Abstract
This article investigates a piano-playing subject called “keyboard harmony.” The subject was initially developed in the 1980s to give (K–12) schoolteachers the skills needed for accompanying singing in classrooms. Since keyboard harmony today has an official status in all Finnish music schools, both piano and general music teachers ought to know and make use of the method in their work. In this study, teacher education candidates (N = 35) were given the task of playing two pieces of music with melody and chords from a songbook. The performances were recorded and evaluated. Students were tested also with Karmas auditory structuring and WAIS Digit-Symbol Coding tests. Additionally, all players wrote a short description of the strategies they used. Deriving from theory and based on the results, two main approaches to piano playing are defined: analytical and intuitive playing. The results indicate that one-sided emphasis on notation may hinder creative and more nuanced ways to play the piano.
Most music rehearsed in Western music institutions is based on fully notated sheet music. However, more than 30 years ago, Finnish school music publishers started to publish songbooks that used notation with only melodies, chords, and lyrics. In university teacher education departments, music educators followed this development and started to give piano lessons in a much more informal way than they had done before. This new style of piano pedagogy was called “vapaa säestys,” which can be literally translated as “free accompaniment.” It required the ability to fill the notation with one’s own ideas, improvise, and—above all—trust on one’s hearing. Being mainly a Finnish and Scandinavian phenomenon, “vapaa säestys” does not have a well-established translation in English. Possible translations for the subject include “keyboard harmony,” “practical piano skills,” “keyboard accompaniment,” “practical accompaniment,” or, plainly, “free piano” (Rikandi, 2010, p. 162). The term “keyboard harmony” is used in this article because it captures the core of the subject: accompanying songs freely from the chords.
Even if the new style of piano playing emerged gradually, today keyboard harmony has an official status in Finnish music education. The requirements set by the Finnish National Board of Education for public music schools include the idea that the classical piano curriculum also needs to have non-classical elements (OPH, 2005, p. 5). In practice, this means that formally trained classical piano teachers are expected to be able to teach tunes by ear and based on chords and improvisation. Since most of the teachers do not have these skills already, the Association of Free Piano Teachers as well as universities of applied sciences and the Sibelius Academy have arranged in-service training for the staff of public music schools (Rikandi, 2010, p. 167). Many of the older generation teachers, who have never studied these issues, are naturally challenged by the new situation. However, for the younger generation of teachers and musicians, keyboard harmony is easier. Today, in Finland, different styles like jazz, pop, rock, and folk are all included in the educational system along with classical music. Consequentially the gap between vernacular and classical musicianship has narrowed; meanwhile, research associated with the different musical practices has been increasing (AEC, 2010, pp. 25–31).
In keyboard harmony, all musical styles and genres are handled mindfully with respect for their typical features. For beginners, keyboard harmony is easy, since the repertoire used in it is mainly children’s songs and other popular tunes. At the advanced level, keyboard harmony can be extended to different genres of music—including classical music. Different styles are rehearsed, for example, by doing improvisation on a given theme. One might play the tune “Yesterday” in several ways, using jazz, Baroque, and reggae styles. This kind of playing comes near to composing without notes. The skills involved in mastering keyboard harmony are connected to thinking in sounds and conveying the related expressions musically. It requires listening and analyzing a wide variety of styles and courage to apply what is heard into one’s own playing. The method of keyboard harmony is based on mimicking and the capacity of memorizing musical patterns. Since traditional classical piano playing is based on the explicit steps of training and analysis, the difference with keyboard harmony is clear. In classical piano, the ideas of the composer have to be studied carefully, whereas, in keyboard harmony, the player can decide whether to use a certain musical element or not. At best, musical decisions during free playing are made with little, if any, formal awareness of the musical facts or techniques involved. That can happen when emotion and intuition—not the intellect and analysis—are at the front of action. The music is based on ear, memory, and imagination; that is, music is played freely.
