Ortmann’s work seems incredibly valuable… this was probably the most interesting chapter so far for me… I’d love to read his writings when I have some more time. I agreed with almost everything he wrote, and it’s good to see a lot of ideas supported with clear scientific data.
One thing that I am reluctant to agree with is his view on tone production… He writes that tone is only a result of the speed at which the hammer hits the string – so that the difference in tone is equivalent to the difference in dynamics, at least for any single note. Even though this may be proven and accepted as fact, I find it detrimental, in a practical sense, to how we approach playing the piano. Music must be expressive, not calculated in decibels. I would worry that if teachers do not believe differences in tone are truly possible they might try to teach students to interpret music by organizing the notes into a hierarchy of dynamics. We have to believe in “brilliant” vs. “velvety” tones on the piano – this type of interpretation will best result in achieving differences in tone color and expression. In other words, musical thought must dictate dynamics, rather than dynamics determining tonal contrast.
Ortmann also describes the differences between listeners’ reactions to music on page 440, suggesting that the visual aspect of the performer is largely responsible for often contradictory audience responses. I think the differences of opinion in judging a performance result from some people just being better judges than others, not to mention subjective preferences. People might differ in how they rate the visual aspect of someone’s playing, but still agree on the sound.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Matthay Addendum
There is, I think, a bit of an omission in Gerig's chapter on Matthay and the English School, particularly where the upper Midwest is concerned.
While Myra Hess is undoubtedly the most famous concert artist Matthay's teaching produced, one of his most important disciples deserves mention with regards to the piano landscape in the United States - Frank Mannheimer.
There is a great deal of biographical information on Frank Mannheimer here at the Matthay Organization website.
Of interest to those here in Iowa City is that Mr. Mannheimer, upon returning to the United States, taught summer classes at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, IA. He was concertized and taught in the Chicago area, and held additional classes later in Duluth, MN.
Among Mr. Mannheimer's students were John Perry (professor of piano at the University of Southern California, who also studied with Cecile Genhart, who I believe also has a Matthay connection), Constance Carroll, and Anne Kocielny (formerly at the University of Maryland.)
I would encourage everyone to watch this video of Anne Kocielny discussing Beethoven. At the end of the video, there is a brief clip of her playing, and I think you'll see in it some of the ideas that Matthay and Mannheimer cultivated in their students.
While Myra Hess is undoubtedly the most famous concert artist Matthay's teaching produced, one of his most important disciples deserves mention with regards to the piano landscape in the United States - Frank Mannheimer.
There is a great deal of biographical information on Frank Mannheimer here at the Matthay Organization website.
Of interest to those here in Iowa City is that Mr. Mannheimer, upon returning to the United States, taught summer classes at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, IA. He was concertized and taught in the Chicago area, and held additional classes later in Duluth, MN.
Among Mr. Mannheimer's students were John Perry (professor of piano at the University of Southern California, who also studied with Cecile Genhart, who I believe also has a Matthay connection), Constance Carroll, and Anne Kocielny (formerly at the University of Maryland.)
I would encourage everyone to watch this video of Anne Kocielny discussing Beethoven. At the end of the video, there is a brief clip of her playing, and I think you'll see in it some of the ideas that Matthay and Mannheimer cultivated in their students.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
American Man Ortmann
Fortuitously on this week of April, on the 25th day, 2010, I have reluctantly absorbed some of the genius of Ortmann. So what, he performed some studies, who cares? I could do that. Ah, but alas, I have spoken out of turn, because I believe I have been outdone by this dear sir.
Apparently, Ortmann is one of the most influential scientists, and has done quite a number on our modern piano technique. My first critique, however, will be that he seems to be more of a scientist, than of a pianist. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, and his information can do nothing but help us! But I wonder, if one studies the exact mechanics and science of pianism to the extent in which Ortmann did, can there still be a natural freedom that comes along with playing the instrument? It seems to me that if one were to spend that much time dedicated to the pure mechanics, it could not only make you paranoid, but also completely in your head. In a way, I agree with some of his critics, that perhaps this could be too much of a mechanical approach, myself, being an "emotionally dominated pianist" as well. I think while we can learn from his extensive work, it needs to be taken, like everything else, in moderation.
For example, we don't tell our feet to move, one at a time, left, right, over and over again to walk, they just do it. Our brain sends signals so quickly, we can't be consciously aware of everything! And just like walking, we don't think, A, C#, E over and over again to form A Major arpeggios, we can just think A Major, and BAM, we do it. I'm not trying to discredit his work, because it's incredibly fascinating to see how even the best pianists can have completely wrong perceptions about what is going on in their body while they play(p.420). My argument, or rather, question is, does it matter? If you can't play the difficult passage, thinking about thousands of seconds in attack time and minute differences in degrees of attack angle can't do much but frustrate you. The only way that we all figure out the difficult passage, for the most part, is to sit with it until we figure out what the problem is, in our individual body which is different from everyone elses, and keep making adjustments until we can do it.
This said, there are many, many interesting points in the chapter which I think we can all benefit from. Such as,
A. Massage may help relax the ligaments and muscles, creating more freedom in the joints (p. 416).
B. Muscular activity should not be carried out beyond moderate fatigue. Incorporate rest periods in practice.
C. Weight transfer demands fixation of joints, not relaxation
D. Teachers should train resistance in opposition to the desired movement. VERY INTERESTING.
E. Free arm drop has no use in piano technique other than for an exercise to feel relaxation.
F. Strong fingers for arpeggio, and arpeggio-like passage work.
G. Our fall-boards suck. Also, why don't all of the practice rooms have adjustable benches? I mean REALLY. After all of this work?
