Technical exercise and advice requested

[Mayla]

Okay.  Well, these have been very helpful responses and ... hee hee.. overall this thread has turned into something I wasn't really even planning for it to turn into for me (hope it's helpful in some form for others, too).

I need to ponder some concepts for a bit and experiment a bit -- and I have some responses and questions to some of the other stuff  ... but, I just want to "sit" with this stuff for a "moment" and develop a little more.

I have realized that I actually have more/deeper questions than what I thought this thread was to me ... that's very interesting  .

Thank you very much for all of your responses ... I actually feel quite amazed at what can be accomplished over the internet like this. 

[richy321]

Mayla, I am enjoying this string immensely.  It goes to the very heart of technique and it has elicited some well-meaning but questionable advice.  I am currently studying with a Taubman-trained teacher, and while I am by no means a qualified exponent, I thought I would give you my impressions from that (Taubman) persective:

While both Marik and Henry_V look unfavorably at your fingering, I think you should stick to it as long as it feels and sounds right to you.  Henry_V claims that he can hear the unwanted effects of your fingering, but I say the only credible criticism can be on the basis of sound along, not the visual appearance, also bearing in mind the limitations of the sound in the video.  Taubman advocates the use of extra rotations (for example in Chopin Op. 10/1) if the alternative causes too much tension.  With tension reduced to a minimum, one is better able to give fine control to the sound than under an overly stretched state.  And, not the least importantly, it minimizes the risk of injury.

Both Marik and Henry_V seem to encourage the idea that the shape or meaning of the music can intuitively lead one to the right fingering.  This is a pleasant thought, but I don't feel that it will hold up to examination, as long as we all have different physical structures and  vulnerabilities.  The final criterion should be the sound one gets and (equally) the freedom from stress and tension.

Thanks, Mayla, for starting this most fascinating string, and for being so adept at the technology involved in the videos, etc.  You are amazing.

Rich Y

[marik]

While both Marik and Henry_V look unfavorably at your fingering, I think you should stick to it as long as it feels and sounds right to you.  Henry_V claims that he can hear the unwanted effects of your fingering, but I say the only credible criticism can be on the basis of sound along, not the visual appearance, also bearing in mind the limitations of the sound in the video. 

I did not look unfavourably at the fingering. The only reason I commented is I hear that the passage does not seem to work... at least it does not sound right to me, as it is. Otherwise, I have no any objections.
I am for one who does not care about fingering, motion, or anything else, as long as it sounds right.

Both Marik and Henry_V seem to encourage the idea that the shape or meaning of the music can intuitively lead one to the right fingering. 

Rich,

I am sorry, but you got it wrong.
First of all, it is not some kind of intuitive process, but concious one, result of mental work.
Second, it is something not that "CAN lead ...", but the thing which DICTATES anything that can help to create right shape, meaning, expressive content, etc.. of music.
 

This is a pleasant thought, but I don't feel that it will hold up to examination...

You have a pleasant feeling, but you don't make any examination, so what is the point?

The final criterion should be the sound one gets...

Well, I always though that would be the first criterion. 


Best, M

[Mayla]

Okay, so, let me pick up here :

I wonder why you intellectualize technical issues so much.

I intellectualize many issues (whatever that really means ).  With piano playing, whether it is considered an issue of technique or an issue of musicality, I will think about it a lot -- A LOT (!) -- why ?  There are two main reasons :

1.  I want to clearly understand in every way possible, including intellectually.
2.  I want to have as solid of an understanding as I can when I take things to my students.

I realize there are other ways to develop, and I realize that I need to actually spend time doing things in those other ways -- and I sometimes forget to balance it out.  But, I am not going to walk through my piano playing and through music without thinking. 

I will admit, if I were only a singer, I might be tempted.  I don't know why that is, and probably not all singers are like that -- but, I just don't care quite as much about how everything works with voice and maybe that's part of why it seems easy(ish) for me to sing, too (I just don't spend much time thinking so much about it all) -- so maybe there is something to that.  But, I feel like my purpose with piano is greater than just being able to PLAY well -- I want to UNDERSTAND DEEPLY and I want to pass something truly great on to my students. 