While many pianists are still often educated by reading notation, a great amount of research has concentrated on sight-reading and visual abilities (Kopiez & Lee, 2008; McPherson, 1994; Penttinen & Huovinen, 2012; Pike & Carter, 2010; Sloboda, 1974; Waters, Townsend, & Underwood, 1998; Wristen, 2005). Much less consideration has been given to investigating musical ability from auditory or based on different musicianship perspectives (Lilliestam, 1996). However, there are some studies in which both approaches are investigated and their pedagogical consequences are discussed. As continuation of the work by McPherson (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997), McPherson, Bailey, & Sinclair (1997) undertook a 3-year longitudinal study with 101 instrumentalists aged 11 to 18 to examine how five different aspects of musical performance were connected to four environmental variables: early exposure, enriching activities, length, and quality of study. The results showed evidence of a number of causal relationships between the variables and five skills: sight-reading, playing by ear, playing from memory, improvising and performing rehearsed music (McPherson & Gabrielsson 2002, pp. 107–109) (Figure 1). Among the most important results, it was found that performing rehearsed music was most influenced by length of study and ability to sight-read, whereas the ability to improvise was most influenced by the ability to play by ear (Gabrielsson, 2003).
Theoretical model (McPherson, Bailey, & Sinclair 1997, p. 106).
According to the study, the less capable players tended to use external strategies when preparing to play by ear, as demonstrated by this performer: “While I listened to the tape I was trying to think in terms of what letter names the notes might be.” In turn, more capable players were able to connect what they heard on taped performances with the instrumental fingerings needed to execute thoughts the music involved, as one of them describes: “I just sing in my head while I finger it through on my instrument.” (McPherson & Gabrielsson 2002, pp. 108–109) The difference between re-creative performance and creative performance is clear. From the pedagogical point of view, focusing too much on notation leaves children with few resources for handling their instruments and for actually listening to what they are playing. As a conclusion, researchers suggested that notational skills should never be taught in isolation from perception.
Hayward & Gromko (2009) found evidence that auditory skills are fundamental also for the mastery of sight-reading. In the study, 70 undergraduate woodwind players were tested using an aural discrimination test: the Advanced Measure of Music Audition (AMMA) (Gordon, 1989). The test measured the players’ ability to judge whether a pair of musical patterns is the same or different, and, if different, whether the tonal or the rhythmic information changed. For spatial visualization, students were tested with three subtests from the Kit of Factor-Referenced cognitive tests (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976). Additionally, the students were tested for their sight-reading ability and technical proficiency. According to researchers, even the aural-spatial and technical skills are orthogonal or separate; they both are essential for the task of sight-reading. The aural-spatial imaginary is essential for playing from notation.
When comparing two groups (N = 24) of students coming from different musical backgrounds (formal “classical” and those with vernacular music experience), Woody & Lehmann (2010) noticed that formal musicians were less capable of playing by ear than musicians from a vernacular background. In the study, musicians were asked to play the melody that they heard, while researchers counted the number of listen-then-perform cycles participants needed to perform the melody accurately. The main result of the study was that the vernacular musicians required fewer trials (M = 3.42) than the formal musicians did (M = 8.5). Measured by Cohen’s D, the effect size yielded 1.95, which represents a significant difference. According to researchers, ear playing is an important or even foundational skill that deserves more attention in research, music pedagogy, and school curriculum. Considering the results, we can ask why formal music education sticks so often just on reading the notation. It is common, and strange, that formally trained musicians think that ear-based playing is either unnecessary or too hard to practice, as it does not normally belong to their daily routines. One explanation for the situation might be that it has long been thought that expressive skills are mysterious un-trainable gift that either is, or is not, part of one’s musicality (Davidson, 2002, p. 98). However, musicians coming from different backgrounds such as folk, jazz, and popular music are usually able to play freely without notation. In these styles, music is either played without notation or notation is partially sketched (for example, with the commonly used fake books) with minimal information needed for a musician to play the song. Does this freedom have something to do with the skill of playing by ear?