H. And finally, " Purely gymnastic training of the small muscles of the fingers, hand and forearm, in order to increase their absolute strength, is, therefore, from a mechanical stand-point, highly desirable for piano technique.
That's it, I'm going to the gym!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Chapter 18: Ortmann: Piano Technique Comes of Age
It seems interesting that we have moved from the invention of specific devices that attach to the piano to a specific piano (The Tekniklavier) designed for specific practicing. The Tekniklavier sounds like a good idea for passage work, but almost seems like a revisitation of the finger school.
It seems like piano schools just exploded in America, and became popular after World War I. I find it strange that piano was centered in Europe for hundreds of years, and in a few decades some of the most prestigious schools in America were established.
I find Ortmann's work fascinating. I have often considered pursuing such research myself in attempt to combine my love of music and interest in science (which I will be graduating with a second degree). Since studying piano at Iowa and gaining more awareness of my body and how it works while playing the piano, I have wondered if it was possible to enhance my understanding from a scientific approach.
I think the importance in Ortmann's method is not necessarily being able to understand all of the science, but to be exposed to it to have a more clear understanding of how our joints and muscles work. Knowing that muscle-tone does not allow for complete relaxation, and knowing the range of motion for a particular joint are all very helpful in playing the piano. A very basic knowledge of these concepts can save one from injury. I found the point on warm-ups to be interesting. Many authors of methods presented previously suggested daily warm-ups for specific amounts of time, but never really gave reasoning beyond limbering the fingers or to build finger strength. I think it is an important point that our muscles, nerves, and therefore, reflexes will work much better when vascularized, and these warm-ups will increase vascularization to the areas we use most when playing piano.
I thought it was particularly interesting that Ortmann claims that a teacher moving a students finger or arm won't be trained because the muscles are not being engaged, and if a teacher wants to teach a certain movement they should put force in the opposite direction of the movement desired in order to engage the muscles needed for the movement. Also, thinking about which muscles are best suited for certain movements can be helpful. Smaller muscles are best used for rapid and small range movements, and larger muscles for power and wide range. I think this can be helpful, particularly for the rapid movements as we often cause more tension by thinking it takes more power to play fast, and therefore, use the wrong muscles.
Ortmann's explanation of coordination and incoordination are interesting. Prior to reading this passage, I had tried to identify places in the music where I could take a second to relax, but never thought about the relaxation that occurs (or should occur) after each movement. Perhaps if we thought of using the smallest and shortest amount of contraction possible, followed by relaxation after every note, our playing would be more fluid (or coordinated) and certainly be less worry for injury.
It is interesting that Ortmann believes that the variances in tone production between two pianists are in the different lines of their movements. I appreciate his very scientific views and also his considerations for musical art. I did not find his explanations dry, and felt that his research in the end was to explain the variances between artists and maintain the heart and soul of music making.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Chapter 17
This chapter is quite a conclusion of the previous ones. After the explosion of the ‘golden period’ of numerous renowned pianists, then the decades of intensive studies on piano studies, Matthay finally decided not to again establish a ‘new school’ or ‘new technique’, but instead comment and criticize the former studies. By doing this he finally was the very first one to have try to embrace all those diverging schools of technique and make a balance among them. I think Matthay has done a pretty good job in this respect despite the super long and clumsiness in his literature.
Yet this is not the heart of his thought. The real innovative idea by Matthay I think is the thinking of being a pianist both inwardly and outwardly. He is simply saying we should be a truthful pianist inside out. I think the table he used to illustrate this matter is pretty clear listing out everything we as a pianist should know and should do. I wish I could have learnt this table earlier in my life, though maybe I won’t be able to comprehend it back then. Curious though, did Matthay have this sort of table in mind in his piano studies to list out the hierarchy of how he should learn or think while playing the piano? It would be interesting if he really did..
I didn’t ever relate tone with harmonic and overtones. I believe there’s some truth inside this thinking but I also am not totally convinced by Matthay’s suggestion. Absolutely agreeing though it’s achieved through different speed of the key hitting the strings. I think this is an interesting topic to study more on.
Chapter 17
I think Matthay is important for his efforts to scientifically approach and solve problems in piano playing and document the results. Apparently he “could not leave a fault uncorrected.” This pianistic perfectionism is something I also strive for – that any mistakes encountered must be given full attention. If something is unable to be corrected in one session due to time, it must be remembered and attended to later.
I also agree with Matthay that in general we should try to keep the fingers in “constant contact with the keys.” Townsend also writes that the best touch is one which produces the least amount of noise when the finger contacts the keys. This might seem obvious enough, but it is a useful reminder for me, since sometimes I will forget about keeping close contact with the keys when playing.
On page 373 Matthay talks about how every note must fit perfectly in time in relation to the whole piece of music, and therefore we must constantly have the entire piece conceived in our mind. I know I could benefit from working towards this type of memory, as sometimes I find myself just thinking about which notes come next. This relates to rhythmic precision, in which imperfections are often a result of a lack of mental concentration, I believe, rather than “trained” fingers.
I also agree with Matthay that in general we should try to keep the fingers in “constant contact with the keys.” Townsend also writes that the best touch is one which produces the least amount of noise when the finger contacts the keys. This might seem obvious enough, but it is a useful reminder for me, since sometimes I will forget about keeping close contact with the keys when playing.
