What Are Master Classes, and should you participate in one?

 

A "master class" can be offered in many different fields, but I suspect it is most common in the field of music.

A master class may be offered by a famous, or at least well-known, musician. Perhaps he or she is in your city for a concert, and they decide to offer a one-time master class. Attendees can participate, or, in some cases, just observe. The idea is that you, as a student of the piano, for example, have a chance to have a famous, top-notch pianist, listen to and evaluate your playing, and give you some pointers or advice. You would also hear the pointers being given to the other particpants (who would be playing different pieces), and potentially benefit from those as well. You would need to come prepared with at least one piece to play, one that you can play at a competent level. True master classes are never meant for beginners; you would have to be somewhat advanced to be allowed to participate.

The amount of time the master spends with each individual participant is probably going to be fairly short, because, of course, there could be a fairly substantial number of participants. They probably won't have you play the whole piece, just sections of it.

Clearly, every participant comes at a different level of ability, and the master is tailoring his comments to your specific playing. It is not a case of giving the same information or advice to everyone.

If you read my post titled Coaching vs. Teaching, you will see that the idea of a master class falls solidly into the coaching category. You have already learned the piece you are playing at the class. You have also developed your "interpretation" of the piece (whether it was intentional or not). You have already developed the level of technical ability to be able to play that piece. So the teacher of the master class is not teaching you new skills; there wouldn't be time for that. Rather, they are just coaching you, you might say "tweaking" your playing of that piece. The teacher might make suggestions regarding dynamics or phrasing or other aspects of interpretation. Perhaps some of these suggestion are quite enlightening; after all, the "master" has far more experience with music and the piano than you do, so one would hope their advice would be valuable. However, "interpretation" is a very personal thing. The master may be giving you his/her interpretation which may not feel right to you. Remember, they are not correcting wrong notes or anything at that level -- it is assumed you can actually play the piece. So it follows that most, if not all, of what they can address during the class is interpretation.

Naturally you are free to take some or all  -- or none -- of their pointers to heart. 

In my view, changing some dynamics or phrasing here and there doesn't fundamentally change how you play. How you play is essentially already "baked in the cake" because of your physical technique. Many people believe that interpretation and expression are like a coat of paint you put on at the end, but I strongly disagree with that idea. Everything you do physically affects the sound you produce, therefore, your physical technique and habits have already largely determined your "interpretation." For example, if you have developed a very finger-oriented technique, which can produce a stiff and mechanical sound, no amount of advice from the master about your phrasing is going to enable you to change that overnight. It would require a whole re-working of your technique, which would require a really great teacher, not a coach.

So-called master classes can be found online. One says it offers "small bites" of advice from famous jazz or classical musicians. However, this is not a master class, if the teacher of it is not even hearing you play. Clearly nothing they say is in response to your particular playing. If it is a one-way street of information flow, then it is really no different from all the other thousands of videos and "classes" you can find online. If you've read some of my earlier posts, you'll see I strongly advise not to try and learn this way. You will almost certainly reach a dead end. The reason for having an in-person teacher is so that they can respond to your playing, and problem-solve your particular issues.

If you are an advanced player and have the opportunity to take a master class from someone whose playing you admire, go ahead and do it if you can. But just remember it won't be a magic wand that will transform your playing.

Memorizing, Part II

 

I wrote about memorizing in a previous post (November, 2012). Some of this will be repetition of those points, but in this post I also want to give my thoughts regarding a post I've recently read from someone who also has a blog about learning and playing the piano.

The best memorizers are the the musicians with the best ears. It's really that simple. (The exception would be those with a photographic memory, who are picturing the score as they play. This may be a very reliable way to memorize, but I feel it is not the best way, from a musical standpoint.) Of course you realize that when I say "ear" I'm talking about the auditory cortex of the brain. If you know a piece of music by ear then you automatically know it by memory. Let's take a simple example: you never saw the sheet music for Happy Birthday, but it was easy for you to pick out the melody by ear and then harmonize it with a few simple chords. You are probably not going to "forget" it. Once your ear knows it, it always knows it. (You don't foget how to sing songs you've known well. Maybe the words, but not the tune.) You may think that's a huge stretch, to know a Chopin Ballade "by ear," but I assure you it can be done, and is done, by all the top pianists.

There are quite a few earlier posts which discuss how to develop your ear.

The points made by the other blogger are as follows:

• Play through your music regularly. Yes, of course, if you learn a piece but then don't play it for many years, the memory may fade. It will fade the most if you depended mostly on muscle memory, which is the first "memory" to be acquired and the first to be lost. The neurological pathways that form muscle memory have fallen into dis-use and will disappear, or perhaps they are "over-written" by new ones. If you've played piano for a lifetime, as I have, and have learned thousands of pieces, it's difficult to play through all the pieces frequently. But I do agree with the concept: the more often you bring your pieces out of "cold storage" the better you will know them.
• His second point is to understand the structure of the piece through music theory. I agree that it's a great idea to understand how your piece is put together, especially when it comes to harmony. You can learn what comprises "sonata form," which applies to sonatas as well as concertos, many symphonies, string quartets, and many others. But a Mozart sonata is very different than one by Prokofieff, and just knowing the "facts" of sonata form isn't going to help you with memorizing. Am I saying it's OK to be a dummy about musical form? Absolutely not. Although it would be possible to know nothing about how how music is structured and still play beautifully, why would you? If you love music, hopefully you'd want to know more about it -- in depth. In my previous  post on memory I discuss the ways that intellectual knowledge of your piece can be important. But it is not the primary foundation for memorizing.
• His next point is "learn the music correctly from the start." What can I say? Duh.
• "Slow practice reinforces your memory." Not necessarily. If it did, you'd find it easier to memorize slow pieces than fast ones. But you'll find that's not true. A fast Clementi Sonatina is far easier to memorize than, say, a slow piece by Rachmaninoff, Brahms, or Bartok. Why? The harmonies in the latter pieces are exponentially more complex, and it is hearing those harmonies (not just being able to name them) that creates the challenge for memory. 
• "Play through the piece in your mind." Your "fingers" may go through the motions of playing even when you are not at the piano, and your mind may be hearing the piece internally. But how much are you really hearing? Can you sing the bass line? How about one of the inner voices? I emphasize the importance of singing. The ear and the voice have a direct connection; there is no muscle memory to assist you. So if you can sing it, the ear knows it. I think limited amounts of "playing" when you are away from the piano, such as when you can't really get to a piano, could potentially be useful, but try to spend your time at the actual piano instead.
• His final point is to take care of your body and mind. Again, what can I say..... If you are ill or depressed you may not memorize easily. But I'm sure there are many exceptions. Even so, of course take care of your health for its own sake!

What About the 4th Finger?

 

Pianists often complain about the 4th finger, specifically, its lack of "independence." Or people will tell you that it's a weaker finger. (They'll say that about the pinky as well.) People (teachers, bloggers, etc.) will give you advice on how to deal with that, but sadly, most of it is not only wrong, but potentially harmful.

The thumb, pointer finger and pinky all have their own tendons. The index and ring fingers share a tendon. This is why, for example, you can't lift your 4th finger as high when your hand is flat on a surface. Contrary to what many will tell you, however, you don't need to lift your fingers high when playing, so it's not a problem!

All the great pianists of the past and present have the same anatomy of the hand, so clearly it can't really be a problem. Some will say that the great pianists do "exercises" to increase the indepence and strength of these fingers; however, you can't really overcome anatomy. 

[Please read my post titled "Independence," from, appropriately, July 4, 2022.]

When you think about it, you'll realize our hands aren't that well suited to the piano! The thumb is opposable and contacts the keys differently, the fingers are all different lengths, and then there is the situation with the tendons. And yet, over the centuries, great pianists have made it sound natural and beautiful, from the softest and most delicate to the loudest and most dramatic, from dreamily slow to dazzlingly fast. Unfortunately, some students of the piano never achieve that kind of playing. There are many reasons for this, of course, but one reason is that they follow advice that is based on false reasoning.

Robert Schumann invented some sort of contraption that was supposed to solve the "problem" of the 4th finger, but sadly, and not surprisingly, he ended up permanently injuring his hand instead. Likewise, some "exercises" can cause permanent damage if done over a long period of time.

All of this angst about the 4th finger comes from the old misconception and "300-year-old idea" (see my post of that title) that the fingers should work independently. Along with that old idea is the one that you need strength to play the piano. As you've heard me say many times, young child prodigies aren't strong yet they still play the big works for the piano that adults do. Where power is needed, such as very loud playing, the arm provides all the power that is needed. 

Instead of independence, we should be focusing on the whole hand working as a unit. Focusing on each finger produces a "note-wise" sound (the sound you might associate with a total beginner), the opposite of the "long line" and beautiful phrasing that pianists (and all musicians) strive for. The so-called exercises that are often prescribed have you playing in this note-wise manner, and even lifting the fingers high, supposedly to increase strength. Along with a bad sound, you'll find you cannot lift fingers high when you want to play fast; obviously it would be too inefficient. My advice would be: don't practice any "technique" that you can't use in all situations.

I recently read someone's blog post about the 4th finger. I'm going to go through each of his points and counter them with my own.

• "The fourth finger is naturally weaker than the others." False; it is due to the shared tendon, not strength (which would have to come from muscles).
• His paragraph titled "strenghthening the 4th finger" doesn't actually talk about that at all. He does say we need to shift the weight towards the "top" fingers, the 4th and 5th, to produce an even sound. Shifting the weight does help bring out the melody, as an example. The weight comes from the arm, and in no way changes the strength of the fingers.
  
• "Focus on playing scales and make sure you have a clean release of the 4th finger." We actually don't want to be lifting any finger. What goes up must come down, to quote a phrase. Lifting the 4th finger high, or any of the fingers for that matter, will, as mentioned, produce that note-wise, stiff, mechanical sound. Maybe you'd think that's OK for an exercise, but if you do it, you will find that's how you'll play your pieces as well. It's difficult, if not impossible, to learn one technique but then do something else "when it counts."
• He also says to practice slow, with the metronome. (Why on earth would you need the metronome??)  None of this will change the anatomy of your hand and it will definitely not make your playing musical and beautiful.

I would caution people to take the advice of someone who doesn't even give you the actual facts (e.g. no mention in his post about the tendons). Most of what he advises is a re-hash of the old ideas which were developed when they were still playing harpsichords.