Two ways of learning (and playing)
Keyboard harmony, being in the middle between the classical and popular approaches, represents a piano pedagogical hybrid. While doing the experiment, the expectation was that some sort of differences would be found depending on the strategies the players were using. In relation to learning theory, Jerome Bruner discussed the analytical and intuitive approaches as early as in 1970s. Bruner (1977, pp. 55–68) defines two thinking styles, analytical and intuitive, which become counterparts. According to Bruner, intuitive thinking is intellectual technique of arriving at plausible, but tentative, formulations without going through the analytical steps, by which such formulations would be found to be valid or invalid conclusions (p. 13). In turn, analytic thinking proceeds one step at a time, through steps that are explicit and usually adequately reportable to another person. In analytical thinking, the person is relatively fully aware of the related information and operations involved. In contrast, intuitive thinking is not aware of all of the careful, well-defined steps, but tends to involve manoeuvres based on an implicit perception of the total problem. By using this approach, it is possible to leap about, skip steps, and employ short cuts in a way that, in order to be analysed, requires a later rechecking of conclusions (pp. 57–58). Based on the theory, two kinds of piano players, analytical and intuitive, can be defined in the following ways.
According to Bruner, the formalism of scholastic learning has long devalued intuitive thinking. The conviction of formal procedures is so strong that the alternative, intuitive way of learning is often neglected. In piano pedagogy, this happens too. Improvisation, ear-based playing, or making one’s own music is marginalized, while the main purpose of piano pedagogy is to produce “the right music” from the notation. However, if we construe the musical activity of thinking in sounds defined as human aural-cognitive activity, the activity of decoding the notation, as well as muscular coordination is not, in fact, musical thinking. Conversely, musical thought can be described as an activity of thinking temporally with sounds, both simultaneously and successively. Serafine (1988) defines this in following excerpt:
Memorable collections of sounds, perhaps patterns, undergo change (as when themes are transformed), and relationships of relative similarity and difference evolve. Hierarchies in a structural background arise if some sounds circumscribe, prolong, or elaborate others in such a way, as the latter seem more prominent and fundamental. The rhythm of vertical formulations creates areas of instability, movement, and tendencies toward change, as well as stability, repose, and closure. Rhythmic and dynamic activities also create patterns of movement and closure. Sound parameters interact; rhythmic, timbral, and pitch activities are congruent or dissimilar in level of intensity. Throughout, patterns of change, repetition, and silence imply and forecast events, which may or may not actualize. In short, things happen. Musical events occur. The job of thought is not just to follow but to construct such events. (1988, pp. 72–73)
The knowledge that is used in this intuitive process is procedural. The declarative knowledge (knowing that) is conceptual and thus easy to communicate, while procedural knowledge (knowing how) being sub-conceptual is not. In Anderson’s (1980, 1983) model of learning, the automation of skills in which declarative knowledge is converted into procedural knowledge can be turned around—in keyboard harmony, the procedural skills can go before declarative ones. In practice, this means that the player does not necessarily “know” everything in order to play it, but learning the music can happen also by just doing things. The main pedagogical challenge of keyboard harmony is thus to provide students flexibility to master the basic elements and general phenomena in music, whether they have names for them or not. The prerequisite for this is that the player is able to perceive musical patterns and musical ideas by ear. This ability can be obtained only by the requisite experiences of acquiring them purposely (Woody & Lehmann 2010, p. 102). In other words, there is no reason why the creative and auditory way of playing could not be rehearsed, if that is what we are looking for from piano studies.
Method
The study was implemented and scheduled at the Finnish Teacher Education Department with both students specialized in music and those having only basic courses in it. Even though the music curriculum of the teacher education departments is not equivalent to the curriculum of specialized music schools like the Sibelius Academy or Polytechnics (which educate more musicians than educators), many Finnish class teacher candidates have skills in music as well as motivation to learn and use music in their future work at junior schools. A student’s ability to become a teacher is first tested at enrollment into a university, and only 10% of candidates are accepted annually. Since music education has an important role in Finnish elementary schools, every candidate teacher is given music and keyboard harmony lessons. In addition, many of the students have taken lessons in the public music schools, where they have taken exams in both music theory and instrumental studies even before entering the university teacher education departments.