On page 373 Matthay talks about how every note must fit perfectly in time in relation to the whole piece of music, and therefore we must constantly have the entire piece conceived in our mind. I know I could benefit from working towards this type of memory, as sometimes I find myself just thinking about which notes come next. This relates to rhythmic precision, in which imperfections are often a result of a lack of mental concentration, I believe, rather than “trained” fingers.
Monday, April 19, 2010
English School
This chapter emphasized on English school, Matthey's Act of Touches. On page 374 shows the entire structure of the Matthey's system. His system includes intellectual and emotional perception, controlling key treatment and physical executions.
The chart for theoretical intensity of the partial tones of strings is really interesting to me (on page 377). Although we always mentioned the tone, no one really formulate it to the accurate statistics before Helmholtz. Of course, no one would recall these statistics in this chart when we need a kind of tone. But it helps us more understand the tone color if someone investigates and explains the length of time piano hammers remained in contact with strings which determines the nature of tone quality. In a sense, Matthey likes a physicist who attempts to investigate the nature of musical sound and the structure of piano itself.
Hand position is an anther important part in the Matthey's system. Matthey mentioned two opposing finger attitude, the thrusting finger attitude and the flat finger attitude. I don't both of these two finger attitude should be put in an opposing position. In my opinion, both of them are acceptable. Which finger attitude should be used totally depends on what kind of the tone you want and what kind of piano you play. I think the flat finger attitude only works well on a more sensitive piano. And flat finger attitude should employ with weigh touch by lapse arm support. To me, I prefer natural hand finger attitude, an attitude between thrusting finger attitude and flat finger attitude.
I think arm rotation is very important. If I am not able to employ front arm and rotate it when I play the piano, it must cause lots of stiffness and makes some hand motion on the piano hard to do. Arm rotation helps us to have good muscle coordination and relaxation. But I couldn't understand how to have an invisible rotation in fast movements. It is impossible to feel the arm rotation when I play a fast finger passage.
更多热辣资讯尽在新版MSN首页！ 立刻访问！
Chapter 17
I found Matthay's level of detail to be somewhat overwhelming at first, but also helpful. There are so many factors involved in playing the piano and his breakdown of these factors is a good starting point for developing awareness of them. Although it is sometimes difficult to explain and understand by written or verbal explanations on performing music, attempting to do so at least encourages further thought on the subject.
Matthay's belief that good position is a result of proper muscular actions rather than the opposite, where position allows for good techniuqe was interesing and does make sense. Good position must be maintained throughout playing and there will be variations in the position depending upon a given passage. However, it would be difficult to encourage good technique in a student without first giving them some basic guidelines on what to strive for in regard to position. In reference to technique, he also made the point that it is a means to achieve a musical goal--anthoer good point that coincides with his belief in a method of teaching rather than a method of playing. The approach will vary according to the music and the performer.
He was also very concerned with timing and placement--each note should be played at the correct moment with the exact quality desired with the ultimate purpose of creating a unified whole. I like his use of the word "shape" when discussing this. The word is used frequently and can be somewhat vague, but I do think that a performer or listener gets a sense of shape through good performances; it becomes more than a series of sounds.
Matthay's belief that good position is a result of proper muscular actions rather than the opposite, where position allows for good techniuqe was interesing and does make sense. Good position must be maintained throughout playing and there will be variations in the position depending upon a given passage. However, it would be difficult to encourage good technique in a student without first giving them some basic guidelines on what to strive for in regard to position. In reference to technique, he also made the point that it is a means to achieve a musical goal--anthoer good point that coincides with his belief in a method of teaching rather than a method of playing. The approach will vary according to the music and the performer.
He was also very concerned with timing and placement--each note should be played at the correct moment with the exact quality desired with the ultimate purpose of creating a unified whole. I like his use of the word "shape" when discussing this. The word is used frequently and can be somewhat vague, but I do think that a performer or listener gets a sense of shape through good performances; it becomes more than a series of sounds.
A Musician's Sentiment
Matthay was indeed, the most important figure of the chapter, with overabundance of charts and writings, I was definitely impressed, and completely altogether terrified by the sheer volume of the sort. A fact I find most promising is that Matthay began his intensive study of the piano technique by listening a great pianist's playing (Rubinstein) (p. 370). The best way for us to advance our technique is to listen, to ourselves and to the great masters, a fact Matthay himself encouraged.
Matthay was a proponent of a great many things, including, most interestingly in my opinion, the speed of attack. It's possible that the idea has been toyed with before, but no one before Matthay has made such an impact on the connection of attack and tone production. Many of his ideas are useful, and the knowledge and constant evolution of attack types can shape great musicians. I would argue that Matthay's principles could be more helpful for slower tempos, when one is trying to create a sweet, or "sympathetic" tone color, which is what he seems to talk about, for the majority.
The main problem that I have with this school of thought is that it is just that. Thinking. Yes, thoughts are definitely a part of piano playing. But categorizing 42 specific varieties of touch? In my opinion, no one will particularly benefit from that. Matthay himself claims that all of the techniques form into one once we are in tempo and in front of an audience. So why not spend more time listening and less time writing? Matthay of course, advocated much listening, and I'm sure, has a counter argument for my argument, but while I find many of his writings fascinating, I think that about 90% of what I read was pretty much useless (but perhaps this is because I also don't completely understand it).
