The Secret of Technique in Two Short Paragraphs

[m]

In the late tendency of "discovering" the "secret" of technique, I desided to make my modest contribution into the piano community. I'll try to put it in a short and consise form.

So...

Consider, we are throwing a stone into a target in a most natural and strightforward way. Let's analize what is going on. The whole motion starts from the hips, and shoulder blade would give the most momentum, following into the arm in the most relaxed way, where at the moment of stone leaving your hand your palm and fingers will give that "last push". After that all the construction immediately and naturally gets comletely relaxed.

Exactly the same process going on when we play piano. All the motion starts from the hips (it is rather like a crane--the more mass in the base, the easier to lift tons of weight). The only difference is that most of the momentum moves from shoulder blades inside the palms, then that momentum followes into fingers, while the finger tip gives that "last push", and all the system comes into "standby" mode, absolutely calm and relaxed.

It is all about seeing the target (musical idea), accumulating energy, releasing it, and getting into "standby" mode. 

Hopefully, it is not confusing.

Best, M

[nick]

In the late tendency of "discovering" the "secret" of technique, I desided to make my modest contribution into the piano community. I'll try to put it in a short and consise form.

So...

Consider, we are throwing a stone into a target in a most natural and strightforward way. Let's analize what is going on. The whole motion starts from the hips, and shoulder blade would give the most momentum, following into the arm in the most relaxed way, where at the moment of stone leaving your hand your palm and fingers will give that "last push". After that all the construction immediately and naturally gets comletely relaxed.

Exactly the same process going on when we play piano. All the motion starts from the hips (it is rather like a crane--the more mass in the base, the easier to lift tons of weight). The only difference is that most of the momentum moves from shoulder blades inside the palms, then that momentum followes into fingers, while the finger tip gives that "last push", and all the system comes into "standby" mode, absolutely calm and relaxed.

It is all about seeing the target (musical idea), accumulating energy, releasing it, and getting into "standby" mode. 

Hopefully, it is not confusing.

Best, M

Marik, I like your description. It seems so relevant to discuss the hips as the basis for the stability and power. For a long time I did not realize this, and would just slide this way or that way up the keyboard depending on where the notes were. Once I centered in the middle, and felt my butt solid on the bench and only leaned left or right, accuracy increased tremendously.

Nick

[cmg]

The whole motion starts from the hips


Hopefully, it is not confusing.

Best, M

Well expressed and reminds me of a teacher I had for one year when I was a teenager.  A great musican named Joseph Running.  He studied with Dohnanyi and would always tell me to "play from your ass."

Not, of course, to be confused with playing out of your . . . well, you get the point.

I'd only like to add one thing:  don't wear binding underwear when you practice or perform. 

[thalbergmad]

Very well put Mr Marik. I do like short posts on technique.

If true, Jan Zelezny could have been the greatest pianist ever.

Thal

[pianistimo]

  javelin thrower AND pianist.  interesting.

two short paragraphs to explain a lifetime of learning?  some say that tone production is it's own means to an end. 

my own feeling about where music comes from is at odds with the hips a little - i like to think of that center of the body that some call 'chi.'  i call it the 'solar plexus' for no better term i know.  it's somewhere in the center of your body - about two inches behind your belly button.  it's where - when you take a deep breath in - you can focus all the energies to any part of your body the fastest.  whether you have to pedal or play with fingertips.  people say it's all brain.  if you play a lot by reflex - it's also part of your muscle system which is centered in the middle of your back.  but - if you don't take a breath in - your back does nothing for action.  interestingly - my teacher advised drinking a lot of water.  i didn't question him specifically - but believe the reason is that well fluidated bodies transmit neuron signals faster.  you know - electricity and water.  don't quote me on this.

ps olive oil to cook food, put into food, and use in salad dressing is the real secret of my technique.  so far - no crampy fingers.  perhaps another secret is to never overdo.  if you type a lot on the computer - don't practice 3 hours.  one or the other?  bananas might be another secret.  that potassium link.

[ramseytheii]

my own javelin thrower AND pianist. olive oil interesting. lifetime of food, production and water and your belly button. two short paragraphs to explain a'solar plexus'?  some bodies  say that you can focus all the energies whether you have to pedal or type a lot on the computer. it's feeling about salad dressing is the real secret of the body that some call 'chi.' people say it's all potassium but -  if you play with fingertips when you take a deep breath in your back does nothing in the middle of your back .  where music comes from is bananas .  my secret. learning is the end.

a little hips - about two inches behind for action- it's where  my technique is center.     brain.
the fastest  body means it's own  tone is centered .   to an electricity to cook food i believe the reason is that crampy fingers at odds with the fluidated transmit neuron signals specifically don't take a breath in - interestingly. i like to think of that.  i didn't question him  .

    -   i call it the  for no better term the center muscle system which if you play a lot by reflex  you know  it's somewhere in  ,    water - but  well of your your body . if you know    -  to any part of   -  also part of your  practice     -  that  teacher advised drinking a lot of   hours.  put into faster use in  of  so far- no.    perhaps another secret to never overdo. one or other?   -  might be another   link. 

