Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Do the great pianists and great teachers of the last 50...

years mostly agree on the basics of good piano technique?

When I watch the finger, hand, and arm movements of great pianists, which many fantastic YT videos allow one to see in great closeup, they generally look mostly the same to me. Highly efficient and exceptionally appropriate to what they are trying to do at each moment. But I may not be advanced or perceptive enough to notice major differences.

Do you think most pianists of the last 50 years mostly use the same technique? The only major difference I've noticed is the degree of flat or curved fingers.

For those of you that have studied with major teachers do you think they mostly agree on the basics of good technique? Have you ever studied with someone who wanted to make major changes to your technique?

I'm too old to change and my teachers know that!

Regards,

I think it's mostly just the non-Taubmanites and the Taubmanites.

And, maybe this is a biased view (can't help it if I try) but I'd guess that the main reason all the major pianists look about the same is that none of the major pianists are highly avid Taubmanites.

And about myself personally, every teacher I've worked with has wanted to change my basic physical approach, and I don't blame them.
(BTW I'm less bad than I used to be.)

I guess I've been lucky in that no teacher has ever had to totally scrap and rebuild my technique but there has been a lot I had to learn about how to properly use the arm to play easier. Finger and hand position has come naturally I suppose.

It seems that people talk about their technique methodologies like some people talk about religion. They have the "true" and "only" way. But the truth is there are a ton of ways to approach piano technique. You have to go out, experiment, and find what works for YOU.

When I observe the great pianists it seems as though each one is totally different. They all found ways to play that complement their body.

Another helpful thing is to read books on piano technique. A good place to start is Abbey Whiteside's Mastering the Chopin Etudes.

Cheeto: I agree with every word of your post except this at the end:


I found it the most disappointing book on piano playing I've ever come across. It's the only one I was ever moved to think of throwing away. Not sure if I have or not.

So what are some of these differences? Can you include or mention some YouTube videos showing the differences?

Whiteside advocated bouncing the torso with the buttocks to add buoyancy to one's playing. The only person that I've ever seen do that is Aunt Bee (and she was drunk at the time).

around 19:12



Matthay would say everybody today plays the same way since his ideas hold so much sway (unattributed to him).

Valentina Lisitsa sometimes does a little bounce up off the bench. Not sure if that's what you mean, though.

Well, at least you know it's a biased view, so that's in your favor! Honestly, though, I'm surprised you would think this. Taubman teaching is not about making differences that are likely to be visible to observers--except perhaps that the hands are at ease in the playing. Maybe you haven't watched Ilya Itin, for example. (He is avid enough to be Taubman/Golandsky faculty.)



IMO the main reason advanced techniques tend to look similar is that people need pretty efficient movement to get to that high level.

The main exception I know is Lang Lang--watching him makes my hands hurt, even though he can do some amazing stuff.

I think most virtuoso piano playing technique is fairly similar with much of what seems different to be mannerism, shedding tension, etc. The faster one plays the less options one has. As one slows down, there is more and more time to do different things.
Now, how these pianists get their techniques take many different approaches, and what people think they are doing and what they are actually doing are often entirely different things.

I'm sure Hanon gives them all this
Just started the book a few days ago, great.
Also doing Czerny's School of Velocity, because I can

I hope there's a happy medium between the two??

No, but there are two happy extremes. ;-)

Especially those who found Taubman as the result of repetitive stress injuries never go back or look for "in-between" approaches.

Those who take tradition over Taubman are typically steadfast in their position, and happy to be there, too.

I'd say not necessarily at all -- because "tradition" includes a lot of what's in Taubman. As near as I can tell, the difference about Taubman, or at least about the Taubman fanatics, which unfortunately seems to be a lot of it, is that they insist on only playing that certain way.

I have had three excellent teachers and one Suzuki teacher trainer who incorporate elements of Taubman into their teaching but do not consider themselves Taubman teachers.

Mark, I'm disappointed that you keep saying this kind of thing, because I know you've been part of quite a few non- fanatical conversations abut Taubman technique. Then again, I suppose fanaticism is in the eye of the beholder.

From what I gather (based on earlier threads), you had a bad experience with what you call a "taubmanite" teacher and seem to have decided they're all like that one.

Certainly you're right that Taubman teaching incorporates the best elements of "traditional" teaching (which is why there isn't a lot of visible difference when you watch highly skilled pianists).

As you probably know, the whole focus of Taubman is efficient and ergonomic playing. As John Sprung has said, a lot of people's enthusiasm for the approach comes from the way it has helped them recover from injury (as in my case).

The best Taubman teachers literally save musical lives, so it's a little hard for me to see what's not to like. As I've said before, the Taubman teaching I've received has been neither dogmatic nor fanatical--but highly focused on solving physical problems and enabling me to overcome first injury and then technical limits.

Not everyone wants to take this approach, fine. Some people are able to develop a healthy technique on their own, and my teacher says, more power to them! But I sure am glad the technique is there for people who need it.

(Actually I said that last thing the other way around, but this works too.)


Well taken -- and my take on it may well be unfair. You are remembering correctly about my experience with a 'Taubmanite' teacher, and I admit that the view I've been expressing is based mostly on that experience plus what I've seen in discussions on this site, in which I think the Taubman advocates (at least the ones who dominated the threads I saw) showed themselves and the method far less favorably than how you just characterized it, and completely in line with my lesson experience. But on the other hand, I've seen some posts like yours (i.e. what I'd call favorable reflections on the approach), and I've heard only good things from a couple of people I know who've worked with Edna Golandsky.

The real problem may be pseudo-Taubmanites. There are so few of the real ones. I remember a thread on one of these fora about a teacher who claimed to be teaching the Taubman method, but was clearly doing quite the opposite.

(I know you didn't mean to do this, but the way you cut my post, it cuts what I said about that. I wouldn't have been running with it nearly so much if it hadn't been completely echoed by most of what I've seen on here from the strong Taubman advocates.
Not a huge deal, but just 'for the record.')

And then there is


(and for some reason the video embed markup isn't working)