e called forth by the ever-increasing demands of the _composer_
made upon the instrument. So long as the tone quality, action and nature
of the instrument sufficed for compositions of the type of those of
Domenico Scarlatti, or Francois Couperin, or Rameau, there was little
need for change, but as the more modern composers longed for new and
more comprehensive effects, the piano-makers kept up with their desires
and aims. Thus it is that after all is said and done, the composer, and
the composer only, is responsible for the changes. The literature of the
piano determines them. It is the same in the advancement of piano
technic and interpretation. The composers conceive new and often
radically different musical ideas. These in turn demand a new manner of
interpretation. This kind of evolution has been going on continually
since the invention of the instrument and is going on to-day, only it is
more difficult for us to see it in the present than it is to review it
in the past.

The general mental tendencies of the times, the artistic and cultural
influences of the world taken as a whole, have also had a conspicuous
though somewhat less pronounced share in these matters since they
inevitably exert an influence upon the interpreter. Speaking from a
strictly pianistic point of view, it is the player's individuality,
influenced by the factors just stated, which is the determining element
in producing new pianistic tendencies. It is thus very evident that
progress in piano playing since the epoch of Hummel has been enormous.

THE NEW TECHNIC AND THE OLD

You ask me what are the essential differences between the modern technic
and the technic of the older periods? It is very difficult to discuss
this question off-hand and it is one which might better be discussed in
an article of a different character. One difficulty lies in the
regrettable tendency of modern technic toward being a purpose in itself.
Judging from the manner in which some ambitious young players work,
their sole aim is to become human piano-playing machines quite without
any real musical consciousness. Before radically condemning this
tendency, however, it should be remembered that it has brought us many
undeniable advantages. It cannot be doubted that we owe to the ingenious
investigators of technical subjects greater possibilities in effective
polyphonic playing, economy of power and arm motion, larger
participation of the mind in the acquisition of techni