should I correct her fingering?

[mcdiddy1]

They do not hear as an impartial listener hears though. They are biased by their knowledge and intentions. Maybe some pianists don't think that inner lines should be put into the foreground for a listener who doesn't already know about them, but I'd say that such pianists ought to analyse more orchestral music and see how often the melody is actually found at the top. The uniformity of the piano means you have to exaggerate vastly more if you are to emulate the 3 dimensional sound of an orchestra.

Concert pianist are surrounded by other music people who will criticise their playing. I am sure they would be more partial. It is the musician's right once they achieve a level of excellence to interpate the music in any way the want to with good taste.

Out of curiosity which pianist are you talking about? Can you post and example of a pianist "who does not think the inner lines should be put into the foreground for a listener" and example of a pianist who does?

Why does a musical line always need to be in the foreground. Some interpretations are the the inner lines create a sense of turmoil and give the listener a sense of turmoil. Andre Schiff's lecture on Beethoven Sonatas points out many melodies that are in the music but not brought out for the listerner because of views like this. The value of music should be based on the effect (positive or negitive) on the listener so they may form a relationship to it by how they percieve it. Fragmeting music into areas of technique that display the abilities or inabilites of the pianist misses the point of the intent of the music in the first place( unless its Liszt ).


Precisely. As I said, the physical difficulty of musical voicing leads them to compromise their musical intentions- shaping not just the results but the very conception, over time. I would not care to listen to any pianist who feels that way.

Not exactly. Technique and expression has to originiate in the brain. The fingers do not create music and neither does the piano. The brain is what is in control of technical and musical decisions where you are playing the piano. If you are a concert pianist, you should have no difficulty voicing a melody if you choose to. Under the mental strain of a performance though it is a different matter. If they falter in the correct notes, rhythms , they will get slammed for it more than if they brought out a melody or not.  My point is having a more balanced performance where you do multiple things well is a mental decision of having a performance with control and producing a more accurate musical result. Maybe they could play like Horowitz and make the mistakes he made but that is not what they wanted.

Errors don't concern me at all. His ability to voice at will is why he is a model for technique. He could do the things he intended to. I don't believe many pianists are capable of doing what they intend- because they did not acquire the level of technique he did. "Technique" as in ability to produce whatever sounds are intended. Anything else is pretty much irrelevant to my mind (apart from safety).

I agree with that when you reach a level any technique can be a good technique considering the situation. If your technique produces errors and mistakes is that really the best technique to go after? Most people do not play like him and are doing quite well considering.

I would just love to be in the room where you see a student play like Horowitz and you jump all over them about how their thumb must be a 45 degree angle from the keyboard, their thumb must be active etc and the kid says but I want to play like Horowitz. Opps..


And the means to EXECUTE his interpretation. Neither of the above has any worth unless you can transmit the interpretation into a living form. You only hear as much as can be transmitted through a piano, not necessarily what's in a person's head.

You should consider the possibility that some people ,like Chopin, have a natural technique that they do not mess with. The problem for most gifted children like that has to do with musical experience and knowledge which they could not have possibly have amassed because of their age.

So now you're saying it's simply too difficult to voice chords at at will? What I said was that ability to do musical voicing is hugely dependent on technique and that few have mastered that technique. The above suggests you agree with that? I didn't say everyone has to play like Horowitz or they're some kind of a loser. I said that people should acknowledge the sheer difficulty and stop pretending that the hands can easily figure out ways to do everything you can think of. That few pianists can achieve the reality of extreme voicing exposes that to be a total fallacy.

No I am saying it is impossible to do play every piece absolutely perfect to everybody's standards (that includes the performers). Voicing itself is not hard. You play one hand softer or you move a finger closer to key than the other keys. It is not more difficult than that but balancing the other requirements of the music can be depending on what you are playing. The fact the greatest pianist ever can make mistakes and still be considered great indicates it takes more than just technical ability to be considered great.

I have students that If is say voice out this melody more" they do it pretty quickly and easily. Do I expect them to forever do it , especially in a performance? Nope. It is not the difficult of the technique (assuming the student has the technique) but execution of multiple demands of the music.

I really feel it is a subjective opinion because if you posted a video of anyone's playing I could easily say well they need to bring this melody out more and this melody in the bass.

But with rhythm, it is right or wrong. There is no inbetween or they should play with more rhythm. It is simple, clear, and objective. You cannot say that about piano voicing. It depends on which pianist you ask. But for people who know the piece, the rhythm is clear cut and obvious.

[mcdiddy1]

Indeed, "rest" is the last thing I'm talking about. There's no "tension" though- except in the same sense that any other movement is caused by. It's a very easy and low effort movement. In the past a lazy and flaccid thumb left countless other muscles having to brace to stabilise. If you move the key with a slack thumb, the whole arm either must brace (ie. tension all over the place) or fall down along with the thumb- which creates big bobbing movements (not to mention crash landings). A simple action of reaching straight out (starting with a slightly bent thumb) relieves all of those former acts of bracing. It's just a simple movement.

I appreciate that it's hard to see exactly what is meant through words alone, so I'll definitely be giving plenty of filmed illustrations of the most specific movements.

Ahh I see. The fact there is no tension involved makes it seem more logical. I have to admit I am trying to follow your words and find it hard to believe an adult would play like that. But I guess it happens but I definetly do not see this motion in my students.

Yes please do. It will makes much more sense.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Why does a musical line always need to be in the foreground."

I don't say always. My point is- why should how high or low a voice is in the texture be allowed to determine whether it's in the foreground or not? What kind of serious musician would allow that to have the final word on what the listener will pick up on? It seems plain silly to me.

"Not exactly. Technique and expression has to originiate in the brain. The fingers do not create music and neither does the piano. The brain is what is in control of technical and musical decisions where you are playing the piano."

Sure. How does that change the fact that it's inherently very difficult to voice any finger at will? 

"If you are a concert pianist, you should have no difficulty voicing a melody if you choose to. Under the mental strain of a performance though it is a different matter. If they falter in the correct notes, rhythms , they will get slammed for it more than if they brought out a melody or not."

Again, I'd have no interest in hearing a pianist who thinks that way.



"I would just love to be in the room where you see a student play like Horowitz and you jump all over them about how their thumb must be a 45 degree angle from the keyboard, their thumb must be active etc and the kid says but I want to play like Horowitz."

"must"? I explained that the action goes straight into the key when a thumb happens to be at that particular angle. Would you please quote where I said the thumb SHOULD go at that particular angle or that it should never go at any other?


"You play one hand softer or you move a finger closer to key than the other keys."

I'm not talking about a different dynamic in each hand. That hardly stretches the limits of possibility. I'm talking about the freedom to deploy any dynamic you wish in any finger you wish, independently of any other. And to make any listener hear that as the primary foreground- not merely as a fairly significant part of the background.


"The fact the greatest pianist ever can make mistakes and still be considered great indicates it takes more than just technical ability to be considered great. "

Obviously. Why would that ever be in doubt? Do you feel for some reason that something I said might in any way suggest otherwise?

[nyiregyhazi]

Ahh I see. The fact there is no tension involved makes it seem more logical. I have to admit I am trying to follow your words and find it hard to believe an adult would play like that. But I guess it happens but I definetly do not see this motion in my students.

Yes please do. It will makes much more sense.

I had a very brief scan through a few youtube vids, and very quickly stumbled upon this one:

&feature=related

It's highly visible in many instances here. The thumb reaches out in a way that causes the piano to respond with a reaction force that raises the knuckles extremely high. It's often extremely visible how actively that extension is being performer- and just how much it goes into forming and maintaining the rest of the hand.

Consider though, that I'm not suggesting that many pianists start with an extremely cocked thumb and finish it totally straight, with every key they play. The more the movement has been acquired, the more straight the thumb tends to remain and the less obviously the slight actions of extension will be in general playing. I practise these with great exaggeration, but the final product doesn't display the same kind of extremely obvious transitions from bent-straight.