  3   

ps     - don't don't quote me on this.

 

Oops!

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

I congratulate you for the short and concise definition.

Just digressing: over the past century, surely the scientific knowledge behind piano technique has accumulated to an all-time high.  Bernhard often commented that in the times of Liszt, this knowledge was lacking, and Liszt even told his students to play difficult passages in ways contrary to the way the body worked (not a criticism of Liszt). 

Now that we have such knowledge, and can put basically any technical question in terms of it, and have so much of it that we can condense it succinctly and efficiently, I think the time has come to a return of true musicianship studies.  What I mean is this: technique as a science should never be central, as it is in so many methods we see today.  The emphasis should never be in fact on personal technique, but only on the pure study of music.  The technique should be guided from the teacher's constant alterations and watchful eye, and with the knowledge of the science in the background.  Students should focus expressly not on how they look when playing, or how it feels to play, or how to play this passage or that, but on learning real music skills, the basic music skills that I am probably not wrong to suggest most pianists lack.

The vast canon of repertoire that pianists play has been devalued in modern society.  You often find academics with the nagging feeling that they have to justify their profession, justify their art, defend it from comparison with other things, and then become overprotective.  I believe study should back away from the physical technique, and go back to the pure study of music itself: its history; its development; its theory; its structure; its endless opportunities.  I actually believe this is the true path to real creativity, a skill which most concert artists lack.

Yo-Yo Ma had this to say in a recent interview:

"All this work makes me wonder whether we are heading toward something like world classical music. People right now do partake in a recognizable tradition, but they want that tradition to acknowledge the world as we experience it, especially after the nineteen-eighties, when suddenly we became more conscious than ever before of living in a global culture, or on a globe of many cultures. Nothing is totally distinct. Every great world religion has elements that are taken from other religions or overlap with them. It’s a sort of biological or ecological need to keep evolving. If we don’t, then a tradition gets smaller and may eventually die out.  If we want to preserve a tradition, the best way to preserve it is to let it evolve."

To my delight, he echoes an insight that Bartok had over a half-century before.  Bartok, after intensive studying indigenous folk music of Eastern Europeans, travelled to North Africa to do the same.  He discovered that the folk music of North Africa was stagnant, having been the same thing for centuries (maybe a millennia).  The music of the E. European tribes, who were all ethnically diverse but in close proximity to each other, on the opposite side of the coin, had developed to amazing levels of complexity and ingenuity.  His research told him that only a cross-fertilization of the musics guaranteed its evolution and continued survival.  North African tribes, living in isolation in desert environments, or in homogenous ones, were not able to develop their folk music to that level.

That's a round-about way of saying, students should be made to focus on how to make music - in all of its forms - and not just play the piano.

Just some random thoughts.

Walter Ramsey

PS Not sure if this reads as critical of marik's post - just in case, let me say it isn't at all.  I recognize that it is a feat of great knowledge and study that a big area like piano technique can be condensed into such a logical form.  My argument is that we should build off that, and go back to musical roots!

[cmg]

Well, Walter Ramsey, I counted 11 paragraphs before counting itself confounded me. 

You make eminent sense here.  No one could argue that.  And your remarks are hereby noted as a welcome -- expanded, but not to say bloated, of course -- appendix to Marik's more concise, two-paragraph statement.   

[m]

Not sure if this reads as critical of marik's post - just in case, let me say it isn't at all.  I recognize that it is a feat of great knowledge and study that a big area like piano technique can be condensed into such a logical form.  My argument is that we should build off that, and go back to musical roots!

Walter,

Thank you for your excellent message, which expands some ideas, and also thank you for nice words.

Indeed, I wanted to put in a very short and concise form as I believe in important matters, the less words, the more you say.

Of course, technique is much more than that and there are many layers of technique--both physical and mental.

I however wanted to emphasise here two main ideas in my message: 

1) First to see the "TARGET", in other words musical image comes first (most definitely, if there is no target what is the point of "throwing stones" ). It is in perfect agreement with your remark about back to musical roots and everybody here knows I am always the first to argue should I feel the term "technique" is used not a tool for expressing musical ideas.

2) Such thing as throwing a stone for MOST people is a natural and relaxed process.
It should be the same for piano playing, as the whole mechanism of perfect coordination between accumulation and releasing the energy is the first and foremost principle.

The whole approach to technique is the relationship between whole your body and key bed, and the mechanism of connection should happen in the most natural way. After all that the tone production is already derivative.