Also, plain and simply, I like the feeling of thoughts "clicking"  -- and I think it's necessary for my growth.

And !!  I just realized that writing all this stuff out and thinking it through this way is actually a form of mental practice for me !  I am actually getting better, it seems, through all of this  .

[Mayla]

btw-- I think that my fingering and the motions that come along with it are absolutely brilliant   .  For some reason I want to be able to take things point by point and explain stuff ... but that may have to wait awhile.

Something interesting that I have realized from this thread at this point (and somewhere I knew it all along, but not as consciously) is that it's actually silly to talk about "fingering" as though that's what matters.  I mean, it does, but that's just the part that happens to touch the keys -- it's like concentrating so hard on our lips when trying to make a sound from our diaphram.  Which, well, there are a number of thoughts on that one.

So, no, it's not about fingering, it's about motions.  bye bye 

[ramseytheii]

btw-- I think that my fingering and the motions that come along with it are absolutely brilliant   .  For some reason I want to be able to take things point by point and explain stuff ... but that may have to wait awhile.

Something interesting that I have realized from this thread at this point (and somewhere I knew it all along, but not as consciously) is that it's actually silly to talk about "fingering" as though that's what matters.  I mean, it does, but that's just the part that happens to touch the keys -- it's like concentrating so hard on our lips when trying to make a sound from our diaphram.  Which, well, there are a number of thoughts on that one.

So, no, it's not about fingering, it's about motions.  bye bye 

It's true that it's not about fingering.  But I take that to mean this: the fingering should be as unobtrusive as possible.  Fingering is not really a place to demonstrate individuality or independence; it is the grunt work of pianists, like when fashion designers have to actually sew and hem.  Although it is an individual thing in a miniscule way, I can't find any logic to your fingering, and gently guess that as you get a more definite sound-picture of this passage, you will abandon this reckless fingering in favor of a simpler, unobtrusive model!

But as you said, it is your comfort which is at stake.

Walter Ramsey

[Mayla]

It's true that it's not about fingering.  But I take that to mean this: the fingering should be as unobtrusive as possible.

Yes !  I completely agree !  And, that's precisely the point of my "fingering" and motion -- it doesn't intrude whereas the other did (for me).  What I define as "unobtrusive as possible" is that there is nothing (or very little) standing in the way, creating static with the flow of the musical idea/sound and the motion made to achieve it.  There is absolutely nothing inherent within these motions that create static/obstrusion for me, and though my musical concept of this passage stood/stands in need of development and refining, I find that my choice of motion is actually extremely compatible with that development, and actually aids in my understanding.  It's a perfect fit in all ways for me thus far.  I still consider it pure genius  -- you know, not from me, but from the music itself and the powers that be  .  If something changes, if my musical concept grows out of it, that's fine, I will for sure change.  But so far I am more and more convinced of my choice.

The bottom line is, if I am comfortable, in control and free, I am unobstructed in being able to communicate a musical concept -- which I find I have with this particular motion/fingering. 

Fingering is not really a place to demonstrate individuality or independence; it is the grunt work of pianists, like when fashion designers have to actually sew and hem.

 

hee hee... I don't believe in grunt work with music -- ever !  There is absolutely no reason for it at all, everything about learning a piece of music and the fundamentals of music in general, and the fundamentals and details of playing, should be nothing but a pure joy and a purely remarkable experience (hee hee ... I guess I am going through an inspired phase  ) ... I mean, let's just admit; it's amazing to be able to do what we do at the instrument !  It's absolutely profound, but very simple at the same time.  If it feels like grunt work, it is being approached wrongly -- either in attitude or in physicality or both.

Now, by no means do I believe in and practice independence in fingering for the sake of independence.  What would be the point in that ?  My sole desire is to serve the music, which henry kept asking if I am considering in the least.   Well, the answer is yes, of course -- but, unfortunately it will take me a bit of effort and time to find all of the right words to communicate it ... afterall, it's very difficult to translate a musical and kinesthetic experience/language into a language of word painting -- I think it can be done to some extent (similar to how poetry communicates more than words), but I just don't know how to do it yet (I need more vocabulary).

Although it is an individual thing in a miniscule way, I can't find any logic to your fingering, and gently guess that as you get a more definite sound-picture of this passage, you will abandon this reckless fingering in favor of a simpler, unobtrusive model!

