Is finger strength a myth?

[thalbergmad]

Time for banjo practice.

[outin]

Time for banjo practice.

Don't forget to grease your knuckles!

[thalbergmad]

Blast, I think I have got a collapsing wrist.

Thal

[nyiregyhazi]

If it really is THAT difficult for you, then the only possible conclusion is yes, mine must work better.

Oh dear...

I'm sorry your students all suffer this problem. Even those you have started from scratch?

Indeed, because it's exceptionally difficult to actually master this. The issue is that people don't actually appreciate the problem until you push gently on their knuckles and then simultaneously see if there's freedom of movement in their wrist by moving the forearm (to confirm whether the knuckles are being locked stiffly or balanced with suitable finger activation that allows a free wrist). If those knuckles can't stay up without wrist tightness, the basics are not there- regardless of whether the student thought they had mastered them. You should attempt that test sometime- if you're sincerely confident that you have acquired finer technique than myself and this concert artist, along the route to your intermediate standard. I get students to test me regularly- to show them how stability and a free wrist are not exclusive or contradictory. It's great for me too, as it helps to reveal tiny traces of effort that should not be in an evolved technique. If you think you've mastered this issue and would breeze though such a test, I suggest you experience it. It's about a likely a claim as a yellow belt of karate who thinks they could karate chop through a stack of 10 bricks. Bravado is not conducive to learning. Humility and openmindedness go a hell of a long way.

Remember, as I told you I had no baggade when I started, got an excellent teacher only after 3 months on the piano (who pointed out the problems with my hand shape immediately), have read a lot about piano technique. I have also spend a huge amount of time watching some great pianists play, comparing my hands to theirs and experimented. When I started getting better tone, it became much easier, because I am extremely "aural". I intuitively learn things when I hear the right sound results. Maybe that's why it isn't so difficult, I don't think too much about the mechanics of what I do. I mostly listen and look at my hands and learn what works and what doesn't.

I didn't appreciate the extent of my problems (or use anything but desire to strive for a quality of sound) until I'd already performed Rachmaninoff's 2nd concerto and Liszt's sonata. Maybe you should wait a little before you presume that there would for any reason be a correlation between intuitive learning and excellent form? If things aren't difficult for you, press ahead to the real challenges and stop holding yourself back.

Honestly when I hear a piece I like and get the sheet, only to notice it is too complicated for me, do I feel bad? Not really, I put it aside and think I will return to it later if it still feels worthy.

You've never heard a piece and thought I MUST play that- but instead restricted yourself to nothing but this list of 1000 pieces? You should go with passion sometimes, if you can walk away so easily. If I really like a piece that much, I have to learn it. It's not even a matter of choice. When you go with your heart rather than your head on these sometimes, you'll discover where technical attention is due. It's very easy to be self-satisfied when you quit rather than take on bigger challenges, sometimes.  

[j_menz]

Blast, I think I have got a collapsing wrist.

Thal

It's page three. By this stage I find what's collapsed are my spirits. Page 4 and it's my will to live!

[outin]

It's page three. By this stage I find what's collapsed are my spirits. Page 4 and it's my will to live!

Then we may both be dead tomorrow

[outin]

Indeed, because it's exceptionally difficult to actually master this.

If you feel that way, by all means, make it a priority for another 8 years. I will work on my octaves instead. Mastering them will expand my list to...too much for my lifetime....

But if my "arrogance" bothers you so much, maybe you shouldn't read my posts? That shouldn't be too difficult technically?

I didn't appreciate the extent of my problems (or use anything but desire to strive for a quality of sound) until I'd already performed Rachmaninoff's 2nd concerto and Liszt's sonata.

I wonder why you keep bringing out those two composers whose output contains very little that would make ANY list of mine...

You've never heard a piece and thought I MUST play that- but instead restricted yourself to nothing but this list of 1000 pieces?

Hmmm...no, not really... And sorry for forgotting how literal you take things. There's no fixed list of 1000 pieces...it may be 987 or 1024 and new pieces are added and some may drop out constantly.

You should go with passion sometimes, if you can walk away so easily. If I really like a piece that much, I have to learn it. It's not even a matter of choice. When you go with your heart rather than your head on these sometimes, you'll discover where technical attention is due.

I don't "go with my heart". That's just not me. I may go on intuition, but it still is based on what's in my head.

