What did Heinrich Neuhaus say?

[PaulNaud]

" practicing too slowly  DISTORT our technique, because we automate movements quite DIFFERENT from those needed in our real playing. " JOSEF GAT


" When tempo is reduced the mechanical basis of the movement changes." OTTO ORTMANN

[musicsdarkangel]

I'm a strong believer in multiple practice methods.


I think that there should be light slow practice, heavy slow practice with arm weight, light and heavy quicker practice as well.  But when its A tempo, only the way you're going to play it.


I think slow practice helps immensely.

It was Liszt who said that to master something you must nail it at four tempos.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i see now. you got mixed up yourself in your threads, paulsylvianenaud. check out the other thread you made, "slow practice. raising fingers during slow practice."
... or something...

ditto here to what musicsdarkangel said above.

[pianistimo]

it's good to take a tempo that you can actually make it through the piece with (no stopping).  whatever that tempo is, that's probably your starting tempo.  i only slow down the parts i have difficulty with (beyond that) and practice them over and over.  then, i play through the whole piece again and see if they are up to speed.  then, as mentioned above - play it gradually faster (maybe one tempo faster per day or two days or even week).  the gradual speeding up works better for me than a sudden speed increase of 3-4 speeds in one practice session.  besides, i couldn't attain a much faster speed anyway in one session.  to me, speed is not the key for everything.  i think it is musicality, sound, and clarity.  pedalling is harder to speed up than the fingers, imo.

[PaulNaud]

  " The records have shown, beyond any doubt, that a muscular coordination changes with each change of tempo, intensity, or pitch of the tones. In order, therefore, to exercice the muscles used in the actual movement, we should, from the beginning, have to practice each passage at the tempo, intensity, and pitch at which it is finally to be played.  " OTTO ORTMANN, p. 376.

Comments.......................................................

[BoliverAllmon]

Bernhard and xvimbi have mentioned similar things also.

[m]

  " The records have shown, beyond any doubt, that a muscular coordination changes with each change of tempo, intensity, or pitch of the tones. In order, therefore, to exercice the muscles used in the actual movement, we should, from the beginning, have to practice each passage at the tempo, intensity, and pitch at which it is finally to be played.  " OTTO ORTMANN, p. 376.

Comments.......................................................

Who is that Otto Ortman?
Once again, a good example of how physical approach and muscular coordination are taken out of musical context, whatsoever .
 
Have you ever seen how painters work?
They'd make a stroke, then come close, then go far, then get back, before the next one.

Have you ever seen how masters of Kuhg-Fu practice, slowly and conciously following each slightest movement of their body, with greatest possible concentration? And this is the art, where seemingly the physical approach might dominate!!!

The slow tempo is a magnifying glass, showing you every little detail, that you would be able to feel and get identified with. This is a hard menthal work, when you  conciously realize and find what you need to deliver in a faster tempo. 

I knew MANY great pianists. Some of them are super stars. Some of them were my classmates, some roomates, some closest friends. Most of them, as well as such pianists as Richter, Gilels, Rachmaninov, and many more practiced slow only. Some of them would play up to a tempo on stage, only. Horowitz practiced slowly, repeating some passages hundreds times. The same goes to the greatest Friedman.

On the other hand, each person is different and to be historically correct, there were some, who never practiced slowly. It was just how their system worked the best. The difference is they never asked how they should practice...

[PaulNaud]

Dear Marik,

 Did you read the e-mail that I send you at your
personnal e-mail? I'm talking about my struggle with
piano playing since I lost my piano teacher at the age
of 21. May be you will appreciate  my difficulties?
 
 I understand very well all you're talking about,
because that's what I learned with my teacher: Produce
a beautiful sound and respect the composer's
intentions.

 My problem is speed. I can't play fast. I can control
the sound, beautiful sound but I can't reach the
desired tempo; I therefore conclude that I have a
technique problem.

 I am sorry to take up your time and I thank you for
your advice and understanding.

 Yours sincerely,

    Paul

[ramseytheii]

" practicing too slowly  DISTORT our technique, because we automate movements quite DIFFERENT from those needed in our real playing. " JOSEF GAT


" When tempo is reduced the mechanical basis of the movement changes." OTTO ORTMANN

Marik is right, the comments are totally out of musical context.
And for the first quote, why is it automatically assumed that "we" (read: "I") will use "different" movements in slow playing, which by his inference is not "real playing," and thus "distort" our techniques?  Maybe "we" know the difference between slow and fast, and don't necessarily "distort" things by practicing slow, and Furthermore, why is it that in slow practice, only "movements" are considered?  It's an approach I find quite irritating, and produces mechanical pianists like were coming out of 1950's Juilliard, or the Soviet (not Russian) schools.  Hasn't anyone considered the need to practice slowly to refine sonority, and balance complicated music with several threads?  It's something I noticed missing even in the excellent and exacting posts of Bernhard, who writes about great pianists practicing slowly,

"They were simply testing their memory of the piece. No more no less. "

I can't agree with the second sentence, and find the omission of sonority strange.  Cherkassky learned from Godowsky and Hofmann to practice slowly for the sake of sonority, I'm sure in addition to memory, but not that alone.

Anyways I thank the original poster for the provocative comments, but why doesn't he include his own input instead of just waiting for people to give him an answer to his doubts?