Best, M

[pianistimo]

at the risk of sounding like thal - my husband threw a stone in a hospital once. 

actually, i agree with most everything said here.  finding information about music requires having a music library that is well thought out.  those are hard to find in some places.  some seem quite random.  you know - smaller uni's or community colleges that aren't tied to a main university.  when i finally went into a 'real' library (at least to me) at west chester uni - i was astounded at the information and cannot fathom going into julliard's or eastman's or wherever there are more of these.  basically, you have a whole collection of both cd's and records which have amazing info inside the covers and also - excellent descriptions of forms and manners of playing.  west chester was in the process of converting all these lp's into cd's - i think. 

also, i was impressed that the faculty does not insult you on what you don't know.  one of the faculty took us into the library and showed us what resources were available to us.  this was immensely helpful.  also, how to use the computers (which seem to change every couple of years - processes) to find info.

my technique doesn't change to exactly what mozart describes his playing as - because obviously we can't magically make our modern piano into a smaller sounding fortepiano.  but, i can think about not making it as dynamically crashing as beethoven in the 'forte' areas.  and, even beethoven not so loud as to be obnoxious.  i think playing a shade or two below what your mind tells you to- gives you more freedom of expression than wild extremes.  perhaps this picking and choosing of dynamic extremes would be my 'secret.'  bach would be wayy less extreme than mozart.  mozart less than beethoven.  beethoven less than chopin/liszt etc.  and modern music perhaps according to what the composer wrote - to the extremes of the instrument - without destroying it.

something else i was thinking is that what we read DOES influence how we interpret music - and perhaps in that way it influences a bit of our technique.  for instance, when i found out about music journals - i started reading them right and left.  when i read about bach's goldberg variations - i started thinking about what parts to bring out to clarify what bach's composition purposes were.  for instance, if he was using B A C H in the 13th variation - that should be brought out, right?  *it's been a while since i read the article and i hope this is the variation that he used this system in.  also, i've not played the entire goldbergs - but i mark scores so when i get to whatever parts, i have little notes about it.

same with reading about chopins new forms based on hybrid forms.  such as the polonaise-fantasy.  it was good reading and would probably influence my playing could i attain that level to play though the entire thing without stopping on minor details.

[rc]

That's a round-about way of saying, students should be made to focus on how to make music - in all of its forms - and not just play the piano.

I sometimes feel the pinch of the piano-centric mentality.  Any instrument really, many will confuse the means with the end...  But when I think on it more, it's sometimes a necessary step on the journey to focus on the instrument.  To bring out the magnifying glass and refine the 'how' of music.

The thought occurred to me once that what I'm doing in learning the masterworks is assimilating their golden ideas to later create something of my own, mashing various influences together.

In Alberta we're fortunate to have a good public radio station that plays all sorts of music under the sun.  There's so much good stuff out there the cross-fertalization possibilities are boggling!  I wish I could quit my job and spend my time exploring ideas.

[dmc]

my own feeling about where music comes from is at odds with the hips a little - i like to think of that center of the body that some call 'chi.'  i call it the 'solar plexus' for no better term i know.  it's somewhere in the center of your body - about two inches behind your belly button.  it's where - when you take a deep breath in - you can focus all the energies to any part of your body the fastest. 

I believe the word that describes the place you're looking for would be the term many athletes & trainers use (vox teachers too) when they refer to proper breathing:

The CORE[/u] of the body. 

[pianistimo]

yes!  that's it.

[leonidas]

With all due respect.

I'm calling BS

[pita bread]

With all due respect.

I'm calling BS

Speak for your own ideas.

[leonidas]

They are naturally much better.

[m]

They are naturally much better.

Good for you.

[nyquist]

The whole approach to technique is the relationship between whole your body and key bed, and the mechanism of connection should happen in the most natural way. After all that the tone production is already derivative.

Marik,

Could you elaborate on the relationship to the keybed?

Thanks,
nyquist

[leonidas]

Good for you.

The problem is, I am not being selfish, I am not leading everyone up a confusing and random path.

I dont play the piano with my ass 

[mephisto]

Thanks for the advices Marik!

[mephisto]

With all due respect.

I'm calling BS

Have you heard Marik play!?

[leonidas]

Yes...

[term]

The secret is not to know something about it. The secret is, how to do it.
There is no use in knowing about the arch, the involvement of the body etc. The process, i.e. to get better and better, still remains. So you may as well believe in spirits showing you the way (as a member of this forum does), it doesn' matter, since both approaches have one thing in common: A process.
The secret of technique, if such thing exists, would not be to know something about technique but how to skip the process, or at least how to make it faster, so that you can actually sit down and play better instead of sitting down and knowing how to play better.

[pita bread]

The problem is, I am not being selfish, I am not leading everyone up a confusing and random path.

I dont play the piano with my ass 

Really? Because it sure sounds like it.

[leonidas]

Want a duel?

Alkan op76 no1?

[nadiave]

hello...
im nadia...
im kindanew here...
i need help plis...

[dnephi]

Want a duel?

Alkan op76 no1?

You kidding?  Pita only KANduels in Op. 39.

[counterpoint]

I dont play the piano with my ass 

I wouldn't have said that.

But it was in my mind too... 

[pita bread]

Want a duel?

Alkan op76 no1?

might give me a reason to finish the other half of it

[pita bread]

actually stevie, what ever happened to your 10/2 duel, huh?

[m]

I am not leading everyone up a confusing and random path.

For some folks simple logarithms look confusing and random. Most obviously, there is no sense to talk to those people about high math.

