"Master classes" - are they overrated?

I wanted to tell you that as a result of our discussion here, I realize that as a result of my 20 years of playing without a teacher giving me direction, I have strayed off the reservation. Some call it being creative but in a real sense it is actually being lazy.. I am talking about striving to achieve the intentions of the composer. Actually that is much more difficult than being creative.. afterall playing to the intent of the composer requires much more technique and dedication.

I have now engaged piano teacher and I have the honor of re-doing Hanon.... :roll: but I thank you for our little discussion here because it made me realize I need some direction.

 

Congratulations! I wish you the best. Keep us informed on how/what things are going.

 

Returning to the OP's question, I do find master classes overrated.

In all master classes I've seen, the guest speaker does little more than tell the pianist how the piece should be played, in other words, impose their own interpretation on the student. This, in my opinion, is useless information unless the student does not know how to think for herself. The only time a master class is helpful is when technique is discussed.

 

I agree with this 99%, and I've said as much before. I do think it is helpful to discuss interpretation to the point of 'I don't find this performance convincing,' or something like that - not telling the student exactly what should be changed about interpretation unless they appear to desire such advice. I have played Chopin 25/11 for a couple of recent master classes and I found it amusing how both clinicians seemed a little put out that they had no choice but to discuss technique, which most clinicians seem to think is beneath them (either that or they think it impossible to impart such advice in a master class setting, which is silly - even one good bit of advice on technique can be helpful). The second clinician even spent a few minutes drilling my interpretation of the introduction, which was his only real hope to avoid the technique discussion. (By the way, he told me the introduction should be played exactly as written with no rubato whatsoever, because there is no tempo change marked in the score aside from the fermatas. I mean...I don't even...)

Most students play at master classes not because they actually want you to tell them how to interpret a piece, but for other reasons:

1. It is expected for a student to build up a resume of master classes.
2. It is expected for a guest artist to do master classes (especially visiting professors who are recruiting students); the ranks need to be filled, and our teachers will often put us up to it to show off their students.
3. Playing in front of people before a performance is helpful.

 

On a couple of occasions I've been to masterclasses where the teacher thought it was their job to teach the audience. The students' performances were merely a starting point for discussion; the teacher tried to find ideas relating to these performances that could be useful to everyone who was present. I find this sort of masterclass both useful and enjoyable. Sadly, it happens very rarely.

All too often a masterclass turns into a short series of private lessons with spectators. This seems like a missed opportunity. I agree that some of the students are playing for the wrong reasons.

 

I find that most master class clinicians will engage the audience about half the time or so, especially if it's a large audience.