"Piano Power" good or bad book

[vakulchai]

I got this book somewhere. From reading the foreword and Introduction, it seems to be a good book. However, when I read the first Chapter, I am not really sure about it. Most of the contradictions the author had made are somewhat strange and outrage. What do you think? Should I continue reading the book?  I have read some book like "Piano Technique" By CC, With your own two hands" by Berstein, Fink's book, Sandor's Book, and off course Bernhard's,  Xvimbi's and others posts here. Most of them share very intersting ideas. But, this book has something different. (Judging from only reading the first chapter.)

Below, I post parts of the book I have read so far in case anyone would like to make comments for me about it.

Thank you
Vakulchai




Foreword

In Piano Power, Richard Prokop combines years of piano experience, medical id and common sense to dispel many of the common myths associated with .e development of piano technique. Through clear explanations of the anatomy and mechanics of the hand, he describes logical, timesaving practice methods to improve technique while avoiding injury.

Mr. Prokop explores the essential relationships between hand and finger anatomy, function, and piano technique. It would be hard for me to imagine any pianist, or health care professional involved in the care and treatment of piano-related hand problems, not being interested in this book.
It is my professional opinion, as a physician specializing in hand and wrist problems, that the information presented in Piano Power is invaluable to pianists of all levels.



Paul D. Fragner, M.D.
Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon
Hand and Wrist Specialist
Westchester Bone & Joint Associates
White Plains, New York

[vakulchai]

INTRODUCTION

At the age of eight, I began piano lessons at a well-known music school in New York City. I en¬joyed the piano and was considerably talented but did not take it seriously at first. Practicing classical music was not a priority in my life and often took a back seat to picking out popular songs by ear.

Time passed, and a deeper interest in music finally awakened within me during my sophomore year in high school. For the first time in my life I nebulously envisioned a career that somehow included the piano. After having grown eight inches in my freshman year, I suddenly had hands that could span an interval of an 11th on the keyboard. However, 1 was unaware of the extent of the liability that this huge span would represent in terms of my future technical development at the piano. I began practicing feverishly to make up for lost time. Lacking a reliable technical foundation, I would power my way through pieces on a wave of sheer emotion while masking my shortcomings with the aid of my dear friend, the sustain pedal. In the ensuing years, I sought help to improve my technique from a variety of teachers who were excellent musicians, but to no avail.

Thanks to the discoveries outlined in Piano Power, specific fingers that have thwarted my prog¬ress at the keyboard in the past, are finally improving. It strikes me as odd that out of the millions of people who attempt to play the piano, only a comparative handful succeed in their efforts. No less perplexing is the fact that over a thirty-seven year period, I have yet to meet a person who could logically explain piano technique to me in such a manner that my technical ability at the keyboard would continually improve as a result. Nor have I come across a book or article that explains the subject to my satisfaction.

Piano Power deals with fundamental problems encountered by pianists—problems that can per¬sist for the duration of one's life if not corrected—and provides unique and logical methods for solving them. Piano Power's clear and common sense approach will enable you to:

•   Identify the specific fingers on either hand that are not up to par.
•   Get beyond the technical plateau that you have reached.
•   Improve your technique while decreasing your practice time.
•   Improve your technique away from the keyboard.
•   Understand that technique is primarily a function of the extensor muscles.
•   Understand the relationship between technique and synchronization.
•   Avoid injury while practicing.
•   Save money and time by eliminating the guesswork usually associated with learning
   the piano.
•   Enjoy the piano more and more with each day that passes.

Piano Power does not guarantee that you will be the next great keyboard virtuoso of your gen¬eration. Nor is it a substitute for talent. Its intent is to:
•    Provide valuable information that will increase your freedom and comfort level at the keyboard.
•    Enable you to reach your own, individual potential, in less time.
•    Enhance whatever musical ability or talent you naturally possess.

Piano Power was originally written for dedicated pianists like myself, who after many years of playing are left frustrated by insufficient technical skills. What began as a simple book based on my own observations and experiences has developed into an elaborate thesis supported by scien¬tific facts and corroborated by a wide array of medical professionals with expertise in the field of kinesiology—the science of human motion. With this in mind, I am confident that Piano Power will be a boon to students, teachers and pianists of all levels for years to come. Piano Power is also a valuable resource for medical professionals with a limited understanding of the piano, who deal with piano-related injuries on a regular basis.

In writing Piano Power, I would have loved to wax poetic about the magical zone where pure creativity abides and where glimpses of timelessness thrill the imagination. However, these would be purely subjective utterances whose description would pale in comparison to the actual experiences. Instead, 1 have chosen to explore and comment on the more objective aspects of pi¬ano playing. A detailed analysis of the movements of the hand has enabled me to arrive at these important conclusions:

•    A powerful relationship exists' between the strength of the extensor muscles and the ease with which we are able to play at the keyboard.
•    The method of placing a muscle under tension for manageable periods of time— utilized by physical therapists and occupational therapists to enhance a patient's ability to perform a specific physical task with a minimum of stress—may be safely employed by pianists to improve their technical ability at the keyboard.

The manner in which information is presented in Piano Power was inspired by the writings of the ancient Greek geometer, Euclid. An initial theorem is presented and then validated with a proof. New theorems are then formulated based on the knowledge gained from prior theorems. Therefore, in order to gain a complete understanding of Piano Power, I urge you to read the chapters in the order in which they are presented.
I regret that the information contained within Piano Power was not available to me twenty years ago. My hope is that Piano Power will shed important new light on what has long been an ex¬tremely confounding and controversial subject

[vakulchai]

Chapter 1

THEOREMS

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that can be proved either "true" or "false" by a chain of reasoning. Two types of proofs employed by mathematicians are the Direct Proof and the Indi¬rect Proof:
•    A Direct Proof assumes that a theorem is true and then sets out to directly prove the truth of that theorem.

•    An Indirect Proof, on the other hand, assumes that a theorem is true. However, in the midst of the proof a contradiction to the theorem is found, thus nullifying the validity of he original theorem.

It is important to note that only ONE contradiction is needed to disprove any theorem, thus nulifying its validity. Additionally, a theorem that is considered to be true must hold for ALL cases.

Here is an example of a Direct Proof:

THEOREM:   TWO apples grouped together with another TWO apples results in a group of FOUR apples.
PROOF:    Take two apples and place them on a table. Do the same with two other apples. There are four apples when you count them all.
Here is an example of an Indirect Proof:

THEOREM:   TWO apples grouped together with THREE apples results in a group of FOUR apples.
PROOF:   Take two apples and group them with three other apples. Now count them. (Notice, we are in the midst of the proof.) In counting them we find that the sum is 5...a contradiction!

By contradicting the theorem, our conclusion is not necessarily that (2 + 3) apples equals 5 ap¬ples, but that (2 + 3) apples is not equal to 4 apples. Remember, we are concerned with proving or disproving the original theorem.

