Hello friends!,
my 4th and 5th fingers are too slow...(right hand) - 1st,2nd,3rd are good, they can play, what i want, but these fingers are for me BIG problem :-). Dont you know any exercises for "faster" fingers ?
Now, lifting the fingers high in order to gain speed, is a complete waste of time. Sorry, but it is. You need more agility, rather than strength. If you imagine yourself walking, and want to walk faster, do you rise your knees and legs higher? No! There we go.
[rant mode on]
Your analogue doesn't work maitea and is not conclusive evidence that finger lifting is necessarily harmful or a "waste of time". It may be something this particular student is not served with right now, but you should be careful with generalisations. As a matter of fact, sprinters do high-knee-lifting exercises to isolate certain steps in the process of running and to increase general performance, and they do that quite a lot.
As far as piano playing is concerned, Grigory Sokolov lifts his fingers very much indeed and even during performance. Cyprien Katsaris (a real acrobat on the piano) recommends it regularly in his masterclasses on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/PianoVirtuosity/videos?query=masterclass). The point is that you don't do this to "gain strength". It is a very difficult exercise in coordination and in relaxing muscles that are NOT used. You don't "hit" the keys down; the fingers rather "fall" or gently swing into the key with virtually no physical force.
[rant mode off]
Paul
Now, in piano playing, to play runs, we don't need to cover big leaps (as in running), we just need to play the consecutive note at a given(-fast) time, then the next etc.
For that reason, rising your fingers, increase the amount of effort and slows you down and it is for the purpose of running itself ineffectice. Maybe in a certain passage, you prefer the sound or the articulation you create with high fingers? That's ok. And maybe some people have great runs with high fingers, but you don't run because of it, more, you probably run fast with high fingers despite it.
I found The Art of Piano Playing by G. Kochevitsky, https://www.amazon.com/Art-Piano-Playing-George-Kochevitsky/dp/0874870682 a great read, which covers many of the pedagogical practices in piano technique through history. Not everyone had it right.
In the central nervous system, reciprocal relations exist between flexors (bending muscles) and extensors (straightening muscles). The intense excitation of flexors will call forth intense inhibition of extensors, and vice versa. Since the inhibitory process is weaker than the process of excitation, a slight raising of the fingers (intense excitation of extensors) before their descent into the keys appears to be a valuable means for strengthening weak inhibition of flexors. The tendency to rush, to accelerate passages is observed mostly among students who are not used to raising their fingers while practicing. Now we see one more reason for the requirement of raising fingers in slow practicing.
Not sure why you get so defensive.
a "slight" rising of the fingers! not high fingers
I don't wish to intrude on the conversation, but I think I can cast a different view perhaps.
In my opinions, "high fingers" is really a misnomer.
What we really want in training i.e. practicing, is greater range of motion.
So "high finger" playing really does not do justice to the elements involved in real training, and is but a small part of the whole, IMHO.
One doesn't really need to practice for speed.
their distorted view.
Indeed. It is mostly people who try to acquire "technique" (mechanics), thereby neglecting the musical sound image, that get into trouble. Strictly physical exercises are necessary SOMETIMES as a form of therapy, but I recommend doing them mostly away from the instrument.
Indeed. No amount of training will make the individual fingers faster than they already were at birth. A clear sound-movement image, convenience and control; that's all we should strive for; the rest is for nature to take care of and we should never force this development.
and Taubmanites do the same for the finger-lifting thing, often adding pseudo-scientific talk to support their distorted view.
Interesting that you would say that because this is my experience as well. Trying to do "exercise" on the piano only causes me more tensions. It seems that I get best results by doing any mechanical exercise away from the piano and concentrate on sound production while at the piano.
I always told you you were a genius colleague of mine, but you never believe me. ;D
Which is an odd perspective considering how blatantly Edna demonstrates raised fingers throughout the rotation lecture.
Action and Reaction in Piano Technique 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRv4tzdXo-Y).
I didnt watch it through yet, - My gut reaction is that his ideas might change a little if he lowered his piano bench by an inch or so.
The most extreme viewpoint against the "finger school" I have seen is by J Michael O'Reilly from Dublin.
Scales!
Nothing is better than scales. (My opinion)
Playing fluent scales is not the cause of good technique; it is the RESULT.
Paul
[/quote
The man wishes to strengthen his 4th and 5th finger, and gain speed for playing solo and in general. I can't think of anything better to do then scales.
The man wishes to strengthen his 4th and 5th finger, and gain speed for playing solo and in general. I can't think of anything better to do then scales.
Hello friends!,
i would like to ask... I want to play faster songs, but u know, the problem are my fingers... (surprisingly). I have been playing the piano 1 year, BUT I played the keyboard 3 years...(keyboards and piano are different musical intruments... who dont try, he cannot know, what i am talking about.). The problem is, if i wanted to play faster song - I mean, keyboard solo for example or faster piano song, my 4th and 5th fingers are too slow...(right hand) - 1st,2nd,3rd are good, they can play, what i want, but these fingers are for me BIG problem :-). Dont you know any exercises for "faster" fingers ? I got notes "School of velocity" ... but here is problem, that i havent any hope to play this in the written tempo... so, i must play it very very slow... Can you give me some advices ?
If you know exerciSes for fingers, where I dont need piano or something that :-D (In the school for exemple :D)
Thank you so much !
Rather than thinking of your 4th and 5th fingers as too slow or too weak compared to 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, fingers just think of your fingers as having different capabilities that need to be coordinated. You will never make your 4th and 5th fingers as strong as your other fingers, but you can make them coordinated.
Having purchased the Taubman technique videos, I must say that I concur with those who say lifting the fingers as high as possible is not only a waste of energy, but has the potential of causing injury. Much of the movement should originate in the forearm first, then wrist and last the fingers.
I haven't seen Taubman videos, but saying that the movement originates in the forearm, sounds like a dangerous notion to me.
And to have the adequate technical plasticity, i believe you must have the sound idea first, not the other way round...what do you think?
Our local scientist Nyiregyhazi will most likely stress that ears alone is not enough; one also needs a good image of 1) what causes tone, 2) exactly how much it takes to produce this or that tone quality, and 3) in what direction the key should be moved. For example not straight downward but slightly diagonally forward into the key tends to give much more control, etc.
I hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across.
...If you see through the "finger-school-is-always-bad" spirit of the cult-like clips..
2. Practice your scales and arpeggios... in staccato. Use a particular type of staccato: raise your entire arm before pressing the key and try to get as fat, ugly, and jarring a sound as you can.
Some other tips
1. Learn all 30 Inventions and Sinfonias, BWV 772-801. I am serious. Granted, each pieces are usually 1~2 minutes long, maximum 4~5. Make sure to be immaculately articulate when you play these; otherwise, you defeat the purpose of learning these pieces.
2. Practice your scales and arpeggios... in staccato. Use a particular type of staccato: raise your entire arm before pressing the key and try to get as fat, ugly, and jarring a sound as you can.
Bach is always great! No question, but if there are unaddressed motoric issues, tension etc, that won't solve the problem by itself. Though always a better option than drilling excercises with no musical purpuse!(though again, these might be very helpful sometimes..! it just depends!) I'm fascinated by how we go on an on in this thread! Like pianists :D relentless Night night
Paul
I think "N" has moved beyond the "School of Poking"... (I will affectionately refer to him as "N", not unlike the master inventor engineer of spy weaponry in the James Bond movies and books - "Q".)
In reading N's recent ideas, it seems to me he has arrived -- by applying judicious use of Newtonian Physics and Laws of Gravity in addition to a great deal of thought and experimentation -- that the hand/fingers "natural" basic movement is "to grasp", and that "pulling" the key down as opposed to "pushing" it down -- (or "poking" it for such effects as portamento etc) is the "right way" to proceed.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he no longer believes that using the extensors in combination with flexors provides an effective playing mechanism.
