flat major, etc., are only difficult because fate has made them
so. It would have served the musical purpose just as well if the pitch
of the instruments employed had been adjusted so that what is now F
sharp, would be the key of C major. That, however, would not have
simplified matters and we have to receive our long established musical
notation until we can exchange it for a better one.

"At a very early age, I was taken to Franz Liszt by my mother. Liszt
immediately perceived my natural talent and strongly advised my mother
to continue my musical work. At the same time he said 'As a child I was
exposed to criticism as a Wunderkind (prodigy), through the ignorance of
my parents, long before I was properly prepared to meet the inevitable
consequences of public appearance. This did incalculable damage to me.
Let your child be spared such a fate. My own experience was disastrous.
Do not let your son appear in public until he is a mature artist.'

"My first teacher, Louis Koehler, was an artist and a great artist, but
he was an artist-teacher rather than an artist-pianist. Compared with
many of his contemporaries his playing suffered immensely, but he made
an art of teaching as few other men have done. He did not play for his
pupils to any extent, nor did he ask them to imitate him in any way. His
playing was usually confined to general illustrations and suggestions.
By these means the individuality of his pupils was preserved and
permitted to develop, so that while the pupil always had an excellent
idea of the authoritative traditions governing the interpretation of a
certain piece, there was nothing that suggested the stilted or wooden
performance of the brainless mimic. He taught his pupils to think. He
was an indefatigable student and thinker himself. He had what many
teachers would have considered peculiar ideas upon technic.

KOEHLER'S TECHNICAL SCHEME

"While he invented many little means whereby technical difficulties
could be more readily overcome than by the existing plan he could not be
called in any way radical. He believed in carrying the technical side of
a pupil's education up to a certain point along more or less
conventional lines. When the pupil reached that point he found that he
was upon a veritable height of mechanical supremacy. Thereafter Koehler
depended upon the technical difficulties presented in the literature of
the instrument to continue the technical efficiency acquired. In other
words,