Up until a few years ago, I would routinely present my students with new theorems on technique on a fairly regular basis. However, the idea that I should be able to prove my theorems to them never entered my mind. I was continually seeking answers that made sense, and each time I made a new discovery I always managed to convince myself that my new idea was both logical and rational. Difficulty inevitably arose when I found (either weeks or months later) that my theorem could easily be contradicted. On many occasions, I was required to swallow my pride and start from scratch.

As piano teachers, we are placed in a unique position that may potentially influence the future of our students for years to come. When referring to the specific movements of the hand and fingers during a lesson, it is important that we provide our students with information that is scientifically accurate in terms of the principles of kinesiology (defined as the science of human motion). By relating proven facts instead of information that we feel to be true, we provide a valuable service to our students.

Following are a few of the important ideas and concepts that I am now able to relate to my stu¬dents based on the valuable information presented in this book:

•   Identify for the student the specific fingers on either hand that are not up to par.
•   Explain how to improve the ability of these particular fingers and how long it might take to bring the fingers to their full development.
•   Explain methods of practicing that optimize the student's time.
•  Explain the logic behind these practice methods.

[vakulchai]

Chapter 2

THEOREMS CONTRADICTED

Within the nonscientific world of the musician, theories are often confidently asserted without a shred of evidence to support them. Following are some of the theories that have gained acceptance in musical circles over the years. Perhaps we can find some contradictions.

THEOREM:   If you feel the music the technique will just follow.
PROOF:   There are many people who, for whatever reason, operate on a purely intellectual plane and do have trouble feeling things. However, a powerful emotional response to sound is no guarantee that a person's fingers will be capable of expressing those emotions. The inference here, is that the person proposing the theorem has reached a sublime level reserved for a select few, and that others have along way to go in developing their sensitivity to music. My favorite response to those who espouse this theorem is as follows: "If you feel the music so deeply, then turn your hands upside down with your palms facing upward and play the piece with the same facility as if you played normally. After all, you just have to feel the music. Let it just flow..." Another contradictory response: "Why can I sing or whistle this passage comfortably at the same time that I have difficulty executing it at the piano?" Not having or being in touch with feeling would prevent me from singing the passage well. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Sit higher.
PROOF:    Glen Gould and Vladimir Horowitz sat relatively low. I think most people would acknowledge that they were great keyboard technicians. (Contradiction)
THEOREM:   Sit Lower.
PROOF:    There are many great pianists who sit high...Arthur Rubinstein and Erroll Gamer to name a couple. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Practice scales, arpeggios etc...
PROOF:    These methods are not the most efficient technique builders by any means, consider how many times the fourth finger is played in a two-octave scale. I count FOUR times. Consider how many times the fifth finger is played in a C major ar¬peggio. I count ONE time. In the arpeggios and scales of the flat keys, // never plays. (Contradiction by my own experience and the experience of many other students who have diligently practiced their scales and arpeggios without notice¬able improvement.)

THEOREM:   Your fingers do not lift while playing a passage.
PROOF:   If this is true, then each of your finger tips should remain in contact with the surface of its respective key while playing the example below. However, it is impossible to precisely articulate the individual notes of the passage playing in this manner. The only remaining alternative is to lift each finger before it descends. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   The articulation of the notes in a passage is produced by the transference of arm weight from note to note aided by the rotational motion of the wrist and the "larger muscles" of your arms and shoulders.
PROOF:   Try using what are referred to as the larger muscles of your arms and shoulders to assist you in the realization of the above example. Do whatever you like...make circular motions with your wrist, pronate your wrist (as if you are turning a key to lock or unlock a door), swing your elbows in and out, lean forward with your up¬per torso. ..but do not move your fingers up or down. The notes of the above pas¬sage are not being cleanly articulated as I do this. My thumb and fifth finger are playing very sloppily, while my second, third and fourth fingers remain fixed at the bottom of their respective keys. (Contradiction)

Another contradiction; I am effortlessly playing the above passage solely with my fingers. The individual notes are cleanly articulated. Additionally, 1 am grasping my right wrist with my left hand to prevent any interference from the "larger muscles" mentioned above. I am also leaning against the back of my chair as I do this.

CONCLUSION
Rotational motion of the wrist and the use of the “larger muscles” of the
arm and shoulder have a negligible effect on the precise articulation of
the individual notes of a passage.

NOTE
The above conclusion is not intended to discourage the use of wrist, arms, shoulders and “larger muscles” while playing. Its purpose is to merely demonstrate the limitations of their use.

THEOREM:   Music and technique cannot be separated.
PROOF:   Suppose that a composer has completed an extended piece for a huge xylophone which she has invented. Instead of using light mallets, the new instrument requires the use of ten-pound mallets to produce an optimum sound. She is familiar with two percussionists who are virtuosos on the traditional xylophone and must select one of them on short notice to premiere her piece. One man is a competitive weightlifter while the other man rarely exercises and is considerably weaker. Al¬though weightlifting has nothing to do with music, it is logical to conclude that the stronger man—through his ability to manage the ten-pound mallets with relative ease—will produce a more controlled and technically polished performance than the weaker man. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Play with curved fingers.
PROOF:   Horowitz played with relatively flat fingers much of the time. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Play with flat fingers.
PROOF:   When I saw Charles Rosen perform many years ago he played with extremely curved fingers. Bach is known to have played with curved fingers. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   When you practice scales you should be able to put a coin on the top of your hand and play in such a way that the coin remains there for the duration of the scale.
PROOF:   If you have not yet developed finger independence it is likely that holding your hand in this manner will feel extremely awkward, leading to a stiffening of the entire forearm at the elbow. Due to a lack of finger independence, many beginners (out of necessity) will tend to forcibly drop their wrist on each note that they play—a perfectly normal reaction that would certainly send a coin flying. Unfortunately, this theorem puts the cart before the horse. It is only after one has developed finger independence that a certain stillness of the hand is likely to ap¬pear as one plays scales. As we will see, muscular development leads to finger in¬dependence. Stillness of one's hand does not. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Short people are better pianists than tall people because short people are more coordinated than tall people,
PROOF:   To my knowledge, the claim that "short people are more coordinated than tall people" has never been scientifically proven. Extremely coordinated individuals exist within "short" populations as well as "tall" populations. Many great soccer and baseball players are short while some of the most coordinated people on earth are members of the United States' N.B.A. where the average basketball player is 6*6" tall. If large random samples of short and tall people were taken, they would most likely result in two normal distributions reflecting the fact that the majority of both populations were of average coordination with a small percentage of both populations above average and a small percentage of both populations below av¬erage. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Playing legato builds technique.
PROOF:   I played legato over a five year period with no noticeable improvement in my technical ability. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Piano technique has nothing to do with the development or strengthening of mus¬cles. Rather, the ability to play a piece or passage with physical ease is due to the proper coordination of opposing muscles.
PROOF:    The ability to perform any task is based on the coordination of muscles. However, kinesiologists—medical professionals who are experts in the science of human motion—maintain that coordination is dependent upon, and is enhanced by the proper development of muscles. Here are some examples demonstrating this fact:

•   An American League pitcher, capable of throwing a 95-mile-per-hour fastball, attempts the new task of throwing a heavier ball at the same speed. Although he understands how to coordinate the task of throwing a 95-mile-per-hour fastball, his muscles are not strong enough to coordinate the new task with the heavier ball.
•   A woman capable of performing the task of walking bends incorrectly while lifting a heavy object and severely pulls a muscle in her back. The woman can no longer walk and must rest until the muscle can once again support the coor¬dinated movements of that particular task.
•   A stone mason capable of breaking 20 pieces of stone per hour with a sledge hammer attempts the new task of breaking 40 pieces per hour. He understands how to coordinate the new task through his experience of working at the faster rate for short periods of time. However, over a period of an hour he is incapa¬ble of coordinating the new task because of the incapacitating muscular fatigue that develops.
•   A pianist capable of playing a physically demanding piece at half speed attempts the new task of playing the piece up to speed. She understands how to coordinate the new task through her experience of playing sections of the piece which are shorter in duration—up to speed. However, she is incapable of coordinating the new task for the duration of the entire piece because of the in¬capacitating muscular fatigue that develops.

I could go on and on. However, I think I have made my point. People simply are not in agree¬ment as to how to teach technique and most theorems can easily be contradicted. So where does this leave us? I hope you will read on.

[stringoverstrung]

I think that from this extract it is impossible to judge if he knows what he is talking about or if he's just like me   
So the only option is to read on until you've read a statistically relevant part of the content to be able to judge it's contents. Anyway thanks for the tip i'll explore the book. You made a valuable contribution to my thread:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13754.0.html

There's nothing wrong with trying to approach something scientifically although the above examples already give an indication of what the writer is up to!!! Just to remain scientifically correct will be a challenge with this concept!

Thanks.

[bernhard]

This is a comedy of errors.  

I do not even know where to start. To truly criticise all the misconceptions in these paragraphs would just take too long. I will try to be very brief, and if you need further clarification ask the specific points.

Piano Power deals with fundamental problems encountered by pianists—problems that can persist for the duration of one's life if not corrected—and provides unique and logical methods for solving them. Piano Power's clear and common sense approach will enable you to:

•   Identify the specific fingers on either hand that are not up to par.
•   Get beyond the technical plateau that you have reached.
•   Improve your technique while decreasing your practice time.
•   Improve your technique away from the keyboard.
•   Understand that technique is primarily a function of the extensor muscles.
•   Understand the relationship between technique and synchronization.
•   Avoid injury while practicing.
•   Save money and time by eliminating the guesswork usually associated with learning
   the piano.
•   Enjoy the piano more and more with each day that passes.

All these items are at the moment general enough and apparently reasonable enough. But the first item already sent shivers down my spine:

•   Identify the specific fingers on either hand that are not up to par.

It is never about the fingers.

A detailed analysis of the movements of the hand has enabled me to arrive at these important conclusions:

•    A powerful relationship exists' between the strength of the extensor muscles and the ease with which we are able to play at the keyboard.
•    The method of placing a muscle under tension for manageable periods of time— utilized by physical therapists and occupational therapists to enhance a patient's ability to perform a specific physical task with a minimum of stress—may be safely employed by pianists to improve their technical ability at the keyboard.

Sorry, but this is just not so.

The manner in which information is presented in Piano Power was inspired by the writings of the ancient Greek geometer, Euclid. An initial theorem is presented and then validated with a proof. New theorems are then formulated based on the knowledge gained from prior theorems. Therefore, in order to gain a complete understanding of Piano Power, I urge you to read the chapters in the order in which they are presented.
I regret that the information contained within Piano Power was not available to me twenty years ago. My hope is that Piano Power will shed important

Again, this has immediately made me unsympathetic towards the book. Piano playing directions are not “theorems” to be proved or disproved by logical deduction (or reduction to absurd) from axioms found to be self-evident. This may be a good methodology for mathematics and geometry, but it will not work on the real world (hence Aristotle theorem that women had less teeth then men: he never bothered to count).

A much better approach is that of empiricism (= the scientific method): formulate a hypothesis and design and experiment to prove it wrong.  

Chapter 1

THEOREMS

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that can be proved either "true" or "false" by a chain of reasoning. Two types of proofs employed by mathematicians are the Direct Proof and the Indirect Proof:
•    A Direct Proof assumes that a theorem is true and then sets out to directly prove the truth of that theorem.

•    An Indirect Proof, on the other hand, assumes that a theorem is true. However, in the midst of the proof a contradiction to the theorem is found, thus nullifying the validity of he original theorem.

It is important to note that only ONE contradiction is needed to disprove any theorem, thus nulifying its validity. Additionally, a theorem that is considered to be true must hold for ALL cases.

Here is an example of a Direct Proof:

THEOREM:   TWO apples grouped together with another TWO apples results in a group of FOUR apples.
PROOF:    Take two apples and place them on a table. Do the same with two other apples. There are four apples when you count them all.
Here is an example of an Indirect Proof:

THEOREM:   TWO apples grouped together with THREE apples results in a group of FOUR apples.
PROOF:   Take two apples and group them with three other apples. Now count them. (Notice, we are in the midst of the proof.) In counting them we find that the sum is 5...a contradiction!

By contradicting the theorem, our conclusion is not necessarily that (2 + 3) apples equals 5 apples, but that (2 + 3) apples is not equal to 4 apples. Remember, we are concerned with proving or disproving the original theorem.

I will let leahcim and xvimbi  have a go at this absurdity. (If they can extricate themselves form the cracking knucles thread, that is )

Following are a few of the important ideas and concepts that I am now able to relate to my students based on the valuable information presented in this book:

•   Identify for the student the specific fingers on either hand that are not up to par.
•   Explain how to improve the ability of these particular fingers and how long it might take to bring the fingers to their full development.
•   Explain methods of practicing that optimize the student's time.
•  Explain the logic behind these practice methods.

The first two items have very little importance. It is not about the fingers. The next two items are important but not enough information has been provided yet.

THEOREMS CONTRADICTED

Within the nonscientific world of the musician, theories are often confidently asserted without a shred of evidence to support them. Following are some of the theories that have gained acceptance in musical circles over the years. Perhaps we can find some contradictions.

There is just too many confusion here in relation to concepts. The world of Euclid and his geometry was anything but scientific. Proving theorems has nothing to do with science. He seems to have thoroughly confuse the basic issues, and seems to have a very poor understanding of the philosophy of the scientific method (most scientists are likewise poorly informed about it). He seems also not to have much experience of “practical science” (with which most if not all scientists are very conversant).