All of the power in playing happens as a result of downward/inward movements as a result of finger/hand/arm in appropriate combination. Largely this is a result of the flexors as the initiators of movement with the various other hand and arm muscles helping.
There is no doubt that the extensors play a role in shaping the hand and reading fingers/hand for playing. But I would say that's their primary role (extensors) since they obviously pull the finger the wrong direction with limited range of motion.
That's just very basic and obvious, is it not?
I would imagine you can spot what you're talking about in her playing as a discussion reference if you look closely enough
Ideally, in the concert I only think about music, and the acquired know-how comes with me without having to think of it.
N:
I don't think I can successfully go through this issue with you on a point by point basis.
There is always another wrinkle to explore or disagree with.
There is no doubt, that your approach is considerably more "scientific" than mine, and in a debate I'd offer little challenge to you on this basis. So I'm sure I probably make some errors when attempting to explain piano mechanics beyond a certain basic point.
The only reason I ever became interested in the physiology of piano playing was due to injury I inflicted on myself long ago, due to trying to follow the edicts of one or some of the piano "schools" i.e. weight school, high finger school, etc.
Instead of getting me closer to what I did well and normally when I didn't listen to others -- thinking they knew more about me than I did -- all of the investigation into piano physiology took me much further away and became confusing and overwhelming.
Post #17 gives you a good idea of my approach which is quite different from yours.
So while you find it instructive to have a close relationship with the science of movements involved in piano playing, I really do not beyond a certain level of curiosity that pertains to practical information.
I do not think it is humanly possible to have the awareness of what happens in a literal, scientific way in order to describe, think about, and absorb what happens "on the fly" in the art of piano playing.
And for me, intellectualizing too much, takes me further away from feeling and sensing what I need to do physically to achieve the results I want.
I think this must be an issue of self-trust and a leap of faith to a degree. IOW to trust one's self enough to find one's way by experiment and intuition without having to know the unknowable.
I would bet money, you know more about this topic than probably most concert pianists -- the physiology and mechanics of playing -- and I would further bet that most really don't care.
And I would further wager that many do not want to know too much since they don't want to interfere with what they earned by hard work and intuition and the application of natural skills.
Please don't think I'm saying YOU think too much or are on a wrong path -- you're obviously on the pathway you need to be or else I don't think you'd be there.
Indeed, something like "lifting fingers" should be advised with great care and only under supervision of a very experienced teacher. Moreover, somebody like Sokolov just cannot be an example for anybody just because... he doesn't ask how to play piano.
The main reason for lifting fingers is accumulating an energy, which drops straight into the keybed and immediately gets dissipated right there. In other words, all the energy goes into the key and stops right there.
Yes, but there are some concert pianists that injured themselves and needed years of recovery (Fleisher), and a millions different cases. Also some concert pianists that maybe didn't know the "how", but when they start mentoring younger pianists, begin a process of re-learning to understand the problems their students go through etc. There are so many cases! One cannot generalize as to saying that concert pianists don't know what they do!
I DO think all pianists should have a basic/functional understanding of how their body works, and you are quite correct that Fleisher and many others destroyed themselves. Fleisher was from the "no pain no gain" school.
I'd be very interested to hear some more about the benefits of this approach. Thank you.Practicing something in staccato seems to be a "classic" method, along with dotted-rhythms, slow practicing, and such. I was just saying what has been said.
No offense, but you lost me on this one. Why not practice the scales "immaculately articulate" ?
I must say that I find it odd that you feel it's important to to know how the body works but not the basic mechanics of what makes for efficient energy transfer INTO THE PIANO KEY- in order to produce any level of tonal intensity without tension (or wastage of energy that goes into impact rather than sound).
Well, I'd find it odd too if that's what I'd meant!
You have a frustrating way of implying someone doesn't think something's important just because they don't say it, or otherwise think one statement is mutually exclusive with another.
Just because I'd say for instance, you have to cross the street to buy snacks at the convenience store on the other side, doesn't mean I'm proposing NOT looking both ways, or walking into oncoming traffic!
Of course the entire issue of piano mechanics desired end is to create the sound as efficiently as possible or necessary, without causing harm to the player.
I think we're beyond the point of having to constantly restate that 2 + 2= 4 when the discussion topic is algebra.
Practicing something in staccato seems to be a "classic" method, along with dotted-rhythms, slow practicing, and such. I was just saying what has been said.
Now, it seems that two of the most common roadblcoks to playing "fast" is that:
1. As much as you watch and guide your fingers into the correct keys, you do need some muscle memory, and establishing muscle memory must be done very deliberately and consciously.
2. People don't have enough gripping strength (as much as you thinking about using gravity and letting the mass of the bones help you (yeah, I'm a bone person), let's not forget that your muscles ARE engaged, after all).
Using a big, deliberate motion addresses #1. Trying to get "fat, ugly, jarring sound" out of the instrument addresses #2. How? By trying to get that sound, you will physically exert yourself on the keys... which gives you the much-needed workout.
Hmph, considering nyiregyhazi's points, let's add a few points:
About practicing "that" way...
1. The fingers should not be "stiff". Now, in my experience, when the word "stiff" is mentioned, people commonly think "straight and rigid". I haven't come across too many people who associate "rigid" with "curved but still stiff". Also, in my experience, talking about "slightly curved" best describes the natural curl that you get when you relax your fingers (i.e. completely straighten the fingers, then relax the fingers- that shape)
2. People who want to learn how to play "fast" like the OP... they seem to "not know where the fingers should move to" and/or "slip" after hitting a key somehow and/or sound seriously "messy" when they play a fast lick (in OP's case, it's the 4th and 5th messing him up). Now, practicing with lighter touches of staccato do not remedy this problem effectively for some reason, whereas practicing with heavier staccato does.
Oh, and another thing: One "workaround" to the 4-5 problem is to not utilize the 4-5 sequence where you can help it. Also, maintaining curvature helps maintain control: even Horowitz the Straight Fingers curved his fingers when he played a fast Mozart lick.
...but the action that moved the key was usually to lengthen that back out- ie the opposite of curving
If I understand you correctly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.
If you are saying that from a curved position, the finger "flicks outward" toward the fall board as the action that moves the key DOWNWARD... this makes no sense whatsoever.
This would mean -- as I understand it -- that you'd be using the extensors as the primary finger mover in a very weak non-grasping movement.
Either that, or the finger "splays outward" as you pull the key down with the flexors.
Surely, either of these interpretations cannot be what you mean!
If I understand you correctly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.
Indeed, - I don't honestly expect that N's ideas are wrong.. I suspect he is almost undoubtedly doing what I or you do also.. but that he explains the ideas in a completely different way - a way that I find FAR too detailed and destructive to effective playing/learning.. but I wonder if that is because its written. Perhaps if N was to directly observe my playing in person and offer advice there I would have a totally different perspective.
I rather agree with the idea that if you purely flex your finger will slip on the key, the part extension of the PIP/DIP joints resolves this, which I think N does consciously.. personally I just adjust slightly subconsciously, either by having a certain freedom (or lack of conscious effort) in those joints - and through subtle adjustments of the arm forward and backward.. which is done totally by feel. If it is brought into the conscious calculated realm it completely stops functioning altogether and causes problems...
I rather don't find the need to explain so mechanically either, with the muscles names etc. or scientific reasoning (though I accept that for some people it makes sense that way) - usually its as simple as "observe the feeling of resistance if you move in this way or that way - find the path where the resistance is less or none" ..and if necessary offer more direct instructions about what to adjust to find that.
The next thing that usually occurs in a student when going through this is collapsed distal joints, which can be resolved with a few balance exercises. So that the student learns to maintain the balanced curve of the finger without necessarily fixing it in place.. Alan Fraser's book was good for ideas on achieving that.