The emotional side; which I would argue is very closely related to the intuition of pianism; is in a separate, very small area on the left side of his chart on page 374. It is labeled under conception, separated from the other half, execution. Is the purpose of creating a "sympathetic" tone not because of the emotion that inspired it? Isn't emotion one of the MAIN factors, contributors, and dare I say, the main point of most pieces of music? How can it then, be separate from execution? Of course we wouldn't be able to play if we were completely overcome by emotion at all times, but isn't the main point of music to relay our heart, and perhaps an infinite amount of mechanical actions all rolled into one?
For me, the most powerful musical statement is that of emotion, rather than a perfect technique. But that is just my opinion. I don't believe that Matthay was creating an unmusical method, but I believe that some ideas were too convoluted. As Ching says later, Matthay couldn't help him, he had to figure out the problems himself. This doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with Matthay's system, but it just illustrates how everyone's experience is different. Matthay was so specific, and yet, it still cannot work for everyone. In my opinion, there is no point trying that hard to explain incredibly subtle aspects that anyone who will ever understand them will have to figure out, for the most part, on their own. I believe that teachers can guide, inspire, and challenge, but when it comes down to it, if you're going to master something, you are going to have to do most of the teaching yourself.
Insert witty title here.
Wow. There was a lot in this chapter about Matthay. He was quite the prolific man and had some interesting things to say about technique. I like his chart about Conception and execution and how it breaks down. He said we shouldn't hit or squeeze the key as it affects our tone production. He tried to advocate weight and relaxation in a more convincing way than Breithaupt. As far as clarity in articulation goes, he blows Briethaupt out of the water. But as far as being able to execute everything, it's not exactly possible. I liked that he said technique is so much more than posture, position and movements.
While reading this chapter, I realized why so many treatises lost favor. Because it is so hard to articulate exactly what you mean without some form of demonstration or individual instruction. This means we will all have jobs in 50 years because people will not be able to teach themselves. *Whew*
He seemed like quite a successful teacher. His suggestion to practice slowly with exaggerated gestures is quite practical and beneficial. As you progress in tempo, the gestures shrink to they point where you can't really see them at all, but psychologically they are still there and aid in relaxation and ease of execution. He also emphasized the importance of listening as we practice and perform. In this book, we've seen just about every technique possible (aside from extended techniques of the 20th and 21st centuries). To resurrect Ivan's question, What technique is right? Well my answer, whatever technique works for you. We all have our individual tricks that come from many different techniques and different style periods. We're all eclectic technicians, and I wouldn't want or expect anything different.
Information Vegetable, Animal, and Mineral
Back in the day, the English were a wild set, always fighting wars, writing bawdy plays, beheading people, and marrying multiple times (two of King Henry VIII's six wives were named Anne, incidentally, proving he had at least some taste :)). But as the centuries progressed, they got a good deal more straight laced and proper, culminating with the nineteenth century and the reign of the intensely decorous Victoria. This taste for the correct carried over into the English piano school, and in particular the teachings of Tobias Matthay.
Matthay was extremely interested in the science and mechanics of playing the piano. At what velocity and angle do we hit the key for a certain tone, and how, having struck the key, do we release it? He had a great many theories and exercises on these points, most of which seem a little incomprehensible and beg the question; are we to be expected to think of all of these things in the split second we hit each note? Matthay himself admitted that his species of touch all blend together when a pianist is playing real music. What is the point then? Other than that we should all experiment with and think about how we are hitting the keys, I think that it is good for pianists to have a basic working knowledge of the mechanism of the piano. It only makes sense, if we know how the key mechanism works, we will be able to do more with it.
What interested me in particular about Matthay, however, was his chart on p. 374 of Gerig's text, outlining the different elements that go into playing the piano well. I like how he differentiated the emotional aspect of interpretation from the intellectual aspect. While it is extremely important, and I would say indispensable, to have a firm grasp on and conception of the emotion in the music we are playing, it is also vitally important to have a firm grasp of the music on an intellectual level. To understand, as he says, the form, the phrase structure, rhythm, etc. This is what separates us from Liberace, ladies and gentlemen. This, and another one of his sections on the chart; artistic-judgment. It is vitally important that we know when enough is enough. The only way I know to study this aspect is, what many of the musicians in this book have already recommended; listening to other great performers, and to singers.
Perhaps, if we pay close attention to these aspects, and to tone production, we will reach an emotionally complex and yet precise art at the happy medium between Henry VIII and Victoria. Cheerio!
Matthay was extremely interested in the science and mechanics of playing the piano. At what velocity and angle do we hit the key for a certain tone, and how, having struck the key, do we release it? He had a great many theories and exercises on these points, most of which seem a little incomprehensible and beg the question; are we to be expected to think of all of these things in the split second we hit each note? Matthay himself admitted that his species of touch all blend together when a pianist is playing real music. What is the point then? Other than that we should all experiment with and think about how we are hitting the keys, I think that it is good for pianists to have a basic working knowledge of the mechanism of the piano. It only makes sense, if we know how the key mechanism works, we will be able to do more with it.
What interested me in particular about Matthay, however, was his chart on p. 374 of Gerig's text, outlining the different elements that go into playing the piano well. I like how he differentiated the emotional aspect of interpretation from the intellectual aspect. While it is extremely important, and I would say indispensable, to have a firm grasp on and conception of the emotion in the music we are playing, it is also vitally important to have a firm grasp of the music on an intellectual level. To understand, as he says, the form, the phrase structure, rhythm, etc. This is what separates us from Liberace, ladies and gentlemen. This, and another one of his sections on the chart; artistic-judgment. It is vitally important that we know when enough is enough. The only way I know to study this aspect is, what many of the musicians in this book have already recommended; listening to other great performers, and to singers.