[pianistimo]

how about the resistance of the piano action to the finger pressure.  if it takes a whole body - your math is wayy off.  but, then - for some pieces - i understand what you are saying.  i don't typically play a lot of liszt or rach.  it's easier for me to say - endurance?  i have it.  i maintain my 'core' and drink a lot of water - and exercise.  if my back is strong and my fingers are strong - and my mind isn't too blinkered - i can get through four to six pages ok.  actually, the secret to playing longer pieces is really the same - in that if you put too much of your body into it - you become fatigued.  perhaps what you mean is the natural weight of your arms and leaning forward or back to relieve tension.

btw, the spirit isn't something to laugh at.  sure, you have to put in hours and hours of practice.  but, when it comes to the day of your recital - how many musicians get terribly nervous?  the one thing that REALLY helped me was putting it all in God's hands.  whatever happened. 

liszt was the one who already had an innate talent to memorize and play hours of music.  but, does everyone?  is this a natural thing or something that is kind of for show.  not everyone wants to be a showman.  it used to be that music was a method for gathering people around and just enjoying life and singing and partying.  the stress involved in modern day recitals could be alieviated if people didn't care about the two notes that were wrong. 

perhaps the best secret is to not care what other people think - (unless it's your teacher or a mentor) - and play with happiness and your soul.

[lostinidlewonder]

A Liszt said: "Techinque starts with fingering and always returns to it"

It all starts with the hands, the other movements of the body follow. I never guide a student in any way except on how their hands work. If there is a problem with the hands there is a problem everywhere else, if the hands are right the body follows. The only time I talk about the whole body is when we start talking about intensity of sound. Eg finger tips are pppp, your back is ffff and points inbetween are the other volumes. You can definately fill your body up with imaginary water to these points of your body.

I feel it wrong to work this way; that is, improve other parts of the body to improve the hands, it is not the case. You improve the hands then the rest of the body follows. And how the body follows and how the hands move is similar but unique to everyone. I believe you waste time trying to improve anything but the arms-hands, where you can focus on your hands and you will target many things in your body at once.

Perfect technique is complete relaxation and an effortlessness to produce the sound we hear from within. There are thus only 2 things which command techinque, that is Effortlessness of touch and listening. But you can branch out into hundreds of different ideas for each.

[leahcim]

Hopefully, it is not confusing.

Best, M

I'm just left with the feeling that if you're right then I probably wouldn't throw stones at a target very well either.

How about a video? I note the world is full of "how to play piano" videos and teachers that show you "which notes to play" - I've yet to find one yet, teacher or video, that shows you how to actually play the notes. Which would be ironic, given that pretty much every book and video, especially if it has the word 'beginner' somewhere in the title is called something that paraphrases 'how to play the piano', if it weren't so frustrating.

It's as though I live in a world where, whatever their ability everyone struggles to know which notes to play but has no issues at all with how to physically play those notes on the instrument. e.g even on youtube, if someone does a cover version of a simple piece every comment is 'have you got the score?' and a video saying 'how to play boogie woogie' is saying 'in your left hand play C <5 sec pause> E <5 sec pause> G <5 sec pause>..." which is just talking sheet music. Didn't anyone else learning the piano find playing the notes difficult?

A simple step to step guide 'how to play notes on the piano'  - how to play comfortable yet manage to get ppp through fff staccato and legato from single notes through to chords. I'd give everything I own for that information.

[thalbergmad]

A voice form the past.

Welcome back old chap.

Thal

[m19834]

I have happened upon this thread and felt like adding my two cents.

After reading posts containing opinions from knowledgeable-seeming posters, whose opinions may seem to diverge at times, I would say that I think everybody is right !  As already mentioned, everybody is different and everybody, no matter what kind of guidance they are given, will eventually need to come to grips with whatever technique is, whatever music is, whatever piano playing is -- all of that stuff -- in their own way !  No book, no post, no great pianist, no particular exercises nor piece(s) will ever end the forward momentum of development and growth -- and the need for millions of different kinds of explanations and views on the subject of music and piano playing !  Why do "we" keep thinking to end all questions ?

In some cases, yes, the less words the more a person says.  With other people, less words is a dangerous path because they actually need detailed, detailed instructions.  Yes, aural guidance is important, and some people learn primarily by what their ear tells them, but it's not actually *everything* and I don't think it's actually even, necessarily, the final goal.  Sound is not even what it seems, certainly for a pianist sound is more than listening, but hearing is more than sound even for the audience listening to the pianist/music !  If you disagree, let's take it up with Beethoven and let's hear what he has to say about sound and music .

Why do we say things like "I will never do this !" ?  Or, why should we think always of technique in one particular way ? 

I think there are some basic guidances on using our body -- like 'alignment' for one.  But, everybody comes about using these guidances in a most intimate and unique way, and our whole thought, our whole body, our whole soul, everything, can be and should be involved. Perfect perception .  Some people need generalities, some people need details -- and I personally think that all people need both together.   

[nick]

I'm just left with the feeling that if you're right then I probably wouldn't throw stones at a target very well either.

How about a video? I note the world is full of "how to play piano" videos and teachers that show you "which notes to play" - I've yet to find one yet, teacher or video, that shows you how to actually play the notes. Which would be ironic, given that pretty much every book and video, especially if it has the word 'beginner' somewhere in the title is called something that paraphrases 'how to play the piano', if it weren't so frustrating.