Well, this almost seems comical to me.  I can't actually imagine that you are truly serious  .  But, I will treat it as though you are, since I have this strange and deep desire to be clear on this particular point -- there is a crux to the matter that I just can't seem to put my finger on yet.  So far, the more definite my sound-picture becomes of this passage, the more I am convinced of the need for this alteration. 

Marik suggested for me to consider the essence of this passage in a different way, and ended by saying that by this point he would not need to tell me of what fingering to use -- well, I have done this as he described.  And, as I have mentioned before, I am only more convinced now of my choice (not close-minded, but convinced of my experience) -- perhaps he thought I would naturally drift toward what everybody is suggesting ... hee hee.   

But as you said, it is your comfort which is at stake.

Walter Ramsey

No, it's the music that is at stake .

So, at this point, to some extent I am arguing for the sake of arguing, but it's only because I have a drive and need to work some things out in my self -- intellectually, emotionally, imaginatively, musically -- everything.  And, there are some fundamental issues about my concept of piano playing that I am reviewing.  It's not personal so much, I just have a need .

Thanks and Cheers ! 

[cmg]

*envisions Mayla with electrodes attached to her frantically cogitating brain, powering the energy needs of many Third World countries, not to mention the UK . . .* 

[marik]

Not always physical comfort serves music the bests. A good example is Schnabel Beethoven edition, full of seemingly weird fingering and tempo deviations. However, there is a very deep meaning in this, and thorough analysis is a step forward to understanding Beethoven's intentions.

Likewise, undoubtely, 2-3-5 on F#-B-E and later F#-B-F# look weird, at first. However, Rachmaninov knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly aware that MOST of the people don't have hands as large as his.

He WANTED that physical tension, that "hard to reach" 2nd on F# then 3rd on B and then 5th on E/F#, because it CREATES MUSICAL tension.
It is like a singer, whenever riches the highest notes always has much more tension in the throat, or violinist reaching top positions--these "throat tension" or "reach" are almost always associated with music expression.

Isn't it exact Rachmaninov's musical intention!!!?
Wasn't he showing us EXACTLY how to make it work, when that physical reach will tell us everything about music!??
Doesn't it prove Neuhaus' words: "Everything written in the music--just read it carefully"!!!
I think this is the key for understanding this passage and once one understands it, any fingering will work. I'd suggest at least to try the following:

F# B   E   B   E   F# E   F# B  F#
2   1   3   1   2   3   2   3   1   3

Hope it helps and does not confuse matters too much.

Best, M

[Mayla]

I think as a basic principle of fingering, apply Occam's Razor: the less movement, the better. 

Walter Ramsey

This is only *absolutely* true in a vacuum, and does not hold to be the case if the "extra" motions are, in fact, necessary and serving a specific purpose (ultimately the purpose of the music) -- in which case, they are no longer "extra" and could still fall under the category of the "least" needed, and the "better" for it.

[ramseytheii]

This is only *absolutely* true in a vacuum, and does not hold to be the case if the "extra" motions are, in fact, necessary and serving a specific purpose (ultimately the purpose of the music) -- in which case, they are no longer "extra" and could still fall under the category of the "least" needed, and the "better" for it.

                                                       ?

[Mayla]

I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question ? 

[Mayla]

                                                       ?

The point, Walter, that I realize I may not have made clear, is that going with "the least movement, the better" is not always actually better.  And, I used to subscribe to that as a general rule, but now I am questioning it, since I think it actually can cause problems if taken as something like a fingering/motion "religion" for all cases. 

The concept as an absolute truth is only true when/if it lives in a vacuum, more or less, and it is just simply not always going to serve the purpose in context of the musical passage (and will actually sometimes cause problems when/if a person is merely trying to adhere to dogma, more or less) and should not somehow have a priority over something like the musical expression and the physical comfort it takes to express it.

[Mayla]

Not always physical comfort serves music the bests. A good example is Schnabel Beethoven edition, full of seemingly weird fingering and tempo deviations. However, there is a very deep meaning in this, and thorough analysis is a step forward to understanding Beethoven's intentions.