Perhaps, if we pay close attention to these aspects, and to tone production, we will reach an emotionally complex and yet precise art at the happy medium between Henry VIII and Victoria. Cheerio!
In addressing Matthay and his methods one thing that stuck out to me was the fact that Matthay arrived upon his teaching methods from making a study of Anton Rubinstein’s playing. Matthay says, “I found he [Rubinstein] played a great deal getter than I did. So I discovered many things in listening to him, which he perhaps could not have explained to me” (370). I think this goes to show just how much we can learn and take away from just observing and listening to pianist better then ourselves.
Is it always necessary to follow an exact method school? This is one thought I had while reading the summary’s of The Act of Touch and also how Matthay put great emphasis on both weight and relaxation because he was still haunted by the old German school of finger technique. All methods seem to have both good and bad side to them. This is seen just in the German school and the repercussions it had on those like Matthay and Breithaupt and there over emphasis on relaxation sometimes. On the other hand Gerig points out that Matthay was constantly stressing the importance of listening, “sensitive listening throughout is coupled with sensitivity in the touch” (393). I would say that I agree with this. The ear holds a lot of power. But not all methods work for the same people. As a teacher do you encourage your students to use their ears more and to practice slowly and critically? Or is there technical form more important and understanding how it is that they are making those sounds?
I liked what Matthay's student had to say about his teaching, "Technique takes on another meaning in that it reveals to us the impossibility of separating technique from Music...which union forms a perfect marriage never to be dissoved" (394).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The English School
"The noise of the blow of the finger spoils the tone quality". I really agree with William Townsend's saying from his book 'Balance of Arm in Piano Technique'. I think it is dangerous if we make a sound using just fingers. The sound might not loud and the sound might be too hitting sound. I think we have to use arm, shoulder and wirst if we would like to make a loud and deep sound. On the other hand, he tells that the fingers must be kept in constant contact with the keys in finger action. I was little confusing about that. How do I understand his meaning? Do I need to make my fingers diligent? or do I need my fingers to stick in the keys? I think if my fingers stick in the keys constantly it might little hard to play freely.
Also, he emphasizes about true independence of the fingers. The most important thing is if the piano player feels easily, comfortable and freely when they are playing in terms of the true independence of the fingers. Therefore, it is important for student to learn this technique and posture at the begining of playing the piano. Also, I need to always think that "if the finger is raised above the key, the balance is destroyed because of the resulting tension." My fingers usually are raised up when I play the piano and it causes more mistakes and too light sound. Above all, the fingers become too moving if the fingers are very raised up. Then it is difficult to use arm and wrist and it causes the lack of sound. I think it is one of the my main problem so I will keep thinking about that so that I could avoid the lack of sound.
Also, he emphasizes about true independence of the fingers. The most important thing is if the piano player feels easily, comfortable and freely when they are playing in terms of the true independence of the fingers. Therefore, it is important for student to learn this technique and posture at the begining of playing the piano. Also, I need to always think that "if the finger is raised above the key, the balance is destroyed because of the resulting tension." My fingers usually are raised up when I play the piano and it causes more mistakes and too light sound. Above all, the fingers become too moving if the fingers are very raised up. Then it is difficult to use arm and wrist and it causes the lack of sound. I think it is one of the my main problem so I will keep thinking about that so that I could avoid the lack of sound.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Chapter 17: The English School: Matthay; His Pupils and Colleagues
The main point of Townsend's book is arm balance, however, I have concerns with his statement regarding finger independence. He states, "The training of the hand therefore, must, from the beginning of study be based upon the idea that movement in any finger which causes simultaneous movement in any other finger is not independent enough." Perhaps it was not yet known that the third and fourth fingers share the same tendon, and that isolating the movement of the fourth finger in particular would likely cause strain or injury. The main concern with the statement is the lack of clarity in the type of independence desired. I believe that if all the fingers are in contact with the keys, depressing the fourth finger without movement of the other fingers will not be harmful, but the potential problem is when lifting the fourth finger independently. Even though Townsend emphasizes the fingers remain in contact with the keys, an extra clarifying sentence would have been helpful.
I admire Bauer and the self-taught nature of his playing. One comment I find particularly important even for pianists with formal training is this: "There was the preconceived idea of a certain kind of tone and it was necessary to find the gesture that could produce it." As pianists, we may have the sound we want in our head, but do not always know how to create that sound. I think there is a lot to be learned by discovering the technique needed to produce the desired tone by experimentation rather than specific directions from our teachers.
Moving on to the method of technique presented by Matthay. I think it is interesting the he looked to the studies of Helmholtz in order to decipher the variances in tone production. It is probably possible to differentiate between famous pianists just by listening to them, as they each have a very individual sound. However, I am not convinced that there is a complete scientific explanation to the differences in tone between Chopin and Liszt or any other two pianists. I realize that it is the way in which a key is struck that produces the tone, but I think the differences come from the various thoughts and images associated with a particular piece of music (and it's notes), and for me, it somewhat cheapens the listening experience if one tries to codify the weight and distance require to produce exact tones.