The number of study subjects was 35 candidate teachers from three different groups: 10 students aiming to be music teachers in elementary schools, 17 class teachers (a teacher who teaches all or a majority of subjects to a class), and eight kindergarten teachers. Those specializing in music had played piano on average for 13.6 years, class teachers for 10 years, and kindergarten teachers for 7.6 years. The students constituted a group where beginners, middle-level, and advanced players were represented. Thirteen of all the students had passed piano examinations in the public music school and thus had formal education in the classical piano repertoire. All of the students had studied keyboard harmony for at least a year.
The research questions were as follows:
What kind of accompanying style was used, and how did the students describe their playing?
What were the main elements that significantly explained a successful performance?
The dependent variable was quality of performance, while the three independent variables that were investigated were musical experience, auditory structuring ability and visuo-motor integration. In the first phase of the experiment, students’ abilities in piano playing were tested by recording their performances on tape. Four schoolbook pieces of music were given to them, from which they had to choose two to play. The pieces were selected so they would be easy enough for a test situation and would present a typical classroom song, while still offering possibilities for improvisation. The instructions for the task were as follows: “Have a glance for five minutes at the music. Play the piece from the chords as you like. Let me know when you are ready to record.” The samples were ranked for further evaluation by using the following criteria.
1-point—The student plays the melody with mistakes, the handling of music is not fluent and the tempo changes constantly.
2-points—The student plays the melody fluently, but the use of chords is rudimentary.
3-points—The student plays the melody and chords correctly.
4-points—The student plays fluently and uses alternative ways to express music (for example using the bass line, different rhythmical patterns, or counter melodies).
5-points The student plays with substantial versatile ideas in a personal way, with a clear improvisational aspect that can be heard.
At the same time, the different styles of accompaniment were identified and given the following classification.
Type1—left hand plays the chords, right hand the melody.
Type2—left hand plays the bass, right hand the melody.
Type3—left hand plays the bass, right hand the chords.
Type4—left hand plays the bass, right hand the chords and melody.
Type5—left hand combines the bass and chords, right hand the chords and melody.
After the recording, the students were asked to describe what strategies they were using in their playing and how they felt they had succeeded. The instructions for the writing task were as follows: “Tell us, what you just did. Describe your way of playing, so that someone who has studied piano could understand the decisions you made. Tell us also, how you normally practice and play piano.” In addition, some basic information about the students’ former musical studies was collected, for example, if they had done some exams in public music schools.
The evaluation of the recorded samples took place three months afterwards by two independent evaluators. The given five-stage criteria were clear enough that the music samples were easy to rank and classify from the tapes. The researcher made his observations on the spot, so that judgements made later on could be compared to his. The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation made by the researchers and the independent evaluators appeared to be high (Pearson’s r =. 91), and thus the unanimity of the results was clear. Student auditory structuring ability was tested together in the classroom using Karma’s 1993 test. The test has 40 items and lasts about 22 minutes. In each item, the subject first hears a sequence of sounds and is instructed to detect a pattern that is played unaltered three times. After a short pause, the theme is heard once again, in the same or structurally different form; the answer alternatives are thus “same” or “different,” as depicted in Figure 2.
Sample items of the auditory structuring test by Karma. The examples are written in notes just to clarify what is heard. (Correct answers: different, same, and different).