Well, I am not familiar with this so I will be interested to learn more about it.  However, there is a difference between unfamiliarity and tension.  I would guess that if the fingerings/motions are just "strange," then they might *seem* uncomfortable to begin with -- however, I would assume they are not actually movements which cause tension (otherwise you won't be seeing me using those, either ... hee hee).

Likewise, undoubtely, 2-3-5 on F#-B-E and later F#-B-F# look weird, at first. However, Rachmaninov knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly aware that MOST of the people don't have hands as large as his.

Well, it doesn't look particularly strange to me, it just feels strange.  However, it does indeed look and feel as though it is trying to adhere to primarily a flat, horizontal plane of movement -- which, when I compare that experience to what I have been doing as an alternative is somehow quite morbid, actually.

He WANTED that physical tension, that "hard to reach" 2nd on F# then 3rd on B and then 5th on E/F#, because it CREATES MUSICAL tension.
It is like a singer, whenever riches the highest notes always has much more tension in the throat, or violinist reaching top positions--these "throat tension" or "reach" are almost always associated with music expression.

Well, actually, singing in the stratosphere should feel easy, too -- it should not be tense.  And, I don't suspect that violinists are in favor of tensions, either, under whatever circumstances.  I think that physical tension can be heard, but it sounds like physical tension, not musical.  I have been under the impression that the expression and creation of musical tension is achieved through intonatsia, not through physical tension.  I realize that perhaps the concept of physical approach and "intonatsia" are (of course) related, but, I don't believe that anybody condones the use of physical tension to achieve anything at any instrument (and if they do, I believe they are mistaken).

Isn't it exact Rachmaninov's musical intention!!!?
Wasn't he showing us EXACTLY how to make it work, when that physical reach will tell us everything about music!??

Doesn't it prove Neuhaus' words: "Everything written in the music--just read it carefully"!!!
I think this is the key for understanding this passage and once one understands it, any fingering will work.

I don't know, perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't.  I will need to ask more questions.  From what I understand, nobody quite understands exactly what was a composer's intentions.

I'd suggest at least to try the following:

F# B   E   B   E   F# E   F# B  F#
2   1   3   1   2   3   2   3   1   3

Yes, I tried this soon after you posted it.  I will take a look at it some more and I think it's interesting, though it raises some questions  .  I think it's quite interesting in comparison to what I have been suggesting.

Hope it helps and does not confuse matters too much.

Best, M

hee hee... me, too .  But, you know, I of course thank you very much.

*bows with all sincerity, and stays bowed for a good 9 seconds*

[marik]

Well, actually, singing in the stratosphere should feel easy, too -- it should not be tense.  And, I don't suspect that violinists are in favor of tensions, either, under whatever circumstances.  I think that physical tension can be heard, but it sounds like physical tension, not musical.  I have been under the impression that the expression and creation of musical tension is achieved through intonatsia, not through physical tension.  I realize that perhaps the concept of physical approach and "intonatsia" are (of course) related, but, I don't believe that anybody condones the use of physical tension to achieve anything at any instrument...

I don't believe, either
Of course the hands (as all the body) should stay free. In fact, the process of playing piano at least physically should feel as free and natural as walking, or breathing.
I just used a wrong word. Instead of tension I should've used resistance. It is like when you play C-D with 2-3 and then stretch 2-3 to C-E. Your hand is still completely free, but you feel the resistance of that little stretch.

The same with violinists on higher positions. Of course, they stay completely free. The whole idea is in that physical process itself of "reaching" the high point which creates that expressive intonatsia. 

Best, M

[opus10no2]

Indeed, stretches and leaps are expressive, they *pianistically* imply and suggest a certain sound pattern as a result.

Ever wondered why Rachmaninov spread the opening chords when performing his own 2nd piano concerto?
It sounds more expressive, more lush, and better - for what he wanted.

Also, the style of people like de Pachman and Paderewski, the left-before-right approach, emphasising the melody, and giving it a momentary delicious cushion to ride upon.

[Mayla]

Please, try to understand that I am not out to critisize you in any way, but I have to say that this way of practising/playing looks kind of strange to me, and explains me alot about the problems you speak.

