Part 12

It is neither unlikely nor impossible. Your age will to some degree handicap you, because from purely physical causes the elasticity of the fingers and wrists could be developed much more quickly if you were ten years younger. If, however, you are endowed with strong musical gifts in the abstract you will achieve results superior to those attained by younger people with less talent. In overcoming the difficulties due to a late beginning you will find great inward satisfaction, and your attainments are bound to be a source of joy to you.

TEACHERS, LESSONS AND METHODS

[Sidenote: _The Importance of the Right Teacher_]

I have a son who is very desirous of learning to play the piano. I have been advised that an ordinarily good teacher is good enough to begin with. Others tell me a beginner should get the best teacher possible. Which would you advise? I live in a small town.

The seriousness of your question is aggravated by the statement that you live in a small town, and that there is possibly no teacher of ability to be found in your town. And yet it is only such a one that I can recommend for your son. For nothing is more dangerous for the development of a talent than a bad foundation. Many people have tried all their lives to rid themselves of the bad habits acquired from an ignorant teacher in the rudimentary stages of their studies, and have failed. I should advise you to try your best to send your boy to some near-by city where there is an excellent teacher.

[Sidenote: _Nothing But the Best Will Do_]

Wishing to begin the study of the piano now, in my twenty-fourth year, just for the sake of my great love for music, and knowing not even the notes, is it necessary to go to an expensive teacher at once or would a cheaper teacher do for the beginning?

If music is to be merely a pastime, and you content yourself with a minimum of knowledge, the cheaper teacher will do; but if you aspire to become musical in a better sense, why, by all means, apply to a teacher of the better class. The maxim: "For the beginning this or that is good enough," is one of the most harmful fallacies. What would you think of an architect who says: "For the foundation loam is good enough; we put a sandstone house over it, any way." Remember also, that the road a cheaper teacher has led you to take must usually be retraced when your aspirations rise toward the better in music.

[Sidenote: _Music Schools and Private Teachers_]

Shall I take my lessons in a music school or from a private teacher?

Music schools are very good for acquiring a general musical education. For the higher study of an executive specialty (piano, violin, the voice, etc.) I should naturally prefer private instruction from a specialist, because he can give more attention to each individual pupil than is possible under the wholesale system followed, not by all, but by the majority of music schools. What I should advise would be a combination: General matters--harmony, counterpoint, forms, history, and æsthetics--in a music school; and private lessons for your specialty from a teacher who has an established name as an executive artist. The best music schools have such a man at their head, and in these you find the best combination.

[Sidenote: _Individual Teacher, or Conservatory?_]

After taking lessons for five years and a half from a good teacher, would you advise a continuance with the individual teacher or attendance at a college of music or conservatory?

For a general musical education I always recommend a good music school or conservatory. For the study of the piano I think it best to take private lessons from an artist who is experienced both as an executant and as a teacher. Some music schools have such men on their staff, if not, indeed, at their head.

[Sidenote: _Where Outside Criticism Is Desirable_]

Having had twenty months' lessons and having now mastered Etudes by Berens, opus 61, by Heller, opus 47, and Smith's Octave Studies, do you think I am justified in continuing my lessons?

Assuming that you have really "mastered" the works you mention I can only encourage you to continue your lessons; I would, however, advise you to obtain an experienced pianist's criticism in order to assure yourself that your idea of "mastering" is right.

[Sidenote: _The Sex of the Piano Teacher_]

Is there any preference as to sex in the question of choosing a piano teacher; in other words, is a woman teacher preferable for any reason for a girl and a man teacher for a man?

Your question does not admit of generalization from a purely musical point of view. It must be--on this premise--decided by the quality, not by the sex, of the teacher. A good feminine teacher is better than a bad masculine one, and _vice versa_. The question of sex does not enter into the matter. Of course, the greater number of eminent teachers are found on the masculine side.

[Sidenote: _Too Much "Method"_]

My recently engaged teacher says that the word "method" jars on her nerves. Kindly advise me whether a method is not the best thing for a novice, and, if so, which one?

Your teacher, while possibly a little over-sensitive, is not wrong. America is the most method-ridden country in the world. Most of the methods in vogue contain some good points--about a grain of truth to a ton of mere ballast. Your teacher's utterance makes me think that you were lucky in finding her, and that you have excellent reason to trust in her guidance.

[Sidenote: _What the Leschetizky Method Is_]

How does the Leschetizky method rank with other methods, and in what respect does it differ from them?