THEOREM:   If you feel the music the technique will just follow.
PROOF:   There are many people who, for whatever reason, operate on a purely intellectual plane and do have trouble feeling things. However, a powerful emotional response to sound is no guarantee that a person's fingers will be capable of expressing those emotions. The inference here, is that the person proposing the theorem has reached a sublime level reserved for a select few, and that others have along way to go in developing their sensitivity to music. My favorite response to those who espouse this theorem is as follows: "If you feel the music so deeply, then turn your hands upside down with your palms facing upward and play the piece with the same facility as if you played normally. After all, you just have to feel the music. Let it just flow..." Another contradictory response: "Why can I sing or whistle this passage comfortably at the same time that I have difficulty executing it at the piano?" Not having or being in touch with feeling would prevent me from singing the passage well. (Contradiction)

I have never heard of this “theorem”. I have – on the other hand frequently exposed the metaphysical idea that if one has a very clear image (aural, kinaesthesia, visual) of what a piece should sound and feel (as in sensations, not as in emotions), the fingers will always comply – as long as you insist on that mental construct.

He seems again to be making monstrous confusions by mixing up “emotion” in the equation. His “contradiction” – even if the emotion theorem was true – is even more baffling. In what way turning the hands up contradicts anything, except the fact that one cannot play in impossible physical positions? As for singing and whistling, I can always play any passage better than I can sing (I am hopeless at singing) or whistle it (I am a mediocre whistler). So what exactly does this proves, or disproves?

For someone interested in proving theorems the Greek way, this guy seems to be all at sea. Back in Athens, he would be immediately identified as a sophist, and a bad one at that.

THEOREM:   Sit higher.
PROOF:    Glen Gould and Vladimir Horowitz sat relatively low. I think most people would acknowledge that they were great keyboard technicians. (Contradiction)
THEOREM:   Sit Lower.
PROOF:    There are many great pianists who sit high...Arthur Rubinstein and Erroll Gamer to name a couple. (Contradiction)

Again, I have never heard of such a “theorem”. And the contradictions are not contradictions at all: they are examples of pianists doing the wrong thing and experiencing technical limitations as a result.

THEOREM:   Practice scales, arpeggios etc...
PROOF:    These methods are not the most efficient technique builders by any means, consider how many times the fourth finger is played in a two-octave scale. I count FOUR times. Consider how many times the fifth finger is played in a C major arpeggio. I count ONE time. In the arpeggios and scales of the flat keys, // never plays. (Contradiction by my own experience and the experience of many other students who have diligently practiced their scales and arpeggios without noticeable improvement.)

Yes, this is true, but there are two very important pieces of information that have been deleted from the “theorem”: practice scales how and most importantly, practise scales to what purpose

It reminds me of the old joke:

In a single track railway, unknown to each other, two trains are running in opposite directions. The first train is travelling south at a speed of 90 mile / hour. The second train is travelling North (on the same rail track) at 80 miles/ hour. In the middle of the track there is a cow lying down on the track. Calculate.

(answer: How frightened the cow must have been when she saw the trains coming towards her)

THEOREM:   Your fingers do not lift while playing a passage.
PROOF:   If this is true, then each of your finger tips should remain in contact with the surface of its respective key while playing the example below. However, it is impossible to precisely articulate the individual notes of the passage playing in this manner. The only remaining alternative is to lift each finger before it descends. (Contradiction)

The proof is absurd and shows how limited is the author’s knowledge of true piano technique. There are several ways of lifting the fingers (and not that this is necessary to any great extent), besides “lifting the fingers”, forearm rotation being just one of them.

[to be continued...]

[bernhard]

[...continued from previous post]

THEOREM:   The articulation of the notes in a passage is produced by the transference of arm weight from note to note aided by the rotational motion of the wrist and the "larger muscles" of your arms and shoulders.
PROOF:   Try using what are referred to as the larger muscles of your arms and shoulders to assist you in the realization of the above example. Do whatever you like...make circular motions with your wrist, pronate your wrist (as if you are turning a key to lock or unlock a door), swing your elbows in and out, lean forward with your upper torso. ..but do not move your fingers up or down. The notes of the above passage are not being cleanly articulated as I do this. My thumb and fifth finger are playing very sloppily, while my second, third and fourth fingers remain fixed at the bottom of their respective keys. (Contradiction)

Another contradiction; I am effortlessly playing the above passage solely with my fingers. The individual notes are cleanly articulated. Additionally, 1 am grasping my right wrist with my left hand to prevent any interference from the "larger muscles" mentioned above. I am also leaning against the back of my chair as I do this.

CONCLUSION
Rotational motion of the wrist and the use of the “larger muscles” of the
arm and shoulder have a negligible effect on the precise articulation of
the individual notes of a passage.

NOTE
The above conclusion is not intended to discourage the use of wrist, arms, shoulders and “larger muscles” while playing. Its purpose is to merely demonstrate the limitations of their use.

I don’t know what passage he is referring to, but again, he shows a complete ignorance of the true movements used in arm weight transference and rotational motion (which is not of the wrist, by the way, but of the forearm). He probably has never been taught how to do properly these motions.

 THEOREM:   Music and technique cannot be separated.
PROOF:   Suppose that a composer has completed an extended piece for a huge xylophone which she has invented. Instead of using light mallets, the new instrument requires the use of ten-pound mallets to produce an optimum sound. She is familiar with two percussionists who are virtuosos on the traditional xylophone and must select one of them on short notice to premiere her piece. One man is a competitive weightlifter while the other man rarely exercises and is considerably weaker. Although weightlifting has nothing to do with music, it is logical to conclude that the stronger man—through his ability to manage the ten-pound mallets with relative ease—will produce a more controlled and technically polished performance than the weaker man. (Contradiction)

Er… how exactly does this example contradicts the theorem? The weightlifter musician possesses a technique which is necessary for the musical performance in question. The other musician does not. Since technique and music cannot be separated, it is the one with the technique who will be able to bring forth the music. This proves the theorem, does not contradict it in any way.

THEOREM:   Play with curved fingers.
PROOF:   Horowitz played with relatively flat fingers much of the time. (Contradiction)

THEOREM:   Play with flat fingers.
PROOF:   When I saw Charles Rosen perform many years ago he played with extremely curved fingers. Bach is known to have played with curved fingers. (Contradiction)

Again, I have never heard of such theorems. You play in any way that is necessary to the piece you are playing. Horowitz played with flat fingers pieces that he felt this was necessary, but he could and did play with curved fingers when he felt that was necessary (e.g. when he played Scarlatti). These proofs are completely absurd. This guy needs to attend a basic course in logic (and other disciplines as well).