Yes, it's okay.  Even if you are criticising me, I am not offended and I feel excited by trying to answer your questions, actually.  So, I will do the best that I can, but explaining this stuff like this is new for me, to some extent. 

Generally, what I see is that you do a lot of movement for the sake of moving.

The motion is not, exactly, just for the sake of motion, but is actually serving an exact purpose related to the music, which I will try to explain in a bit.   I will add that this motion and movement is exaggerated when in slow motion, and so what you are seeing is an exaggerated form of moving in a way whose characteristics and essence is still present in my kinesthetic experience when playing quickly, but whose visual display is no longer obvious (in all ways) when playing quickly.
 

You talk alot about rotation (this can be a very misleading word, I think we mean all something different by it), is that what you are doing?

Yes, it is what I call it.

I am very curious, did some teacher show this to you, or did you do it from yourself?

A teacher did indeed point it out to me, for which I will be eternally grateful .  However, I suspect that I have experienced this before, just as I suspect most of us have (if it's not already being practiced regularly).  I don't know that I will do the ideas justice as this teacher showed me and discussed with me, therefore, any shortcomings are most likely my own fault and not that of the teacher's.  I am mainly speaking from my own understanding of what I have been shown, after experimenting and living with it for awhile now.

Why?

Because no matter what, it takes motion to play the piano.  There are several ways to approach the idea of motion in general, and then several ways of motioning ... hee hee.  I think of my playing, more and more anyway, as one continuous motion -- yes, in circles (or what may look like archs).  These circles are either horizontal or vertical, though of course both of these concepts/terms are imperfect when it comes to the musical context.  But, for example, a scalar run is perhaps a more "horizontal" motion while a chord requires a more "vertical" one -- they will, however, both be circles (or at least they will involve archs).  Horizontal circles are side to side, vertical circles are in and out/back and forth.

I used to think that I played the piano with my fingers.  This concept drove me close to the keys with my entire hand and it locked my wrist.  As a matter of fact, one cannot hold completely still at the keys without locking one's wrist -- this actually affected my elbows as well, they would become locked, too.  This happened because I was aiming to stay "still" -- when that is impossible, actually, if one wants to so much as depress a key.  IF I do aim to stay "still" but I want to depress a key, I must then isolate the use of my fingers (which, for a while, was the whole point for me and how I wanted to be at the keys -- and which happens to be the whole point behind the way Hanon suggests you do his exercises) and the motion will then become up and down.

http://media.putfile.com/staying--still- 


If you do this on the table in front of you, aim to hold your hand steady but play a "note" with your index finger, you would notice tension in various areas of your apparatus (if you are paying attention kinesthetically).  But, perhaps a person has already discovered for themself (without even knowing it) that this is a problem and has learned how to compensate for this.  The only way to compensate for this tension is to free things up, and that involves unlocking those areas that are locked, which happens to mean (in this case) moving them, or involving them in the movement.

So, in order to express a tension-free movement, one would choose to move the whole hand and arm in order to move the finger, now having the entire apparatus directly controlling the motion of a single note.  There are two ways to achieve this; horizontally or vertically.  As mentioned before, each of these "directions" will include or BE some kind of cicular motion.  Vertical will actually be in and out or out and in, again depending on the musical context :

Vertical, circular motion in both directions :

http://media.putfile.com/In-out-circular-motion


Horizontal will be side to side :

http://media.putfile.com/rotation-13

Again, depending on the passage and all of the musical aspects of it, one would choose from these motions.  So, what you are seeing in my former videos from the videos on page 1 of this thread are a series of exaggerated, horizontal archs/motions for each note, with a legato articulation (as much as possible).  This keeps everything free and has gotten completely away from the idea of up and down finger motions, which can only be achieved through the isolation of muscle-groups/apparatus-areas -- which leads to tension.

Does it help you (doing it this way)?

Yes, yes, and finally yes.  Granted, this particular approach and the use of it has come along with other studies into what is happening with the rest of my body.  You will notice in my videos in this post that in the second 2, my wrist is always "free" and my hand is very much at ease.  It should actually be this way no matter how fast one is playing (Lisitsa's Chopets come to mind).  Yes, there will be times that one must be firm in playing, but not tense, and depending on the passage, I will employ one of the two circular directions for each note(s)/note-group. 