[keyboardclass]

Telling students to extend their thumb when you mean abduct it is pretty poor teaching.

[mcdiddy1]

"Why does a musical line always need to be in the foreground."

I don't say always. My point is- why should how high or low a voice is in the texture be allowed to determine whether it's in the foreground or not? What kind of serious musician would allow that to have the final word on what the listener will pick up on? It seems plain silly to me.


Yes, I agree pianist should not allow how high or low a voice be a determining fact of the decision to voice it or not. I merely am saying the degree in which the actually melody aurally comes out is reflected of multple factors beyond the technique of difficulty.

"Not exactly. Technique and expression has to originiate in the brain. The fingers do not create music and neither does the piano. The brain is what is in control of technical and musical decisions where you are playing the piano."

Sure. How does that change the fact that it's inherently very difficult to voice any finger at will?

It illustrates the ability to voice a melody is a personal, subjective concept, not because the physical act of voicing is difficult.

"If you are a concert pianist, you should have no difficulty voicing a melody if you choose to. Under the mental strain of a performance though it is a different matter. If they falter in the correct notes, rhythms , they will get slammed for it more than if they brought out a melody or not."

Again, I'd have no interest in hearing a pianist who thinks that way.

You mean a pianist who feels that control, accuracy, and tastefullness of the preformance is more important than a display of virutoisic skill. I think you would find every concert pianist thinks along these terms. Every performer makes there own choice of tempo based on what they think best serves the music. It comes from a respect for the nature of the music rather than just being cautious and avoidance of risk taking. Horowitz, himself plays under control and displays accuracy in many compositions (not everything obviously). If you think of concert pianist as skilled but cold, heartless robots that are not affected by emotions or stage fright I do not find that to be the case.

"I would just love to be in the room where you see a student play like Horowitz and you jump all over them about how their thumb must be a 45 degree angle from the keyboard, their thumb must be active etc and the kid says but I want to play like Horowitz."

"must"? I explained that the action goes straight into the key when a thumb happens to be at that particular angle. Would you please quote where I said the thumb SHOULD go at that particular angle or that it should never go at any other?

Gosh you want details...

You said Picture a side on view of the keyboard. The thumb will be at an angle half way between horizontally along the key and vertical- ie 45 degrees.

You described the exact placement of thumb and no where in this did you describe flexibility or what it should do after it is in this placement. All of that is beside the point. Horowitz did not play in the way you describe, so does that mean he has bad technique? Of course not but he still played with beautiful tones .Thats why I was confused when you chose him as a model where there are so many other technical pianist to choose from, you choose the oddball.

 This is why I feel it is a mistake to quantify technique to specific angles of the hand and motions of the hand. General guiding principles like curled fingers, relaxed hand, soft loose hands make a great deal more sense to a greater variety of people, easily transfered from beginnner to advance, and allow the flexibility for the addition of new movement that the music requires.

Saying you must play like Horowitz or saying you must always play with curled fingers is a mistake and for every rule there is some piece down the line that requires you to break it. I think you have to find general rules that applies to most pieces that allow some flexibility. If you have to get a protractor to teach hand position, this may be one step too far.

I'm not talking about a different dynamic in each hand. That hardly stretches the limits of possibility. I'm talking about the freedom to deploy any dynamic you wish in any finger you wish, independently of any other. And to make any listener hear that as the primary foreground- not merely as a fairly significant part of the background.


This is what Hanon players supposedly can do!  That still is not hard, at least to me and I do not claim to be the greatest pianist ever. I can make any note louder if i want to.  I know if I can do it then concert pianist can definetly do it. Now it you are saying to do it with just the finger and no help of the body, that is challenging because of the weakness of the fourth finger and the mass size of the pinky. Which concert pianist do you know that cannot not do that?

"The fact the greatest pianist ever can make mistakes and still be considered great indicates it takes more than just technical ability to be considered great. "

Obviously. Why would that ever be in doubt? Do you feel for some reason that something I said might in any way suggest otherwise?

My point is a technical ability like voicing should not discount the other great things pianist can do. There is much more to being a great artist than having spotless and perfect technique which Horowitz and Gould are a prime example of.

[mcdiddy1]

I had a very brief scan through a few youtube vids, and very quickly stumbled upon this one:

&feature=related

It's highly visible in many instances here. The thumb reaches out in a way that causes the piano to respond with a reaction force that raises the knuckles extremely high. It's often extremely visible how actively that extension is being performer- and just how much it goes into forming and maintaining the rest of the hand.

Consider though, that I'm not suggesting that many pianists start with an extremely cocked thumb and finish it totally straight, with every key they play. The more the movement has been acquired, the more straight the thumb tends to remain and the less obviously the slight actions of extension will be in general playing. I practise these with great exaggeration, but the final product doesn't display the same kind of extremely obvious transitions from bent-straight.

So you are not saying to start with an extended position, after playing a chord (presumedly loud chord)you extend your thumb to maintain the arch of your hand? That would work for big powerful chords but not for all of the other situations. I do not see how this would help scales, partiularly fast one. Am I on the right track to understanding what you are saying or is this video an non example of what you mean. Do you have an example of someone doing it incorrectly ?

You open up a new can of worms when you talk about bending the first joint. By extention did you mean extending the first joint?  I know some teachers have students start with bent thumbs but I have them start in a position where there bones naturally align and that tends to be straight. I usually do not mention bending the first joint unless they are doing thumb crosses in scales.

[nyiregyhazi]

"It illustrates the ability to voice a melody is a personal, subjective concept, not because the physical act of voicing is difficult."

Only subjective to an extent. The claim that it's "not" because of the difficulty is easily disproven beyond any logical dispute. How many pianists can play one chord with the thumb ppp, 2nd finger F, 3rd mf and 4th FFF and 5th ppp, for example? Probably nobody. It's an absolute difficulty- not a subjective one. I'm not saying such a specific and overwhelmingly complex need would arise. However, it serves to show just how physically difficult it is to do certain voicings. Let's just that the whole of the chord had to be ppp and the fourth FF. That alone is achievable by hardly anyone- and it's not remotely complex as a concept. It's only hard to achieve it due to physical difficulty.

"You mean a pianist who feels that control, accuracy, and tastefullness of the preformance is more important than a display of virutoisic skill."

Where on earth did you get from? I'm talking about a pianist who would compromise musical voicing and characterisation in favour of other issues. Any pianist who feels that's one of the first things on the list of acceptable compromises is not a pianist I will have the slightest interest in listening to.

"You said Picture a side on view of the keyboard. The thumb will be at an angle half way between horizontally along the key and vertical- ie 45 degrees."

Indeed. In the specific situation I was using to show how a straightening thumb CAN act directly into a key (not MUST act). Would you now quote where I said ALWAYS do that- or NEVER do anything else? I was talking about a single possibility- not claiming to define a "correct" angle that all must adhere to. I have no idea why you assumed that.

"Horowitz did not play in the way you describe, so does that mean he has bad technique? Of course not but he still played with beautiful tones .Thats why I was confused when you chose him as a model where there are so many other technical pianist to choose from, you choose the oddball."

Perhaps to you. I do not regard Horowitz's technique as being odd in any way. I'm really not interested in whether it corresponds with old-fashioned and traditional ideas about what you are "supposed" to do. I'm concerned with what produces results.

"This is why I feel it is a mistake to quantify technique to specific angles of the hand and motions of the hand."

So do I. However, I do not find it odd to give an example of a situation where extending the thumb can directly produce tone (in response to a claim that it couldn't).


"Saying you must play like Horowitz"

I didn't. I said few pianists have his voicing capability.


"Now it you are saying to do it with just the finger and no help of the body, that is challenging because of the weakness of the fourth finger and the mass size of the pinky. Which concert pianist do you know that cannot not do that?"