There are but two methods in all the arts: a good one and a bad one. Since you do not specify with what "other" methods you wish to compare that of Leschetizky I cannot answer you with definiteness. There are, alas, so many "methods"! But the majority of them are based upon a deliberate disregard for that reverence which is due to great compositions and to the example of their rendition given by great interpreters. I have not studied with Leschetizky, but I think that he believes in a very low position of the hand and a sort of super-energetic tension of the tendons of the arms and hands.

[Sidenote: _Give Your Teacher a Fair Trial_]

Has a young pupil, after studying the piano irregularly for two months, tested fairly a teacher's ability?

Of course not! Altogether I do not like the idea of a pupil's testing his teacher's ability, rather the reverse. He may possibly find his teacher unsympathetic, but even this matter he is apt to judge prematurely. In most cases of irregularly attended or poorly prepared lessons the lack of sympathy means nothing more than that the pupil is a trifler and the teacher's honesty of purpose is not to his taste.

[Sidenote: _Either Trust Your Teacher or Get a New One_]

I have a "Piano Method," left over from lessons with my first teacher; it was very expensive, and I learned only a few pages of it. We moved to a different city and my new teacher objects to using the book, or, as she says, any such book. I do not know what to do about it, and would thank you for your advice.

When you apply to a teacher for instruction you must, first of all, decide in your own mind whether you have or have not absolute confidence in his ability. If you trust him you must do as you are advised to do; if not, you must apply to another teacher. A book, costing much or little, plays no part in the matter. By what you say of the new teacher, however, I am disposed to think that he is better than the first one.

[Sidenote: _The Proper Course For a Little Girl_]

Commencing piano lessons with my seven-year-old daughter, should I devote my efforts to the development of the fingers and hands, or retard such development so as to keep pace with the expansion of the mind?

Your question is interesting. But if your mind is clear on that point--and it seems to be--that a one-sided development (in this case technical) is dangerous to the "musical" talent of your little daughter, why, then, your little girl is, indeed, "out of danger." Your very question is a credit to your insight.

[Sidenote: _Frequent Lessons and Shorter_]

Is it better for a young student to take one hour lesson or two half-hour lessons a week?

Since young students are liable to form bad habits it is essential that they should come under the teacher's eye as frequently as possible. Hence, it is preferable to divide the hour into two equidistant parts.

[Sidenote: _Number of Lessons Depends on Progress_]

Which plan is better for a child of eleven or twelve years: to take a one-hour lesson or two half-hour lessons a week?

The child's age is not the determining factor in this matter; it is his musical status.

[Sidenote: _One Lesson a Week_]

Is one lesson a week inadequate for a piano student?

It will be sufficient in the more advanced stages of piano study. In the earlier stages, however, where the danger of forming bad habits is greatest, it is best to bring the pupil under his teacher's eye twice a week at the very least.

[Sidenote: _Better Not Give the Child "Modified Classics"_]

What little classics are best for a child after six months' lessons?

There are collections without number of facilitated or simplified arrangements of classic pieces, but I do not altogether approve of them. Let the classics wait until the child is technically--and, above all, mentally--ripe to approach such works as they are written.

[Sidenote: _Can Music Be Studied in America?_]

Is it necessary for me to go to Europe to continue my music studies?

If you have very much money to spare, why not? You will see much, also hear much--and some of it not quite so sublime as you anticipated--and, last but not least, you will have "studied abroad." While this slogan still exercises a certain charm upon some people in America, their number is growing less year by year, because the public has begun to understand that the United States affords just as good instruction in music as Europe does. It has also been found out that to "study abroad" is by no means a guarantee of a triumphant return. Many a young student who went abroad as a lamb returned as a mutton-head. And why should there not be excellent teachers in America by this time? Even if you should insist upon a European teacher you can find many of the best in America. Is it not simpler that one teacher from Europe go to America to teach a hundred students than that a hundred students should make the trip for the sake of one teacher? I should advise you to stay where you are or go to Philadelphia, New York, or Boston, where you can find excellent teachers, native, resident Americans and foreigners. To quote a case in point, let me say that in Berlin I found Godowsky's pupils to be almost exclusively Americans. They came from various sections of America to study with him and with no one else. But during the eighteen years he spent in Chicago they did not seem to want him. Perhaps he was too near by! Why this self-deception? Without mentioning any names I assure you that there are many teachers in America now who, if they should go to Europe, would draw a host of students after them, and some of these excellent men I know personally. It is high time to put an end to the superstitious belief in "studying abroad."

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

[Sidenote: _Organizing a Musical Club_]

Please give me the name of a good book on musical history and advise me how to organize and conduct a musical club among my pupils. Also give me a name, please.

You will find the "History of Music," by Baltzell, a serviceable book. As a name for your club I suggest that of the patron saint of music--Saint Cecilia--perhaps, or that of a great composer. Ask the secretaries of a number of musical clubs for their constitutions and by-laws and then adapt these to your locality and circumstances. Make your pupils feel that it is their club and act, yourself, as secretary, if possible.