[nyiregyhazi]

I wonder why you keep bringing out those two composers whose output contains very little that would make ANY list of mine...

Sorry, I forgot quite how self-centric you are. In future I'll be sure to check which composers you like before daring to mention any as part of a larger point. Nobody said you would want to play them- so why do you need to emphasise that? Is this more of the inverted snobbery about how you don't want to play any technically demanding repertoire anyway? The point was how much further it's possible to get than your intermediate stage- before finally realising how much you may still have to learn about technique and control over sound. Choose any piece you do like but aren't ready for and replace them with that, if it needs to revolve purely around you. It's a lot easier to get there at some point when you entertain the possibility that you haven't mastered all you think. Get someone to push on your knuckles and check your wrist and you may learn something.

Hmmm...no, not really...

What? You've honestly never once had the experience of hearing a piece of music and feeling a burning urge to play it at any cost? And you suggested that I'm the one who isn't interested by the musical side of things? I sincerely cannot imagine how it's possible to be so indifferent to every piece you have ever heard as to never have an experience of needing to learn a piece that you've heard, out of sheer love for it. I suppose if you have such a dispassionate view towards musical compositions then you don't need to worry much about getting the technique to be in a position to follow musical desires. You can pick one off your list at random, rather than follow anything that comes from the heart.

The reason musicians develop mechanical technique is because they discover that repertoire which they have the burning urge to play happens to depend on it. I suppose that if you're quite so indifferent about what music you learn as to have never desired to seek a single piece outside of a graded list (for sheer love of the sound and nothing else) then it's small wonder that you are quite indifferent about technique.

PS- alternatively, I'm rather more inclined to suspect that you're rationalising retrospectively, so you can tell yourself that you're fully in charge of your own destiny- rather than making compromises you don't care to admit to. Is there seriously anyone on the planet who likes playing the piano yet who has never once had the experience of loving a piece enough to try their best at playing it- regardless of whether they are ready, or if it's listed under their grade? It's part of how we progress. I don't believe that anyone can be so musically disinterested by everything they've ever heard as to have never decided to try to push into something beyond their general level. Did you just quit and start immediately rationalising how you never cared about playing it anyway, or have you sincerely never once had the heartfelt love of a piece that spurs others on to perservere- purely for the sake of that love?

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry, I forgot quite how self-centric you are

Do you forget this trait in yourself?

The point was how much further it's possible to get than your intermediate stage- before finally realising how much you may still have to learn about technique and control over sound.

We all know our limitations the very first day we play the piano. Just because you know about the technique you can't play doesn't mean you can achieve it any easier. You are talking about thousands and thousands of minute small movements which if categorized into words is simply inefficient and cumbersome and clumsy. You learn technique through learning pieces, you don't make a list of technique and try to learn it by thinking about it and drawing diagrams. If you try to generalize an approach you simply will not be able to apply it in context to actual music because of lack of application experience.

Choose any piece you do like but aren't ready for and replace them with that, if it needs to revolve purely around you. It's a lot easier to get there at some point when you entertain the possibility that you haven't mastered all you think. Get someone to push on your knuckles and check your wrist and you may learn something.

This is ridiculous. You say get music too hard for you play it and realize your technique cannot cope then get someone to push on your knuckles>>>> LOL LOL LOL OLO LO OLLOLLO sorry LOO)O)O)O)O)O0o00o0o0000o0o00LLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ill stop now or ill start weeing a little.

[nyiregyhazi]

You learn technique through learning pieces,

Certainly didn't magically work for me. I played reams of different repertoire during my years of blissful ignorance. When you present your own very personal experience as if objective factual truth about a universal process, there's no grounds for attempting meaningful discussion.

This is ridiculous. You say get music too hard for you play it and realize your technique cannot cope then get someone to push on your knuckles>

If that's what it takes to realise that technique has room for improvement, then yes. It's the moment where the student opens their eyes to the fact that there are things they aren't doing in their comfort zone, but should be. I didn't say to push their knuckles specifically  in music that's too hard btw. Combing the two separates ideas as one process is your idea, not mine.

PS. I'm still learning pieces now, if you assumed otherwise? I'm just not assuming the rest comes by magic, from that in itself.

[lostinidlewonder]

Certainly didn't magically work for me. I played reams of different repertoire during my years of blissful ignorance.