THEOREM:   When you practice scales you should be able to put a coin on the top of your hand and play in such a way that the coin remains there for the duration of the scale.
PROOF:   If you have not yet developed finger independence it is likely that holding your hand in this manner will feel extremely awkward, leading to a stiffening of the entire forearm at the elbow. Due to a lack of finger independence, many beginners (out of necessity) will tend to forcibly drop their wrist on each note that they play—a perfectly normal reaction that would certainly send a coin flying. Unfortunately, this theorem puts the cart before the horse. It is only after one has developed finger independence that a certain stillness of the hand is likely to appear as one plays scales. As we will see, muscular development leads to finger independence. Stillness of one's hand does not. (Contradiction)

Although I could not agree more on the absurdity of the “theorem”, the “contradiction” is even worse. Playing scale with a coin on the top of the hand should not be the final aim of playing a scale, finger independence or not. And muscular development cannot make up for shared tendons. Is this guy a medical doctor? Are you sure? He must have skipped his anatomy lessons, then.

THEOREM:   Short people are better pianists than tall people because short people are more coordinated than tall people,
PROOF:   To my knowledge, the claim that "short people are more coordinated than tall people" has never been scientifically proven. Extremely coordinated individuals exist within "short" populations as well as "tall" populations. Many great soccer and baseball players are short while some of the most coordinated people on earth are members of the United States' N.B.A. where the average basketball player is 6*6" tall. If large random samples of short and tall people were taken, they would most likely result in two normal distributions reflecting the fact that the majority of both populations were of average coordination with a small percentage of both populations above average and a small percentage of both populations below average. (Contradiction)

Is this even worth of discussion?

THEOREM:   Playing legato builds technique.
PROOF:   I played legato over a five year period with no noticeable improvement in my technical ability. (Contradiction)

Er… again, what sort of contradiction is that? Since we are not given any information on his practice, how can such statement mean anything? Did he do the proper scientific procedure, that is, measured his technical ability before and after five years (and how does one do that?), and did he practised exactly the same way for exactly the same period of time every day these five years? Has he kept a log book of his observations? And has he repeated the same procedure with “n” pianists of similar ability, n being calculated to provide a significant sample size, and have the data been properly analysed with the necessary statistical methods?

And what sort of theorem is that anyway? Surely playing legato will build your technique to … play legato! And what does “building one’s technique” means anyway? Technique is simply a way of doing things. Good technique makes the task easy to do. Bad technique makes it effort laden. They may both work to a satisfactory degree (many virtuoso pianists had bad technique – or technique that could be vastly improved and yet could deliver the goods). Technique is always specific to the piece and to the person. In this sense, building technique simply means developing and ingraining a large variety of “ways of doing”. To that end, diversity is of the essence. No single activity will “build your technique”, since it will be good only for that activity.

THEOREM:   Piano technique has nothing to do with the development or strengthening of muscles. Rather, the ability to play a piece or passage with physical ease is due to the proper coordination of opposing muscles.
PROOF:    The ability to perform any task is based on the coordination of muscles. However, kinesiologists—medical professionals who are experts in the science of human motion—maintain that coordination is dependent upon, and is enhanced by the proper development of muscles. Here are some examples demonstrating this fact:

•   An American League pitcher, capable of throwing a 95-mile-per-hour fastball, attempts the new task of throwing a heavier ball at the same speed. Although he understands how to coordinate the task of throwing a 95-mile-per-hour fastball, his muscles are not strong enough to coordinate the new task with the heavier ball.
•   A woman capable of performing the task of walking bends incorrectly while lifting a heavy object and severely pulls a muscle in her back. The woman can no longer walk and must rest until the muscle can once again support the coordinated movements of that particular task.
•   A stone mason capable of breaking 20 pieces of stone per hour with a sledge hammer attempts the new task of breaking 40 pieces per hour. He understands how to coordinate the new task through his experience of working at the faster rate for short periods of time. However, over a period of an hour he is incapable of coordinating the new task because of the incapacitating muscular fatigue that develops.
•   A pianist capable of playing a physically demanding piece at half speed attempts the new task of playing the piece up to speed. She understands how to coordinate the new task through her experience of playing sections of the piece which are shorter in duration—up to speed. However, she is incapable of coordinating the new task for the duration of the entire piece because of the incapacitating muscular fatigue that develops.

Sure, you need muscles. However, piano playing is such a gentle activity (come on now, how much strength do you need to depress a piano key?) that one already has more than the necessary strength to accomplish it from daily life. The reason for the counter example he provides of the pianist, can be explained in several, much more convincing ways, than muscle development. For instance, the pianist simply cannot remember the long passage (while the short one was easy). As he tries to play it at speed, the fingers hesitate, since they cannot remember where to go next. These are truly “micro” hesitations, but they create a pattern of muscle against muscle that creates the fatigue. If this pattern gets inbuilt in the movements, then having more muscles will not decrease the fatigue, it may actually increase it, since the muscles are now stronger. Pianists who experience no fatigue after a period of practice do so not because their muscles have developed, but because knowledge of the passage eliminated the micro hesitations.

Another reason for that fatigue (at the beginning and sometimes forever) is simply because the passage may have changes of direction, and in such cases, it is a very important principle that one always thinks one-directionally. Pianists who think in two directions will always create movements that lead to fatigue, muscle development or not.

Final veredict: Throw the book in the bin.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[stringoverstrung]

This is a comedy of errors. 

Bernhard,

for once i think you're too fast here: by reading the above we can not be sure if the writer agrees with these theorems or not. Of course they are rubbish but it is possible that this is just an elaborate way to proof his "scientific point". That's why i say that this kind of science is very dangerous: even an experienced reader like you might get confused (and if you're not confused then i am (more likely  )). But the writer ends with:

"I could go on and on. However, I think I have made my point. People simply are not in agree¬ment as to how to teach technique and most theorems can easily be contradicted. So where does this leave us? I hope you will read on.'

So we can not be sure if he agrees or not.
I'm not saying it's a good book: i simply say that you cannot judge it from the (false) theorems above: we don't know if the writer agrees...
I realise that the chances are high that you have read the book  and that it effectively is a piece of crap  but from this excerpt we can "scientifically" not be certain!

Regards.

[bernhard]

Bernhard,

for once i think you're too fast here:

We shall see...

[ted]

If he's a doctor I'm not sure I'd want him operating on me.

This man has a gutsache.
Theorem: This man's appendix needs removing.
Proof: I shall amputate his leg.
Conclusion: He wakes from the operation minus a leg and with a worse gutsache. Therefore the theorem is true.

On the other hand, Bernhard's term, "micro-hesitation" is excellent !
Conjecture (not theorem): Inhibition in improvisation results from habituated musical micro-hesitations.
Proof: Don't have any.
Conclusion: Haven't reached one yet.