Since it has freed me up almost entirely (when I am paying attention correctly), it has decreased my tension/static -- and, as a result it has increased my speed and accuracy, given me a true feeling of connection with the instrument and the sounds that come out of it and, let's not forget, it has turned my experience of playing into utter and complete enjoyment  .

ps-- okay, sometimes I still get crabby and impatient 

[marik]

Ever wondered why Rachmaninov spread the opening chords when performing his own 2nd piano concerto?

No, I did not... for two reasons:
1) In his 1929 recording he does not actually spread chords. It is true he puts the bass little bit before the actual chords... no biggie--it would've been sounded the same if he did not do that.
2) In his 1924 recording he plays it straightforward--all the chords togehter, no rolls, no spreads--still lush and expressive--exactly like he wanted it.
So what is your point?

Besides, even if what you are saying was true, still it is completely different animal, as you are talking about harmonic content of the music and I was talking about melodic one, i.e. intonatsia.
Ever wondered what's that?

Best, M

P.S. And let's not get into Pachman-Paderewski business, OK?

[henry_v]

Yes, it's okay.  Even if you are criticising me, I am not offended and I feel excited by trying to answer your questions, actually.  So, I will do the best that I can, but explaining this stuff like this is new for me, to some extent.

The motion is not, exactly, just for the sake of motion, but is actually serving an exact purpose related to the music, which I will try to explain in a bit.  

So, what is the relation, exactly (between your motions and the music)?

I will add that this motion and movement is exaggerated when in slow motion, and so what you are seeing is an exaggerated form of moving in a way whose characteristics and essence is still present in my kinesthetic experience when playing quickly, but whose visual display is no longer obvious (in all ways) when playing quickly.

I didn't mean the exaggeration of your movement, but  the way of moving itself, that seemed to me (and still seems) kind of strange.

Because no matter what, it takes motion to play the piano.  There are several ways to approach the idea of motion in general, and then several ways of motioning ... hee hee.  I think of my playing, more and more anyway, as one continuous motion -- yes, in circles (or what may look like archs).  These circles are either horizontal or vertical, though of course both of these concepts/terms are imperfect when it comes to the musical context.  But, for example, a scalar run is perhaps a more "horizontal" motion while a chord requires a more "vertical" one -- they will, however, both be circles (or at least they will involve archs).  Horizontal circles are side to side, vertical circles are in and out/back and forth.

I used to think that I played the piano with my fingers.  This concept drove me close to the keys with my entire hand and it locked my wrist.  As a matter of fact, one cannot hold completely still at the keys without locking one's wrist -- this actually affected my elbows as well, they would become locked, too.  This happened because I was aiming to stay "still" -- when that is impossible, actually, if one wants to so much as depress a key.  IF I do aim to stay "still" but I want to depress a key, I must then isolate the use of my fingers (which, for a while, was the whole point for me and how I wanted to be at the keys -- and which happens to be the whole point behind the way Hanon suggests you do his exercises) and the motion will then become up and down.

http://media.putfile.com/staying--still-  


If you do this on the table in front of you, aim to hold your hand steady but play a "note" with your index finger, you would notice tension in various areas of your apparatus (if you are paying attention kinesthetically).  But, perhaps a person has already discovered for themself (without even knowing it) that this is a problem and has learned how to compensate for this.  The only way to compensate for this tension is to free things up, and that involves unlocking those areas that are locked, which happens to mean (in this case) moving them, or involving them in the movement.

So, in order to express a tension-free movement, one would choose to move the whole hand and arm in order to move the finger, now having the entire apparatus directly controlling the motion of a single note.  There are two ways to achieve this; horizontally or vertically.  As mentioned before, each of these "directions" will include or BE some kind of cicular motion.  Vertical will actually be in and out or out and in, again depending on the musical context :

Vertical, circular motion in both directions :

http://media.putfile.com/In-out-circular-motion


Horizontal will be side to side :

http://media.putfile.com/rotation-13

Again, depending on the passage and all of the musical aspects of it, one would choose from these motions.  So, what you are seeing in my former videos from the videos on page 1 of this thread are a series of exaggerated, horizontal archs/motions for each note, with a legato articulation (as much as possible).  This keeps everything free and has gotten completely away from the idea of up and down finger motions, which can only be achieved through the isolation of muscle-groups/apparatus-areas -- which leads to tension.

