I had wondered for most of my life why nobody can agree on the definition of the scientific method. This dilemma was embarrassing because I am a scientist. I have finally solved that riddle! The definition of anything depends on (1) the person defining it, (2) the person for whom it is intended and (3) the purpose for which the definition was created. For example, to a cook in a diner, an omelet is something he makes and sells; to a customer, it is something to eat for breakfast. Except for scientific terminology defined for specific purposes, relatively few definitions have universal applicability. Therefore, no matter how you define anything, someone is going to find it objectionable, in addition to the fact that defining anything correctly for any specific set of circumstances is difficult enough.
Science, in its broadest sense, is the study of the universe (or truth) and is therefore infinitely complex. Such a definition is of no use to a person trying to learn piano. The definition needed in this book is one which explains the relevance of science to piano practice. To that end, the definition I chose seems most appropriate: "a scientific method
is any method that works every time for everybody". That is, you don't need to be a
scientist to use science – in fact, everyone uses scientific methods every day, especially in developed countries.
For scientists, science is infinitely complicated. For everybody else, you can't live without science because science simplifies everything: life would be much harder without electricity, phones, cars, television, inexpensive foods, etc., all products of
scientific progress. Without science, there won't even be a piano to play because the piano is one of the most science intensive mechanical machines ever created. I have interacted with plenty of scientists including Nobel laureates; nevertheless, piano tuners are some of the best practicing physicists I have ever met because, without understanding physics, no piano tuner will be able to tune, regulate, and maintain pianos.
One misunderstanding I encountered is that science is too difficult for artists. This boggles the mind. The mental processes that artists go through in producing the highest levels of music or other arts are at least as complex as those of scientists contemplating
the origin of the universe. One remark I hear too often goes something like "I'm not smart enough for science", which only reveals a lack of understanding of what science is. Not studying science, because the person is not smart enough, is like saying that he is not smart enough to go to school. The reality is that going to school is the fastest way to become smarter. Everyone studies science to empower themselves, to be able to do things they couldn't do before, to solve problems and to simplify life.
Science is empowerment. Although smart scientists are needed to advance science, everyone benefits from science, especially the less gifted. Thus another way of defining science is that it simplifies difficult tasks and makes previously impossible tasks possible.
Science is easier than art because in art, you depend on mental leaps whereas in science, you go one small step at a time. What many pianists do not know is the extent to which the greatest musicians used science to compose [(67) Mozart's Formula,
Beethoven and Group Theory, (48) Chopin's Fantaisie Impromptu, Op. 66, Polyrhythms]. There is widespread belief that people are born with different interests or abilities in art or science; however, the majority of people can be artists or scientists depending on their exposure to each field, especially in early childhood. Genius can be taught [(65) Creating Geniuses].
Experience has shown that the scientific method works best if certain guidelines are followed. Major components of the scientific method are:
(i) Definitions: Without the precise definitions presented throughout this book (HS
practice, parallel sets, thumb over, etc.), most of the discussions would become cumbersome and ambiguous. With the right definitions, complex concepts can be discussed concisely and accurately.
(ii) Research: In scientific research, you perform experiments, get the data, and
document the results in such a way that others can understand what you did and can reproduce the results. Unfortunately, that is not what had been happening in piano
teaching. Liszt never wrote down his practice methods and probably never even analyzed them. A tremendous amount of research had been conducted by all the great pianists, the past geniuses. Unfortunately, very little of that had been documented; piano pedagogy was not scientific.
(iii) Documentation: It is an incalculable loss that Bach, Chopin, Liszt, etc., did not
write down their practice methods; today, they are mostly buried in their compositions. Those composers probably did not have sufficient resources or training to undertake such an unfamiliar task as analysis and documentation. An important function of
documentation is the elimination of errors. Once an idea is written down, we can check for its accuracy and remove any errors and add new findings. Documentation is used to
create a one-way street in which the material can only improve with time.
It is necessary to communicate with all other specialists doing similar work and to discuss new research results. In this respect, the piano world has been woefully
on previous works. The book reviews in this book note if there are references; books without references are not scientific because every such book has to re-invent the wheel every time. It is the reason why piano pedagogy made no progress for 200 years until the recent mad dash towards documentation enabled by the internet. Documentation now provides hope that piano pedagogy can catch up to other developed fields of education. Without documentation, teaching methods can develop forwards as well as backwards, as shown by Hanon, who set us back 100 years.
(iv) Theory: Scientific results must always lead to some theory or principle that can
be verified by everybody. Explanations like "it worked for me," or "I've taught this for 30 years" or even "this is how Liszt did it" aren't good enough. If a teacher had been
teaching the procedure for 30 years, he should have had plenty of time to figure out why it works, but it didn't work out that way in piano because scientific principles were not followed. The explanations are often more important than the procedures they explain. For example, HS practice works because it simplifies a difficult task. Once this principle of simplification is understood, you can start looking for more things like that, such as shortening difficult passages or outlining. The nicest property of theory is that we don't need to be told every detail about how to apply the method -- we can fill in the details from our understanding of the method. There is no standard method that applies to everybody, because everybody is different, and understanding is needed to design the right practice method for each individual.
More research will produce some amazing scientific discoveries in music. The inefficient, time-consuming practice routines of the past had prevented musicians from getting the necessary education outside of music for understanding and learning music. Perhaps the greatest discoveries in music will come from brain studies and neuroscience. Music conservatories must take the initiative to research music scientifically and apply knowledge-based methods of teaching. We still do not understand the biological changes that accompany the acquisition of technique and how the human (especially the infant) brain develops. Understanding these will allow us to directly address them instead of having to repeat something 10,000 times. Neuroscientists today know more about the musical brain than conservatory professors (Levitin). Instead of assuming that you must be a genius to be a musician, we must research how to make musicians into geniuses. Evolution of science in the last 200 yrs has been nothing short of miraculous, and better education of pianists will surely yield similar results. Musicians must take advantage of the advances achievable using scientific methods, that have enabled us to perform miracles daily, in hospitals, factories, and homes, that even writers of the bible could not have imagined.