[Sidenote: _How to Get Music Published_]

Please explain how to go about publishing a piece of music, and also give the name of some good publishing houses.

It is very easy to publish a piece of music if the publisher sees any merit in it. Send your piece to any publishing house whose name you find on the title pages of your sheet music. The readers or advisers of the house will report to their chief as to the merit of your piece, and he will then decide and negotiate with you, if his decision is favourable. If he should not care for it he will return your manuscript and you may try some other house. I advise you, however, to obtain the opinion of a good musician before you send your piece to a publisher.

[Sidenote: _"Playing in Time" and "Playing in Rhythm"_]

What is the difference between playing "in time" and playing "in rhythm"?

Playing in rhythm refers to the inner life of a composition--to its musical pulsation. Playing in time means the prompt arrival upon those points of repose which are conditioned by the rhythm.

[Sidenote: _The Student Who Cannot Play Fast Music_]

I find great difficulty in playing anything that goes quick, though in a more moderate tempo I can play my pieces faultlessly. Every teacher I had promised to develop my speed, but they all failed. Can you give me a hint how to overcome my difficulty?

Quickness of action, of motion, even of resolution, cannot be acquired by training alone; it must partly be inborn. I assume that your piano-playing is one phase of a general slowness. There is but one remedy for that. You have relied upon your teachers to develop your speed--you should have relied upon your own will-power. Try to will it and to will it often; you will see the ability keep step with the exertions of your will.

[Sidenote: _"Wonder-Children" as Pianists_]

My child of five years of age shows signs of great talent for music. He has a keen, true ear, and plays rather well for his age. Does this justify me in hoping that something out of the ordinary will become of him? They say that so-called "wonder-children" never amount to anything in later life.

That "wonder-children" never amount to anything in later life is not borne out by history. If some are disappointments it is either because they astonished by mere executive precocity, instead of charming by their talent, or because they were ruined by unscrupulous parents or managers who confounded the promise of a future with its realization. But, aside from these few, all great musicians were "wonder-children," whether they became composers, pianists, violinists, 'cellists, or what not. The biographies of our great masters of the past centuries as well as those of more recent times (Mendelssohn, Wagner, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Rubinstein, and all the others), will bear me out in this statement. If your child shows more than mere precocity--if, for instance, he does not merely play in his fifth year what others play in their tenth, but shows qualities of musical superiority--then you may with a fair degree of certainty feel hopeful of a fine musical future for him.

[Sidenote: _The Value of Going to Concerts_]

Shall I attend orchestra concerts or shall I give preference to soloists?

By all means attend orchestra and chamber-music concerts! For these will acquaint you with those works which are, after all, of the greatest importance to the student. Besides, you will usually hear more correct interpretations than from soloists. The latter, with some luminous exceptions, overestimate their own authority and take such unseemly liberties that in many cases you hear more Smith, Jones, or Levy than Beethoven, Schumann, or Chopin. Individuality in a soloist is certainly a great quality, but only if it is tempered by a proper deference to the composer of the work in hand. If you cannot hear a soloist who is capable of sinking his individuality in the thought, mood, and style of the composer he is interpreting--and this is given to only the very greatest--you do far better to prefer to the "individual" renditions of a soloist the "collective" renditions of the orchestra or string quartette. The synthetic nature of the orchestra forestalls the extravagances of so-called individuality and insures, generally speaking, a truthful interpretation. The very worst conductor imaginable cannot do as much harm to a composition as can a mediocre soloist, for an orchestra is a large body and, therefore, not so easily moved and shifted from the path of musical rectitude as is a single voice or an instrument. A really great soloist is, of course, the finest flower of the garden of applied music, for his touch with the instrument is immediate and he needs no middleman to express the finest shades of his conceptions; while the conductor--and even the best--has to impart his conception (through the baton, facial expression, and gesture) to other people before it can become audible, and on this circuitous route much of the original fervour and ardour may be lost. But there are more good orchestras than great soloists, and hence you are safe in attending orchestra and chamber-music concerts.

[Sidenote: _Books That Aid the Student Working Alone_]

Compelled to study without a teacher for two years before I can go to a conservatory, what method should I study for my technique and what pieces?

You fail to say whether you are a beginner or already somewhat advanced. Still, I think it safe to recommend Mason's "Touch and Technique," Sternberg's Etudes, opus 66; and select your pieces from the graded catalogues which any publisher will be glad to send you.