I rarely hear any living players that can voice to my satisfaction. Volodos, Pletnev and Katsaris are a few that stand out, however. How is the body going to help you to voice a fourth finger INSIDE a whole chord? You're going to press it through only that finger somehow? Try playing a five note chord in your left hand, so that any listener will hear the fourth finger notably above every other note. Easy?




"My point is a technical ability like voicing should not discount the other great things pianist can do. There is much more to being a great artist than having spotless and perfect technique which Horowitz and Gould are a prime example of."

It has nothing to do with anything other than the results. Pianists who have the CHOICE over what they make the listener hear are not limited by that ability. How can you speak of it as if such an ability is ONLY some kind of technical stunt? It's the aspect of technique that most specifically determines the musical results and how the artist is able to exert control over them. Every sound produced is dependent on this ability! It's not some gimmick. It's the technique that defines a pianist's very sound- and whether they can transmit their intentions!

[nyiregyhazi]

"So you are not saying to start with an extended position, after playing a chord (presumedly loud chord)you extend your thumb to maintain the arch of your hand? "

To actually play it- although there may sometimes be a little continuation after.


"That would work for big powerful chords but not for all of the other situations."

Why? Obviously the extent and speed of movement is reduced for quieter playing. What would be the problem? I've found this very effective for even the softest thumb notes. In fact, perhaps especially for control of softer sounds.

"I do not see how this would help scales, partiularly fast one."

It stops the palm collapsing onto the thumb- with few muscles needing to work to stop the collapse. I'm not saying a massive act of extension would have to occur in literally every situation. However, using a little makes it far easier to awaken the thumbs supportive role. Without a supportive thumb, there are countless other muscles that have a far harder time stopping the palm collapsing. Removing the collapse makes the energy input very predictable- which is why I especially value this for fast quiet scales. A fall of the arm is too heavy and unpredictable.

"You open up a new can of worms when you talk about bending the first joint. By extention did you mean extending the first joint?"

Yeah, if there's any slack it's taken out in extension. This may be miniscule in many situations (many pianists use a thumb that remains extended practically all the time), but in others situations I find it very useful to bend in preparation to extend again.

[nyiregyhazi]

By the way, Cziffra is someone who regularly does the most obvious versions of this action. There's a huge one at 1:05 in.

Also, here's Argerich using them all over the place in some quiet passages.

[nyiregyhazi]

Telling students to extend their thumb when you mean abduct it is pretty poor teaching.

I tell students (and show them how) to do exactly what I described. To actively extend their thumb. If I "meant" for them to use the action of abduction then that is what I would show them. However, I demonstrate and ask them to use a movement of extension- not an isolated act that exclusively contains abduction. To extend the thumb out in a straight line causes a compound movement that involves more than one action. Abduction is just one part of it. To refer merely to that does not accurately describe what I refer to.

[mcdiddy1]

How many pianists can play one chord with the thumb ppp, 2nd finger F, 3rd mf and 4th FFF and 5th ppp, for example? Probably nobody. It's an absolute difficulty- not a subjective one.

The best you could do is stick out the fourth finger so it plays slightly ahead of the 3 and pull the thumb and 5 th finger back. Holding a hand structure to favor that chord would bring out the notes of the chord. That is not physically difficult, just takes a little expermentation. What would make it difficult is lifting fingers but people do not play chords like this anyways.

Why would you want to do that anyways? I haven't seen a piece where they wanted that. The voicing you are talking about does not have this type of diffulty right. It is usually one or two fingers that must be heard while the rest is quiet.

 I'm talking about a pianist who would compromise musical musical voicing and characterisation in favour of other issues.

The other issues I am talking about is  control, accuracy, and tastefullness . From the time you learn a piece is allegro, presto, or andante you have to put limitations on what the music demands. You show me a pianist who can voice but has no control, accuracy, and tastefullness and I will show you someone who cannot play a lick. My point is having control, accuracy and such should come first over voicing. As good as Horowitz is, I think issues of controling the sound was important for him. It helped him voice the pieces you are talking about.

My point is voicing is way down on the list when compared to aspects such as control the sound, accuracy because through this you can achieve voicing. You can't get to voicing without having control and accuracy first. If you do not want to listen to anyone who is willing to compromise addiative effects such as voicing over being able to actually play the piece then you are not going find anyone to listen too. First things come first.

Sorry I am a very analytical person.

Indeed. In the specific situation I was using to show how a straightening thumb CAN act directly into a key (not MUST act). Would you now quote where I said ALWAYS do that- or NEVER do anything else? I was talking about a single possibility- not claiming to define a "correct" angle that all must adhere to. I have no idea why you assumed that.

Well yes this is one possiblity of technique. You never included other opportunites. I took it as you incinuating any other possibility as being wrong. This goes back to my point about how technique is basicly a motion that is need at the moment to execute the music at hand. The musicality sets up what the technique needs to be because technique has numerous correct motions depending on the situation.

Perhaps to you. I do not regard Horowitz's technique as being odd in any way. I'm really not interested in whether it corresponds with old-fashioned and traditional ideas about what you are "supposed" to do. I'm concerned with what produces results.

I do not think it is odd because I employ flat fingers on a number of pieces. But it sure does not agree with the technique you were describing earlier thats why I found it odd. You are right, what produces results is all that matters in regard to technique( as long as the health is not in jepordy). Traditional rules are meant to be broken but certain principles remain true. His hand looks completely relaxed and free of tension. I think that principle should be applied to all students.

So do I. However, I do not find it odd to give an example of a situation where extending the thumb can directly produce tone (in response to a claim that it couldn't).

I think that confusion was based on the idea of starting with an extended thumb vs playing a note and then extending the keys in to the keybed.I personally never said It could not produce a tone just it would not be effiecent to start with the thumb in an extended position.

I rarely hear any living players that can voice to my satisfaction. Volodos, Pletnev and Katsaris are a few that stand out, however. How is the body going to help you to voice a fourth finger INSIDE a whole chord? You're going to press it through only that finger somehow? Try playing a five note chord in your left hand, so that any listener will hear the fourth finger notably above every other note. Easy?

Sure, you can lean your hand down and toward the right to aid in putting weight toward the fourth finger. Depending on the number of notes in the chord I would probably just change the fingering.  You cannot press though the finger but you can help it by adjusting where the weight of the hand goes. Not super easy but possible. The pianist you named also have the benefit of recording technology so everything produced on their Cds or on youtube I take with a grain of salt.

"My point is a technical ability like voicing should not discount the other great things pianist can do. There is much more to being a great artist than having spotless and perfect technique which Horowitz and Gould are a prime example of."

It has nothing to do with anything other than the results. Pianists who have the CHOICE over what they make the listener hear are not limited by that ability. How can you speak of it as if such an ability is ONLY some kind of technical stunt? It's the aspect of technique that most specifically determines the musical results and how the artist is able to exert control over them. Every sound produced is dependent on this ability! It's not some gimmick. It's the technique that defines a pianist's very sound- and whether they can transmit their intentions!

I am not discounting the importance of technique to determine the musical results. Just that piano technique is a very grey area subject that is difficult to be quanified or measured.
 When we try and label a way that is surefire good technique there is always someone who comes along and shows it not necessarly true. Just like how Gould and Horowitz show that despite what they were taught they could produce results by developing a technique to work for them. All of technique is determined by what the music demands and your relationship to the body. One of my music teachers said "I do not care if you play with your toes, as long as you get the results".  Here is an example of why 

[nyiregyhazi]

"My point is voicing is way down on the list when compared to aspects such as control the sound, accuracy because through this you can achieve voicing."

Voicing and control are independent entities? Voicing IS control of sound. If it's not right at the top, neither is control. How much "control" does a pianist who doesn't care how his chords are voiced have? Are we talking "control" over monotone blocks of sound? How can you possibly separate these issues?

