c, and numerous
other praiseworthy factors in good piano playing. In the olden days,
while technical exercises were by no means absent, they were not nearly
so numerous, and more time was given to the real musical elements in the
study of the musical compositions themselves. If the excellent technical
ideas to be found in some of the systems of to-day are employed solely
to secure real musical and artistic effects--that is, effects based
upon known aesthetic principles--the new technic will prove valuable, and
we should be very grateful for it. However, as soon as it becomes an
objective point in itself and succeeds in eclipsing the higher purposes
of musical interpretation, just so soon should it be abolished. If the
black charcoal sketch which the artist puts upon canvas to use as an
outline shows through the colors of the finished painting, no
masterpiece will result. Really artistic piano playing is an
impossibility until the outlines of technic have been erased to make way
for true interpretation from the highest sense of the word. There is
much more in this than most young artists think, and the remedy may be
applied at once by students and teachers in their daily work.

TECHNIC SINCE LISZT

Again you ask whether technic has made any significant advance since the
time of Franz Liszt. Here again you confront me with a subject difficult
to discuss within the confines of a conference. There is so much to be
said upon it. A mere change in itself does not imply either progress or
retrogression. It is for this reason we cannot speak of progress since
the time of Liszt. To play as Liszt did--that is, exactly as he did, as
a mirror reflects an object--would not be possible to anyone unless he
were endowed with an individuality and personality exactly like that of
Liszt. Since no two people are exactly alike, it is futile to compare
the playing of any modern pianist with that of Franz Liszt. To discuss
accurately the playing of Liszt from the purely technical standpoint is
also impossible because so much of his technic was self-made, and also a
mere manual expression of his unique personality and that which his own
mind had created. He may perhaps never be equalled in certain respects,
but on the other hand there are unquestionably pianists to-day who would
have astonished the great master with their technics--I speak
technically, purely technically.

DEFINITE METHODS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN STENCILS

I have always be