Lol, I guess we all have to believe you don't we?? You admit you have learned a lot of pieces, to say it didn't help you develop your technique is ignorant on your behalf.

When you present your own very personal experience as if objective factual truth about a universal process, there's no grounds for attempting meaningful discussion.

Every discussion with you teeters on meaningless.

PS. I'm still learning pieces now, if you assumed otherwise? I'm just not assuming the rest comes by magic, from that in itself.

Maybe you should realize that most people don't do what you do? Because of your marginalized and eccentric approach no wonder you have so many people disagreeing and not understanding you. Not understanding you doesn't mean what you say is intelligent, rather, it is obscure and irrelevant for most people.

[j_menz]

LOL LOL LOL OLO LO OLLOLLO sorry LOO)O)O)O)O)O0o00o0o0000o0o00LLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

ahahahah thanks j

[nyiregyhazi]

Lol, I guess we all have to believe you don't we?? You admit you have learned a lot of pieces, to say it didn't help you develop your technique is ignorant on your behalf.

If it helped by magical certainty, I'd have developed my technique in the years where I was playing the widest repertoire. It developed most in years where I worked much more narrowly. There's little point in your trying to make a rational support for an argument that is inherently irrational- due to being based solely on the premise that quantity equates to quality. Quality is of primary importance. If you throw enough sh*t around then it tends to stick. But throwing sh*t around doesn't tend to yield much technique.

PS. If you want a serious discussion, it may help to avoid cackling like a Bond villain.

[lostinidlewonder]

If it helped by magical certainty, I'd have developed my technique in the years where I was playing the widest repertoire. It developed most in years where I worked much more narrowly. There's little point in your trying to make a rational support for an argument that is inherently irrational- based on the premise that quantity equates to quality. Quality is of primary importance.

well im sorry but you are wrong. There is no magical thinking just work, work on lots of pieces. You are rewarded AUTOMATICALLY by learning your pieces correctly. You assume people are morons without any intelligence, in fact ALL every single one of my students no matter what ability level becomes better at the piano the more pieces they learn correctly. If you studied piano without a teacher and played wrong then you still will improve the more pieces you learn, it is UNAVOIDABLE, it is a natural action in all normal human beings.

YOU think that science thinking will help, it horrifies you that learning pieces correctly will AUTOMATICALLY improve your technique. You think that going back and thinking in general terms, drawing diagrams and copying movements like a parrot will improve peoples technique, what a joke.

[lostinidlewonder]

PS. If you want a serious discussion, it may help to avoid cackling like a Bond villain.

I don't think any of them said LOL, but its hard to not laugh sometimes, things said on the internet are very funny and when people are serious about the funniness its even more funny.

[nyiregyhazi]

well im sorry but you are wrong. There is no magical thinking just work, work on lots of pieces. You are rewarded AUTOMATICALLY by learning your pieces correctly. You assume people are morons without any intelligence, in fact ALL every single one of my students no matter what ability level becomes better at the piano the more pieces they learn correctly. If you studied piano without a teacher and played wrong then you still will improve the more pieces you learn, it is UNAVOIDABLE, it is a natural action in all normal human beings.

YOU think that science thinking will help, it horrifies you that learning pieces correctly will AUTOMATICALLY improve your technique. You think that going back and thinking in general terms, drawing diagrams and copying movements like a parrot will improve peoples technique, what a joke.

Believe away in your quantity yields quality theory. I'm not going to debate someone who makes assertions with religious certainty but offers no supporting evidence. There's more than enough evidence of rank failure in the world to count as evidence, without even bothering to detail my own contrary experience. I enjoy sincere discussion with contrary opinions, but not with a preacher who only asserts, without thought provoking reasoning.

PS. Parrots copy speech. It's monkeys that copy movements. Thanks for the chuckle. Although I'll leave the strings of hysterical laughter to you.

[lostinidlewonder]

Believe away in your quantity yields quality. I'm not going to debate someone who makes assertions with religious certainty but no supporting evidence.

Mission accomplished, no one wants to talk with you anyway. Its just how you try to pull down other members with your shadows of doubt and delusions of grandeur that will cause most people to respond to you.

There's more than enough evidence of rank failure in the world to count as evidence, without even bothering to detail my own contrary experience.

"rank failure" lol.

PS. Parrots copy speech. It's monkeys that copy movements. Thanks for the chuckle. Although I'll leave the strings of hysterical laughter to you.

