Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner If you could improve only one of these

[ To play a "simple" Haydn sonata and bring out its meaning requires a high degree of physical control over dynamics and timing. Usually that degree of control is achieved only by professional-level pianists. Even if the pianist doesn't need fast double thirds to play the sonata, he or she is still employing what I would call a very high level of technique. There are fortunate individuals who happen to find from the start a correct physical approach to the keyboard, such that their thoughts flow through their fingers and the keyboard into the world of sound. But most of us have to work long and hard to acquire that.

For the original question, I would choose technique, without question. My current technique lags far behind my musical understanding. Whenever I gain a bit more control over the mechanism, every piece I am working on immediately shows up decidely more nuanced and closer to the ideal image. It's as if the next level of meaning is in the background, shut out, and rushes in to fill the space created by the disappearing of some physical awkwardness.

[quote=Ferdinand... To play a "simple" Haydn sonata and bring out its meaning requires a high degree of physical control over dynamics and timing. Usually that degree of control is achieved only by professional-level pianists. Even if the pianist doesn't need fast double thirds to play the sonata, he or she is still employing what I would call a very high level of technique. There are fortunate individuals who happen to find from the start a correct physical approach to the keyboard, such that their thougts flow through their fingers and the keyboard into the world of sound. But most of us have to work long and hard to acquire that. [/quote]

I would argue that physical control over the dynamics, and many other aspects of the physical side of controlling the piano, are highly dependent on the qualitiy of the regulation of the piano. One cannot play softly, or achieve fast repetition, if the piano is incapable of producing the desired result. We should all be so lucky (or have astute parents) to start on a decent instrument.

Ditto. My technique is a bit sloppy, so having it improved would help me focus on the music.

Just to further clarify, I say this with the meaning that technique is a mean to an end: to have more in my arsenal so that I can be more musical. Or rather, to make being more musical easier to achieve. "Technical" playing (i.e., playing with precision but without attention to musicality) is not the goal, nor did I interpret that to be the aim of the OP's question. Hopefully technique works to aid the performer in being more musical/communicating better to the audience.

The original question was "Given the way you play right now if you were given a choice between only improving your technique or only improving your musicality which would you choose and why?."

I answered that. I don't believe the answer would or should be the same for everyone. I chose my answer because my technique is at a point where, if I can hear and feel something, my hands tend to respond fairly well. (And what they don't respond to I can practice...)

Plus, musical improvement is where the artistry lies. I won't ever have the technique to dash off Feux Follets, but I don't really want it. I have enough technique to play the kinds of music I like to play. I would much rather explore musical territory with existing tools than simply gain new tools.

(And of course, the premise of the whole thread is purely an academic exercise with little bearing in real life, so I don't really think parsing definitions is all that useful..)

Again, I say musicality. When I am too old and infirm to play, my technique will mean nothing, but my musicality will allow me to enjoy listening to others who have both technique and musicality.

Technique.

Technique

I would choose technique, because I am content that my musicality is improving as the years go by, but during the same period my technique has hardly improved. I think the main reason for this is simple: over the years I have been thinking through music and/or listening to recordings for hours a day, while only spending an average of about 5 minutes per day actually playing (for lots of reasons). I also believe that maturity and life experience have helped my musicality over the years while doing little for my technique.

To those who doubt the worth of the original question, try considering this: what if there were a way to make your interpretation a reality without technical limitations? The way this hypothetical magic would be achieved is not important, and could be whatever produces the most satisfying result to you. For example, finding oneself in the body of a great concert pianist and then practicing and performing without any time or energy constraints. Or being able to tweak, in all respects and levels of detail, a combination of reference performances until you reach your desired interpretation. (I would much prefer the former scenario, while others might prefer the latter or another.)

The point is, if you could produce your "ideal" interpretation with all technical weaknesses resolved, what would the results be? I conjecture that there would be a whole spectrum of results, ranging almost as widely as people's technical ability. At the extreme ends: some music fans who have never even touched a piano or played a musical instrument in their lives would turn out to be wonderful musicians when endowed with the technique to express themselves; while some competent technicians would not produce very musical results even when endowed with the best possible technique in the world.

Even though it is not possible in reality to separate musicality and technique, I think it is interesting and thought-provoking to imagine that they could be separated, and thanks for asking the question.

Musicality. I'm so lacking this.

I would pick musical understanding. My first thought was technique, because I feel that's why I'm lacking most, but after a discussion with my teacher this week, we were talking about how most technical problems come from a lack of true musical understanding of the piece and lack of a clear picture of the sound you're trying to achieve. If you understand what the composer wants and can clearly picture the sound you want, you are much more likely to be able to figure out how to have your hands do it. Interesting thought.

Thanks for the many interesting replies so far. I am a little surprised that technique seems to be quite a bit more favored so far, although when I asked the question I really didn't know what to expect.

To rephrase my choice again I'd say something like that even if I could do whatever I wanted(no technical limitations) I know I wouldn't be able to play these relatively non technically demanding pieces as beautifully as these pianists do. For reasons I don't reasons understand trying to understand what they are doing has become more interesting to me at this point in my life. That is why I would choose musicality.

(Achucarro-Chopin Nocturne in E flat, Zimerman-Chopin Mazurka in g minor, Grosvenor-Gershwin/Grainger Love Walked In, Hough-Paderewski Nocturne)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScVkvd9-N-g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmKlYaygCek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ewEbGae_BM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ewEbGae_BM