In some ways they are good. For one thing, having to play something for someone every week is exactly what I need. And then, the teacher is saying the right things, I think. She is talking a great deal, every lesson, about touch, and tone, and using the wrist and arm. At the end of each lesson, she sort of waves it all off, saying, "Just have fun with all this!" which I suppose is also a good attitude to have (rather than taking it too, too seriously).
Most of my doubts lie in the direction of execution. It's one thing to say "Bring out the melody," but another to explain how to do this consistently. This teacher does try, but the mechanism is not really clear to me, and unfortunately, she is not able to fully demonstrate what she is saying. By that I mean that she can show me individual motions but cannot show me how they work in context -- that is, when you are performing the whole piece. No, it's not good to be too obsessed with details, but on the other hand, the details are what form the whole. Too many sloppy mistakes, missed notes, rough transitions, anachronistic interpretations, and so on, and the listener loses heart. One of my teachers used to say that an audience will accept only a limited number of oopsies before they turn against you.
Should a teacher be able to play what she assigns to a student? I know there are plenty of teachers who cannot, but it has always seemed like a major obstacle to me. I have often wondered how Dorothy Delay (the famous violin teacher who was at Julliard for many years and who taught just about everyone you have ever heard of, but who was not known for her own playing) was able to teach so many virtuosos so effectively. Perhaps they were at such a high level of playing when they got to her, she didn't have to teach them any technique -- it was all refinement. (Any Delay aficionados out there, please feel free to comment. I never met her or watched her teach myself.)
I also wonder about whether it's better to simply play rather than getting bogged down in trying to achieve some ideal sound that I may never be able to produce. Isn't it possible to be musical without so much attention to this? I mean, who the hell is going to listen to me, anyway? And then, once you have sufficient technical ability to play without strain and self-injury, isn't "good tone" one of those subjective things? Or is mine so bad that I have no business playing the piano in the first place?
I should add that I do feel this is helping my piano playing, overall. It's making me listen to myself more carefully, and I think I sound better. However, I have the instinctive notion that I should continue to forge ahead and do what gives me the most pleasure, taking from this teacher and others what is useful and meaningful to me and setting aside the rest -- along with the salt. I know that with the cello, it took many years of letting everything I heard and experienced sort of simmer together on a back burner before the jumble of ingredients melded into a palatable dish (most of the time, anyway).
9 comments:
I guess it is different with classical music (which I don't play) but for me the "ideal sound" is the one that comes from self expression. The great joy that I get from playing piano is largely from taking a song or "piece" and making it my own. In my case, the answer to the "who the hell is going to listen to me, anyway?" question is just me, but that is enough. For me, it is surly better to simply play and let the music take me where it wants to go.
I'm enjoying reading your blog.
Thanks for your comment. I think there are times when it is hard to really hear yourself. I know I've had the experience of thinking I sound a certain way but then finding that what I think I'm doing is not coming out -- because I don't know what to do technically to make it happen. That's where the lessons come in: you want another (hopefully expert) opinion both about how you really sound and how to change it, if you want to change it. I expect it's the same for any kind of music, too.
Yes, I believe a teacher should be able to play what she assigns a student. She should have studied that piece inside and out, grappled with issues of fingering, phrasing, interpretation. Until and when she has gone through the developmental and ripening process with a composition, she should not attempt to teach it to a student. Just my opinion and take on it.
Shirley, what do you think about a teacher like Dorothy Delay? I'm certain she couldn't play all the virtuoso stuff she taught, at least not at the level she taught it. There are a lot of teachers like that out there -- they may have once learned the pieces as you describe, but their ability to actually play them (as in perform) is in the past.
I am very familiar with Delay as many of my classmates at the NYC HS of Performing Arts studied with her.. (Setsuko Nagata, Marshall Silverstein, et al) She took up where Ivan Galamian left off. I don't personally know her teaching, but I would guess that in her heyday she had studied all of the pieces she assigned her students, and knew them inside and out. Just my instinctual hunch on that. if in older age she could not specifically demonstrate sections she would most likely have had hands on advice, in the technical and musical realm, that would have helped and inspired students along. There's footage of Rosina Lhevinne teaching a public masterclass on You Tube, working with Mischa Dichter, and even in her old age she showed remarkable teaching skills. In one of my blogs, I highlighted great teaching moments, and this was one of them.
Here's the link to Great Piano Teaching Moments...
http://arioso7.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/great-piano-teaching-moments/
Lhevinne's segment really impressed me..
A student reminiscing about Delay re: technique, etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BttYGfwPERI
Thanks, Shirley. I watched the Lhevinne video when you posted it a while back.
I do think there is something especially beneficial about watching and listening to a complete polished performance of whatever one is working on. It seems it's rare to come across someone who can teach and who can offer that as well.
I know for myself it's easy to reminisce about how I was able to play something once and feel like I can teach it, but harder to actually play it!
With the advanced students, sometimes you don't have to say much. With less developed students, teaching takes a lot more effort (patience, ability to explain clearly, knowledge of how things work technically, insight into what each student needs and how to provide it).
Just back from the Bay area, so I was out of email range. You make an interesting point. But I guess a good teacher who is conscientious puts an all out effort regardless of the level of student. My teacher in NYC never really demonstrated a complete movement. She did, however spend inordinate time on relaxation, tone production.. building up phrases by groupings of notes. She always said, I want to teach you to learn on your own. I always kept that with me.
Post a Comment