"I do not think it is odd because I employ flat fingers on a number of pieces. But it sure does not agree with the technique you were describing earlier thats why I found it odd."

Which one? As I said, I only mentioned 45 degrees to refute a nonsensical claim from keyboardclass that extending a thumb cannot produce sound. I didn't say anything to exclude the wealth of other angles.

"You cannot press though the finger but you can help it by adjusting where the weight of the hand goes."

how can more weight go into the 4 than 3 and 5? By what means? Why not simply move the fourth more than those- eliminating all need for bracing. Also, if you can voice a chord as I describe, I'd love to hear a recording. Even to have a heirarchy of volumes to correspond would be a feat- without necessarily having a truly wide difference between the ppp and FFF.

"The pianist you named also have the benefit of recording technology so everything produced on their Cds or on youtube I take with a grain of salt."

Volodos has the most outstanding voicing I have ever heard in a live hall.

"I am not discounting the importance of technique to determine the musical results. Just that piano technique is a very grey area subject that is difficult to be quanified or measured.
 When we try and label a way that is surefire good technique there is always someone who comes along and shows it not necessarly true. Just like how Gould and Horowitz show that despite what they were taught they could produce results by developing a technique to work for them."

Sure, that's why what works is what matters. But any pianist who doesn't command the technique of sound control isn't going to make it work. This aspect of technique cannot be downplayed.

[mcdiddy1]

Voicing and control are independent entities? Voicing IS control of sound. If it's not right at the top, neither is control. How much "control" does a pianist who doesn't care how his chords are voiced have? Are we talking "control" over monotone blocks of sound? How can you possibly separate these issues?

You have to have to be able to be able to play the correct notes before you worry about voicing them.  Like learning a Chopin etude op.25 no 1. You need to to be able to manipulate the hand to get the right notes before you can start voicing. Yes voicing is a more advance control of sound. Playing a piece with voicing is playing accuratly just not to best of the pianist's ability.

"I do not think it is odd because I employ flat fingers on a number of pieces. But it sure does not agree with the technique you were describing earlier thats why I found it odd."

Which one? As I said, I only mentioned 45 degrees to refute a nonsensical claim from keyboardclass that extending a thumb cannot produce sound. I didn't say anything to exclude the wealth of other angles.

Well 45 degree angles and flat fingers do not go together. Just an odd pianist to use as example because I do not think he conformed to any body's term of technique so he is tough to use as an example.

how can more weight go into the 4 than 3 and 5? By what means? Why not simply move the fourth more than those- eliminating all need for bracing. Also, if you can voice a chord as I describe, I'd love to hear a recording. Even to have a heirarchy of volumes to correspond would be a feat- without necessarily having a truly wide difference between the ppp and FFF.

There are many possibilities for making the 4 finger louder. Yea It would be. It is challenging but possible. Good thing it is not necessary. Why go to extreme when they music does not require that. Even if the music asked for something impossible like playing all the keys at the same time, it would be a silly unnessary thing.

Sure, that's why what works is what matters. But any pianist who doesn't command the technique of sound control isn't going to make it work. This aspect of technique cannot be downplayed.

Can't disagree with that.

[keyboardclass]

As I said, I only mentioned 45 degrees to refute a nonsensical claim from keyboardclass that extending a thumb cannot produce sound.

Extending the thumb can't produce a sound.  It's abducting!  If you want to discuss technique you need to get your terminology sorted.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Visible-and-Invisible-Pianoforte-Technique-/110707742182?pt=UK_Music_Instruction_Books&hash=item19c6b215e6

Just a suggestion.

[pianisten1989]

Can't you at least stick to the subject, or just shut it? =/

[keyboardclass]

Dear me.  Someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning!

[pianisten1989]

No, I didn't.

But come on! The poor thing just asked if she should correct the student's fingerings, and you 3 go off like crazy people, and "discussing" physics and what not. Start your own useless thread if you really need to keep this pissing contest going.

[nyiregyhazi]

Extending the thumb can't produce a sound.  It's abducting!  If you want to discuss technique you need to get your terminology sorted.

Yes it can. Watch the film of Argerich playing Jeux d'eaux. Please explain why something that extends in the direction of a key "can't" move it. Perhaps your muscles are too stiff to perform the action?

If I meant abduction then I would say so. The action of extension involves SOME abduction which is applied in varying degrees (sometimes being very slight indeed).  However, isolated abduction is exactly what I had done before adopting this very movement. They are not the same thing.

Extension is standard English terminology. I don't care whether any systems of jargon like to have their own special words/meanings. Last time I checked, the English language was regarded as perfectly legal verbal tender.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well 45 degree angles and flat fingers do not go together. Just an odd pianist to use as example because I do not think he conformed to any body's term of technique so he is tough to use as an example."

He conforms to mine. Hence the example. Also, I often use flat fingers at 45 degrees (as well as any other angle) and I've seen many players do the same, including Rubinstein and Nyiregyhazi.

"There are many possibilities for making the 4 finger louder. Yea It would be. It is challenging but possible. Good thing it is not necessary. Why go to extreme when they music does not require that. Even if the music asked for something impossible like playing all the keys at the same time, it would be a silly unnessary thing."

Take a look on the last page of Alan Richardson's transcriptions of Vocalise. There's a four note chord in which the 4th finger's C sharp needs to be very audibly distinguished from a 5th finger on the adjacent B. As the primary line, it needs a totally different quality of sound not to sound swamped. With no possibility of applying the weight only to a finger in the middle of the chord, the finger has to do it. Also, I've encountered plenty of far harder ones than that too. It's far from unusual to have the right hand playing a pedal point at the top and having the real line beneath that.

[keyboardclass]

Extension is standard English terminology. I don't care whether any systems of jargon like to have their own special words/meanings. Last time I checked, the English language was regarded as perfectly legal verbal tender.

Anatomy a 'system of jargon'!?  Sheesh.  You obviously don't know your arse from your elbow - literally!

[mcdiddy1]

No, I didn't.

But come on! The poor thing just asked if she should correct the student's fingerings, and you 3 go off like crazy people, and "discussing" physics and what not. Start your own useless thread if you really need to keep this pissing contest going.

Lol. I can't speak for anyone eles but I am not trying to piss on anyone eles. The post was about fingering and ended up talking about the role or angles of the thumb so its not that far off or discussing physics. Looking at other form threads where they often go off topic, I don't think its that bad or I should be considered crazy. I think if you start a "discussion" you have to be prepared to allow the "discussion" will go.People sure do not stay on topic on my threads so I think this the norm.

"There are many possibilities for making the 4 finger louder. Yea It would be. It is challenging but possible. Good thing it is not necessary. Why go to extreme when they music does not require that. Even if the music asked for something impossible like playing all the keys at the same time, it would be a silly unnessary thing."

Take a look on the last page of Alan Richardson's transcriptions of Vocalise. There's a four note chord in which the 4th finger's C sharp needs to be very audibly distinguished from a 5th finger on the adjacent B. As the primary line, it needs a totally different quality of sound not to sound swamped. With no possibility of applying the weight only to a finger in the middle of the chord, the finger has to do it. Also, I've encountered plenty of far harder ones than that too. It's far from unusual to have the right hand playing a pedal point at the top and having the real line beneath that.


Thats not the difficulty I was refering to. I am talking about the different dynamics for each finger thing. Applying weight to the  4 finger can still be done but it execution has to do with tempo of the piece.

I have really long fingers so I can reach very wide chords and put the weight of my hand on the front side or the back side. Not everyone has the amount of flexibility or hand span as me so what is not too challenging for me maybe possible for the next person.

[nyiregyhazi]

Anatomy a 'system of jargon'!?  Sheesh.  You obviously don't know your arse from your elbow - literally!