The "Key-Treatment from its Muscular aspect" contained a particularly interesting point: "The third Species is available in either of two Subgenera: either as 'Weight-touch' or as 'Muscular touch.' This, because the combination of the three components may, in this Species, be started either (a) by Weight-release--that of the arm, or (b) by Exertion--that of the finger and hand. The first makes for roundness of tone; the second for brilliance and even hardness." I had never really thought before how different types of tones are produced, and was probably something I did subconsciously, or without thinking about the actual mechanism of doing so. In thinking about this statement, I came to agree with Matthay in that tones produced with arm-weight have more of a round sound, and if I want a more brilliant or harsh sound, the action comes more from the fingers and the hand.
I appreciate that Matthay viewed technique as a means to a musical objective, and that the technique and interpretation of music go hand in hand. I also found it to be interesting that he seems to have been a nurturing teacher who aimed to inspire and motivate his students.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Chapter 16
It is obvious that Gerig does not think very highly of Breithaupt’s method, probably because of its drastic exaggeration of arm involvement and relaxation… but I think his method is useful, not in spite of the exaggerations - but because of them. Breithaupt “goes as far to the left as the stiff finger school went to the right,” which I think was a natural (and essential) historical progression. Had Breithaupt not been so influential pedagogically, I think it would have taken much longer for pianists to take full advantage of arm weight and relaxation. After he went to such extremities, other pianists could more quickly realize the practicality and necessity of a compromise between the previous “finger” schools, and Breithaupt’s seemingly “anti-finger school.”
I like a lot of ideas in Breithaupt’s method. He is concerned with avoiding straining the hand in daily activities, and conditioned himself to be very relaxed at all times. As with anything else, this may be taken to an unhealthy extreme, but even simply recognizing unnecessary amounts of tension in holding a pencil, for example, can be quite helpful and applicable to piano – it has definitely helped my own playing.
I do not like how he would often keep the piano lid closed. I think this suffocates the sound… In any case, pianists should practice playing correct dynamics in the most natural acoustic setting; the ear should dictate the volume level, and not the piano lid.
It was interesting to try a few of Breithaupt’s exercises in the chapter. In general, I definitely lost some dynamic and rhythmic evenness when playing with so much arm involvement and so little finger movement. Of course, that is only after trying the method once, so I’m sure with some practice it would become better. The exercises that focus attention to a single finger bearing the weight of the arm are useful, and I think still applicable today. The least these could accomplish is heightened awareness of the shoulder, arm, wrist, and hand. This is important because we must know how everything interacts in order to play with “economy of motion” as Godowsky describes, or as Breithaupt put it, to “waste no energy.”
I like a lot of ideas in Breithaupt’s method. He is concerned with avoiding straining the hand in daily activities, and conditioned himself to be very relaxed at all times. As with anything else, this may be taken to an unhealthy extreme, but even simply recognizing unnecessary amounts of tension in holding a pencil, for example, can be quite helpful and applicable to piano – it has definitely helped my own playing.
I do not like how he would often keep the piano lid closed. I think this suffocates the sound… In any case, pianists should practice playing correct dynamics in the most natural acoustic setting; the ear should dictate the volume level, and not the piano lid.
It was interesting to try a few of Breithaupt’s exercises in the chapter. In general, I definitely lost some dynamic and rhythmic evenness when playing with so much arm involvement and so little finger movement. Of course, that is only after trying the method once, so I’m sure with some practice it would become better. The exercises that focus attention to a single finger bearing the weight of the arm are useful, and I think still applicable today. The least these could accomplish is heightened awareness of the shoulder, arm, wrist, and hand. This is important because we must know how everything interacts in order to play with “economy of motion” as Godowsky describes, or as Breithaupt put it, to “waste no energy.”
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Chapter 16
Briethaupt loves weight! His weight technique is certainly worth a place among all other methods. In my opinion, his studies have successfully brought out the idea of playing piano with the least tension. This is the basis of arm technique. Breithaupt has indeed gone to the extent of ‘no muscular movement’ which we all knew it’s a lie. But the microscopic analysis of the arm movements is definitely worthwhile to explore on. It’s true that among his books he published, he included quite a number of confusing ideas, yet the scientific observation is definitely very beneficial to all pianists. As a pianist I found myself too overly relied on feelings and lack of the cold-blooded scientific analysis of my own arms and also the instrument. Doing what Breithaupt suggested us to do might be a bit too much but having more knowledge of how our joints and muscles work while playing the piano would surely help improving our piano playing. As if we’ve discussed before, if we all have more critical self analysis and awareness towards our physical actions during practices, we could have saved a lot of time hitting our heads towards the wall.
There’re a couple of things that I am not totally agree with Breithaupt’s teaching. First I think the extent of relaxation is exaggerated. At some point I think he’s even suggesting anti-gravity, almost like your arms can float if you back off the muscular force. ‘Controlled weight’ sounds more realistic to me. The other thing I disagreed on is taking the weight technique totally out of musical context. I think technique always goes with what’s happening in the music. It is what the music demands the arms to do. At times we might need pure technical studies to brush up our tools, but we can never learn which tool to imply without learning music. Breithaupt’s studies neglected the necessity in knowing the implication of different techniques according to the musical context. In lack of this part of training would also resulted not being able to identifying the ‘good’ tones by ears, or even creating the sound image in the head before actually playing a piece. Also the attempt of giving everything a terminology complicates things. Maybe this is Breithaupt’s trick to make his studies sound more professional.