The way I've been taught to play (not when I was a child, but later) involved a a lot of listening (obvious) and a lot of "imagination", carrying the sound in my inner ear before the next interval. (Does this makes sense to you?) "judging the interval", "singing it", but obviously this is something that goes on internally, purely speaking the key has been played, and then you have the next. However, I find the sound changes drastically when listening that way, objectively the sound has a different projection.Now my questions is, do you have a "mechanical" way to explain this? Is there something "else" I'm doing that I'm not aware I am?
I rather don't find the need to explain so mechanically either, with the muscles names etc. or scientific reasoning (though I accept that for some people it makes sense that way) - usually its as simple as "observe the feeling of resistance if you move in this way or that way - find the path where the resistance is less or none" ..and if necessary offer more direct instructions about what to adjust to find that.. and this is only really entered into if there is an obvious problem with creating a desired sound.
This is a good but complicated question, I think!
Everything we do at the piano is ultimately -- if successful -- an illusion.
The piano is a percussive instrument. It is a series of felt hammers that strike strings to produce sounds.
Once the key is played the hammer is catapulted towards the string -- and we only have a very small fraction of a second in which we are in control of the speed with which we send the hammer on its way.
And now we are onto the next note, and the next, and next and so on repeating this basic mechanical task.
How then do we create a smooth crescendo for instance?
We can't. Its not possible like a violinist can or a singer can with a continuous stream of breath across vocal chords.
All we can do is play each note somewhat louder than the next in a measured planned way to create the illusion of a continuous crescendo that "fools" the ear of the listener.
It is much like the idea of "motion pictures".
If we watch a movie, it is really NOT people on the screen showing emotion, or doing what ever they do.... it is the projection of individual still pictures taken with a camera and shown individually on the screen in quick succession one after the other thus creating an illusion for the audience of "real people living real lives."
This, for instance, is why playing a Bach Prelude and Fugue musically WITHOUT peddle is so difficult.
A compete illusion must be created from scratch for the listener, complete with crescendo, diminuendo, pulse, rhythm, terracing, voicing, etc., etc.
So I think its a fair analogy to say the pianist with each note is taking a "still musical picture"
visualized in her imagination and mechanically transmitted through the key to the hammer hitting the string, which -- when connected with the other "still musical pictures" of a piece of music, will result in a convincing illusion full of emotion, thought, metaphor and whatever else the artist has intended.
Therefore, I think we start with an artistic idea of a piece of music, be it metaphorical or emotion or sound, and "deconstruct" this image to its parts in order to bring it alive at the keyboard one thought out note at a time.
I don't know if I answered your question or even got close to it, but I hope this helps!
PS
I mentioned Bach because I really enjoyed listening to you on your site!
Right. The whole point of learning mechanics properly is so you DON'T have to constantly be thinking about them but use them as a tool to achieve the results you want.
Its somewhat like walking in that regard. We do not worry about walking mechanics, constantly refining them or changing them or isolating certain muscles, bones, etc... if we did, it would result in disaster.
No disaster for me. I cannot overstate how much more at ease my unconscious walking is from doing precisely that
In reference to the walking, I did actually find it pretty fascinating the use of the tai chi walking in "the craft of piano" and how it relates to legato playing.
And while I can walk pretty well, and see no need to improve on it.. if I needed to be able to walk in a way that I could accurately regulate the speed at which my feet landed, I may have to consider reworking my strut.
^probably wouldnt look at it from a technical/mechanical perspective though.. I'd still just use feel..
but 'feel' is something that you develop also, because you have to know what feel to look for. The mechanical break down can help with this when you are really stumped. You need to be able to figure out what it should feel like which can mean mechanically testing a lot of alternatives and deciding on the best one before then working exclusively by feel to maintain it.
Everyone has their journey.. personally I did have to go through that because I havent had a teacher since about 6th grade AMEB (as far as I pursued exams) - so to be frank, as far as tough repertoire I'm effectively self-taught..(excluding books and things ofcourse) and my teacher before then gave limited technical advice anyway.
However, coming out the other side of that (or atleast at some point in the middle perhaps) I am able to help people find what works without them having to do anywhere near the thinking I did, which I guess is mostly because it relates to the "how do you acquire a working technique?" question, as much as the "what is the right technique?" one.
Well it is the nature of science that you'll learn more if you start out with a logical hypothesis rather than just stab in the dark..
In regard to piano at least the problems occur when you cling to the hypothesis despite results (though perhaps that's a common flaw in a lot of experimental situations :P)
..I just don't think that its necessary for everyone to use high detail description of this nature. Not everyone operates with such scientific processes - some people are far better communicated to in different ways. If an adult physicist comes in for piano lessons this kind of thing is going to immediately help them.. If your student is a 6 yr old girl whose current life ambition is be a princess then you need a different approach to communicating this stuff.
In addition, even amongst people who will understand this stuff.. Everyone has there own perception of what if feels like to play, and limits to their perceptive ability (which can ofcourse be expanded). They also think about things in different ways..
One may associate a certain feeling with a certain mechanical description but in reality be doing quite the reverse. The anatomy/physiology is pretty complex, and we are certainly not born with an innate understanding that when the instructor says "flexor" it feels like this. You can explain a movement that is controlled by the flexors, but at first a student may also trigger other muscles that you don't mean, and they do not realise they are doing it.. nor can they isolate them either. This seems particularly evident with interossei - since they tend to be developed in pianists a great deal more than the average person.. so if you ask someone to perform an interossei based movement (such as the extension from triggering both the muscles either side of a finger) it may for some be a lot like trying to learn to walk again from scratch - they've almost never moved their fingers in that way.
..so at this point what do you do? you can't very well say "this is the appropriate path of key decent" - because the person can not move the right way to begin with.. they need to learn to control the hand muscles. - and if you give them an overholding exercise and just teach them how to perform the task without any strain to the hand the "direct path" bit just about resolves itself on the spot by 90%.
../ends poorly thought out ranting..
Recently I've found that getting students to compare pure fingers vs pure rotation and a conscious blend, in Alberti bass is usually overwhelming more effective than giving either generic instructions to practise rocking or to move from the fingers more
but all the mechanical principles I voice to any one in a lesson are very basic.
Its obviously situation dependent how you actually apply this - but this is a primary driving factor in correct application of parallel sets, as used for diagnosis of technical concerns.
1. Move from the finger alone
2. Move from the wrist alone
3. Move with arm alone
4. Move with rotation alone..
..conciously experiement with combinations of the movements..
Whether or not you like all his ideas, - I suspect you will identify flaws in the explanation of aspects of it.. Chang's entire description of how to do it is found in this section... It is infinitely more detailed and useful than the earlier part of his book that explains the use of chord attack and paralell set with a CEGE alberti figure -
https://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.III.7.2
I would've thought you'd read it before, but perhaps a re-read may help solidify something.. You won't like his use of the word fixed (neither do I) ..I rather ignore that part if I use them in a lesson because it just strikes me as a way to generate tension.. I just say something "ok now lets use fingers" or "think from the arm" ..or whatever is applicable, unless the students clearly requires further explanation and a visual demo is not adequate either.
You're posts here do not reflect that. They suggest extreme over use of mechanical detail that would totally knock out most students mentally.. But that is why I said earlier that I suspect I would have a totally different perspective on your thoughts if it was discussed in person at a piano.. I'm perfectly familiar with how easily things are misinterpreted when put in writing. This stuff simply requires demonstration and feedback.
Sure, I'm discussing the background here- not teaching. I like Chang for organisation of practise but I don't really feel he deals with technique, as such.
Elaborate description in words for physical movement is just silliness. It can only ever describe isolated situations and falls down as soon as you try to apply it in practice.