According to Karma, musical aptitude is an auditory structuring ability that can be measured through the ability to hear the sounds patterns as purely as possible. Only simple basic patterns that are familiar to anyone are used in the test. A suitable level of difficulty is achieved by combining the patterns into the larger wholes, as shown in Figure 2. The reliability of the test’s 1993 version varies from Cronbach’s alpha .80 to .90, and the test is widely used as one selection instrument of the public music schools in Finland (Karma, 2007, p. 85). The aim of using the test was to see if there were any differences in the students’ aural structural capability and, thus, a connection to the ability to play by ear. As one might have guessed, this turned out to be the wrong hypothesis, because almost every student gained high scores in the test. The teacher educators had already passed a strict selection process and, as they were studying music, they all were competent in auditory structuring processes. However, we did not know this before first doing the test. The other thing that was tested was the students’ visuo-motor skills. For this purpose, the Digit-Symbol Coding test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale (Wechsler, 1971) was used, as shown in Figure 3.
Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scales test of Digit-Symbol Coding.
Visuo-motor integration is implied by a good performance in Digit-Symbol Coding. The task in the test is to mark as many symbols from left to right as possible, indicated in the top area of the form, in 90 seconds. The participants are given one point for the right mark and a half-point, if the mark is right but upside down. Achieving a high score on the test requires combining high psychomotor speed with good recall for the symbol-digit pairs. The test involves appropriately combining the newly learned memory of the digit with the symbol, as well as adequate spatial-motor orientation, followed by executing the half-habituated activity of drawing the symbol. The test requires also the ability to learn an unfamiliar task, eye–hand coordination accuracy, short-term memory, as well as attention and ability to work under pressure (Groth-Marnat, 2003, p. 171). The hypothesis pertained to whether or not the aforementioned processes would simulate the processes involved in piano playing. If the auditory structuring abilities among the students were similar, would there be differences in their capability in using eyes and hands together?
Different Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale test versions are being widely used all over the world as a primary clinical instrument used to measure adult and adolescent intelligence. All of its subtest reliabilities are high and, while the reliability of the Digit-Symbol Coding test in it varies from Cronbach’s alpha .76 to .88, there was no doubt that the test would measure what it was meant to do. As the results indicated, the test was valid for the purpose. Indeed, as later appeared, being trained in reading the notation correlates with the speed of visuo-motor integration.
Results
Styles of accompaniment
Not surprisingly, the style of accompaniment and the performance task grades given to the students had a high correlation of .79. The different styles of accompaniment were structured among the keyboard harmony pedagogy, where type 1 and 2 are categorized as styles for the beginners (Type1: left hand plays the chords, right hand the melody; Type2: left hand plays the bass, right hand the melody). In turn, types 4 to 5 need a more advanced level of technique (Type4: left hand plays the bass, right hand the chords and melody; Type5: left hand combines the bass and chords, right hand the chords and melody). The third style, where the left hand plays the bass and right hand the chords, appeared in this case to be missing. The style is usually used only when accompanying singing—which was not included in the test. Even though using beginner styles did not necessarily mean bad performance, those using more advanced techniques also were likely to have better scores. However, the results indicated that the use of keyboard harmony enabled even those students who have played piano for only a year or two to play tunes quite adequately. They had skill enough to accompany easy songs in the classroom, as is the goal of the music education program of the teacher education departments.
Auditory structuring
The results of the auditory structuring test showed that all of the students managed the task well. The results range from 25 points to a maximum of 40 points, indicating a high ability in aural structuring skills within the group. The figures did not explain any variation in other variables. Every test participant had a high auditory capability, since they belong to a highly selected group of teacher candidates. Every student had the necessary auditory structuring capability and thus the auditory potential needed for piano practice. Although it is sometimes suggested that training could correlate with the Karma test results, it does not mean that training is the cause for the high scores (Karma, 2007, p. 87). This remark appeared to be true, as both the beginners and advanced pianists were good at the test.
Performance task
The years of practice among the students varied from 1 to 25 years. The recorded playing tasks were given scores from 1 to 5. Not surprisingly, the scores of the piano test correlated .66 with the years of practice: those who had played more were better pianists. On closer examination, while the two groups of piano players were separated—group 1, those with degrees from the public music schools (x = 3.4); and, group 2, those without degrees (x = 2.4)—it was clear that formal music education improved the results: t(33) = 2.9; p < 0.010. According to analyses of variance (with all the subjects, N = 35) the years of practice explained the style of accompaniment F(4.31) = 3.5; p = 0.005; while the years of practice explained the scores of performance F(4.31) = 2.5; p = 0.030. As already mentioned, these two factors were linked. Style and technique is not the same thing, although they often go together. Thus, our second question: “what explains successful performance?” received two foreseeable answers: formal education and the years of practice improved the performance in keyboard harmony.