[ahmedito]

The most important lesson I have learnt about the piano and piano playing is this:

"You don't press the keys with your fingers, but with your mind. You do not play the music with your hands, you play it with your heart."

How much does a key weigh? You don't really need to lift weights and work out to build up your muscles. How fast do you want to play? Flutter your fingers as fast as you can and thats as fast as you could possibly ever need to play. Technique is a matter of coordination and mental dexterity, and clear knowledge of what you set out to do. Thats all it is.

[stringoverstrung]

We shall see...

haha OK i just realised that intelligent deduction only just precedes the paranormal 

[bernhard]

The most important lesson I have learnt about the piano and piano playing is this:

"You don't press the keys with your fingers, but with your mind. You do not play the music with your hands, you play it with your heart."

How much does a key weigh? You don't really need to lift weights and work out to build up your muscles. How fast do you want to play? Flutter your fingers as fast as you can and thats as fast as you could possibly ever need to play. Technique is a matter of coordination and mental dexterity, and clear knowledge of what you set out to do. Thats all it is.

Beautifully put.

[tac-tics]

The Theorem-Proof section seems entirely rediculous.

The author is trying to come across as being authoritative by sounding scientific. Music is an art, not a science. Musical truths are discovered through practice, not rhetoric.

That is not to say the book is worthless. I'm just saying the style he uses is a bit deceptive.

[dinosaurtales]

I also have this book.  I didn't pay tons of attention to the expalantation of finger physiology, but used the basic exercises to get some finger strength, flexibility, and independence back after a 2--year break in playing.  I only used these exercises for a few months - I no longer need them.  I would definitely NOT recommend this book for a long term technique development.  I really think I used it the same way the author really intended it - to keep in shape as an older person trying to get back in shape, or while away from the piano.  Folks that study seriously and practice 5 hours a day with competent teaching would likely never need this book, is the way I see it.

[leahcim]

How much does a key weigh?

The force required to depress a single key isn't really the issue is it?

Although it's probably true to say playing has little to do with requiring extra strength, I find it slightly disengenous to dismiss an author by using the same tactic

i.e

"Theorum : Piano playing requires strength"
"Proof : How much does a key weigh? Contradiction"

That just reads the same to me, even though you aren't necessarily wrong with what you mean. Perhaps when he isn't wrong [which he isn't in every case and I doubt many would put up their hand to suggest their methods and techniques are 100% correct] his message is lost because of the style rather than the content?

Unfortunately, there is very little material around to demonstrate this co-ordination and mental dexterity. At the end of the day, to make some pragmatic progress, I press the keys with my fingers and that requires effort and the effort to play a chord, especially one that has my thumb on a black key and my fingers near the fallboard is difficult - of course this is completely irregardless of my ability to pick up a heavy box and then compare the weight of the keys with the box, but nevertheless, the reason I can pick up a car with a suitable lever isn't because picking up a car doesn't require strength.

Until I meet someone who can say "No, like this" I may as well play the piano with my mind - but how so? Obviously my mind is moving my fingers to type this message, but I'm conscious of my fingers pressing the keys to make letters, not of "typing with my mind" - that's ultimately true and perhaps poetic, but nevertheless, unless I'm missing some aspect you can explain that will teach me how to type with my mind controlling each muscle consciously also completely irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with what you've said, but playing the piano is a physical thing - you use your playing apparatus and, even if this guy is completely wrong, the approach that isn't needs to be pragmatic rather than poetic imho.

How fast do you want to play? Flutter your fingers as fast as you can and thats as fast as you could possibly ever need to play.

I thought I wasn't supposed to lift my fingers or even in some cases I've seen described move them at all? I can't see any way in which fluttering my fingers will help if that's the case - although fluttering my eyelashes isn't likely to get a flat tyre fixed either but that would work for some, so perhaps it's different for us all

[ahmedito]

Any physical strength or speed required for playing the piano can be aquired from daily life (the mister Miyagi approach), what is truly required for playing the piano is a great deal of mental speed and coordination as well as developing your hands' response to what your mind wants. Most of all, it has to do with a clarity of thought in which you know very well how and what to do.

Theorem: You need to build up your muscles to play.
Contradiction: The average person's hand differes very slightly from a concert pianists hand. The difference in muscle development could be achieved through excercises away from the piano in less than a month.

This would also explain there are 9 year old kids with the ability to play technically extremely difficult music with ease as well as musicians into their late 70s and 80s still playing very well. It also explains why there are musicians capable of playing a piece of music just from reading the score, without studying it at the piano. It is a difference in their minds, not their muscles which makes it possible.

But, I've seen that people who are very tenacious working physically tend to be a bit on the lazy side for the mental aspect of playing the piano. But the differenc between the piano and many other instruments is that the piano is not DIFFICULT, its COMPLICATED. These are very different things (I know, having played the trumpet for many years, and having many violinists in my family). The action of getting sound of a french horn is a very demanding physical job, with not many parallels in daily life, and its not until about six months after starting that a student can get an actual sound from his instrument. Its difficult to do. The piano on the other hand is extremely easy to play, the problem is that it requires many MANY extremely easy tasks done one after the other or at the same time and sometimes at a very high speed of though. This makes "micro-hesitations", as Bernhard puts it, the biggest danger to piano technique, and the big obstacle one has to face when practicing. Anything in the literature can be reduced to this, there are few thing wich are actually difficult to do which cannot be broken up into easier things; in the end, anything can be reduced to the act of pressing and depresseing a key, which is so easy that anyone can do it without any prior training.

I have a hard time right now thinking of a good metaphor (although Bernhard mus have a few dozen), but maybe we can compare it with learning to drive a car or a plane for that matter:

It is a phyisical activity, but not one that requires a lot of effort. The wrong approach to learning to do it is finding a chair in your house, sitting down and practicing over and over again the act of moving your feet on the pedal and turning the steering wheel or changing gears or practicing the finger movements required to press a button. In fact, unless you have some kind of physical ailment, these are so easy to do that there is really no need to do "build up the muscle" to do them. They are all very easy tasks that must be practiced, adjusted and coordinated to get a result.

The metaphor of the marathon runner, or the weight-lifter simply does not apply to the pianist. The piano is a much more a mental activity than a physical one.

[ahmedito]

That just reads the same to me, even though you aren't necessarily wrong with what you mean. Perhaps when he isn't wrong [which he isn't in every case and I doubt many would
Until I meet someone who can say "No, like this" I may as well play the piano with my mind - but how so? Obviously my mind is moving my fingers to type this message, but I'm conscious of my fingers pressing the keys to make letters, not of "typing with my mind" - that's ultimately true and perhaps poetic, but nevertheless, unless I'm missing some aspect you can explain that will teach me how to type with my mind controlling each muscle consciously also completely irrelevant.