You must do things not correct so as you move closer to the correct movement you can FEEL the difference. You do not improve yourself by merely thinking about it. Much of our improvement comes through understanding how our own two hands feel while playing a given situation, not generalization on how you twist, turn, lift blah blah blah. You want to start describing movement in words then you must describe every single situation you come across or you are merely describing a situation which does not occur all the time and thus what you are saying is irrelevant to many people. Good luck, there's thousands of situations to describe and an huge variety of hands to consider.
The problem is on a message board this is not a classroom situation. We do not have specific situation to discuss and a particular hand to investigate. Thus any elaborations is just uselessness.
By all means ignore such uselessness and leave it to those who find the issues of interest to them.
The way I've been taught to play (not when I was a child, but later) involved a a lot of listening (obvious) and a lot of "imagination", carrying the sound in my inner ear before the next interval. (Does this makes sense to you?) "judging the interval", "singing it", but obviously this is something that goes on internally, purely speaking the key has been played, and then you have the next. However, I find the sound changes drastically when listening that way, objectively the sound has a different projection.Now my questions is, do you have a "mechanical" way to explain this? Is there something "else" I'm doing that I'm not aware I am?
A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!I love this quote.
P.S.: I think you would do yourself a great disservice by wishing to control consciously any of the things you already do so beautifully. A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!
Paul
A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!
I sometimes wonder if the whole secret is to minimise the thinking.
Our aim is to create autonomous pianists that use their mind and body in the best service to music, and that have the tools to overcome the difficulties they encounter. knowing how and why is essential. I've had to retrain (and I'm still learning everyday), I see all the knowledge I can have of mechanics, my own body, etc, is stored in my concious, and helps and guides the decisions I make during practice. There is the constant feedback of the sound and the feeling and awareness of the body. That transforms into a plasticity, where it is natural to be playing in a correct way, without necessarily thinking on it. But it is necessary to go through the previous process to really comprehend what we are doing.
Not providing them with all the tools, is like leaving them in the forest to find their way on their own. I prefer to give them a map!
To the first paragraph I wholeheartedly disagree. Not in the part that musicality or musical thinking is the way, but that lack of musicality is the cause of mechanical problems. In my personal case, that is really far from true.. I've never had problems to understand or feel music. Had no problems singing, have no obstacles conducting either.
However due to misguided teaching, I have been hampered during a huge number of years. Musical intention is not enough when the basic fundamentals of technique are lacking. And believe me it is very frustrating.
Of course I agree that the main focus should not be how to do those things but the music! By ALL means!!! I'm so not a technically orientated person, but of course, there are times when those focuses have to shift to adapt to the needs of each one..
Just a curiosity, are you Russian? Your English is perfect! and another curiosity (sorry, I'm gossiping) you wrote you were self taught, how did you come to where you are now? I mean.. give me some biography to read! :)
Hello, Guys, HAVE YOU SLEPT AT ALL? It's taken me forever to go through all posts!
I hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across. Which is perhaps in part caused by this common assumption that you can learn everything they have to offer by watching their videos once or twice..
..and in most cases I suspect, not delving much further than the rotation video which is a whopping 10 percent of what the DVD's offer.
For one, (whether correct or not) Edna Golandsky (the presenter) says very plainly in the videos that the fingers are lifted through the support of the forearms action (which is in the end very small), despite the finger lift remaining visually prominent in her technique.
In addition to that, she talks about how rotation functions to free the arm, and that initially the taubman school (perhaps just dorothy's private tuition) involved an instruction along the lines of "think from the fingers, allow the forearm to come along" however, this was found to be ineffective in many cases - students remained with the rigid arm and lifted fingers which is the action that leads to severe strain on the fingers/hand. Because this was not working, she adopted a "think from the forearm" approach to teaching students to free up their arm.
The larger rotation actions, and the use of double rotations is plainly insane if done wrong.. however, they directly stress that the "preperatory motion" and the "playing motion" must be felt as one overall motion. This is then also adjusted in the "minimising rotation" part of the explanation where they discuss the sense of balance and stability over a key, and the rotation in combination with another movement that they devote an entire lecture video to acts as a way to freely transition between keys, more so that it necessarily is an active playing motion - especially in the case of active/passive rotation.. They focus on being free between notes, and moving with tiny arm/hand/finger motions (ones besides rotation) from key bottom to key bottom to properly reduce this overdone problematic rotation that functions only as part of the technique in the end.
The rotation motion (even when minimised) finds itself in quite the pickle if you fail to properly utilise the in/out, walking hand arm, and shaping motions. Failure to do anyone of these will cause significant problems in advanced repertoire.
The videos represent a detailed nuts and bolts analysis of what is happening in a pianists technique. It is absolutely not meant for someone who lacks technique to watch and then totally overhaul their technique by themselves. They say this plainly. The videos are not even presented as lessons to the viewer. They are recordings of live lectures that are aimed at teachers, and advanced or injured pianists.. they present a method for diagnosis, how to figure out why you have a problem - if you have a problem - and EVERY person there was getting in person lessons daily for 2 weeks, that address their specific weaknesses. Its possible that many of them did not do the rotation exercise at all because their problems were elsewhere.. after all, she opens with "Don't go adjusting your technique based on this lecture without consulting a teacher".
.....
I might add to this also, that any experienced teacher knows that you can't necessarily solve the same problem with the exact same explanation every time. Each different student needs to be guided and find their method and/or understanding of what works to achieve a desired sound.
This is strongly stressed in these videos, that they are GUIDING. - they talk about students who have the wrong idea about how to learn expecting the teacher to tell them if they have got it right based on a visual analysis.. When in reality they are directing you toward a FEELING of how to play. The student will know when its right, because the playing will become easy.. if you're doing something from taubman and you're not experiencing ease of playing then you're not doing what they intended.
Either you're interpretation of their intent needs refining, or their explanation is just not right for you at all.
I think they're an invaluable tool.[videos]
I hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across.
I didn't think I deserved the bashing, either.
I thought ajspiano was talking about "Taubman bashing" in general (there really wasn't any in this topic as far as I'm concerned)
Paul
I haven't seen Taubman videos, but saying that the movement originates in the forearm, sounds like a dangerous notion to me
I was refering to the below quote, and generally as well - there is a bit of a theme here (the forum in general) of ill informed judgement of the taubman videos.
Personally, I HATE that artsy metaphor stuff, e.g.: "the hands should be like little birds flapping their way toward heaven with grace and soaring". Also as bad is the "spiritual alignment with the universe" stuff.
Personally, I HATE that artsy metaphor stuff, e.g.: "the hands should be like little birds flapping their way toward heaven with grace and soaring".
Of course, - I suspect you may find that some of us live in quite different time zones to you.
Ajspiano! Is there less sense of humour as you go along the time zones? ;) just kidding :)
"Bashing" was too strong a word.. since the poster stated having not watched the videos.
I was refering to the below quote, and generally as well - there is a bit of a theme here (the forum in general) of ill informed judgement of the taubman videos.
Actually, its probably just ill-informed comment on piano technique generally (not taubman specific)
Ajspiano! Is there less sense of humour as you go along the time zones?Probably, at least in the case where we fail to sleep the night before, which may have been why I responded like that. I wasn't having a go at you by the way.. not about this or the taubman stuff. It was just your comment that triggered my thought process.
The videos represent a detailed nuts and bolts analysis of what is happening in a pianists technique. It is absolutely not meant for someone who lacks technique to watch and then totally overhaul their technique by themselves. They say this plainly. The videos are not even presented as lessons to the viewer. They are recordings of live lectures that are aimed at teachers, and advanced or injured pianists.. they present a method for diagnosis, how to figure out why you have a problem - if you have a problem - and EVERY person there was getting in person lessons daily for 2 weeks, that address their specific weaknesses. Its possible that many of them did not do the rotation exercise at all because their problems were elsewhere.. after all, she opens with "Don't go adjusting your technique based on this lecture without consulting a teacher".
if you're doing something from taubman and you're not experiencing ease of playing then you're not doing what they intended.