LOL hey everyone look at this quote, notice how he tries to correct every single thing? lol where are your meds. You obviously have never owned a parrot.

[outin]

... a burning urge ... at any cost?

When you get to my age you may notice that things don't feel quite as dramatic and all-encompassing anymore.

I also don't feel a burning urge to prove everyone else wrong.

And you suggested that I'm the one who isn't interested by the musical side of things? I sincerely cannot imagine how it's possible to be so indifferent to every piece you have ever heard as to never have an experience of needing to learn a piece that you've heard, out of sheer love for it. I suppose if you have such a dispassionate view towards musical compositions then you don't need to worry much about getting the technique to be in a position to follow musical desires. You can pick one off your list at random, rather than follow anything that comes from the heart.

I care about the music enough to leave it alone if my attempts on it could make it no justice. How can I tell? I guess I just have enough knowledge about myself to judge what the challenges in a given piece are.

Being indifferent and being able to leave something alone are two different things. I've practiced the latter a lot in life, so I think I've mastered it pretty well.

[nyiregyhazi]

LOL hey everyone look at this quote, notice how he tries to correct every single thing? lol where are your meds.

Sorry, but it's really rather amusing that a person would conflate two expressions in order to refer to a "parrot" copying human movement patterns- without their brain actually processing the meaning of the words being typed or noticing what a ridiculous and meaningless image was stated. In my comedy writing as a spoof amazon reviewer, I particularly like constructing mixed metaphors and absurd conflations deliberately. But it never fails to amaze how much sillier the ones people come out with in real life are than the ones you can construct. I'll definitely borrow that expression for future use.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry, but it's really rather amusing that a person would conflate two expressions in order to refer to a "parrot" copying human movements- without their brain actually processing the meaning of the words or noticing what a ridiculous image they suggest. In my comedy writing as a spoof amazon reviewer, I particularly like constructing mixed metaphors and absurd conflations deliberately. But it never fails to amaze how much sillier the ones people come out with in real life are than the ones you can construct. I'll definitely borrow that expression for future use.

I said LIKE, it is a simile, look up that definition. It is not to say the action is EXACTLY LIKE. Goodness me you are really deranged.

I think i've hit a sensitive nerve with you and your PARROT TEACHING.

Wow you are a amazon reviewer wow Are you also an Ebay reviewer too? lol

[nyiregyhazi]

I said LIKE, it is a simile, look up that definition. It is not to say the action is EXACTLY LIKE. Goodness me you are really deranged.

Okay, seeing as you don't even understand why this is funny, now I really am tempted to do your kind of lolling.

The reason I'm laughing is that a parrot has no equivalence for copying human movements on any level. I didn't misunderstand the concept of analogy. Parrots can emulate human speech- which is why to "parrot" has come to mean copying words without understanding. If you can point me to any films of parrots that exhibit the capacity to copy human movements, then you'll be in a position to say it's "LIKE" a parrot. Have you stopped to picture this image? You're conflating with monkeys. Ironically enough, you've "parroted" a cliched comparison to parrots without appreciating the actual situation in which people would be in a position to correctly draw equivalence with parrots.

The reason such conflations are funny is because they make no sense and contain no equivalence at all. The animal which it is like is a monkey.

PS. I'm a spoof reviewer. Not a regular reviewer.

[lostinidlewonder]

The reason I'm laughing is that a parrot has no equivalence for copying human movements on any level.

I think you never owned a pet because they all die? You know you have to feed them lol.


Your incessant babble is unimpressive, who gives a damn if I should say like a parrot or monkey? It doesn't change anything. Parrots copy, the idea is copying, you want people to copy your ideas and paste it into their playing, your parrot teaching is useless. Experience base is king.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think you never owned a pet because they all die? You know you have to feed them lol.

Did you read the sentence you quoted? There's no equivalence there either. Did you think parrots starve to death unless they can copy the movements made by a human? It's just as well they can eat without acting like monkeys.

[lostinidlewonder]

Did you read the sentence you quoted? There's no equivalence there either. Did you think parrots starve to death unless they can copy the movements made by a human? It's just as well they can eat without acting like monkeys.

Parrots can copy human movement you ignoramus. Have you ever owned a parrot? Mine is 27 years old.

[nyiregyhazi]

Parrots can copy human movement you ignoramus.