Visuo-motor integration
The most interesting result, however, was found from the WAIS Digit-Symbol Coding test. The beginner players who received one point for performance were significantly slower in visuo-motor integration than those who received four points. In the test that measured the speed of the ability to mark symbols in 90 seconds, the results varied from 56 to 81 marks. The group 1-point (n = 6) gained the mean of 62.3 marks, while the group 4-points (n = 7) achieved 72.3 marks. Those who were used to reading notes while playing had better hand–eye coordination than those who had not done it much. The difference between these groups measured by a t-test was indisputable: p = 0.001.
After this notion a question arose: “why those who were given five points did not statistically come up in similar way?” In fact, the students in group 5-points (n = 2) got only 66.5 marks, which is only slightly better than group 1 did in the test. It appeared that visuo-motor integration did separate beginners and advanced pianists, but did not necessarily correlate with the best performances. This notion was at first confusing: why did the best pianists not necessarily get the highest test points on the Digit-Symbol Coding test? Since the reading of notation is so pivotal in piano playing, it would be natural to think that the best players are the ones also with fluent visuo-motor integration. That was not the case. The explanation for this was found by comparing the recorded performances and the written reports.
Written reports and recorded performances
The students who gained four points were mainly those whose background was in public music schools and formal education. Rank 5, however, was identified from the tapes according to the criterion that the student plays with substantial versatile ideas in a personal way, with a clear improvisational aspect that can be heard. While listening to the recordings afterwards, it became clear that playing with substantial versatile ideas and in a personal way was seldom achieved. Even if the students played correctly, they usually followed the easiest way to express the music and most performances lacked emotional depth and musical creativity. Leaning strictly on the written notes and chords restrained even the otherwise fluent performances.
In written reports, those who had the formal education described their playing strategy in formal and technical language, such as “tonic,” “subdominant,” and “dominant” (n = 14); “chord” (n = 20); “cadence” (n = 8); “interval” (n = 10); “rhythm,” “tempo,” and “pattern” (n = 22); “rit.” (n = 6); “melody” (n = 30); “scale” (n = 8); “phrase” (n = 15); and “fingering” (n = 7). Fewer technical terms were used among the beginners, who usually commented on the difficulties they faced during the task. However, the terms they used were still the same as those the advanced players used. Strikingly, few were the terms that would say something about the song and the atmosphere of the music, such as: “lyrics” (n = 5); “feeling” (n = 2); “mood” (n = 1); “interpretation” (n = 3); and “story” (n = 1). A typical student’s report was as follows:
I played the melody through the whole piece. On the bass, I constructed the chords containing all the voices from the tonic; where the chord had a seventh I tried to include it in progression, but that did not always succeed. At the end of every verse, I used arpeggio to fill the cadences. When possible, I added a baseline to chords: for example, Dm/C/B/A when moving from a chord to another chord …
In order to release their creative potential, some of the students (n = 5) said that they would have needed to play the music from their minds, not from the book given to them. However, the way they were taught guided the way they play. As one student commented, “I have to get out of the score to the sounds, but that is easier to say than actually do.” However, those students that were capable of improvisation, and given five points, also differed substantially from the other students in the style they wrote about their playing. It also appears that they did not come from the public music schools, but they had learned to play the piano by themselves. Their writings dealt with emotions that were completely absent from the other students’ papers:
I usually try to get into the piece many times: I mean, I try to figure out the right mood of the piece. While trying, it is easier to begin to find my own view of it, an interpretation of the song. Sometimes I sing along with my playing, but when not singing—sometimes it is better to read the words of the song: for example, when it is about the sunshine you might try to play from the upper keys or when it is about dark feelings you might play from lower keys. I never play different verses the same way. Sometimes when I am feeling down, I just go and sit at my piano. First, I play a simple tune without the chords and then add some more voices there. After a while, I forget my feelings, and I live the music through my body, and the music changes …
Or as another put it:
I enjoy playing a lot. Normally, I play without notes. Quite often, I just leave the melody out and try to figure out what is the story and feel of the piece. When I use chords, I change them; maybe make them a bit jazzy. Anyway, it depends on the situation and feelings … if I am tired, I play differently than when I am perky …
In both of the testimonies the role of the feelings is evident, as well as the nontechnical aspects of portraying the process of playing. Since the recordings and the reports were handled separately during the evaluation process and only afterwards added together, the idea that there would be two different approaches towards piano playing came clearly into view. Indeed, the way we teach piano playing affects not only the way our students play but also how they write about it.
