Hi Gentlemen. Since my original English post elicited such a strong reaction, I'll take the liberty for the sake of clarity and time to answer in English. I realize this excludes some people from the conversation. I'm sorry about that.
I'm glad that my post served to start such a jovial conversation. But I think it would be good to clear up some misperceptions.
Stephan:
Also: Klavierspielen mit Noten-Lesen ohne Verletzungen
von irgendwas: Wie geht das? Lernt man das bei Ihnen?
That's probably a topic for another post. But I think the question was posed a little ironically, so maybe you don't need a full answer?
Rolf- where to start?
it´s really astonishing!
if 19th century traditions (of playing the piano) are wrong and maybe dangerous - why the hell is piano music of the 19th century wonderful?? ...and why had all those 19th century guys like Chopin and Liszt (and their students) been able to play 19th century piano music without any health problems?...
I've searched my original post through and through and I just can't seem to find the reference where I condemn Chopin and Liszt and their students as "wrong and maybe dangerous". Please let me know if I've misunderstood my own text! Or could it be that you really REALLY misunderstood what I wrote? (Give that I'm speaking a different language than is normally spoken here I have a lot of sympathy for that). Please let me clarify.
Piano pedagogy often relies heavily on teaching traditions developed throughout the 19th century that focus on subjecting a student to a rigorous program of study, requiring endless (and often mindless) repetition, uncritical adherence to a prescribed system of musical values, and the potential of engaging in harmful psychological mechanisms of stifling interdependence between the teacher and student. Traditional pedagogy can also place excessive strain on the body by engaging in physiologically unhealthy practices.
The teaching traditions I'm taking about have nothing to do with Chopin or Liszt, or Schumann, Mendelssohn or Brahms. They were the genial exceptions to the predominant musical culture. And I'm not condemning all of the pedagogical practices of the 19th century, but the ones I specifically mentioned, IN THE SAME SENTENCE: Rote learning, mindless repetition, misunderstandings of human anatomy and physiology and hero-worshiping teacher dynamics. That the great piano-composers forged their own path through this rather numbing educational model speaks only to their brilliance.
My course is not intended to discard any of the positive legacy we've received from the 19th century. It may be questioning some lingering presumptions about how the transference of this legacy can take place. It's not possible to generalize teaching styles, but I've encountered in my experience and in that of my colleagues some elements in piano pedagogy that might serve from modernization. I'd like to go into detail, but this probably isn't the right forum to do that. As many of Liszt's students in Weimar experienced, the more advanced a student gets, there tends to be less intimate involvement on the part of the teacher in basic technical clarification, the assumption being that this must have been 'accomplished' earlier with less accomplished teachers. I find in my experience working with students, that as they might start working with master teachers, they might start losing contact with basic components of their playing mechanism. And as pressure grows and stress increases, a less clearly-defined structure of technique might start to falter and become unreliable. My goal as a teacher is to supplement the student's instruction with a kind of support that clarifies physiological processes through a better understanding of how our body and mind functions. Many pianists (and many great pianists) don't need to involve themselves in this kind of self-awareness. They approach many aspects of their work intuitively, and if that functions well for them, well more power to them! But I've encountered several pianists who lack a kind of self-knowledge (physically and psychologically) and experience a crisis when their intuition starts to falter. Arrau described in detail the process of pianistic and psychological self-awareness following a debilitating crisis in his 20s.
Tastenjunkie: I really appreciate your thoughtful criticism. But I'm struggling to understand how you might have come to the conclusion that I'm offering something that doesn't require intense effort? If I've lead you to believe this than i must change something in my text! This isn't a quick fix to help unmotivated pianists fudge better results. You get what you put into it. I have sympathy for amateur pianists who are really willing to learn, but just lack the time and infrastructure in their lives to realize their goals. I try to accommodate their wishes, but it's clear that the best results only come from a lot of very hard work. Can you explain to me how you might have thought that I was indicating otherwise? Thanks.
I realize that there are several "methods" that promise quick results without much effort, I don't participate in them. I've never seen good results from them.
Rolf again, I'm I understanding you correctly?
z.B. ein Mensch, dem das Händchen wehe tut, wenn er Rachmaninov trommelt: dieser Mensch wird glücklich sein, wenn ihm irgendwo dazu verholfen wird, künftig Rachmaninov ohne wehe tuendes Händchen zu trommeln :
aber wohin soll dieser Mensch sich wenden?
zu Frau Taubman?
zu Herrn Feuchtwanger?
zum Sommerkurs dieses Fadens?
zum Physiotherapeuten?
zum magischen Wunderschamanen?
...Fragen über Fragen...
These are kind of radically different approaches to hand injuries. And speaking of a pianist's hand injury with this kind of levity is a little like speaking of a cancer patient's "Tumorchen". If anyone is interested, i wrote a little about my own experience with hand injury. It's a heavy topic, so I hesitate to mention it in such a light-hearted discussion, but here it goes:
essays before a piano: The Elephant on the Table (or Piano)
Thanks for your interest.
