his composition skills even further. I am not sure the injury could be seen as beneficial in any way. I find almost everything that Schumann writes to be of the greatest value and I feel every pianist should make a conscious effort to read and understand what he writes.
I would like to make a copy of page 206 and 207 and put it in my practice room. Some of the points I like most are "rest from your musical studies by reading poetry", "often take exercise out in the open", "never miss the oppertunity of hearing a good opera" and "it is better to rest than to practice without joy or freshness."
The Schumann Circle
For the most part in this chapter we don't see any ground-breaking technique, basically just different preferences for teaching. I wish there would have been a bit more information on individual technique...
Mendelssohn is one of those weird composers in my opinion. He must have been quite the virtuoso because some of his music is insanely hard. I remember turning pages for the D Minor piano trio and cringing at the amount of notes and difficulty of the music (astonishing music though). Then we have pieces like Songs Without Words and smaller pieces for children. His teaching philosophy was interesting; I found it unique that he only played pieces for his students that they weren't studying. This forces students to come up with their own technique and interpretation which can be quite a difficult process. Also, I think we all need to listen to good singers or something...
The Schumanns and Wieck had some good stuff. I personally loved all of Schumann's aphorisms. I liked that we shouldn't strive to be the best just to be the best at the sake of losing music. Obviously Papa Wieck was an important predecessor for modern technique, strongly advocating the loose wrist. I don't think I've had a lesson yet where Dr. Tsachor mentions having a supple wrist, must be important or something! And Clara's technique directly comes from her father. Interesting that he only made her do exercises and how she got frustrated but never gave up.
Brahms is also another important figure for technique. His exercises looked a bit torturous but when playing his music it's so important to have good thumb dexterity. That and syncopation. I also think it's impossible to play Brahms without big arm technique.
What a joyous circle of people. I would have enjoyed knowing them back in the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)