I think you'll find that anatomical terms for movement are regarded as jargon by 99% of the population. Regardless, I know that merely to refer to abduction does not accurately summarise what I am referring to. Not only do I have no interest in using jargon (where a widely known word conveys the same), but the term does not even convey the movement I refer to. The movement is an extension. It's bad enough to tell someone it's wrong not to use jargon instead of plain English. It's worse still when your 'correction' is an unsuitable term for that under description.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Thats not the difficulty I was refering to. I am talking about the different dynamics for each finger thing. Applying weight to the  4 finger can still be done but it execution has to do with tempo of the piece."

This is what I'm referring to. In one chord the fifth needs to be very soft, arguably the thumb would be the next softest. The 2nd finger would slightly less than the fourth, which would be the most prominent.

"I have really long fingers so I can reach very wide chords and put the weight of my hand on the front side or the back side. Not everyone has the amount of flexibility or hand span as me so what is not too challenging for me maybe possible for the next person. "

How can more weight go in the middle though? Obviously leaning put more on the outer side. But how is weight going in the middle and not elsewhere? It's actually down to finger activity, I'm sure of it.

[pianisten1989]

I think if you start a "discussion" you have to be prepared to allow the "discussion" will go.People sure do not stay on topic on my threads so I think this the norm.

Yes, like once or twice. But these days we can't start a thread that is anywhere near technique without you and your cool gang enters and ruins it with worthless discussions about something you think you're experts on. I mean, you're not even discussing. One side is saying what he thinks. The other says "NO YOU'RE WRONG! I'M TELLING MY MUM!!!" and then tell him "the great secret of piano playing". Then the third part says "lol you don't know anything!!!" and gives his version about the perfect way of playing. And sooner or later you post pictures of washing towels and clips from Japan's got talent. Most people probably think it's ok to go a bit O.T., but you go like as far away as go can. "Hey! Let's discuss the Waldstein sonata!" then you 3 comes in, and the thread is somehow about if you get a boner while playing scales.

[mcdiddy1]

This is what I'm referring to. In one chord the fifth needs to be very soft, arguably the thumb would be the next softest. The 2nd finger would slightly less than the fourth, which would be the most prominent.

No, I am thinking of the pp in the thumb, ff in the pinky,mf in the the 3 rd finger. The extremes  in dynamics and making it clear is what would be challenging to pull off. I have never seen it and would be pretty silly to write. What you are talking about is pretty standard voicing where one of two notes come out clearly. I am talking about 5 separate dynamics

How can more weight go in the middle though? Obviously leaning put more on the outer side. But how is weight going in the middle and not elsewhere? It's actually down to finger activity, I'm sure of it.

What i do is curve my 4 finger very deeply and rotate the hand to toward the 4th but not so far the weight goes to the fifth. In a chord I certainly would not play the chord with my fingers lifting and striking the keys. Because my fingers are so long all I have to curl a finger and let my others fingers be in a normal relaxed position and the voicing happens to me. It would be more difficult it my fingers where more stubby, shorter and rounder like other pianist fingers are but it works me.

[nyiregyhazi]

"What you are talking about is pretty standard voicing where one of two notes come out clearly. I am talking about 5 separate dynamics"

Okay, fair enough. It would certainly be unusual to have to differentiate to that extent.

How can more weight go in the middle though? Obviously leaning put more on the outer side. But how is weight going in the middle and not elsewhere? It's actually down to finger activity, I'm sure of it.

"What i do is curve my 4 finger very deeply and rotate the hand to toward the 4th but not so far the weight goes to the fifth."

I see what you mean. I'm just not convinced that's really about weight- so much as the extent to which the fingers are activated. I've found that having every finger move positively (rather than firm fingers and slacker fingers) but to different degrees is very effective.

[keyboardclass]

The movement is an extension. It's bad enough to tell someone it's wrong not to use jargon instead of plain English. It's worse still when your 'correction' is an unsuitable term for that under description.

Ask someone to extend their fingers - and that's exactly what they'll do (not abduct them or to use the colloquial - move them from side to side).  Anyway that's the end of this lesson in plain English. 

[mcdiddy1]

Yes, like once or twice. But these days we can't start a thread that is anywhere near technique without you and your cool gang enters and ruins it with worthless discussions about something you think you're experts on. I mean, you're not even discussing. One side is saying what he thinks. The other says "NO YOU'RE WRONG! I'M TELLING MY MUM!!!" and then tell him "the great secret of piano playing". Then the third part says "lol you don't know anything!!!" and gives his version about the perfect way of playing. And sooner or later you post pictures of washing towels and clips from Japan's got talent. Most people probably think it's ok to go a bit O.T., but you go like as far away as go can. "Hey! Let's discuss the Waldstein sonata!" then you 3 comes in, and the thread is somehow about if you get a boner while playing scales.

LOL....I am part of a cool gang??? Awesome
Never claim to be an expert, like I  said before I just am always looking for new ideas and willing to change my opinion when something makes sense. The clip I put was just a video I found cool about a pianist with no arms can overcome adversity over what people say he can't do and still play musically and emotionally. I am sorry you do not like that story but it was meant to be more inspirational and cool than to prove a point.

 Lol @ boner while playing scales. I  was just clarifying why I believe when someone asks me. If someone disagrees with my point, I bring up my reasonings. Thats called a discussion. I don't resort to name calling or take is somehow personal like some people do. Hint Hint

I believe the poster got the answer she was looking for a long time ago ( said she should correct it) and it went to a discussion about more finer parts of fingering. Where is the crime in that? My discussion with nyiregyhazi is winding down anyways but now you're starting a whole new discussion! Thats not helping!

[nyiregyhazi]

Ask someone to extend their fingers - and that's exactly what they'll do (not abduct them or to use the colloquial - move them from side to side).  Anyway that's the end of this lesson in plain English.  

That is exactly what I am ASKING them to do (but with the thumb- why are you referring to the fingers)!!! So why are trying to tell me that I mean to ask them to "abduct" their thumb? I do not mean any such thing. I mean to tell them to extend their thumb- an action which naturally involves only SOME abduction as part of the overall movement.

[keyboardclass]

Hint Hint

Some of us don't suffer fools so gladly.

[jzp93]

My son's teacher has corrected his fingering from the first day he started learning piano.
when he started playing advance pieces we noted that he
would change his fingering so she asks him to play it in
different ways and say "which is more comfortable for you, this or this?".

[keypeg]

I've been following the exchange between Mcdiddy and nyireghazi with interest.  They have opposite backgrounds, one of them having gotten technique very thoroughly but given few insights into music until later on, while the other was cheated on the side of technique.  So naturally each will stress the opposite side of this music - technique pair.  I'd say that one is part of the other acting in synergy.  You cannot play in a musically expressive way if you don't have the technique to do it, and also some feeling or understanding at some level.  However there are people who are simply virtuosos with impressive technique for its own sake, and others who follow their feeling and can't quite bring out what they intend.  But will a teacher kill off one side by emphasizing the other (either way)?  That's what the debate seems to be about.

I was stuck in the middle of this as a student a few years ago, tho it wasn't piano.  I came in as an adult who had never been taught but had - as it turned out - a strong instinct in music.  I did well and zoomed ahead, but my instrument had a defect that injured me and then technique crumbled too.  When I recovered my teacher was careful not to set off any anxiety about technique and went out of his way to have inspiring music pull me in the right direction physically as I reached for the sound.  Being paralyzed about "doing it right" seemed the bigger danger.  I had moved beyond that, and simply wanted to know how to do things that would let me produce the sounds I wanted to produce.  Once or twice I asked a technical question, and used the answer to produce a musical effect in the piece.  Hearing how nice it sounded, my teacher concluded that I had managed to relax and let go, and pushed "playing expressively" as much as possible and I'd find myself locked out of technique again.  My expressiveness would shrivel and we were mutually confused.  Eventually we talked about it and everything straightened out.  The elements at the center of it are the same as being discussed here.