It's as though I live in a world where, whatever their ability everyone struggles to know which notes to play but has no issues at all with how to physically play those notes on the instrument. e.g even on youtube, if someone does a cover version of a simple piece every comment is 'have you got the score?' and a video saying 'how to play boogie woogie' is saying 'in your left hand play C <5 sec pause> E <5 sec pause> G <5 sec pause>..." which is just talking sheet music. Didn't anyone else learning the piano find playing the notes difficult?

A simple step to step guide 'how to play notes on the piano'  - how to play comfortable yet manage to get ppp through fff staccato and legato from single notes through to chords. I'd give everything I own for that information.

Leachim, I understand your frustration. My suggestion would be 1. to use some of your arm weight to play the notes, not all, just some where the notes sound mf.
2. play difficult passages repeatedly at a "comfortable" speed, where it is perfect, and fingers are slightly curved, not raised very high, and you are able to repeat indefinitely if you wanted with no strain or difficulty.
3. never "push" for speed as this creates strain. Practice speed is not at performance speed. Enjoy the sound of your practicing, never straining or uncomfortable. It takes time for your speed to increase. Not increasing your practice speed does not mean your performance speed has not increased! It takes much time.

Just a few important points for me I thought you might benefit from.

Nick

[m19834]

The problem is that only so much can be understood through mere words on a forum, even if the words are originating from good intentions and a well of valuable knowledge.  Marik's initial post, and the subsequent posts thereafter, will make sense (or not) to people whom already have a bank of various kinds of information from practicing and learning in a consciously fruitful way, and may not mean much to others who need more details and experience.  There are ways to "explain" aspects of technique, like "arm weight" and so on, but they make much more sense when accompanied by demonstration and kinesthetic experience.  In a way, the first-hand experience is the complete explanation.

On the other hand, anybody can try anything that they read about or hear about or are told, and observe whether or not the results are desirable (though what is "desirable" may be difficult to determine without the guidance of a teacher, for various reasons).

[keypeg]

I've just read this whole thread with great interest.  I'm coming to piano from another instrument and it seems that some things transcend instruments.  I'd like to share the what I have encountered which touches upon several different posts.

* hips/ass vs. solar plexus -- I've encountered both and they are two different things

- the hips is a physical place, a centre for motion and balance

- the solar plexus involves "energy" but not exactly physical energy.  It's almost in the area of auras and such, but not quite that.  I transports, directs, centres in a way I can't describe.  I came on it on my own, but then my teacher one day suggested it as a "centre".  Your playing "comes from" there but not in the way it might "come from" your shoulders or hips in a physical way.

For the person who said when the hands go right, then the body goes right too - that is something I have wondered about.  I tried for a length of time to fix bodilly things.  My experience was that when I got something right going in my hands, it seemed posture and everything else fell into place.  I observed it, would not quite allow myself to believe it, and the idea was summarily dismissed.  But trying to fix the body worked only to a degree, and this hands thing seemed to have something to it.

All this intellectual and scientific knowledge of how the body works, and then trying to consciously apply it.  In some ways we are probably avoiding injuries that plagued our forefathers, but we also tie ourselves into knots, like the proverbial centipede.

Technique creates the dynamics, or the dynamics create the technique, and where does the music come in?  I know about accelerated action cause greater loudnesss, body weight or similar, and the result is a dynamic range.  But this morning I visualized a crescendo while playing and allowed the audial image of that crescendo "flow from my fingers" and the body seemed to do whatever it needed to do to create that crescendo.  Logically I must have been pulling together all those various physical attributes that are needed, but the image of the sound created the action, rather than the action creating the sound.

[m19834]

Logically I must have been pulling together all those various physical attributes that are needed, but the image of the sound created the action, rather than the action creating the sound.

I don't disagree with this (and it doesn't really matter if I do  ), I just think it's easy to assume many things in this process.  I think the reality of what we perceive as sound, has linked to it kinesthetic information that constitutes the creation of it, and I think that sound and the creation of it -- for the individual making it -- are, essentially, inseparable (after a point).  In a sense, a person "hears" with sound, the physical elements (sensations) required to make it -- after a point, I think the physical nature of pronouncing sound is something that becomes audible, though it would be classified as a physical procedure.

Some people develop "speech" problems, for example, and I don't think that this is ultimately an ear thing, but rather a physical thing.  I have two such students, actually, and they speak with a kind of "accent" that resembles a deaf person speaking -- though they both hear just fine.  I don't know the ins and outs of this type of scenario, nor do I know how to "correct" it (and I am not so sure I think of it as a "problem" that should be corrected, but that's a different subject), but I think there are related issues with piano playing and developing technique -- and that's why I argue that the process of developing it is not as easy as listening.

I relate what we are doing at the piano to a form of speech, and our playing apparatus is all we have to allow us to pronounce the musical sounds.  Some people develop hesitations and a kind of "accent" that is not necessarily solved by the ear (though of course, it's always related).  For some people, more precise (and even physical) guidance is necessary in learning how to "talk" in a pianistic/musical way.  For other people, this is not the case, similarly to how for some people, listening to speech is "enough" to know what is physically required to produce those same sounds (correctly).  Some people hear something, and they "know" how to produce that sound, but attached to that "know how" is a faulty physical procedure that they may sense is present, but they are unaware of how to fix it.   