In my experience, learning and feeling the participation of arm weight in piano playing is a pretty abstract thing. But I think every instrument have its abstract part. For me, sometimes thinking of other instruments’ technique and sound might help in capturing the arm technique in piano. I also believe this is a life-long process. There’s not a point that ‘you now qualified as a perfect-arm-technique pianist’. The last thing I want to mention here is that the training of the arm weight couldn’t be separated with listening. After all, no matter what technique we’re applying on the piano, it is the sound produced that we want. We need to be first able to identify what good and bad sounds from the instrument first, then have the desire to produce that sound out of the musical context, and lastly know what technique to apply and execute it accurately.
There’re a couple of things that I am not totally agree with Breithaupt’s teaching. First I think the extent of relaxation is exaggerated. At some point I think he’s even suggesting anti-gravity, almost like your arms can float if you back off the muscular force. ‘Controlled weight’ sounds more realistic to me. The other thing I disagreed on is taking the weight technique totally out of musical context. I think technique always goes with what’s happening in the music. It is what the music demands the arms to do. At times we might need pure technical studies to brush up our tools, but we can never learn which tool to imply without learning music. Breithaupt’s studies neglected the necessity in knowing the implication of different techniques according to the musical context. In lack of this part of training would also resulted not being able to identifying the ‘good’ tones by ears, or even creating the sound image in the head before actually playing a piece. Also the attempt of giving everything a terminology complicates things. Maybe this is Breithaupt’s trick to make his studies sound more professional.
In my experience, learning and feeling the participation of arm weight in piano playing is a pretty abstract thing. But I think every instrument have its abstract part. For me, sometimes thinking of other instruments’ technique and sound might help in capturing the arm technique in piano. I also believe this is a life-long process. There’s not a point that ‘you now qualified as a perfect-arm-technique pianist’. The last thing I want to mention here is that the training of the arm weight couldn’t be separated with listening. After all, no matter what technique we’re applying on the piano, it is the sound produced that we want. We need to be first able to identify what good and bad sounds from the instrument first, then have the desire to produce that sound out of the musical context, and lastly know what technique to apply and execute it accurately.
Relax!
I think it is very helpful to be aware of the transfer of weight to the fingertips. I am not sure it is so good to be relaxed that you would not be able to hold a cup of tea though. Playing with a relaxed arm definitely makes it easier to produce a good sound, but I don’t think you can only rely on relaxation to make a beautiful sound. It has to come from ones ears first. Also, I don’t think all compositions require a relaxed arm. I would think Beethoven would require slightly less than perhaps Chopin and Prokofiev at times need a very percussive sound that needs a very direct or even stiff attack.
I think a potentially bad thing about Breithaupt’s school is the over emphasis on relaxation. We need some tension in playing piano. If you are too relaxed you would not be able focus on the most important aspects of music, which is surely the interpretation thereof. I would rather listen to someone that interprets music or “tells a story” or keeps me interested than to someone that looks very relaxed and comfortable at the keyboard. There are many pianists who seem very comfortable at the piano but the music seems to be easy as well. (If that makes any sense) I have also seen pianist that look less comfortable and with a slightly imperfect technique that could play very well.
I have benefitted greatly from ridding myself of tension at times, but it has not been the most prominent aspect of my practicing and playing. I sometimes see pianist that seem very relaxed and everything comes across so easy that I wish I could play like that. On the other hand it sometimes looks as if some pianists, that are “super relaxed”, just don’t care.
I went to a concert in Cleveland where I heard Radu Lupu perform a concerto with the Cleveland orchestra. He sat and walked to relaxed it seemed as if he just woke up or as if he is on his way to bed. Even after he played he stood up and walked of stage like he just had a snack at a coffee house! I think relaxation must be part of one’s practicing but it should not be the most important aspect of you playing.
I think a potentially bad thing about Breithaupt’s school is the over emphasis on relaxation. We need some tension in playing piano. If you are too relaxed you would not be able focus on the most important aspects of music, which is surely the interpretation thereof. I would rather listen to someone that interprets music or “tells a story” or keeps me interested than to someone that looks very relaxed and comfortable at the keyboard. There are many pianists who seem very comfortable at the piano but the music seems to be easy as well. (If that makes any sense) I have also seen pianist that look less comfortable and with a slightly imperfect technique that could play very well.
I have benefitted greatly from ridding myself of tension at times, but it has not been the most prominent aspect of my practicing and playing. I sometimes see pianist that seem very relaxed and everything comes across so easy that I wish I could play like that. On the other hand it sometimes looks as if some pianists, that are “super relaxed”, just don’t care.
I went to a concert in Cleveland where I heard Radu Lupu perform a concerto with the Cleveland orchestra. He sat and walked to relaxed it seemed as if he just woke up or as if he is on his way to bed. Even after he played he stood up and walked of stage like he just had a snack at a coffee house! I think relaxation must be part of one’s practicing but it should not be the most important aspect of you playing.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Breithaupt and Weight Technique
In this chapter, weight technique was advocated by Breithaupt's school. It emphasized on arm participation, weight and relaxation. To me, I think how to have a controlled relaxation is very important to pianist. It not only helps us to create a good tone but also protects us from getting tired and hurt when we practice. Proper posture and hand position could make a totally different tone.
I do believe in "relaxed weight". Carreno mentioned "the secret of power lies in relaxation." In a sense, playing piano is a kind of physical exercise for human being. Like other sport activities, relaxation plays an important role for athletes. Unfortunately, before the end of 19th century, very few of people really noticed this and most of them more focused on fingering exercises. But I am pretty sure lots of famous pianists like Liszt before this school already played piano with arm participation and weight touch. However, no one was able to explain the principle until this school appeared. Frankly, I really get tired to read too many fingering training methods in the previous chapters. To me, this chapter is a new milestone in the development of pianism.