[Sidenote: _Music as a Profession or as an Avocation_]

Would you advise a young man with a good foundation to choose music--that is, concertizing--as a career, or should he keep his music as an accomplishment and avocation?

Your distinguishing between music and concertizing gives direction to my reply; that the question was not answered by your own heart before you asked it prompts me to advise music for you as an avocation. The artist's career nowadays is not so simple as it appears to be. Of a thousand capable musicians there is, perhaps, one who attains to a general reputation and fortune. The rest of them, after spending money, time, and toil, give up in despair, and with an embittered disposition take up some other occupation. If you do not depend upon public music-making for a living; if your natural endowments are not of a very unusually high order, and if your entire personality does not imply the exercise of authority over assemblages of people--spiritual authority, I mean--it were better to enjoy your music in the circle of your friends. It is less risky and will, in all probability, give you much greater satisfaction.

[Sidenote: _How Much You Can Get From Music_]

When I hear a concert pianist I want to get more from his playing than æsthetic ear enjoyment. Can you give me a little outline of points for which to look that may help me in my piano study?

There is no pleasure or enjoyment from which we can derive more than we bring with us in the way of receptiveness. As you deepen your study of music and gain insight into its forms, contrapuntal work and harmonic beauties you will derive more and more pleasure from listening to a good pianist the deeper your studies go. What their playing reflects of emotional life you will perceive in the exact measure of your own grasp upon life. Art is a medium connecting, like a telegraph, two stations: the sender of a message and the receiver. Both must be pitched equally high to make the communication perfect.

[Sidenote: "_It is So Much Easier to Read Flats Than Sharps!_"]

You would confer a favour upon a teacher by solving a problem for her that has puzzled her all her life; why do all pupils prefer flats to sharps? I am not at all sure that I do not, in some degree, share this preference. Is it a fault of training, or has it any other cause?

Your question is both original and well justified by frequent observation, for it is quite true that people prefer to read flats to sharps. But note it well that the aversion to sharps refers only to the reading, not to the playing. If any one should find it harder to _play_ in sharps, say, after knowing the notes well, it would be a purely subjective deception, due to a mental association of the note-picture with the respective sounds. My personal belief is that the aversion to the _reading_ of sharps is caused by the comparative complexity of the sign itself, and this leads me to think that the whole matter belongs rather to ophthalmology than to either acoustics or music.

[Sidenote: _Rubinstein or Liszt--Which the Greater?_]

As between Liszt and Rubinstein, whom do you consider the greater?

Rubinstein I knew very well (I was his pupil), and have heard him play a great many times. Liszt, who died when I was sixteen years old and had not appeared in public for some twenty years previously, I never met and never heard. Still, from the descriptions which many of my friends gave me of him, and from the study of his works, I have been able to form a fair idea of his playing and his personality. As a virtuoso I think Liszt stood above Rubinstein, for his playing must have possessed amazing, dazzling qualities. Rubinstein excelled by his sincerity, by his demoniacal, Heaven-storming power of great impassionedness, qualities which with Liszt had passed through the sieve of a superior education and--if you understand how I mean that term--gentlemanly elegance. He was, in the highest meaning of the word, a man of the world; Rubinstein, a world-stormer, with a sovereign disregard for conventionality and for Mrs. Grundy. The principal difference lay in the characters of the two. As musicians, with regard to their natural endowments and ability, they were probably of the same gigantic calibre, such as we would seek in vain at the present time.

[Sidenote: _As to One Composer--Excluding All Others_]

If I am deeply interested in Beethoven's music can I not find in him all that there is in music, in both an æsthetic and a technical sense? Is any one's music more profound?

You imagine yourself in an impenetrable stronghold whence, safe from all attacks, you may look upon all composers (except Beethoven) with a patronizing, condescending smile. But you are gravely in error. Life is too rich in experience, too many-sided in its manifestations, to permit any one master, however great, to exhaust its interpretation through his art. If you base your preference for Beethoven upon your sympathies, and if, for this reason, his music satisfies you better than that of any other composer, you are to be complimented upon your good taste. But that gives you no right to contest, for instance, the profoundness of Bach, the æsthetic charm of Chopin, the wonders of Mozart's art, nor the many and various merits of your contemporary composers. The least that one can be charged with who finds the whole of life expressed in any one composer is one-sidedness, not to speak of the fact that the understanding cannot be very deep for one master if it is closed to all others. One of the chief requirements for true connoisseurship is catholicity of taste.

[Sidenote: _A Sensible Scheme of Playing for Pleasure_]

I am fifty-six years old, live in the mountains sixty-five miles from any railroad, alone with my husband, and I have not taken lessons in thirty-five years. Do you think "Pischna" would help me much to regain my former ability to play? If not, what would you advise me to do?