Hi everybody, I am doing at the moment Doctorate on the current state of National Piano Schools of teaching and performing (Russian, German, French etc.). I would like to hear some of your opinions on few things:

Do you think that National Piano Schools exist in the 21st century (If yes, in what way, what might be their characteristic features)?
Can you tell just by listening to someone, what are the origins of a performer's education (eg. is he or she Russian pianist or a teacher that represents eg. German style of teaching)?
How did the situation of National Piano Schools changed in the 20th and 21st century?

I am open to any discussion, and not expecting answers for all questions. If you have some of your own thoughts, feel free to comment on any of it.

Regards,

wojtek

I think repertoire is important.

For example, a great number of Russian pianists are very familiar with music that others are not. (Glinka and Tchaikovsky for example - I've met many Russian pianists for whom learning all of the seasons was an expected rite of passage.) On the other hand, Gershwin and Muczynski are considered fairly exotic in Europe, while lots of pianists here in the US are familiar with them.

I don't think you'll find much to do a Doctorate on with this topic. What have you found so far?

A totally unscientific observation for you. I lived (and taught American students) in Germany for nearly 20 years. We lived close to the French border much of that time, and traveled extensively as well as having satellite reception, which allowed us to listen to radio stations from many European countries.

German radio strongly favored Germanic composers; French radio likewise favored French schools; BBC 4 was more comprehensive, but did give British composers a slight edge; the most egalitarian of national broadcasters were the Netherlands. None of this should be surprising, of course.

When I attended student recitals and orchestral, organ, or chamber music recitals, which was very often, they seemed overwhelmingly to perform German & Austrian masters.

Kreisler, I love playing Russian stuff. But I grew up on it, as my parents were closet commies. Or at least my mother was, and dad went along for the obvious reasons. And my first teacher studied with Tcheripnin, and I got a good dose of him as well.

Thank you guys!

I agree that the repertoire is important.

To John, do you think then that growing up with certain music will be one of the factors that influence people to acquire sort of German or French taste for music?

What if you have, let's say, the same piece of music composed for example by Debussy, played by few young pianists. Would their interpretation differ because of their education or more due to their personality and acquired skills? What about recordings? Do we tend to have a preferred one and strive to be as close to it as possible?

Best wishes.

wojtek

Germans on the whole can't play Chopin (and by inference therefore debussy either).

So much of this is idle speculation (esp. you, KBK ). If you want to know something about what is contained on the public airwaves you sample radio stations and compile measures of airtime that they allocate to whatever it is you are measuring. If you do your sample properly you'll get a data set that is useful. If you want to know something about what people have available to them for public listening, you add to your data set information about proximity to any given border for people within any particular listening area (to capture the ability to listen to radio stations of differing nationalities).

If you want to know something about different schools of training, you get data from a representative sample of music professors about what pieces they teach. This involves surveying them with proper survey methods.

Does this simple two paragraph suggestion capture all that one would want to know about different national schools? Of course not. My point is that like many areas (or potential areas) of social research, there may be some mileage in thinking systematically about testing for differences rather than speculating intuitively or anecdotally about them.

Different assessments lead to different teaching approaches.... SO I would hazard a guess that it might be interesting to track the impact on teaching/learning the piano of ABRSM exams, as compared to cultures without that exam experience expected. The AMEB exam system produces a quite different kind of Grade 8 performance than that you would hear with ABRSM or Trinity College London.

Of course. However, there's an American expression, "You are what you eat," which may apply somewhat here.

Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, but we had German friends who were active singers. At a concert, they sang some American Negro Spirituals from the Antebellum period. I barely recognized them. The words, of course, suffered from a thick German accent, but the rhythms, cadences, accents, etc., were all wrong. They all followed the German school of thinking, not the way which had been passed down to us.

Perhaps the research question ought to be, "Can national schools transcend boundaries and properly train students in various nationalistic styles?"

Huh??

Surely you can read, can't you? Or is 'huh' because you can only think anecdotally, or in terms of your own experiences.

My son and I listened with a certain amount of interested amusement to a Chinese orchestra play some jazz works. I think they were playing either Gershwin or Bernstein, I can't quite remember. But it had no swing. Very crisp and precise .... classical, I would say, but it wasn't really Gershwin or Bernstein.

Since the late 20th century the situation has changed quite a bit, as the Russian school has taken on a predominant position in teaching at high levels. I consider this phenomenon unfortunate, despite the undisputable merits of the Russian school, because other schools have notably weakened, including within their own country. This is clearly the case in the country with which I am most familiar, France; I have no substantial familiarity of the German scene and so I can't really comment.

The great increase in the number of international competitions is an important part of this phenomenon.

The rapid development of classical musical education in China and Korea are another expression.

I believe that education rests the most important element of all musicians' manner to think/play. Instrumentalism is large measure a craft, taught from person to person. Schools do indeed exist and are of great importance.

I believe that videos, YouTube, what have you, have no importance whatsoever. None.

Here's another totally unscientific observation to mull over:

It seems to me that certain national schools emphasize technique over musicality, almost in the extreme. Playing all the correct notes is fine, but playing them like a machine is not art.

I'm curious as to which schools emphasize technique over musicality.

The Stuttgart School under Lebert and Stark did.

Open your ears!

If you mean China, I have to disagree.

I don't believe that a school of piano exists in China. Not yet anyway, in the sense that Wotjek means, as I understand his inquiry.

I'm not very familiar with Chinese artists, so cannot comment on their playing.

None of them.