There's a lot of information here. I agree with you that there should be complete relaxation (as a result of  continuing  movements as you put it). I also agree that this will imply kind of circular motions, because only then you are able to achieve it (therefore the first example of playing with stiff hands/arms is completely out of discussion and even dangerous, because it will lead to injury).
You talk about the 'vertical' and 'horizontal' movements, as two separate ways of moving. This doesn't seem natural to me and of course (and therefore it cannot be true) there are more than thousands of examples in the whole literature where, for example, a chord has to imply horizontal movements too. Think more of it like a combination of the two.
I don't like even to talk about 'horizontal' and 'vertical' because it's sounds like kind of rule or formula, and music cannot be like that.
Of course there are certain rules, but they are more principal.

Unfortunately, your videos (the 2nd and 3rd) show some contradiction to what you've been saying (although  already much better than the first). To be honest, they don't show me any circular movement at all, just a rotation.
However, it is true that a true circular movement has some elements of rotation, but the difference is that a circular movement is continuous whereas a strict rotation not (with a rotation you have to stop, what causes tension).

Therefore, and now we come to the point, all  movements must be kind of fluid. This way your music will sound fluid too. There must be 'no stop'. Also it will sound more 'legato' and cantabile even if you play staccato. It sounds more connected, and this is the very essence what music is about.

In this case, I really regret that I can't show you a video of myself playing it, because it will make a lot of things more clear.
I hope this will not confuse you too much.

[marik]

So, what is the relation, exactly (between your motions and the music)?...

I didn't mean the exaggeration of your movement, but  the way of moving itself, that seemed to me (and still seems) kind of strange...


Unfortunately, your videos (the 2nd and 3rd) show some contradiction to what you've been saying (although  already much better than the first). To be honest, they don't show me any circular movement at all, just a rotation.

Well,

I did not want to get into this, but since Henry started it, I have to admit I agree with those  statements 100%, inspite the fact most of the knowledgable folks on this otherwise very fine board would jump right on us and tear apart.

Moreover, this would concern the very core of the subject of the discussion of this thread, but in anticipation of some flame wars, at this point I'd rahter bow and leave, as anything I had to say on the subject I've already posted here, so no need to repeat myself, especialy when Henry_v has just reinforced some major points I posted before.

Best, M

*very looooooong booooow*

[jlh]

Besides, even if what you are saying was true, still it is completely different animal, as you are talking about harmonic content of the music and I was talking about melodic one, i.e. intonatsia.
Ever wondered what's that?

That's something my teacher has been working on with me for a couple years now.  Not exactly something that's taught well by a lot of American piano teachers.

[Mayla]

Marik, I will urge you toward an encore, in this case, and perhaps several more after that ... hee hee.

So, what is the relation, exactly (between your motions and the music)?

Actually, I am glad that you have asked this, henry, because it is exactly where my thoughts are at.  Actually, it has been my biggest question in this thread, but it took me some digging to get to it and I felt I had to lay some ground work first.

So, my question in response is (and I think it is indeed the heart of the matter), how is any motion related to the music ?  This is a particular area in this discussion that I am unclear about in general (and would like a better understanding of in general), and that is why I first addressed Walter's post regarding the thought that "the least movement, the better" -- with that I don't fully agree (or I feel it can be very misleading) because it really depends on many factors.

Yes, I see that the motions must be connected to the music, but they must also be connected to us individually -- which means that there are loads more factors to be taken into consideration.  And, which comes first ?  I know that some people think the music/sound should come first, and our personal comfort second -- but, once again, this is not a perfect concept in my opinion.  They must come together, it seems.