The videos represent a detailed nuts and bolts analysis of what is happening in a pianists technique. It is absolutely not meant for someone who lacks technique to watch and then totally overhaul their technique by themselves. They say this plainly. The videos are not even presented as lessons to the viewer. They are recordings of live lectures that are aimed at teachers, and advanced or injured pianists.. they present a method for diagnosis, how to figure out why you have a problem - if you have a problem - and EVERY person there was getting in person lessons daily for 2 weeks, that address their specific weaknesses. Its possible that many of them did not do the rotation exercise at all because their problems were elsewhere.. after all, she opens with "Don't go adjusting your technique based on this lecture without consulting a teacher".This makes very good sense, it completes the picture when working on and discussing technique. It also puts the lecture into perspective and warns observers not to simply agree with it without testing it themselves. You can discuss technique in generalizations but if you do not have a teacher to go through it with your own hands in a given piece then it wont complete the picture. The discussion may open new perspectives but without testing it out in a guided manner which relates to your own personal situation it will prove useless.
This makes very good sense, it completes the picture when working on and discussing technique. It also puts the lecture into perspective and warns observers not to simply agree with it without testing it themselves. You can discuss technique in generalizations but if you do not have a teacher to go through it with your own hands in a given piece then it wont complete the picture. The discussion may open new perspectives but without testing it out in a guided manner which relates to your own personal situation it will prove useless.
Since this lecture is aimed at teachers it is assumed that they have experience with many different hands and many different fingers, thus what is discussed will make sense with certain students. If you are not a teacher and are just considering yourself you may find a lot of what is discussed is of no relevance to yourself (unless you are certainly a pianist with injuries from bad technique).
With many responses online about technique and the mechanics of playing some think that you can skip the personal assessment part which requires observation of your own two hands and a given piece of music and that elaborate generalized description without specific example is enough. If they notice that this is an essential part to the learning process they might say a lot less because they will realise what they say is useless and irrelevant to most people, especially when attempting to go into details about technique without precise musical example and particular hand.
The description above is inconsistent with itself.
Obviously one on one lessons with a good teacher pay off, but there's a fundamental contradiction here. People teach differently, just as hands are different. Why is it okay to give a teacher lectures and then expect them to know how to put the principles into teaching (regardless of what pianistic schooling they had themself and what approaches they currently use) but it's not okay to learn them and use them on yourself? Arguably, it ought to take even deeper understanding of the techniques to use them on others than on yourself. If a person can't self diagnose by filming themself, how do they have a hope in hell of giving the right diagnosis and advice to a student? It doesn't make any sense at all to me that teachers can use these things with impunity, just because they are already a teacher, whereas students (who may be a good deal more advanced than plenty of teachers) would be expected to misunderstand. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance behind the explanations. Supposedly I might harm myself if I use their methods on myself, yet it's fine if I want to go ahead and use them to rebuild the technique of my students? How is that meant to add up?
I am not saying that having a degree in teaching makes one a better teacher than someone who is naturally gifted in this field. But in general research shows that better educated teachers tend to bring better results. Although arts and math may be a bit different, the teaching and learning processes have similarities.
Yes and no. The problem with the art of piano playing is that there is virtually no objective evidence present for unification. Too many people with different bodies, different coordination, etc.
I don't really disagree with you, but isn't it the same with sports? Still we (well here at least) expect a teacher to have teacher's education to teach sports...then again sports teachers that I had were mostly horrible so I guess you must be right :)
A lot of money has been invested into sports research. There are also VERY strict rules for who is allowed to teach. Still, there are only a handful of VERY good trainers. If good piano playing were an important asset to win wars, no doubt in my mind governments would start investing hugely and immediately... ;)
I actually think that if every citizen was expected to play music at some level, not only would they be more intelligent in general but there would be less interest to create havoc and wars...
I don't want to go too far off-topic, but observing the holy wars on the subject of how to move a key on different piano forums would suggest otherwise... ;DI stand corrected :)
Why is it okay to give a teacher lectures and then expect them to know how to put the principles into teaching (regardless of what pianistic schooling they had themself and what approaches they currently use) but it's not okay to learn them and use them on yourself?This is quite simple, teachers have the facility to use lectures and see how it relates to large network of students that they teach. It is a misconception to think that teachers teach solely from a particular school of thought, rather, effective teachers use concepts from many places to aid our overall teaching. It is not like learning different languages, all teaching methods are related to one another in some form this is common knowledge for those experienced in teaching.
Arguably, it ought to take even deeper understanding of the techniques to use them on others than on yourself.I disagree, I have been to hundreds of lectures on music, I have listened to professors who do not play piano talk about how to learn music and I completely understand them and the techniques they may use to learn music. Likewise I have listened to a huge number of lectures which teach piano from different perspectives, just because I might not study what they are talking about in detail before hand doesn't mean I don't understand how to apply their teachings. In fact I can instantly relate what they are talking about to particular instances that I may come across in the hundreds of piano students that I have taught. Again, quite a simple situation to understand.
If a person can't self diagnose by filming themself, how do they have a hope in hell of giving the right diagnosis and advice to a student?Filming has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't make any sense at all to me that teachers can use these things with impunity, just because they are already a teacher, whereas students (who may be a good deal more advanced than plenty of teachers) would be expected to misunderstand.Maybe because you are just speaking for yourself your experience in discussions with other teachers is limited and thus you are confused.
There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance behind the explanations.Well we cannot argue about your opinion.
Supposedly I might harm myself if I use their methods on myself, yet it's fine if I want to go ahead and use them to rebuild the technique of my students? How is that meant to add up?You might have to do some work on your own, no one here can teach you that.
there's way more disparity in teaching schools than human handsI don't see the point in trying to guess which has more variation.
Hands are much the same in all but details.If one explores what the "details" are they may see how various hands actually are.
Teaching approaches are riddled with opposing stances- not basically all the same.Can you please give some SPECIFIC examples of two schools teaching the same issue but with totally different stances with zero similarity?
It goes without saying that good teachers should be insightful and competent, but that's both idealism rather than typical reality and not anything that has been brought into question.But at least proper teachers should be able to understand these lectures without confusion. Just because there are lesser teachers who might be confused doesn't reduce the value or usefulness of these lectures.
If a teacher can learn how to teach unfamiliar techniques to others based on a, mere checklist from a dvd,They would instead use a checklist of all the techniques they are familiar in teaching to understand it.
why can they not film themself and apply the same means of diagnosis and prescription?Liszt was unable to film himself yet he was an exceptional teacher and broke new grounds in piano technique. You do not need to film yourself.
Seeing as the taubman approach bills itself as different and requiring special insights, the fact someone has been teaching piano from another viewpoint does not mean they will know how to use the techniques- or understand when they are likely to be useful/harmful.I disagree, with knowledge of many piano teaching techniques they are more capable to understand if they are applying new concepts accurately or not. Experience base is a vital tool not only with learning new pieces but also the area of teaching music itself.
Either it's safe for students to teach themself from the dvds, or it's potentially dangerous for teachers to attempt to use the materials on students.I agree that it can be very dangerous for some unwary or inexperienced teachers and almost always dangerous for students. However with lectures you do not "dumb" down or go into vast elaborations trying to make everyone understand. If you have a large experience base of teaching techniques this is unnecessary. If the lectures try to be a stand alone to teach the inexperienced, then this is a different matter and I don't think any book or video or class room lecture can cover it without looking at a given piece of music and a given type of hand.