Wow, you're really not willing to back down on anything, are you? Does yours smoke like a monkey? Also, if sound and movement are interchangeable, do you refer to a child reciting rote-learned poetry "like a monkey" in the same breath as someone copying a movement "like a parrot"?

[lostinidlewonder]

Wow, you're really not willing to back down on anything, are you? Does yours smoke like a monkey?

Im not because you are a "knowitall" who think he knows it all!. You say parrots cannot copy human movement in any way, are you not willing to back down even though you are wrong? lol. Arguing with you is too easy.

[outin]

Parrots can copy human movement 

Cats can also copy movements, so maybe I should experiment on teaching them to play the piano? Interestingly, when their knuckles collapse, their claws come out...

[lostinidlewonder]

Cats can also copy movements, so maybe I should experiment on teaching them to play the piano? Interestingly, when their knuckles collapse, their claws come out...

Ahah. Well, you might notice that we are arguing on the use of the simile copy like a parrot lol. Yes it is a very important issue!!! lol.

[nyiregyhazi]

Im not because you are a moron who think he knows it all. You say parrots cannot copy human movement in any way, are you not willing to back down? lol. Arguing with you is too easy.

Actually I didn't say that. I wouldn't speculate that any animal has zero (rather than simply very little) ability to directly copy human movement. The point is that they are not at all associated with copying human movement but with copying human speech- thus the ongoing silliness of the conflation you made and make sillier still by trying to defend it as if it were meaningful. The idea of parrots as the representative of mimicing human movement patterns is a wonderfully absurd mix of two (rightfully) separate analogies.

By the way, on a more serious note you should read my blog before making up false portrayals. I don't ask anyone to mimic anything. I show movement to practise and ask student NOT to simply copy as I do based on visuals, but to find their own internal perception of where a balance point lies. That would be impossible based on visual mimicry- and it's why I make a strong note in my posts that videos should not be copied without also reading accompanying text. To copy an external impression without having any internal awareness is as far from anything I advise as can be. I'm heavily opposed to trying to mindlessly copy superficial visual impressions like a monkey- or parrot, sorry. It doesn't work effectively at all. You're not so much preaching to the choir as wrongfully accusing them of being satanists.

[lostinidlewonder]

Actually I didn't say that. I The point is that they are not at all associated with copying human movement but with copying human speech- thus the silliness of the conflation you made. The idea of parrots as the representative of mimicing human movement patterns is an wondefully absurd mix of two (rightfully) separate analogies.

Maybe you are schizophrenic in that case having a normal discussion with you is of course impossible. You just said a few minutes ago:

MR N WORDS OF WISDOM:
a parrot has no equivalence for copying human movements on any level.

MR N QUICK RETRACTION AFTER HE IS SHOWN TO BE WRONG:
wouldn't speculate that any animal has zero (rather than simply very little) ability to directly copy human movement.

By the way, on a more serious note you should read my blog before making up false portrayals.

I can't take your blog seriously to take it as a "serious note".

I don't ask anyone to mimic anything. I show movement to practise and ask student NOT to simply copy as I do based on visuals, but to find their own internal perception of where a balance points lie.

Who cares, certainly not me. You think doing your instructions instead of learning countless pieces is better, i tip my lol hat to you.

To copy an external impression without having any internal awareness is as far from anything I advise as can be. I'm heavily oppose to trying to mindlessly copy superficial visual impressions like a monkey- or parrot, sorry. It doesn't work effectively at all.

How are they to learn if you don't even think they should learn many many pieces to practice their movements? Actually please don't answer that question, I think we haven't solved the Parrot/Monkey issue. ahahahaha

[nyiregyhazi]

a parrot has no equivalence for copying human movements on any level.

no equivalence to a monkey- that is a creature that directly associated with copying movements. So, yes. Monkeys are associated with that. Parrots are not associated with it. So there is no equivalence. Do a survey if you like and see what percentage of people name a parrot when asked to name a creature that mimics human movement. And then find me a parrot that can learn to smoke a cigarette.

Squirm away, but if you seriously feel the idea of referring to mimicry of a movement "like a parrot" is worthy of defence, dont' let me get in your way. You should use the expression as widely as possible and brighten up some people's days. Please also refer to kids reciting poems "like a monkey".

How are they to learn if you don't even think they should learn many many pieces to practice their movements?

Yet another strawman. Realising that learning reams of music doesn't automatically provide good technique means realising that quality counts. Not telling students to only learn one piece per year.