Conclusions
The research questions: “what kind of accompanying styles were used, and how did the students describe their playing?” as well as “what were the main elements that significantly explained a successful performance?”—found plausible answers. Beginner pianists had their own styles and advanced pianists their own. What affects learning most is what is taught and practiced: in traditional piano pedagogy, the analytical- and notation-based approach affects students’ visuo-motor integration, and, thus, reading notation is connected to eye–hand coordination. As with any skill, the time spent practicing is what matters most for achieving a good level of performance, which is similar to keyboard harmony.
If we take seriously the creative and ear-based playing approach, we need to consider the pedagogues used in piano playing. Is there need for different kinds of exercises in order to advance interpretative and intuitive playing? The answer, referring to the results, is yes. Indeed, restricting piano pedagogy only to the analytical approach can prevent the students’ ability to play piano more spontaneously, intuitively, and by ear. In turn, if those things are seen as valuable, they can be taught in piano lessons. In this study, the intuitive players in the test group were only two of 35. Undoubtedly, that reflects real life: intuitive players are a rare species among students or even among professional musicians. To prove the difference completely, one has to refer to the evidence based on the tapes and writings; purely in statistical terms the group is, of course, too little. However, as indicated earlier, the observations from research by Hayward and Gromko (2009), McPherson et al. (1997), as well as Woody and Lehmann (2010) are in line with our assumption. Indeed, there is a difference whether one plays by using the ears or eyes. The visuo-motor integration measured by the Digit-Symbol Coding test did find a difference between those who were familiar with reading scores and those who were not. It indicates that there is causality with eye–hand coordination and piano playing, as one might assume.
The complementary nature of the analytic and intuitive approaches in piano playing has to be emphasized. Surely, this dichotomy does not usually exist in a way that all the pianists would belong only in one group or another. Many classical pianists have intuitive abilities, and, conversely, vernacular intuitive pianists can handle music in an analytical way. However, if the pedagogical goal is to train skilful all-round musicians that are capable of interpreting both classical music and other styles according to their contexts, intuitive playing has to have more room in institutional piano lessons than is currently the case. This kind of approach and intuitive musicianship is needed, not only in the field of teacher education, but also in the whole field of music today.
The demanding role of piano teacher is to decide how to achieve these goals and where to put the emphasis. If a teacher has experience only from classical music, the challenge is undoubtedly high and extra in-service training is needed. Another thing worth noticing is that teaching keyboard harmony changes the role of the teacher from that of a master-teacher to more of a researcher-practitioner of music with the students. When there is not just one plausible answer to a question, but several different ways of doing things, balanced musical and pedagogical judgement is needed to see the value of the students’ versions of music. It is clear that this differs radically from the traditional master and journeyman (Meister und Gesell) thinking. Because keyboard harmony represents a new informal method in the field of piano pedagogy, it questions the traditional way piano is taught. In this sense, the method is typical for Finnish music education and, at the same time, an essential part of it. Imagination, improvisation, and composition skills are something that can be taught; the aim of the keyboard harmony is, de facto, to teach them.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.