I think that what marik was talking about regarding "intonatsia" is one of the only ways to address the concept of how our motions are related to the music, and therefore I feel the need to spend a moment in one particular post of his.  I would like to start with this :

Doesn't it prove Neuhaus' words: "Everything written in the music--just read it carefully"!!!  I think this is the key for understanding this passage and once one understands it, any fingering will work. I'd suggest at least to try the following:

F# B   E   B   E   F# E   F# B  F#
2   1   3   1   2   3   2   3   1   3

(argh... I am sitting here minutes after minutes in frustration, not knowing how to ask my questions ... )

Okay.  I have to just go with where I am at in the moment.  First of all, I think sometimes too much credit is given to a composer.  By all means, they certainly deserve credit for their contributions to the world, but, that is exactly what they are doing when they decide to put music down on paper -- they are giving it to the world.  To some extent, they are releasing a certain amount of control over what the piece becomes, since it is now literally in the hands and ears of each individual, and we are all different in so many ways.  I have, constantly, at the root of myself, the example of Horowitz playing Rach's 2nd piano sonata, and Rach (supposedly) calling it Horowitz's after a certain point.  He conceded that Horowitz played it better than himself, and even understood it better than himself -- now, I am not claiming to be Horowitz ... hee hee, but the point is that the individual performer does play a big role in the music itself, no matter who composed it.

Secondly, what other "logical" fingering/motions would typically be thought of for this particular passage that I have brought up in this thread ?  Honestly, under a certain mindframe, I myself cannot think of any at all -- it seems, under this same mindframe, there is actually only one option, and that being what was originally written in my score : 235 123 1235. 

My impression of the original fingering/motions is that it was made under the idea of what our hands normally do -- or have generally been taught to do within certain schools of thought.  For example, I believe Hanon was used and taught in the Moscow Conservatory (where (or at least with what particular influence) Rachmaninov spent many of his years as an impressionable pianist and musician), as well as Czerny.  In Hanon, the idea of isolating our fingers as the means of piano playing is represented.  In Czerny the idea of keeping our fingers always in parallel with the keys is represented, and with those fingerings (like all fingerings) comes particular motions. 

My suggested fingering completely does not fit into any of these mindframes that I have metioned :

1.  The less movement, the better.
2.  Hanon : Isolating finger movements to play the piano.
3.  Czerny :  Keeping fingers parallel to the keys

Therefore, to the mindframe who thinks in these manners, my suggested fingering will be completely illogical -- I recognize this fully.  However, the mindframes that I have mentioned up above are, in my opinion, nearly completely false and incredibly misguided approaches to playing the piano -- if taken as a form of religious practice when it comes to our physical approach -- in short, it becomes dogma that winds up limiting most people whom are too afraid to think outside of those boxes.

So, what we are discussing, really, is a passage whose makeup has many facets to it -- of which are not necessarily all purely musical -- per se.  I realize that this is some rather big stuff that I am talking about, but these are actually the precise questions that I have in my guts about ... well... everything ... hee hee.

Getting back to the music, though, and what I have quoted from Marik.  I can't help but ask now, given what I have mentioned, what really are Rachmaninov's intentions ?  I just don't think we *really* would know since there is so much static in the way.  I think this needs to be considered, though, but many things have to be taken into consideration along those lines. 

I think that the music itself can tell us what its own intention is (which is why I happen to be very interested in theory).  Musically speaking, the intervals, and the distances between them, cannot be disputed (how this will affect our individual hands and what Rachmaninov was thinking about that particular thing CAN be and ARE disputed ad nauseum -- and I think there are no clear, sure answers there). 

Musically speaking, I think these intervals and the distance between them creates its very own impression, and I think that is precisely what needs to be taken into consideration first -- not necessarily what was layed out as the physical approach to these musical concepts by one person (whether they be editor or composer or pianist or a squirrel or whomever).  And, that is the only way a passage's musical affect could be achieved in more than one physical way. 

So, yes, I will consider the intervals, but to understand them MUSICALLY I will consider them first without thinking about what I have to do to physically reach them.  Did I do this sufficiently in my initial recording of this passage, posted in the very first post ?  No, I sure didn't.  At that time, I was wrestling mainly with the fact that I wasn't satisfied with what I had been doing for YEARS !!!!  But, thankfully, there is still time .

Now, I have to take a break for a moment ... hee hee.

[Mayla]

Okay, so, Marik, I would like to ask what your reasoning is behind your fingering up above ?  If you would be so kind .

[ramseytheii]

Re: Technical exercise and advice requested