[keypeg]

Karli, I do not have any one approach and I think that is the point.  It must be one of balance, and there is a danger if we emphasize just one.  Our society is analytical and scientific and some of the posts suggest that we may have swung way too far in that direction.  The question is which side of the coin to address.  Some people have problems because they are using their bodies improperly.  Others get tied in knots because they try to control their body use to such an extent, and if they let go to the sound, some unknotting happens.  In a lesson scenario it takes a judicious teacher to find that balance.

In speech the problem may be physical or perceptual.  A person may not have learned how to control the tongue for the sounds "s", "th" etc. and that becomes an exercise.  There may be a physical defect, or difficulty in coordinating the breathing apparatus.  There may be a condition in which everything is perceived at once but must come out "one at a time" and so there is a stutter.  But it can also happen that a person simply does not perceive a sound.  When we already speak a language we translate what we hear into the phonemic conventions of that language, and we then pronounce what we hear in our mind.  When you work with such a person - and that is the majority of cases - as they learn to hear, they become able to produce the sound "without an accent".  The effort in producing that sound becomes a physical exercise and the mouth, breath etc. become trained toward it.  Perception and body go hand in hand, back and forth.  Speech problems are very much an ear thing.  That's my field.

[rchmnnffbelle]

Hopefully, it is not confusing.

Best, M

Thanks for the advice, it was really clear. 

[m19834]

Karli, I do not have any one approach and I think that is the point.  It must be one of balance, and there is a danger if we emphasize just one.  Our society is analytical and scientific and some of the posts suggest that we may have swung way too far in that direction.  The question is which side of the coin to address.  Some people have problems because they are using their bodies improperly.  Others get tied in knots because they try to control their body use to such an extent, and if they let go to the sound, some unknotting happens.  In a lesson scenario it takes a judicious teacher to find that balance.

Well, that is pretty much my point all along .

In speech the problem may be physical or perceptual.  A person may not have learned how to control the tongue for the sounds "s", "th" etc. and that becomes an exercise.  There may be a physical defect, or difficulty in coordinating the breathing apparatus.  There may be a condition in which everything is perceived at once but must come out "one at a time" and so there is a stutter.  But it can also happen that a person simply does not perceive a sound.  When we already speak a language we translate what we hear into the phonemic conventions of that language, and we then pronounce what we hear in our mind.  When you work with such a person - and that is the majority of cases - as they learn to hear, they become able to produce the sound "without an accent".  The effort in producing that sound becomes a physical exercise and the mouth, breath etc. become trained toward it.  Perception and body go hand in hand, back and forth.  Speech problems are very much an ear thing.  That's my field.

I also happen to have a couple of students who are hearing impaired -- one whom is basically deaf without her hearing aids and even with them, depends on reading lips in order to understand what I am saying -- and yet they speak just fine and with no "accent," and they are both quite great musicians/pianists, btw.  My only point regarding sound and listening is that it is not an isolated sense and that a person's perception of sound and knowing how to reproduce it, is linked to more than listening with our "ears."

[keypeg]

[My only point regarding sound and listening is that it is not an isolated sense and that a person's perception of sound and knowing how to reproduce it, is linked to more than listening with our "ears."/quote]
In fact, listening is an active activity.  "Hearling" is not the same as listening, and if you do not know how to listen, and what to listen for, you are also not hearing.  Actually in both language and music we end up imagining what we are hearing, because we add an interpretation of what we think should be there instead of what is actually there, and then try to reproduce what we thought we heard, but what actually matches our imagination of what is right.

[m19834]

In fact, listening is an active activity.  "Hearing" is not the same as listening, and if you do not know how to listen, and what to listen for, you are also not hearing.  Actually in both language and music we end up imagining what we are hearing, because we add an interpretation of what we think should be there instead of what is actually there, and then try to reproduce what we thought we heard, but what actually matches our imagination of what is right."

Yes, and some people's "interpretation" of what they hear is *riddled* with tension, which comes out in the playing, which creates a particular sensation and sound, which is then processed back into the ear, and this becomes a cycle that can sometimes be fixed by learning a new physical technique -- sometimes just a touch -- (giving a new physical AND related aural experience and changing the cycle), or sometimes it can be fixed by saying "listen ***it !  NO !  Listen more closely !  You are not *hearing* properly !  You are stupid because you can't hear very well and listening and your ear and hearing is *everything* there is to playing the piano and being a musician - what are you, deaf " -- ooopies  ... okay, I mean, it can be fixed by them hearing it properly.

Has anybody *ever* considered that for some people, too much emphasis is being placed on our ears and hearing things and perfect pitch and yadda yadda ?  Did it ever occur to anybody that this kind of pressure can create the same kind of tension and problems that putting too much emphasis on the physical technique can cause -- creating a blockage ?  Maybe our ears are like that mega-legged centipede and we think *too much* about how to use them and equate too much that our musicianship is in direct proportion to our ability to hear, and because we think too much on this, it becomes a hampering instead of useful faculty !