We talked about the dichotomy between "music" which we feel, and technique - that they are part of each other.  Doing technique in a detailed manner can end up paralyzing some students so that they get neither technique nor music.  In my case, for what I had managed to get, that wasn't happening.  I had already demonstrated that I was up to it, and that I knew how to use it in music.  The angle of my lessons changed at that point.

There was a time when I had a ridiculous idea of technique.  It was some kind of perfect form and a formula that if you did these things your playing would be ideal.  That attitude did tangle me up.  But I had been searching that way when I was already in trouble.  I ran into teachers who had The Answer of The One Thing You Must Do - um, no, not really!  What I've always wondered about is if I had started differently, whether I would ever have gone off on that silly tangent?  Would I have any reason to search?  Would it indeed have turned me off music if it was technical at the start?

The things that I need there or in piano presently are basic things and in an unmusical way.  This goes toward what Niereghazi is saying.  If I "feel" a crescendo, chances are that my body will get tighter and I will use more force going into the keyboard.  Legato is rather counter intuitive on piano, though feeling might accidentally make you go in the right direction.  If I get the motions in a deliberate, mechanical manner, and also listen whether the effect is what I want, then after a while that motion becomes automatic.  You associate "legato" with those motions that you have practiced in that way.  After that it's there for you.

If you don't get the technique, then especially if you are hearing in your head what you want to do, but you don't know how to produce it, or what you are doing that is blocking that production, it is extremely frustrating.  If a teacher then tries to induce you to "be expressive" and "feel" the music - I can't finish the sentence.

But wouldn't this all depend on where the student is at?  What works for me might be deadly for someone else.

I did notice two interesting things piano-wise.  Czerny in his letter to a young student stresses that she should get the mechanical and theory foundations first, in order to liberate her for music making.  I also have an old book from the early 1900's before there were method books, and the very first thing they do is to have students develop touch before playing any real notes.  The reasoning is that as soon as you play, you are going to play in some manner.  If you are going to start playing notes without knowing how, what kind of touch will you develop?  Would this approach tie a student in knots of anxiety rather than help, or the opposite?

[nyiregyhazi]

"I've been following the exchange between Mcdiddy and nyireghazi with interest.  They have opposite backgrounds, one of them having gotten technique very thoroughly but given few insights into music until later on, while the other was cheated on the side of technique.  So naturally each will stress the opposite side of this music - technique pair.  I'd say that one is part of the other acting in synergy.  You cannot play in a musically expressive way if you don't have the technique to do it, and also some feeling or understanding at some level.  However there are people who are simply virtuosos with impressive technique for its own sake, and others who follow their feeling and can't quite bring out what they intend."

I should stress that teaching someone to play accurately and fast is not something that I would ever end up doing. I don't see that as good "technique" in any sense. I'm talking about the ability to control sounds with comfort and efficient quality of movement. I believe that far more attention should be payed to this. However, I'd never regard myself as someone who sways the balance more to the technical side. There are few things that horrify me more than shapeless playing. I don't regard myself as stressing one side of the argument more than the other at all. It's just that so many regard it exclusively look at if from the musicality aiding technique side of things. I look at it from that side AND the technique develops musicality side.
 

I ran into teachers who had The Answer of The One Thing You Must Do - um, no, not really!  What I've always wondered about is if I had started differently, whether I would ever have gone off on that silly tangent?

If you take such claims with a pinch of salt, there's often much to be learned from these magical methods. Blatantly simplified as they tend to be, some of them are spectacularly useful. There's a ton of stuff in this that I could not disagree with more:

However, it's a hugely useful thing to practise- if you don't get too lost in the wealth of utter crap in his description. One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make is to write off alternatives too quickly and say "only" do this- which is what so many of these encourage. There are many things I wrote off in the past, before having later learned that they can be extremely useful- but depended on particular other elements having first been put in place. The "method" I'm writing up myself involves illustrating how useful various things are- rather than saying always do x and never do y (well, except where it's something that's quite literally impossible, but which is suggested by a misguided explanation)..

Legato is rather counter intuitive on piano, though feeling might accidentally make you go in the right direction.  If I get the motions in a deliberate, mechanical manner, and also listen whether the effect is what I want, then after a while that motion becomes automatic.  You associate "legato" with those motions that you have practiced in that way.  After that it's there for you.

Absolutely. There's no better example of something where the musical intentions can cause considerable harm. Good legato technique is extremely specific. If you have the musical idea of legato but not the technique, there are so many things that can go wrong, physically. I think the feel for the quality of movement really ought to come first, here. For a long time, I actually felt legato was too dangerous to worry about in the early stages. Since then, I've realised that it makes things far easier not harder- but you need to learn the physical feel for it right at the beginning. Legato is pretty much essential- unless you want a student who cannot relax their arm. But, students who "press" to get legato have a seriously hard time. Early on, it's far more about quality of movement than the musical joining.

"I did notice two interesting things piano-wise.  Czerny in his letter to a young student stresses
that she should get the mechanical and theory foundations first, in order to liberate her for music making."

I've taught quite a few oriental students who had good fingers but very little musical shape whatsoever. Generally, they actually picked up musical ideas extremely well. They just hadn't been asked to think that way before- but their technical foundations gave a big head-start in realising it. I used to be of the music, music, music mindset. But practical experience of various kinds simply forced me realise how flawed the reality of trying to work that way is. Formerly, I was too obsessed with musical ideals to realise that more indirect approaches often breed better musical results in the long run. On the surface, the example might seem to suggest greater importance of the musical side of teaching. But I realised that the reason these kids could do what I tried to get them to do musically was because of their prior foundation.

[keypeg]

I ran into teachers who had The Answer of The One Thing You Must Do - um, no, not really!  What I've always wondered about is if I had started differently, whether I would ever have gone off on that silly tangent?

If you take such claims with a pinch of salt, there's often much to be learned from these magical methods

My bottom line now as a student, especially if a beginner, is to work with a teacher who knows his craft and is comfortable in his body when playing (but with knowledge) and who will observe me how I play.  His teaching should address where I am at - not some hypothetical student with hypothetical typical problems (or whatever problem that teacher overcame - which is what formulas are often about).  I would look at such sites with caution: that particular t-shirt in terms of my first instrument that I studied, has moth holes in it.  In fact, I want to work with that good observant teacher, but do so intelligently (which good teachers also want).  Piano is the second instrument, but was originally self-taught when I was young.  Right now I am getting some first instruction with a teacher.  A physical difficult or weak area that I feel may also be recognized by this teacher, but the angle that it is addressed is different than what I would come up with, and it also may not resemble any "formula" that is out there, because it addresses me and where I am.

What I encountered personally with these formulas: some teachers seem to have had a problem in some area, the formula fixes it, and so it is applied to everyone.  Or the formula addresses some common weakness but again, everyone is to do this, only this, and that should be good for everyone.  Sometimes it seems that some good and natural thing that is done in playing gets locked into an exaggeration --- or into a rigid form --- of what it can be.  Or it could be an angle of something real and larger.

When I was a violin student I got caught in the "relaxation" craze - that was my stupidity following the Internet.  A few violinists ranted about being forced into this at university, and being almost crippled until they got out of it.  (Havas method?)  You can get limpness rather than relaxation, with your arms becoming oppressive dead weights.  I believe there is a piano equivalent of this and I think (?) that you wrote about it in the other forum too.

Then there is a thing that infiltrated a whole bunch of disciplines: musicians playing instruments, athletes, weight lifters, yoga practitioners.  This was the idea of: shoulders back while engaging the shoulder blades, chin (head) in, tail tucked in, body hanging from an imaginary plumb line.  It was supposed to fix hunching.  A lot can and did go wrong.  If the shoulder blades get locked, essential mobility is lost.  People are scrambling to undo this and replace it, but it is still taught.  I got caught out in this via an expert's formula - I am working with a personal trainer gradually undoing the damage, and damage there was.  After a while the feeling that something was wrong with this got too strong.  Then researching the Internet I found story after story.  My work with the personal trainer goes along what I said about a teacher:  he understands his body, his learned discipline, and he observes me where I am at and guides me accordingly.  That also includes such things as my ability to connect with myself physically and trust that, while still following guidance.