Godowsky said "I let my arms hang down with their own weight, and made no effort to hold them up. In short I was playing with relaxed arm weight." Also, I prefer "low seat". It makes me feel more comfortable and relax to play the piano.
According to the hand position, on page 340-341, I was totally trained by old methods in my childhood. But I can't play in "good pose" like the chapter indicated. I tried and felt very strange when I play in this posture. Also on page 345, I also can do Low-Fall, but can't do High-Fall. My wrist can't hold that high when I play the piano.
聊天+搜索+邮箱 想要轻松出游,手机MSN帮你搞定! 立刻下载！
Relaaaaaaaaxxxxxx Man.
This chapter was all about weight and relaxation, two supposedly different things that made up the same technique. Carreño was smart to discuss 'controlled' relaxation in her teaching to distinguish from the impossible total relaxation of playing. I really liked what I read about Godowsky, and wish there would have been more about him. He admitted that there was much more to playing the piano then just weight and relaxation and Breithaupt would have learned much from him...
My general impression of the Breithaupt method: meh. It wasn't all bad, but it when it comes to putting some of his ideas in to practice, it just isn't realistic. If there were no difference between the theoretical world and the actual world, perhaps his method would hold water. But this isn't the case. Good things were talking about "bridge support." I liked that he would have students practice this away from the piano. I learned this a different way and perhaps more effective but I still liked it and think it is very important to have proper bridge support in playing. Also, having students practice the rotations away from the piano is very helpful, and it worked for me. He took being relaxed to the extreme and while in theory it is a good idea and something to think about, it's physically impossible. Some of the weight technique would allow for freer playing but I think this sacrifices accuracy. The biggest thing to take from his method is the encouragement for arm participation as we wouldn't be able to play piano without arms....
Chapter 16
In general, the advocacy of relaxation is a good thing about Breithaupt's method. To a degree, his instructions on relaxing the arm, keeping fingers more or less curved, flexibility of the wrist, and arm rotation contribute to a more efficient, less tiring technique than the then wide spread high finger technique. The presentation of his method in a book is also important, as this allowed for wider dissemination and popularity of the principles. He was not the first to teach principles of relaxation, but is, perhaps, more responsible for making it better known.
The most basic fault of the method is the extent to which he carries relaxation. The degree of relaxation encouraged is not realistic, as Gerig frequently points out. In the exercise on p. 343 on playing and releasing keys, he writes that this must be done "without any contraction or muscular resistance..." However, movement of any kind requires muscle contraction. He also suggests eliminating "all mechanical finger-exercises" including scales, because the purposes of these exercises are achieved by using weight. (p. 355) It sounds appealing but impractical. Relaxing does not magically resolve technical problems; it takes practice to learn how to use it effectively--even for scales.
From the start I had trouble with his suggestions. In the exercise for realizing weight by supporting your arm with your hands and fingers on a table (p. 339) I was not able to fully transfer the weight of my arm to my hands without my elbow making contact with the table. With using only rotation to play a five-finger pattern (p. 349), it worked reasonably well at a very slow tempo but not at all at faster tempos, as Gerig also noted.
There are times, though, when he acknowledges that there can be a balance between arm weight and finger playing, particularly on pp. 355-356 when he calls his method a starting point--that one must learn relaxation before fixation rather than the other way around. I do not know if this is true, but it at least demonstrates that he knows that some tension is beneficial.
Although Breithaupt was influenced by Carreno, I think she, Levinskaya, and Godowsky were more on track. Carreno believed in "controlled relaxation" and Levinskaya's method from a previous chapter sought to combine high finger and weight, which must have been somewhat influenced by her visit to Breithaupt. And Godowsky believed in an eclectic approach. While it would have been nice if he had written a book on technique, his hesitancy is understandable considering the breadth of such an approach.
The most basic fault of the method is the extent to which he carries relaxation. The degree of relaxation encouraged is not realistic, as Gerig frequently points out. In the exercise on p. 343 on playing and releasing keys, he writes that this must be done "without any contraction or muscular resistance..." However, movement of any kind requires muscle contraction. He also suggests eliminating "all mechanical finger-exercises" including scales, because the purposes of these exercises are achieved by using weight. (p. 355) It sounds appealing but impractical. Relaxing does not magically resolve technical problems; it takes practice to learn how to use it effectively--even for scales.
From the start I had trouble with his suggestions. In the exercise for realizing weight by supporting your arm with your hands and fingers on a table (p. 339) I was not able to fully transfer the weight of my arm to my hands without my elbow making contact with the table. With using only rotation to play a five-finger pattern (p. 349), it worked reasonably well at a very slow tempo but not at all at faster tempos, as Gerig also noted.
There are times, though, when he acknowledges that there can be a balance between arm weight and finger playing, particularly on pp. 355-356 when he calls his method a starting point--that one must learn relaxation before fixation rather than the other way around. I do not know if this is true, but it at least demonstrates that he knows that some tension is beneficial.
Although Breithaupt was influenced by Carreno, I think she, Levinskaya, and Godowsky were more on track. Carreno believed in "controlled relaxation" and Levinskaya's method from a previous chapter sought to combine high finger and weight, which must have been somewhat influenced by her visit to Breithaupt. And Godowsky believed in an eclectic approach. While it would have been nice if he had written a book on technique, his hesitancy is understandable considering the breadth of such an approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)