[keypeg]

Well, I'm primarily a violin student, and in some corners the emphasis is so much on the physical that the musical and listening impetus is lost and out of balance.  It depends on which side of the balance a student is on, doesn't it?  If someone is trying to control the body totally they may actually impede some things that would come naturally and get in their own way.  It takes a judicious teacher to realize that.

I have only had a very few, sporadic piano lessons, so I can't tell too much.  However, I had the impression from the forums that sound is not addressed at all!  Everything seems to involve seeing the notes on the page, and knowing where they are visually and possibly kinetically on the keyboard.

When I write about speech, however, I am writing as a linguist and sometimes language teacher one-on-one.  I would never tell someone to start truly listening.  That doesn't do a thing.  If I see that they are doing a funny thing with their mouth or breathing, that's what we address.  If they are multilingual and are bringing the sound scheme of another language into the present one, I have them hear that and correct it.  (My students are learning their 5th language, and I am learning my 6th, so we have a common base.)  If something is pronounced with an accent we explore precisely what is off about it.  The German final "g" for example, is sharper, close to a "k", and so we explore various ways of pronouncing between "g" and "k", how far back in the mouth, etc.  Sometimes we will explore the rhythms and cadences of a sentence - simply humming it like a melody, then putting in the words again.

In other words, listening is an active and guided process.  You do not just have a language tape that you passively copy: you truly listen to it, analyze and understand what it is you are not hearing ... er, that part needs the guidance of a teacher.  I find that in my playing of music some of this is applicable.  To some extend the sound also leads the body, and if that is cut out complete it turns into a kind of inhibition.  But if I don't know how to use my body properly I get obstacles of a different kind.

[m19834]

Yes, it's me again  .  Well, I am not sure what you are expecting to read here in posts of other's regarding lessons.  We talk on the forum about the things we talk about because they are things that can be talked about.  We can't really sit here writing about a sound because it is something that needs to be experienced in another way besides writing.

I won't speak for others in terms of what their precise lessons entail (of which, nobody can give a truly full scope on a forum post), but I have actually read numerous people who write about imitation and hearing a sound or the music in one's head before playing it (including Marik, the original poster).  That's all fine and I do include this in my own lessons as it is appropriate (articulation is especially helpful to hear).  And of course, every time we touch the piano or listen to a piece of music, there is a form of ear training going on. 

The problem is that this is just not enough in most cases unless the student is truly advanced (or late intermediate) and already has within grasp most of the kinesthetic information attached to particular aural affects !  These are then the types of things that get talked about (as much as they can be). 

Now, I am not currently such that I would consider myself a linguist, but I do have to do a lot with language when it comes to singing.  There are times when listening is simply not enough and other tips on how to physically achieve a sound are necessary. 

Along the lines of imitation and so on, it's pretty silly for me to rip something off on the piano and just say to somebody "listen to this !  Now, do that !" when it is something that is entirely out of their reach and capability at the time.  However, this happens *A LOT* as far as I know, and I don't think that's conducive to learning, either.  The point is, as I think I have stated all along, there are steps involved !  And as you have said yourself (though you say it as though we argue on this point), it takes a judicious teacher to know when and which particular aspect needs to be dealt with.

Off to rehearsal !

[keypeg]

Along the lines of imitation and so on, it's pretty silly for me to rip something off on the piano and just say to somebody "listen to this !  Now, do that !" when it is something that is entirely out of their reach and capability at the time.  However, this happens *A LOT* as far as I know, and I don't think that's conducive to learning, either.  The point is, as I think I have stated all along, there are steps involved !  And as you have said yourself (though you say it as though we argue on this point), it takes a judicious teacher to know when and which particular aspect needs to be dealt with.

Actually I was agreeing rather than arguing in terms of the last point.  I am imagining that in actual teaching you approach whatever aspect needs approaching.

In regards to the "listen to this" - I do not like that kind of teaching.  I don't need a teacher for "listen to this'" - any good recording can do that, and I can rewind as often as I want to hear the details, while I cannot rewind a "listen to this" teacher (or at least, I've never had the opportunity to try  )

About impressions: I've visited the forums for about 4 months.  I see a lot of discussion on how to coordinate the written music with the keyboard, recognizing the notes, and it all seemed to be a vision-to-vision thing.  I think somebody even discouraged hearing the notes until later on.  I also saw somebody write that they had reached a rather high grade and had never learned to relate to the sound of the music or of the notes.  Since I was self-taught on the piano originally I developed however it came - and that was audially.  My fingers gravitate toward the sound and know where that sound is.  I found it exceedingly odd of sound played no role whatsoever on the piano.  I am relieved to hear that it does get taken into account.

I would say that the way I learned to play instruments was like a singer playing an instrument might.  I saw the written notes and they translated into sound, and I played what I "heard" with my hands.  I have now learned to see notes and have that transfer directly to the fingers, sometimes without knowing how it sounds until after the fact.  Since I can now read from sheet music to fingertip, or to keyboard,  I perceive for the first time that my perception might be different.

but I do have to do a lot with language when it comes to singing.  There are times when listening is simply not enough and other tips on how to physically achieve a sound are necessary. 