Actually there you give me the perfect analogy. The fact is, you never type while thinking of the movement of typing, but of what you want to say. You are thinking of the subject of which you are typing and the actual act of typing is completely subordinated to this, so you are in fact "typing with your mind". Once you know where the keys are (really and completely know), you never EVER thing again about the actual movement and physical effort of typing (unless you have to use some seldom used character).

[leahcim]

Actually there you give me the perfect analogy. The fact is, you never type while thinking of the movement of typing, but of what you want to say. You are thinking of the subject of which you are typing and the actual act of typing is completely subordinated to this, so you are in fact "typing with your mind". Once you know where the keys are (really and completely know), you never EVER thing again about the actual movement and physical effort of typing (unless you have to use some seldom used character).

Well, ok, but I can type and I've been doing it since I was a kid. I can show you plenty of people who are concentrating on the keyboard as though their life depended on it because they can't type.

OTOH, using a pencil is probably more difficult to learn. But yeah, I suppose there's a point when drawing or writing better isn't down to your ability to move the pencil as such.

That's a good question though - there are piles of what I consider inconsistent and complex stuff, not just amongst the derided as in this topic, but amongst the books and posts that are supposedly correct - you reach conclusions like "Such and such a pianist used their whole body weight from their toe to press this little thing that requires no strength to move" "Rotate your forearms, don't move your fingers, now play the same thing without rotating and without moving your fingers" At which point, I'm not moving at all afaict.

I'm not saying it's wrong just that there's an awful lot of it. If it turned out to be that 99% of playing is like 99% of drawing where the bit you need to figure out w.r.t moving the pencil and making marks is relatively trivial and not the cause of most of us being bad at drawing.

I'd go for that idea - I'd forget the whole idea about movements. At least, if it wasn't for my teacher's friendly reminders that my shoulders are raising etc which suggest that I can't do it unconsciously yet and if I do regardless, I'm not doing it correctly. Also, if it wasn't for the fact that I can pick up any relatively difficult piece and think "what do I play that, move my arm, rotate my arm?"

I bet there are injured typists too who are probably thinking about their movements every time their mind reminds them that doing it that way hurts.

OTOH, most typists, that is, trained ones would baulk at my typing as I suspect most piano teachers would if I played the piano in a similar, self discovered, ad hoc, yet relatively successful manner. I'd have 3 chances perhaps (a) Do a Chopin and invent my own technique - not much chance of that, (b) I'm still musical [in perhaps a limited repertoire, I'm not thinking of Gould here of course] and relatively uninjured as a result so they say that, whilst warning their students away from my technique or (c) I fool the in-laws and enjoy playing, but not many others because bad technique makes it sound poor, even if I know it doesn't sound perfect.

Learning to type "properly" doesn't really affect the end result though - if I was forced to learn I imagine I wouldn't be saying much for a while [yeah I know, that's not a bad idea ]

I think this is a Horowitz argument from his interview someone posted a link to the other day, I'll paraphrase it as "I started when I was 6, I shan't say anything else on that....much later now, I shall talk about teachers none of them taught technique just music, sweet, sweet music and I figured out the technique...then I blah blah blah..."

Some of us are doing what he has forgotten to mention between being 6 and 12. Quite possibly with much less ability than he had too.

I think a few might read his interview and start at the point when he was 12+ and I think that's basically what you're saying, once I can play the piano I'll be able to play it and a new piece will be learnt largely from the pov of the music and what I want it to sound like. That's reassuring but it doesn't get me to that point.

[ahmedito]

1. Actually, you are getting the typing example wrongly. Concentrating like crazy on the actual action of typing is no what youre supposed to do, but concentrate on what you want to write.

2. Many people are incredulous, but I defend this point of view because its the only one that worked for me. And I started when I was 17.

[leahcim]

I find it incredulous because the topic is about piano playing but also because I've seen people looking at the keyboard to find the letter they want. Which I did myself at one time.

Try it. Switch to a dvorak layout and think about what you want to say and, unless you've used dvorak I suspect you'll realise what you learnt at 17 was "how to type on a qwerty layout" not "how to type" per se and you won't be able to ignore that keyboard until the new layout is learnt. You might even find learning it more difficult than it was originally because you need to learn it which is something you probably accepted when you didn't think you could type but is harder if you think you can.

How many people do that with piano pieces? Happy struggle through the first section piece by piece because the piece is new and they can't play it, and when the 1st half is easy, start the 2nd half by skipping everything they did to learn the 1st and just try to play it? Especially if the 2 halves are very similar.

Another example, people read a maths book and understand it, and then when they try the exercises they realise they now have to actually understand it and then if they want to explain it to someone else [teaching for example] then they have to really understand it. That's 3 times they had to learn the same thing that they understood when they first read it

Whereas, concentrating on what they want to write isn't an issue. I can think what I want to say a lot quicker than I can type it, indeed a lot quicker than I can say it or write it too.

That said, it doesn't take a long time, my 6yo can type much better than he can write with a pencil and has done for at least 3 years. I don't suppose he will be much use teaching people to type since he'll have the same "Well, I just think what I want to say" approach, forgetting that he once typed one letter at a time scanning the keyboard.

[bernhard]

Try it. Switch to a dvorak layout and think about what you want to say and, unless you've used dvorak I suspect you'll realise what you learnt at 17 was "how to type on a qwerty layout" not "how to type" per se and you won't be able to ignore that keyboard until the new layout is learnt. You might even find learning it more difficult than it was originally because you need to learn it which is something you probably accepted when you didn't think you could type but is harder if you think you can.

Of course you are right. Before you can type you must do your qwerty. Before you can read you must learn the alphabet. And before you play a piece of music you must learn the basic movements.

However – and strangely enough – in all these activities (and any other similar  you care to make an analogy with piano playing) this initial, very basic stage is quickly mastered. It is also understood that this stage has to be mastered quickly because we have better things to do (read, type our ideas, play pieces, etc.).

However in piano playing, for some perverse reason, it is thought by many pianists/teachers that this initial stage should take your whole life, and that it should be done for its own sake. This state of affairs is of course totally wrong: it is a distortion, and a sick one at that.

So, Ahmedito is very correct in what he is saying. He is bringing the focus back to where it rightly belongs: to the music.

Somehow this reminds me of spelling bees (one of the most useless activities people engage in, on a par with trainspotting). Somehow, the real purpose gets lost as people get more and more obsessed with a triviality.

If one decides to change the keyboard layout to Dvorak, sure, some initial work will have to be undertaken to memorise the layout and retrain the movements. But this should be quick, and as soon as possible one should start typing real texts.

Likewise in piano playing, one needs to know the locations of the notes on the keys, the keyboard geography, and the basic way to move at the piano. But this should take very little time (like two or three days working 30 minutes per day). After that, one should dive into music, and learn on an “as-needed” basis.