[lostinidlewonder]

no equivalence to a monkey- that is a creature that directly associated with copying movements. So, yes. Monkeys are associated with that. Parrots are not associated with it. So there is no equivalence.

You're babble is not going to hide the fact that you were wrong. Shock horror!!! You said parrots have no ability to copy human movements on ANY LEVEL. Which is false and wrong, many parrot owners will laugh in your face.

Squirm away, but if you seriously feel the idea of referring to mimicy a movement "like a parrot" is worthy of defence, dont' let me get in your way. You should use the expression as widely as possible and brighten up some people's days. Please also refer to kids reciting poems "like a monkey".

Many people will use Like a parrot to refer to mimicry. Just because you have this elaborate schizophrenic concept on appropriate use of simile it don't mean we all do AHAHAHA.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yet another strawman. Realising that learning reams of music doesn't automatically provide good technique means realising that quality counts. Not telling students to only learn one piece per year.

Its not a strawman, its just because you have zero ability to discredit it.

[j_menz]

no equivalence to a monkey- that is a creature that directly associated with copying movements. So, yes. Monkeys are associated with that. Parrots are not associated with it. So there is no equivalence. Do a survey if you like and see what percentage of people name a parrot when asked to name a creature that mimics human movement. And then find me a parrot that can learn to smoke a cigarette.

Isn't it an ape, rather than a monkey?

[nyiregyhazi]

Its not a strawman, its just because you have zero ability to discredit it.

It's not my argument. It's one you made up and attributed falsely- like the nonsense about mimicry that you also made up and falsely attributed as my belief. I argue for caring about quality and not assuming quantity guarantees anything in itself. Try arguing against that, rather than arguing against a view which is not implied or held by any party present. The fact that quantity didn't give me a good technique does not mean I think only one piece should be learned per year. It means that I believe quantity does not compensate for quality.

Many people will use Like a parrot to refer to mimicry.

You've given me a great chuckle, so rather than counter your attempt to defend your parrot conflation, I encourage you to keep using it and to defend it to the hilt against anyone else who find the patently absurd image funny. Don't stop to notice that people solely use it to refer to mimicry of speech rather than of movement, or it'll spoil the joke. I'll use it to refer to copying a dance routine "like a parrot", to make it even sillier still.

[nyiregyhazi]

Isn't it an ape, rather than a monkey?

Primates in general.

[lostinidlewonder]

It's not my argument. It's one you made up and attributed falsely-

Its only responding to the words that you say: Learning many pieces is not helpful to technique, studying the science and drawing diagrams is very helpful!!!! lol. Funny you find your own ideas ridiculous.

Like the nonsense about mimicry that you also made up and falsely attributed as my belief.

If someone wants use the idea of mimicry with the use of a parrot they have the freedom to do it and it will cause little confusion. You are just nit picking on purpose because you are butt hurt that other professional teachers find your ideas ridiculous. Go on argue irrelevant issues, it just makes you look idiotic and you so desperately try to create an imagine of a guru here AHAHAH.

I argue for caring about quality and not assuming quantity guarantees anything in itself. Try arguing against that, rather than arguing against which is not implied or held.

Quantity AND Quality is best, not just your idea of quality using your science bs thus avoiding quantity. From Quantity you gain a lot of knowledge not just technique, you looking at the leaf of technique only will create a crappy musician.

You've given me a great chuckle, so rather than counter your attempt to defend you parrot conflation, I encourage you to keep using it and to defend it to the hilt against anyone else who find the patently absurd image funny.

You can laugh all you want, i assure you most of us are doing the same, but at you.

[nyiregyhazi]

Its only responding to the words that you say: Learning many pieces is not helpful to technique,

You omitted a conditional clause on the quality of the process. I said it depends on complementary issues. Selective quotation for the sake of complete misrepresentation of a view is a very low argumentative technique. Learning many pieces WRONGLY is not helpful to technique.

I'm not going to debate you- as you don't argue against my views but against strawmen. Make an interesting point about a view I actually hold (without completely rewriting it and claiming that I had stated your unrecognisably adapted version). If you want to argue against views I don't even hold, then feel free- but just don't portray them as my view.

As for the rest, as hominem away if you feel you gain anything from that. Have fun with it, but I bid you goodbye.