Even a teacher who is widely schooled in diverse approaches will see the ideas from his own point of view- not from the inside knowledge that taubman teachers claim. the deep inner workings and means for fine tuning are no more likely to be appreciated by an experienced teacher than a moderately advanced student- as by nature the method bills itself as being a different way of thinking, compared to regular methods.A teacher knows how to teach music to a huge variety of students. A student only knows themselves. Thus a teacher is much better equipped to understand these video lectures.
If one explores what the "details" are they may see how various hands actually are.
Can you please give some SPECIFIC examples of two schools teaching the same issue but with totally different stances with zero similarity?
But at least proper teachers should be able to understand these lectures without confusion. Just because there are lesser teachers who might be confused doesn't reduce the value or usefulness of these lectures.
Liszt was unable to film himself yet he was an exceptional teacher and broke new grounds in piano technique. You do not need to film yourself.
I disagree, with knowledge of many piano teaching techniques they are more capable to understand if they are applying new concepts accurately or not. Experience base is a vital tool not only with learning new pieces but also the area of teaching music itself.
If you have a large experience base of teaching techniques this is unnecessary.
A teacher knows how to teach music to a huge variety of students. A student only knows themselves. Thus a teacher is much better equipped to understand these video lectures.
Of course. Many methods say tone come from dropping the weight of the arm with no finger movement whereas others say the fingers should produce all the movement. Have you hoenstly never encountered such common contradictions? How many hands have the thumbs on the opposite side?This is not a specific situation though. I was looking for a particular piece, a particular bar and commentary from both schools on how to execute that particular situation. It is easy to put generalize comments into contrast because there is no real examples to really test them.
I didn't say you need to film yourself. I said that if a person can supposedly diagnose and prescribe from the mere visual exterior of the student (based on watching a lecture), they can do the very same to themself if they watch the visual exterior of their playing. Both situations are equally useful or equally useless, whichever the case should be.How else can you tell if a student is technically capable if you do not visually observe them? What are you trying to say about videoing?
But as a I stated, the Taubman school presents itself as a outside approach to regular experience.But what they say doesn't mean it has to be the truth and it isn't. Hanon says if you play all of his exercises you will be equipped to play a vast majority of the repertoire out there.
Again, idealism. If someone knows that much already, they barely need it. It's the ignorant that you need to worry about, not the smaller number of experienced and wise people.A trained teacher all have this experience though and if you are interested in your teaching profession you also go ahead and learn as much that is out there, you can never stop learning. If you become complacent then you might indeed become an inferior teacher. Although if what works works, then it might be useless to learn more, it all depends, but those who are interested in teaching would be interested in many subjects of teaching, that is a natural reaction.
More often than not a teacher is equally clueless about how to teach technique to a variety of hands. Those who need to understand technique the most are most likely to misunderstand it, by thinking that watching a DVD (that contains objectively inaccurate claims) will fix everything.I do not see any evidence of this in the industry. If a teacher is clueless about how to teach a variety of hands then they are not a proper teacher. Sure there are many people who are not trained but this irrelevant, the video lectures still are useful.
This is not a specific situation though. I was looking for a particular piece, a particular bar and commentary from both schools on how to execute that particular situation. It is easy to put generalize comments into contrast because there is no real examples to really test them.
How else can you tell if a student is technically capable if you do not visually observe them? What are you trying to say about videoing?
I do not see any evidence of this in the industry. If a teacher is clueless about how to teach a variety of hands then they are not a proper teacher.
? Take any example you like. How often have you heard those who preach arm-weight say to produce a fortissimo from within the hand (which is what I do for countless situations)? It doesn't need to be specific, when arm-weight methods are quite so consistent with their preaching.Give exact examples if it is so easy to compare the two different approaches and being totally different with zero similarities.
Literally nothing. You have not grasped my point still- which is that IF a teacher can pass on this advice via the mere external appearance of a studentI still don't understand what you are trying to say. We need to observe the student visually or as you say "external appearance of the student" when making judgement to what needs improvement technically.
(thanks to a lecture), they are equally equipped do the same via a video of themself.You mean make a video of yourself and use that to teach your student? It has already been pointed out that the lecture videos are more suited for teachers, so I still don't understand your point.
Either this shows that you can go ahead and do it easily on yourself just fine, or that teaching on the basis of a checklist is going to be very superficial (and hinge more on the teacher's knowledge/lack of, than on the method itself).Who ever talked about teaching from a checklist? If you add many methods to your awareness of teaching this helps you teach the many various students you may come across. Not all techniques will help everyone equally, certain people react better to things than others. If there was a single method that worked for everyone then it would already be well known as being the only source. The fact is that everyone has their own two hands and mind and personality to deal with. A teacher who teaches many variation of student would find it useful to also know a large variation of teaching methods. If that teacher prefers to specialize with one type then that is ok but there are teachers who are interested in the art of teaching and the many ways in which to approach it.
If you've never seen evidence of that, then you have a remarkably optimistic view of the ability of average teachers to train technique.I am not the kind of teacher who says most teachers are bad because I don't know most teachers but I do know a whole lot of professional ones and none of them are confused about teaching multiple hands.
Quote Give exact examples if it is so easy to compare the two different approaches and being totally different with zero similarities. This is plain silly. Choose any fortissimo chord in the piano repertoire. When arm-weight schools always preach stable fingers and tone-production with gravity for all loud playing (and when others believe that any fortissimo should be possible from the hand, with arm weight being only an option), to ask for a specific example is quite baffling. It's like wanting to know which particular factory a can of coca-cola came from. Find me an armweight teacher who has EVER suggested that a single FF chord is produced via finger movement (minus active armweight) and I might see your point. This is universal and does not require specifics- because EVERY FF chord can be used for example purposes. Pick whichever you like. Quote I still don't understand what you are trying to say. We need to observe the student visually or as you say "external appearance of the student" when making judgement to what needs improvement technically. I have not the slightest idea as to what point you are making or where I suggested otherwise. I'd appreciate a direct quote of anything I said that in any way contradicts the above statement. Please reread my point. I've been totally explicit already and see no value in repeating myself further. Quote You mean make a video of yourself and use that to teach your student? It has already been pointed out that the videos are more suited for teachers, so I still don't understand your point. We're referring to how the DVD supposedly tells teachers how to diagnose and prescribe. The method does not tell them to improvise their approach or to mix and match with other approaches they learned, with their own wisdom. Quote If you add many methods to your awareness of teaching this helps you teach the many various students you may come across. Not all techniques will help everyone equally, certain people react better to things than others. If there was a single method that worked for everyone then it would already be well known as being the only source. The fact is that everyone has their own two hands and mind and personality to deal with. A teacher who teaches many variation of student would find it useful to also know a large variation of teaching methods. If that teacher prefers to specialize with one type then that is ok but there are teachers who are interested in the art of teaching and the many ways in which to approach it. Again, who argued otherwise? You seem to be arguing about what is good in general teaching. I'm on a different page. I'm criticising what Taubman sets out on its own terms- not giving my beliefs on what makes for effective teaching in general. Quote I am not the kind of teacher who says most teachers are bad because I don't know most teachers but I do know a whole lot of professional ones and none of them are confused about teaching multiple hands. I'll agree to differ. |
If you cannot give specific examples then its ok, we can leave it there, I am not interested in generalizations which are too open to misinterpretation.
This is plain silly.
I have not the slightest idea as to what point you are making or where I suggested otherwise.If you are unable to be more clear that is ok, we can leave it there.
Please reread my point. I've been totally explicit already and see no value in repeating myself further.
We're referring to how the DVD supposedly tells teachers how to diagnose and prescribe. The method does not tell them to improvise their approach or to mix and match with other approaches they learned, with their own wisdom.Someone who is mindful with their teaching however will be able to use tools to suit them, not just mindlessly apply them.
Again, who argued otherwise?Good so long what I said is clear.
I'll agree to differ.That's fine, there is always two sides to a story but I rather not think negatively and thus put question to a very useful resource.