If it is taking longer than that, then you must change approaches.

Another example, people read a maths book and understand it, and then when they try the exercises they realise they now have to actually understand it and then if they want to explain it to someone else [teaching for example] then they have to really understand it. That's 3 times they had to learn the same thing that they understood when they first read it 

That is an excellent example, and the most efficient way to learn the piano is to do exactly that: the learn a piece several times – and in several different ways as well. Most piano students unfortunately work at a piece in the most mechanical way, simply repeating it over and over.

Whereas, concentrating on what they want to write isn't an issue. I can think what I want to say a lot quicker than I can type it, indeed a lot quicker than I can say it or write it too.

Yes, but this is simply a result of working at it (even if subconsciously) at it for most of your life. This facility is the result of family/school/social group-pressure and so on. I have met people of a different background that clearly could type faster than they could think.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[berrt]

I have met people of a different background that clearly could type faster than they could think.

Long time ago, when i was working for a pharma society, the secretary of the boss was my girl-friend. She was incredibly fast in typing and had a lot of it to do from tape recorders - in the evening she did not know what she had been writing! She somehow had a by-pass from ear to hands sparing the brain..
How does that fit in? Are there people playing from the score with the mind wandering and not listening to themselves? And is that the ultimate level of playing?

Bye
Berrt

[leahcim]

Likewise in piano playing, one needs to know the locations of the notes on the keys, the keyboard geography, and the basic way to move at the piano. But this should take very little time (like two or three days working 30 minutes per day). After that, one should dive into music, and learn on an “as-needed” basis.

If it is taking longer than that, then you must change approaches.

I don't entirely disagree with the principle. It's difficult to judge completely, since I've only got my experience to go on, and I don't have a real piano from which to decide whether I can hear a difference if I play one note in particular way. "good tone" v "bad tone" which many are convinced is clear if you use arm weight or not.

For me personally, I can just look at Koji's video in a thread that was recently revived and see movements and finger positions that I've seen others [like Orlandopiano in his videos] doing. I'm not doing them, I don't know why they are doing some of them.

I can see they look comfortable and they make it look easy.

Secondly I can feel the pain in my right arm. But nevertheless, the pain doesn't stop me playing for 30 minutes. I play for hours a day sometimes.

Thirdly it doesn't feel comfortable - not just because of my 2nd point. It doesn't feel "right" even if I just play with my left hand which has never been painful at all. Although after a period of time it is easier to play a specific piece.  So I think, perhaps I'm too high or too close [or vice-versa] or I need to move my fingers more or less or blah blah and it's just round and round in a circle getting nowhere.

Fourthy I don't feel in control, certain musical aspects of my playing I can hear are wrong and try to address them, the tempo, notes in chords not all sounding together, pedalling etc. But if it says "f" or "pp" I have no idea where to start, sure I play a bit softer or louder, but I can't add more weight or less because I'm not sure I'm using weight to begin with. I don't know whether to play a note by moving my fingers, moving my wrist up then down, rotating my arm, moving my arm in or out or all or none of them nor to what extent to make those movements.

Simply put, I can't play one note, which is one less note than you claim anyone can play

But, all of the movements I've described and more are described in various tomes, some accepted, some derided and some methods seem entirely focussed on the movements. I can't see the parallel with typing or using a pencil. Sure, the wordy description of using a pencil would make no sense too, but a page of nonsense rather than a bookful. Nor can I see in those books the link between these descriptions of movements [which you don't need to think about] and the sound you should listen for to know you are doing them correctly.

What the magic movement(s) are that feel comfortable, easy, makes notes sound together each at a specific volume I've no idea. So I can't practise them anyway. Can I discover them? Maybe, but let's say I've been playing longer for 3 days, 30 minutes per day, evidently not.

The primary focus for focussing on their movements from others is often cited as an injury they obtain, which I suspect is further into their playing than 3 days. [Although I do note many do that because of a specific piece and in general, their dismay and injury is on pieces that are far more advanced]

So, although I agree, the music is the end result. It's not clear that the music will tell me everything, nor that it needs to when I know anyway.

But obviously I can play notes, just not correctly. So yeah, the different approach is just to put it to one side, and learn the notes and play pieces. Practice them to get it as musical as I can despite whatever effect on the sound playing the way I do has and thus play stuff I want to play at some level. Rather than worrying about learning the basic movements on simple pieces, mastering them and then moving onto more difficult pieces.

To that end, I found a teacher, not the mythical teacher out there that understands all this gubbins that I'm going to meet one day when I'm ready, who will give daily lessons and whatnot. The teacher that's 30 minutes a week,  telling me a lot of stuff that I mostly know, but nevertheless it's an unbiased, honest ear and a focus from week to week to sit down and work on a specific piece.

So in a sense it's unarguably true, by focussing on the other things, which all boil down to the music, that I could probably have done by myself [but didn't, so..], my playing sounds better. But, my first post to the board, after reading a fair amount first here and elsewhere, was basically looking for a teacher primarily to teach these mysterious movements and all the stuff about arm weight and whatever else that I'd read about and thought "what? I thought you just sat down and played..ouch my arm" - and I can't see anything I've read since that's not confirmed that is a reasonable thing to learn and a requirement to play well and that it's one of the things that make having a teacher, rather than teaching yourself, worthwhile.

[Indeed, I would argue that it's the only thing, we've had a thread about creating a midi file from which, assuming we take an advanced enough midi implementation, driving a real piano, could you not determine how musical I was from that?] Logically it fits too, otherwise I could just send an mp3 to someone on the internet and internet lessons would be the cool way to learn. Nah, obviously I need to have a physical presence next to the teacher because the only thing that's going to change the music made is changing the movements made and, although it's true that not every change of movement is going to be described from the movement pov "Move your arms quicker, because you're playing too slowly" nevertheless afaict some of them need to be focussed on. Until you reach the stage when you know them, if that's 3 days give me the names of  a few teachers you know who can even if they charge a ridiculous amount or live miles away for an hour and a half that won't be an issue.

Your idea that I can find a simple piece that sounds good which a total beginner can master in one lesson, and your comment here about an hour or so over a couple of days, just compounds the fact that there's no point me worrying about it.  I don't doubt that your students learn it in a day, and learn the basic movements in 3, but that 90% that you don't teach, some of us carry on regardless

[lostinidlewonder]

I usually know when I'm reading something bad if at the end of it I am more stupid than what I started out. These 2 chapters of generalisations has made me more stupid.

The chapters talk about all different things but are without musical examples to highlight the idea, perhaps they are in later chapters? Also I don't think that theories on how to play the piano can be proven or disproven or how they even help. If we want theorums there are only 2.

1) Listen to yourself produce sound and use that to effect your physical transfer to the keyboard.

2) Be physically relaxed no matter what you do.

Everything else is just elaborations or tangents of these ideas.