[lostinidlewonder]

You omitted a conditional clause on the quality of the process. I said it depends on complementary issues.

It doesn't DEPEND on anything. If a self taught pianist goes off and learns 1000 pieces their technique will improve unavoidably, there is no ifs or buts about it if they are a normal functioning human being.

I'm not going to debate you- as you don't argue against my views but against strawmen.

Not strawman arguments but issues you are totally unable to deal with thus try to tag it.

Make an interesting point about a view I actually hold (without completely rewriting it and claiming that I stated it). If you want to argue against views I don't even hold, then feel free- but don't portray them as my view.

Your idea that learning lots of pieces has a chance of doing nothing is IDIOCY in my mind and every other teacher professional I have come across even world famous ones.

As for the rest, as hominem away if you feel you gain anything from that. Have fun with it, but I bid you goodbye.

You know your favorite words? Strawman and ad hominem, lol. So boring, and pretends to be intelligent where it is not.

[j_menz]

Primates in general.

Even retired primates...?

[nyiregyhazi]

Your idea that learning lots of pieces has a chance of doing nothing is IDIOCY in my mind and every other teacher professional I have come across even world famous ones.

Here's a pianist with a very wide repertoire:

Maybe she ought to just press on with all the rest of the Beethoven sonatas and see if throwing enough sh*t makes technique stick? I'll leave you to you views. Restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true, I'm afraid.

[lostinidlewonder]

Here's a pianist with a very wide repertoire:

Maybe she ought to just press on with all the rest of the Beethoven sonatas and see if throwing enough sh*t makes technique stick? I'll leave you to you views.

Stop spinning your rubbish and making fun of other pianists. Shame on you. Unless you are her teacher you have no idea how far her technique has come, if she is your student, shame on you again.

[nyiregyhazi]

Stop spinning your rubbish and making fun of other pianists. Shame on you. Unless you are her teacher you have no idea how far her technique has come, if she is your student, shame on you again.

See her reams of videos since then- notably the 2nd movement. I'm afraid quantity doesn't necessarily breed quality. Attention to quality does.

[lostinidlewonder]

See her reams of videos since then.

Your tangents are useless. Your youtube link is meaningless, taking this one pianist without even being her teacher or knowing her personally is rude and you have no idea about her musical journey, so you should take this advice to shut the hell up.

[nyiregyhazi]

Your tangents are useless. Your youtube link is meaningless, taking this one pianist without even being her teacher or knowing her personally is rude and you have no idea about her musical journey, so you should take this advice to shut the hell up.

Something that disproves something that has been falsely portrayed as a universal rule (in this case, your claim that playing loads of music is the route to get quality technique) is known as a "counter-example"- not a "tangent".

[lostinidlewonder]

Something that disproves something that has been falsely portrayed as a universal rule (in this case, your claim that playing loads of music is the way to get technique) is known as a "counter-example"- not a "tangent".

You have NO IDEA how far this lady has come, you have no idea about her actually musical journey to use her playing as any evidence at all. You think she should be playing like the top concert pianists in the world or that if she wanted to play a Beethoven she should only do so if she can play it professionally? Not everyone's music journey is the same, as a teacher I would think you would know this very well, looks like you dont.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm afraid quantity doesn't necessarily breed quality. Attention to quality does.

Ok you pay all the attention you like on one piece and become a master lol. QUALITY AND QUANTITY and Quantity is much more important than quality by comparison. Someone who has mastered 3 pieces to expert level will play AND LEARN (very important its not all about playing) worse than someone who plays 100 pieces at an average level.

[nyiregyhazi]

You have NO IDEA how far this lady has come, you have no idea about her actually musical journey to use her playing as any evidence at all. You think she should be playing like the top concert pianists in the world or that if she wanted to play a Beethoven she should only do so if she can play it professionally? Not everyone's music journey is the same, as a teacher I would think you would know this very well, looks like you dont.

That's fine for her. The problem is you only made one rule for all. I used to play in the same approximate way she did, when I was a teenager- playing tonnes of repertoire without attention to quality of detail. It didn't give me technique- so apologies for aspiring to more than butchering my way through loads repertoire, as I did at that stage of my life. If she enjoys what she does that's fine by me. But if you think tearing through loads of pieces works for more professional technique, you've missed the point and need to open your eyes. Quality dictates whether quantity is beneficial.

[j_menz]

Ahh... page four looms nigh.