[nyiregyhazi]

"My bottom line now as a student, especially if a beginner, is to work with a teacher who knows his craft and is comfortable in his body when playing (but with knowledge) and who will observe me how I play.  His teaching should address where I am at - not some hypothetical student with hypothetical typical problems (or whatever problem that teacher overcame - which is what formulas are often about)."  

Agreed. That can certainly happen. However, certain problems are the same for virtually everybody- except the most accomplished virtuosi. Personally, I'm trying to find the features that all successful styles of movement have in common- not simply take one specific possibility and say "only do this". I recently wrote a post on impact at the keybed- which I am convinced is the underlying root (or at least a big part of it) of problems in even some extremely accomplished pianists. The way great pianists avoid heavy impacts and the need to brace against them is really not so different from player to player, in my opinion- if you look under the surface rather than at more superficial features on the immediate surface. It's not so different to golf swings. They might look very different on the surface, but the way they cause the club to move through the ball is not very different- in the successful ones, anyway. If you can find what goes on at the heart of it, the details really don't matter. It causes problems when what people fixate on really are just possible details in a whole- without seeing the bigger picture.

"This was the idea of: shoulders back while engaging the shoulder blades, chin (head) in, tail tucked in, body hanging from an imaginary plumb line.  It was supposed to fix hunching.  A lot can and did go wrong.  If the shoulder blades get locked, essential mobility is lost.  People are scrambling to undo this and replace it, but it is still taught.  I got caught out in this via an expert's formula - I am working with a personal trainer gradually undoing the damage, and damage there was."

I'd interested to know if you find the exercise here to be of any use.

https://pianoscience.blogspot.com/2011/04/hunched-shoulders-why-do-they-really.html

Rather than being about forcing into a position, it trains a feel for the exact muscular activity required to balance the arm is a whole variety of states. For a long time, I got too caught up in striving to relax the shoulders as much as possible. What I failed to focus on was how to put the positive muscular activities back in, in a healthy way. Peverse as it may sound, that actually keeps them more relaxed. Seeing as it's impossible to actually keep them 100% relaxed in a functional way, aiming for relaxation can simply mean you have no control over the muscles that need to help out- and they end up doing any old rubbish. While it's great to learn what the truly slumped state of relaxation is like, I found it far more productive to train myself to perceive the needed efforts (and how slight they really are)- than to pretend I was literally going to relax 100%.
 

[keypeg]

Well, the thing about an exercise to help with a problem is that the problem should exist first of all.  Hunching is a common problem so fixes have been invented for it, but should someone who does not have that problem or may even be doing the opposite be given that fix?  This goes back to a central point: that of an observant teacher who uses his own body well and has an understanding of his craft.  He sees what is actually there, and works with it, rather than imposing a universal fix on a generic imaginary student.  I did not hunch.  I tended to pull my shoulder blades in too much.  A person who had never seen me at that point persuaded me to do an exercise which tightens what was already overly tight in order to fix a hunch that I did not have.  Then I did actually have a problem.  At this point I would not experiment with anything involving shoulders because I became hypersensitive and I'm working with a teacher who is guiding me while observing me.  It's going forward nicely.  What I saw in your blog does make sense including the idea of follow-through.  I imagine that some things are indeed universal, but where an individual person is at may be far to the left or right of the norm and then you have to be careful.

Among the things that were useful for me and where I was at there is knowing where and how our bodies are supported and where not, and also where we support ourselves emotionally when stressed.  Are you familiar with Mary Bond?  Then the fact that all these things about hip angles ignore the fact that we stand on two feet which play a role. It's the tip of the iceberg.  It is what we do individually that may have to be sorted out.  A lot of it, as per Alexander Technique, may involve relearning how to use our bodies naturally with an instinct we always possessed.

[keypeg]

What I failed to focus on was how to put the positive muscular activities back in, in a healthy way. Peverse as it may sound, that actually keeps them more relaxed.

This is not perverse at all.  We have to know how to move.

[keypeg]

I see however that this has veered totally off the topic of corrected fingering, even though such things are all related.  I'll end my OT contributions.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well, the thing about an exercise to help with a problem is that the problem should exist first of all.  Hunching is a common problem so fixes have been invented for it, but should someone who does not have that problem or may even be doing the opposite be given that fix?  This goes back to a central point: that of an observant teacher who uses his own body well and has an understanding of his craft.  He sees what is actually there, and works with it, rather than imposing a universal fix on a generic imaginary student."

I think you misunderstand the basic purpose of that exercise. It's intended to improve awareness of how to do something that is needed UNIVERSALLY- not to impose an artificial adjustment. All painists need to control the extent to which they withold/release the weight of the arm. If you learn to do so, the shoulders will stop hunching. But that's incidental. Similarly, anyone who has a problem of forcing the shoulders down will also develop more freedom and awareness of what the muscles need to do via the exercise. Pianists can either slump their shoulders (meaning the whole arm is dead weight 100% of the time) or they can lock them in a position or they can learn a sensitive means of using the muscles to vary how much pressure gravity will be exerting through the hand. This exercise trains the last of those- which every single pianist needs. I find it very strange that I have never encountered a comparable exercise elsewhere. This is one of the fundamentals of all piano playing. Hunched shoulders are merely the symptom of not having mastered it- which is why telling people to keep them down is a waste of time.







"I did not hunch.  I tended to pull my shoulder blades in too much.  A person who had never seen me at that point persuaded me to do an exercise which tightens what was already overly tight in order to fix a hunch that I did not have."

The exercise would be every bit as relevant to that problem. It doesn't matter what the unnatural position is. The exercise shows how to perceive what the muscles DO need to do during playing, how little effort it takes and how needless tensions can be released.
 
"I imagine that some things are indeed universal, but where an individual person is at may be far to the left or right of the norm and then you have to be careful."

Sure. I'm making an extremely conscious effort never to fall into the trap of giving one-size fits-all external advice. If I ever fell into the trap of saying "keep the elbow in" or "keep the elbow out", I'd be very disappointed in myself. I believe if get to the real heart of things, many things will be useful for almost anybody. It's not about making superficial adjustments to fix problems but ways of learning universal foundation elements better. My solution to most problems is not to prod the fine details- but rather to go back to square 1 and show how it's done at the core.

I'm not familiar with Mary Bond, but I've recently been doing various Feldenkrais lessons from free podcasts. They are very useful. Also, I wouldn't worry about being off-topic. Anything about piano playing is still on the main topic.

[keypeg]

I do understand what you are saying.  While I am working with people guiding me I don't want to experiment with anything right now.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok, I explored this exercise.  I'll go to the conclusion of it first:I will reiterate that my body was doing something that was the opposite of what people do when they lift their shoulders.  The thing that this fixes gets those previously overactive muscles to start firing up again, and the reflexes that I am trying to quieten to fire up again.  I don't have to check whether my shoulders are "still" being raised up because they never raised up.  I do not feel an improved lightness in my shoulders.  Instead there is a heavy oppression as though being chained ..... just like when I was given the "anti shoulder raising" exercise (when I didn't raise them).  I kept being told how "light and free" I should now be feeling.  I felt nothing of the kind.  My arms were locked up.  I say again: different people use their bodies differently - you should not fix a problem that doesn't exist or you will cause a problem.  You address the problem that is there.  And that is best done with a teacher observing you.  I do not have that problem.  That solution will cause me the problem that I just got away from.