If you cannot give specific examples then its ok, we can leave it there, I am not interested in generalizations which are too open to misinterpretation.
Someone who is mindful with their teaching however will be able to use tools to suit them, not just mindlessly apply them.
I'm sorry but I do not see two schools of through being applied to a specific bar or phrase situation with explaination how teach would exactly go about challenging the situation. It is important to reference all comments to the actual source of their teaching manuals.
Every fortissimo chord in the repertoire is a specific example. What is hard to understand here? Take whatever one from Rachmaninoff's C sharp minor prelude, if that somehow adds something to a statement that encompasses EVERY loud chord already. Do you need know that a green mug is a mug, to know that it is green? To be specific is a tautology.
Ironically, this is the inverse of what Taubman preaches- with it's strict methodology and unwavering stances. They don't encourage teachers to use their own wisdom with ideas that fall outside of their methodology. I don't think you quite appreciate what you are trying to argue against, as you keep presenting points I agree with entirely, in the mistaken belief that they conflict with my view. I'm arguing against Taubman- ON THE TERMS IT SETS OUT, not presenting its arguments as being my personal belief system.Again it doesn't matter what a school of thought says, it can say whatever it likes about its method but a learned teacher will understand how to apply it under their own terms.
I'm sorry but I do not see two schools of through being applied to a specific bar or phrase situation with explaination how teach would exactly go about challenging the situation. It is important to reference all comments to the actual source of their teaching manuals.
I'm sorry but I do not see two schools of through being applied to a specific bar or phrase situation with explaination how teach would exactly go about challenging the situation. It is important to reference all comments to the actual source of their teaching manuals.
Again it doesn't matter what a school of thought says, it can say whatever it likes about its method but a learned teacher will understand how to apply it under their own terms.
I think requiring a specific chord, bar, or fragment in music goes too far. To see what N. means, please have a look atPersonally I do not see it as going too far myself and I have all the right to ask for specifics. If it is not given then I'll end my discussion. I don't deal with vagueness.
The Arm Weight Debate (https://alanfraser.net/2010/02/the-arm-weight-debate/) between Raymond Banning and Alan Fraser[/url].
Paul
Personally I do not see it as going too far myself and I have all the right to ask for specifics. If it is not given then I'll end my discussion. I don't deal with vagueness.
Personally I do not see it as going too far myself and I have all the right to ask for specifics. If it is not given then I'll end my discussion. I don't deal with vagueness.
The link also provide no specific piece under examination. They throw generalisations at pieces but never take a bar under the microscope. If they do that they may find they are not so different.
Giving details with one specific piece distracts attention from what N. is actually saying.
Paul
Giving details with one specific piece, bar or chord distracts attention from what N. is actually saying.You are welcome to that opinion. It however does not distract from what I would like to see one iota which is just as valuable in this discussion.
Paul
I'm sorry if you do not give me a specific example to study then it is vague. If it is all open and easy to determine then it should be easy to take one single phrase of specific music and analyze how each does it EXACTLY. My argument is that both are not 100% different with no similarities, this in turn highlights the fact that a teacher may learn many methods of teaching and be able to understand them because there is a connection between all of them.
All I asked for is that if it is so clear cut that they are totally different then it should be very simple to take a SPECIFIC example, a phrase of music and show how different they are and how they have no connection to each other. If you do not want to give an exact example and rather maintain generalisations then I don't mind at all, it is just very vague.
All I asked for is that if it is so clear cut that they are totally different then it should be very simple to take a SPECIFIC example, a phrase of music and show how different they are and how they have no connection to each other. If you do not want to give an exact example and rather maintain generalisations then I don't mind at all, it is just very vague.
There is no need to prove that they have similarities for several reasons. I know they both are talking about piano, the same instrument. They both are talking about the same physical body that deals with playing the piano. They might have a different spin on how to use their body exactly but each are still talking about the same subject. Thus they unavoidably are related to one another because they are both talking about the same subject.
I suggest that you look up the definition of vague.Why?
Stating that something holds true for EVERYTHING within a clearly defined set (eg. loud chords) is not vague but the polar opposite- ie explicit. I have been specific to the sheer width of applicability.It still doesn't say anything specific, no one plays a loud chord the same way all the time no matter what the context, it needs to have relevance to a passage of music or it is just very general and not very exacting. You need to know what comes before that loud chord and what comes after, this is very important. If you just talk about a single loud chord you are not saying anything at all.
Given how spectacularly naive a person would have to be to sincerely believe that there are no direct contradictions between different schools of teaching, do you seriously want to keep playing devil's advocate on this ridiculous issue?Arguments that they are totally different are unfounded for because none of them want to actually look into it in detail but rather argue generalized concepts. If you see a master of each school play a piece everyone will come into agreement that both are masterful and the movement is not so different. There might be subtle differences but the overall mechanism is similar. If it is not for specific situations then one has to question is the movement in one school TOTALLY absent from the other for other situations? You will find it is not.
If they are 100% different it needs to be proven. It is like saying, Geometry and Trigonometry are 100% different from each other, it is not true because they are on the same subject of Mathematics. y know.
The same can be said about what is discussed in the link I gave you a couple of posts earlier (reply # 143), but you rejected it right away.I did not reject it, I am just saying it does not satisfy my requirement to see a specific example with the two schools of thought describing how they would exactly do it. They instead only talk generally thus leaves it riddled with argument and not constructive specific observations of each others method or their own with a given contextual example.
Paul
I'll make a final response. Nobody said 100% different.Excellent then you realize that teachers may study many different methods and be able to relate it to other methods they have learned. Thus teachers will have the propensity not to be fooled when studying lectures of piano on video.
If it is not for specific situations then one has to question is the movement in one school TOTALLY absent from the other for other situations? You will find it is not.
I did not reject it, I am just saying it does not satisfy my requirement to see a specific example with the two schools of thought describing how they would exactly do it. They instead only talk generally thus leaves it riddled with argument and not constructive specific observations of each others method or their own with a given contextual example.
I don't ever "only support" with my fingers for loud chords. I always strive to move them- which many arm-weight teachers say not to do. I also regularly avoid any arm pressure whatsoever. That's the thing about opposites- they are mutually exclusive. There's no such thing as doing it both ways in a single situation.There are many different types of pianists and hands types. There is never a single way to do something and thus one may play something in many different ways and produce the same result. What is comfortable and effective for you might not be for someone else as teachers you need to be sensitive to those needs and thus never have the perception that there is only a single way to execute something.
One thing one should NEVER do in a discussion is assume that one's opponent is stupid. If you had read the debate in the link, you would have known that several pieces are mentioned specifically. ;)I don't know anyone here so I can't say if they are stupid or not.
Paul
They do not speak about specific bars, I did a search for it and saw nothing. They talk about general use of elements but put none of it into context with an actual phrase of music.
There are many different types of pianists and hands types. There is never a single way to do something and thus one may play something in many different ways and produce the same result. What is comfortable and effective for you might not be for someone else as teachers you need to be sensitive to those needs and thus never have the perception that there is only a single way to execute something.
Your are merely evading the real subject under discussion because you have no arguments. I'm out.I wanted specifics this link provided none of that, so it is interesting to read but doesn't satisfy my need. If they where serious about discussing technique they would also video tape their movements, how can you 100% describe technique in words? It is just not possible and extremely clumsy.
Paul
I refer you to the plethora of proceeding posts in which you argued otherwise. This is extremely silly....Well lets end it there then shall we?
Well lets end it there then shall we?
It does go to show that indeed schools in disagreement with one another do not argue in a precise way and rather discuss generalized concepts without looking at many specific situations. Proper investigation requires application of knowledge not just talking in theory.
I wanted specifics this link provided none of that, so it is interesting to read but doesn't satisfy my need. If they where serious about discussing technique they would also video tape their movements, how can you 100% describe technique in words? It is just not possible and extremely clumsy.