Are you referring to singing sound, or the pronunciation of words and acquiring/discarding accents?  I was writing exclusively about the latter because that is my area of expertise.  In learning to speak a new language, musical aspects such as rhythms, apply.  As well, people filter out what doesn't fit their preconceived notions.  These are major obstacles that I address by guiding the listening and self-listening.  It does not mean that physical aspects are not also addressed - but the topic was listening and cross-referencing between language and music.  Mostly in my sphere musical ideas affect language.  I am not an expert in the other direction.  In singing, of course, you also have to deal with how certain vowels affect the sound emitted as a whole, which gets back into the physical.

[m19834]

I found it exceedingly odd of sound played no role whatsoever on the piano.

Well, honestly, I can't comprehend what you are talking about here.  How can sound play no role whatsoever on the piano ?  I just can't even comprehend how it couldn't !   So, I am not sure what you mean.   

I am relieved to hear that it does get taken into account.

Of course sound is taken into account !

I would say that the way I learned to play instruments was like a singer playing an instrument might.  I saw the written notes and they translated into sound, and I played what I "heard" with my hands.  I have now learned to see notes and have that transfer directly to the fingers, sometimes without knowing how it sounds until after the fact.  Since I can now read from sheet music to fingertip, or to keyboard,  I perceive for the first time that my perception might be different.

Honestly, I am not really sure what you mean there either.  You can now read from sheet music to fingertip, or to keyboard.  Isn't that what everybody does ?  I just don't get what your point is.

Are you referring to singing sound, or the pronunciation of words and acquiring/discarding accents?

 

Well, I am talking about actual pronunciation of words, though I am not talking merely about "accents" in terms of stresses regarding particular parts of the word.  For example, in the Italian word "Scoglio," there is a particular tongue technique (which I had to be specifically taught as a physical technique (though attached to sound, too)), to be able to accurately pronounce the combination of the letters of "G" and "L" back to back.  Now, when I even think of that word, I may hear it, but I also have kinesthetic information attached to my perception of pronouncing that word -- they are inseparable for me.  I can't think of the word without the sensation of physically pronouncing it, whether that information is unconscious, subconscious or conscious.  And, I don't have to be some kind of genius in any particular field in order to recognize that actually every word I can think of, has attached to it the physical sensation on how to pronounce it, ingrained in my head with the perceived sound (and hopefully it's all compatible, and that's part of my point - sometimes it's not !).

There is a basic kind of repertoire of movements, techniques and physical relationships at the piano.  Can a person play the piano "successfully" without ever being consciously aware of what those are ?  Of course !  But, things like a center of gravity that is too high, for example, can throw everything off or at the least, it can make everything feel wrong to a sensitive player and that won't necessarily have anything to do with what the person is hearing or not (there is a caveat but it's too difficult to explain at the moment).  No amount of listening and dissecting what is wrong with the sound will accomplish the adjustment of a center of gravity that is too high, especially if it sounds okay but feels awkward !  If somebody has a physical approach that has something like this interfering with their overall perception of piano playing, where they can feel it but can't pinpoint what it is, it needs to be addressed on the physical level.

What I am talking about in my posts is somebody who either cannot actually accomplish the things they hear, or *feels* awkward at the instrument, but doesn't know why.  This kind of awkwardness can permeate a person's entire concept of playing the piano, and this kind of discomfort can become a barrier in how a person perceives everything that has to do with playing, whether it is a perception of sound or any other aspect of playing.  I am not talking about somebody who can do exactly as they wish but has just not figured out that they need to listen while they do it !

[keypeg]

found it exceedingly odd of sound played no role whatsoever on the piano.

Well, honestly, I can't comprehend what you are talking about here.  How can sound play no role whatsoever on the piano ?  I just can't even comprehend how it couldn't!   So, I am not sure what you mean.   

Neither could I, Karli.  But indeed, that is what I read - a student is not to listen to their playing until after a certain time - and my jaw dropped. 

In regards to the rest of what you write in regards to centre of gravity, awkward body movement, I agree 100%.  I sought this, and was fortunate enough to find someone who was able to help me with it a year ago though unfortunately not for as long as I would have liked, for an instrument other than piano.  I believed that something was amiss, and if it were addressed a lot of things would fall into place, and that is what happened much in the manner that you described.

I have also been coached in the physical aspects of singing which included posture and other things one might not ordinarily believe is part of singing.  I do not discount this at all.  To the contrary.  The difficulty is in finding such teachers.

Earlier I was exploring the role that sound and perception plays, not to oppose the idea of physical training, but that there may be another side because there has to be a balance.  But I am certain that under a teacher's tutelage all these things are addressed.  Self teaching the physical, however, might cuase a person to become tied in knots because so much can be misunderstood, or the wrong thing exaggerated.

Linguistically by accent I did not mean which syllable gets emphasizied, but speaking without an accent like a native.  No, one does not need genius to teach that - just expertise in one's specializaiton.  And yes, there is a physical component.  In this way language learning and music have some things in common.