If your shoulders are not being raised up, simply ignore the bit that refers to that possibility. The entire exercise is based on opening out movement in the shoulders- and trying to perceive where existing habitual efforts are not needed. I don't really understand your concern. If your shoulders are stiff, the type of process I describe is exactly what I would recommend working on. Whether we're talking about raising the shoulders or forcing them down, it makes no difference. The whole idea is to use the exercise to identify such things and find a purer and smoother motion.

 If they're stuck down, you need to learn to use the muscles that open them out and to release the unwanted muscular pulls that hinder that. If you want to stop the stiffness, learning that feeling of drifting out ought to be very useful. When the actions are mastered, it doesn't even result in visible movement, but simply a feeling of lightness and ease. If you don't yet feel light and free, you need to keep working at improving the movement described until you've noticed where the needless efforts are. Countless things are impossible on the piano, if you haven't learned a means to lighten up the arms.

[keypeg]

A thing that swings open can only swing so far, and after that it closes up on the other side of the circle.  What is "opening" for you is "closing" for me because I was too far on the other side.  I do not have difficulties in that area.  If something is ok you don't fix it.  That is what gave me problems in the first place.  Also as I wrote, I am working with someone.  I don't want to mix in other things at this time.  My teacher is observing me and working with me and my feedback.  What we are doing is giving results - I like what is happening.  This is not the time to try other things, nor is there reason to at the present.

Please understand - I was already in the right place, and the "fix" put me in the wrong place.  The last thing that I want is to bring this out of balance.  The "fix" CREATED the stiffness.

If you want to stop the stiffness, learning that feeling of drifting out ought to be very useful.

I am learning the feeling of drifting in.  In other words, countering what was done in order to bring it into balance.  And this "in" rather than that "out" is what is stopping any stiffness.

f you don't yet feel light and free, you need to keep working at improving the movement described until you've noticed where the needless efforts are...

I DID feel light and free until I was given things to do which helped a person who used to hunch and then I was brought out of balance.  I want to get back to what I had .... not go back into the direction that imprisoned me.  Look what you are writing, "until you've noticed where the needless efforts are."  I agree with the principle.  But how do you know whether I have needless efforts, and the nature of those needless efforts?

My central point was that of working with a teacher who observes you personally and works with where you actually are.

[nyiregyhazi]

"A thing that swings open can only swing so far, and after that it closes up on the other side of the circle."

There's no feeling of "swinging" here. It's a VERY slow movement. Also, I don't take my upper arm any further than horizontal. I do state very explicitly in the description that it's a feeling of drifting out to the side and then allowing gravity to cause the drift back in- not "closing" in. There should be no feeling of pulling anything down. By the very nature of movement described, I honestly can't see how it's even possible to perform the movement while forcing anything down- nevermind, how it could possibly encourage that. The whole thing is feeling how to open out and letting go of everything other than that which performs the role of balancing gravity. On the way back in, the intention is to feel how release brings you in by allowing gravity to act. It trains both directions- not just one. And there's no muscular pull down anywhere.



Please understand - I was already in the right place, and the "fix" put me in the wrong place.  The last thing that I want is to bring this out of balance.  The "fix" CREATED the stiffness.

Sure, I hear you. But the exercise I'm talking about is designed to raise awareness of how to release every effort other than that which serves a purpose. If followed as described, I can't even begin to imagine how it might cause stiffness. How can slowly opening out to the side cause the shoulders to be forced down or to close in together? The movement that is meant to be performed is almost the very opposite of anything that presses the shoulders down.

"I agree with the principle.  But how do you know whether I have needless efforts, and the nature of those needless efforts?"

I don't. That's for the person doing the exercise to perceive. It's not a magic fix. It's a means for a person to go about doing their own learning. It requires extreme concentration- not a quick stint of simply waving your arms around. The slower you move (both going out and coming back in), the more you can perceive the blockages and free them up. You seem convinced that this exercise is tailor made to force a shoulder which is up to go down. It's not in any way whatsoever. It tailor made to learn how to perform one of the foundation balancing actions in piano playing with ease and lightness. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether any superfluous tensions are based on pressing up or down. Performing the movement as described should cause them to slowly disappear.

[keypeg]

I don't know if physical things can be described in writing without major misunderstandings.  You write about "opening".  I am as open as it will go.  If I open more then it will put me out of balance.  I am NOT concerned about shoulders being forced either up or down.

I am writing as a student and explained that I am working closely with a teacher and that it is going well.  I also wrote my initial premise, that it is best to work with a teacher who observes you if at all possible, and to choose what you will do based on those observations and maybe mutual consultation --- i.e. the teacher also asks you how you feel  or what you feel. If I am working with a teacher on such things and it is going well, then that is not the time to be doing other things.  You would probably not want a student of yours to be experimenting while working with you, though maybe later when things are more solid on you might not mind.  That is the position I am in.  I am not dismissing what you have shared, but I am being careful.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I don't know if physical things can be described in writing without major misunderstandings.  You write about "opening".  I am as open as it will go."

? What do you mean? I'm talking about moving the elbow outside and away from the torso, while standing nowhere near a piano. This opens the space in the armpit, between the arm and the torso. Do you mean you find this extremely hard to do? If so- that's exactly why I'm saying to practise it. To free up the action and relieve any stiffness that causes resistance. Also, I'm not telling anyone how far open they should be in playing. I'm just saying that a corpse-like shoulder that simply slumps and lets the elbows fall in is rarely of use. Nobody plays with 100% release of arm-weight 100% of the time. So it's safe to say that almost anyone in any playing situation needs to use some slight opening action to stop the elbow collapsing inward. It's just a question of how much and how efficiently it's done. I'm not trying to tell you to open more at a piano. In fact, the exercise is equally useful for people that overdo the elbow out while playing. It doesn't matter whether it's overdone or underdone. I'm not prompting you to go either way. I'm providing an exercise that allows people to train themselves to do a universally required action more effectively and notice what actually happens- rather than fix the shoulder in a rigid position, as so usually happens. It's an exercise in FEELING efficient balance. I don't say a thing to bias anyone about what individual adjustments they might happen to require. It just provides the tools to balance with less effort.

"If I am working with a teacher on such things and it is going well, then that is not the time to be doing other things."

What harm are you expecting? Why would such a simple motion as very slowly and smoothly moving your elbows out to your side and then letting gravity ease them back in (all away from from a piano) do you any more harm than the countless movements you do in life? Considering that the entire purpose is to release unnecessary efforts, I'd be far more scared of just about any other movement that the needs of everyday living could throw at you.  I certainly wouldn't be troubled by any of my students practising smooth movement exercises away from a piano. Considering that general movement exercises do not encourage a person to tip the balance in any specific direction, I can't see what it could possibly conflict with.

[keypeg]

N, I know what you are describing.  It is not unfamiliar.   Again, I am working with a teacher and I do not want to do other things at the same time. 

[keypeg]

Actually this may be going somewhere.  Time will tell.

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually this may be going somewhere.  Time will tell.

Let me know if you have any further thoughts at all. I appreciate that you want to keep careful, but I'd be no more concerned the possibility of a few minutes spent on the exercise for easing the efforts of in and out actions than having to carry a light bag of groceries.

[keypeg]

Let me know if you have any further thoughts at all. I appreciate that you want to keep careful, but I'd be no more concerned the possibility of a few minutes spent on the exercise for easing the efforts of in and out actions than having to carry a light bag of groceries.

Nyireghazi, I will certainly do so.

It also occurred to me that I should mention that I am familiar with exercises that are done away from the instrument, sometimes far removed from what you would actually do while playing, but still having effect.  Among other things, they are a good way of breaking away from bad habits if you have them, because as soon as you touch your instrument, you'll automatically go into habit.   These things can be powerful.  I think that an important side is that you do monitor whether what you are doing feels better or worse, and that you do trust your senses.  Any teacher who says otherwise I would run from.