Do you also feel it's necessary to cite a specific chord in a specific piece of music, to prove that the piano is played with the hands rather than the feet? Funnily enough, widely applicable principles tend to be more useful for "application of knowledge" than singular examples from specific pieces.Citing a single specific chord is useless, I would like a phrase for context. A single chord on its own tells us nothing.
Citing a single specific chord is useless, I would like a phrase for context. A single chord on its own tells us nothing.
I think we've exposed quite how little interest you have in discussing piano technique.I asked for a specific example, I thought I was exhibiting interest. Nevertheless it is not my duty to make you think anything about me personally. Nothing I write is being personal but rather asking for information.
Either upload some videos or stop wasting the timeFor serious debate one would want to visually observe the technique being described because words are left too wide to interpretation. Discussion in words is totally fine but if it tries to be complete in its description without visual references it is thinking too much of itself. As you can see how difficult it is to even discuss a single phrase of music in context and juxtapose two schools of thoughts as to how to execute it.
The hypocrisy involved in that paragraph is off the radar...I'm sorry you feel that way.
A performer can never create a musical impression from the very first chord of a piece? I severely beg to differ. The very first chord of a great pianist's recital can be extremely revealing.It is only revealing because of what comes after it, alone it is meaningless.
It is only revealing because of what comes after it, alone it is meaningless.
A pianist can make a profound effect with the very first chord of the chopin first scherzo. A chord is nothing on it's own.These two sentences seem to be in contradiction.
Or perhaps you're sincerely saying you could not detect a worthy difference if I used some faeces to depress the chord, with no control over the voicing?No.
It's all very well realising that there's a big picture, but that doesn't nullify the role of detail. Musical intelligence involves both small scale issues and bigger scale ones.This is smokes and mirrors I feel. One chord still doesn't tell us anything, thus I also believe that any generalizations of schools of though on technique using a single chord to reveal their stance is also useless. We need musical context to understand what is being said.
These two sentences seem to be in contradiction.
No.
This is smokes and mirrors I feel. One chord still doesn't tell us anything, thus I also believe that any generalizations of schools of though on technique using a single chord to reveal their stance is also useless. We need musical context to understand what is being said.
Wow ok. I never heard of piano fecal technique.
A single chord is nothing if there is nothing to follow it.
Considering that doing a good job of the first chord of the first scherzo neither eradicates the chance to follow on not eradicates what effect that chord alone has on the listener, it's not nothing.No performer just plays the first chord and leaves it there. What follows important to finally allow the listener to understand the context and meaning. Without what follows the first chord will leave the person wondering what it is all about no matter how loud or soft it is played.
Do you sincerely believe that different pianists could not have a different effect on the listeners if they really could only play that one chord?I think it is unintelligent to discuss a single chord I'm afraid.
if so, you're badly underestimating what scope lies in a single chord.It is fine because that is only your opinion. A single chord is nothing if it has no context to anything else.
Horowitz and richter could terrify with that one chord.Do you have any recordings where one chord is all they do? It is because it is a part of an entire piece of music that it effects the listener.
You're beginning to sound like this is a second opinion, rather than one you have thought through with your own mind.Maybe you should not try to make guess about what other people are thinking and just deal with what is written.
I have already said one chord is useless. I am confident that it is unintelligent to waste time on looking at a single chord out of context to the music.
Well i am repeating it is useless to talk about one chord as much as your insistence to talk about it. I am afraid you are bias in understanding the emotion of a chord for a given piece because no piece is simply one chord and you know what comes after it.
What i say is 100% true because it is my own stance.
Holy Cow... are you guys arguing about the "arm weight" school again?I'm certainly not.
It is my own stance so unless you are me you cannot know if it is truly what I believe or not. Thus you must admit that my stance is 100% truely mine. Not that hard to understand.
Another straw man? I used a counterexample to disprove the idea that a lone chord cannot contain art. I don't doubt that you believe it, but am simply curious as to why you cannot see that the counter examples disprove it.I'm sorry my opinion is my opinion and is truly mine. There is no argument about it, I am 100% correct there.
BTW -- One note or one chord really proves nothing technically, since you can play it in any number of ways and produce similar sound results, though the mechanics used may or may not be feasible for more complex playing of real piano literature.
One out of seven talks about single notes. I wonder what that means.
Two out of seven talks about single instance notes. I wonder what that means.
The argument we were having was that from a single chord you can clearly define the contrasts between schools of thought when it comes to learning the piano. In fact a phrase of music is important to understand it. A snogs chord in a piece is meaningless if it has nothing to follow it, so how that first chord is payed must take into consideration the rest that follows. The first chord does not 100% set the entire emotion for the entire piece thus putting a huge amount of attention on a single chord out of context to an entire phrase seems unnecessary and very unintelligent.
The more you stress the lack of intelligence of your opponents, the more you discredit yourself. You seem to read diagonally and everything selectively and out of context. I tried to immitate Richter's first chord for the fun of it and I had to make certain physical adjustments to get exactly the same effect. How is that meaningless when one is in search of sound?Ok I'll say it again, talking about one chord to juxtapose two different schools of thought in piano is unintelligent. I am very confident to say this, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. My opinion will not be quashed even if you try to hold my reputation hostage. I don't care about personal issues, I want discussion that is intelligent to me, I will not discuss seriously something that is obviously stupid to me whether you or the queen likes it or not.
Paul
I want discussion that is intelligent to me
Discussing technique requires specific situations otherwise you are not really saying anything at all.
I asked to juxtapose two different schools of piano teaching together by using a specific phrase of music and defining the similarities and differences between the two. This will then highlight that a teacher certainly can learn many different piano methods via applying them to past methods they have learned before because ALL schools are related to each other. This makes DVD lectures very useful for teacher and they will not be fooled as to how to use such information. They then are more prepared to use this info and relate it to the hundreds of different students they have taught and are currently teaching compared to someone who is not a music educator.
But can you agree then that as soon as the artistic image of a piece changes, that the technique of execution also changes? Let's say you have been through the French school and you take a piece by Rachmaninov to a masterclass (or a couple of masterclasses even) by a Russian.
I'm not sure what you are asking.
I'm sorry I must also go now. I will respond when I return.
Now I play the same study, in the complete opposite way (with far more success). The fingers lead, they sing the intervals, and of course there is some sort of arm action behind it, but the hand is the main focus. In fact, even if the arm moves, lead by my fingers, it doesn't rotate as such, it is more of a lateral movement. There might be a slight circular motion, but is really internal. Difficul to explain in words. Sound is even, and has many possibilities as I have the means to shape the music.
I don't know how I didn't propel in the air! haha
(Probably arm weight school is misrepresented by this teacher, or not, I don't know, but that is what I had in my lesson).
Neuhaus would have disagreed with you on the one note - one chord subject. As a matter of fact, his system is based on the following:
1. Artistically valuable playing of one tone;
2. Artistically valuable playing of two, three, four, five tones;
3. Artistically valuable playing of all kinds of scales;
4. Artistically valuable playing of arpeggios and broken chords;
5. Artistically valuable playing of double notes;
6. Artistically valuable playing of all existing chords;
7. Artistically valuable implementation of "jumps" or "leaps".
The task of the "qualified listener" in this blind test will be to identify which player was NOT the professional.
I asked to juxtapose two different schools of piano teaching together by using a specific phrase of music and defining the similarities and differences between the two. This will then highlight that a teacher certainly can learn many different piano methods via applying them to past methods they have learned before because ALL schools are related to each other.
AAAAHHH! How fantastic he was! Paul, do you know if there are more recorded lectures somewhere apart from the few in youtube?
In bar 10 of the 1st movement of Beethoven's Sonata Op 11, does the 2nd mordant have E flat or E natural?
See attachment.