Walter Ramsey

[PaulNaud]

Marik is right, the comments are totally out of musical context.
And for the first quote, why is it automatically assumed that "we" (read: "I") will use "different" movements in slow playing, which by his inference is not "real playing," and thus "distort" our techniques?  Maybe "we" know the difference between slow and fast, and don't necessarily "distort" things by practicing slow, and Furthermore, why is it that in slow practice, only "movements" are considered?  It's an approach I find quite irritating, and produces mechanical pianists like were coming out of 1950's Juilliard, or the Soviet (not Russian) schools.  Hasn't anyone considered the need to practice slowly to refine sonority, and balance complicated music with several threads?  It's something I noticed missing even in the excellent and exacting posts of Bernhard, who writes about great pianists practicing slowly,

"They were simply testing their memory of the piece. No more no less. "

I can't agree with the second sentence, and find the omission of sonority strange.  Cherkassky learned from Godowsky and Hofmann to practice slowly for the sake of sonority, I'm sure in addition to memory, but not that alone.

Anyways I thank the original poster for the provocative comments, but why doesn't he include his own input instead of just waiting for people to give him an answer to his doubts?

Walter Ramsey

Because I'm trying to find answers to my 30 years inquiry.WHY am I not able to play fast after so many years of piano playing with regular practice and passion for this art? Is it because my teacher didn't show me how to be independant of his teaching and how to become autonomous? I really don't know!!!!
I have the chance to talk with other pianists in this forum that I discovered on internet, and that wasn't a long time ago. So thanks for you all, for your comments! Because it might help.
If you want to know more about me PLEASE read this:

May I introduce myself?
I am 51 years old. I started playing the piano at the age of 14. At the age of 16, I changed my piano teacher and I studied with a Rumanian-born pianist in Montreal (Canada) for four years. (His name is Mircea Manole, he was a student of Florica Musicescu, Dinu lipatti's teacher in Bucarest).

The approach was the so-called weight technique. My teacher would often quote the Leimer-Gieseking method and sometimes Heinrich Neuhaus. I would start studying a piece by working the length of about one page of music. I would learn each hand separate (by heart). I would first play very slowly (I insist), raising as much as I could my fingers, watching each sound very carefully by using the weight of the arm, always preparing the next finger to play and then, I would put together both hands and work the same way. The next step was a new way of practicing. I would play a little bit faster (but still slow), this time my fingers very close to the keys ( not admitting a cigarette paper between my fingers and the keys, like prof. Neuhaus said in his book the Art of Piano Playing). And then I would accelerate little by little, sometimes going back to first steps.

My teacher always insisted on finger action and arm weight and also on the control of sound and the beauty of sound.

I went back to France because part of my family live over there and I met a well-known piano teacher at the Conservatoire de Marseille, prof. Pierre Barbizet. But I could not follow any of the new teachers I met. Their approach was so different and I thought that my Rumanian piano teacher was the best.

So I went back to Montreal but my former teacher could not teach me any more. So I searched for other teachers for 2 or 3 years without success.

I decided to continue playing the piano by my self after discovering a book called Guided Sight-Reading by Leonard Deutsch. His method: sight-read for pleasure, don't look at your keys, guide your hands with your ears and watch the sound you're producing. Play a piece of music as a whole. I did so for 20 years.

I tried all sorts of approaches while sight-reading.

Two years ago I read on the web a very interesting text by Stefan Kutrzeba: " The Chopin Neuhaus system" . He is talking about the "zone". It is very similar to what you wrote to me in your reply.

After exchanging some ideas with Stefan Kutrzeba, I decided last year to register at the music Faculty of the Université du Québec (I already have a bachelor of music). I was accepted after an audition. I am now studying with Henri Brassard. He is helping me to overcome some technical difficulties (He said to me it's all psychological), but I don't always agree with him. Especially when he gives me an exercice that I should practice 20 minutes every day: Hand almost flat, it should be over the keyboard at about 5 cm height, and then strike the key with only the weight of each finger. Scale is done in the same way with the thumb-over technique, I don't know if you heard about this technique.

MY QUESTIONS:
1) My problem is speed. I can't play fast. I can control the sound, beautiful sound but I can't reach the desired tempo.

2) In prof. Neuhaus book "The Art of Piano Playing" he talks about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!! opposed to the other very close key approach. Should we raise fingers when practicing?

3) May be that this whole idea that certain movements or positions of hands or arms will produce beautiful sounds is wrong. That's what I should start to understand.

Thank you for reading this very long post and if you have additionnal thoughts don't hesitate to send them to me.

Paul

[zheer]

I think its a great idea practicing  slowly. If you play very very slowly you can work on creating a good tone and on clarity.Once you are familiar with the composition and you want to play fast, you should practice volocity, taking one section at a time. Avoid drilling the composition into you hand.

[cfortunato]

How much work have you done on fingering and exercises?  Can you "roll" a scale, or are you playing it one finger at a time?

When I learn a new piece, I play it through once, and then sit down with a pen and work out the fingering for each hand, which is often different than the editorial suggestions.  If a technique is unusual for me, I will isolate it and play the bar that contains it over and over.  And yes, I play slowly, with all the dynamics and correct fingering intact right from the get-go, and use a metronome to slowly increase the speed.  If I can play it twice through with no mistakes, I increase the metronome by 10.  And I keep going until I can play it 10 beats FASTER than the correct tempo.

[m]

Dear Marik,

 Did you read the e-mail that I send you at your
personnal e-mail? I'm talking about my struggle with
piano playing since I lost my piano teacher at the age
of 21. May be you will appreciate  my difficulties?
 
 I understand very well all you're talking about,
because that's what I learned with my teacher: Produce
a beautiful sound and respect the composer's
intentions.

 My problem is speed. I can't play fast. I can control
the sound, beautiful sound but I can't reach the
desired tempo; I therefore conclude that I have a
technique problem.

 I am sorry to take up your time and I thank you for
your advice and understanding.

 Yours sincerely,

    Paul

Paul,

It is obvious that after such a long time of piano playing you should be able to play fast, unless there is some kind of major coordination or motorical disorder.
I believe, there is something wrong in what you are doing, but it is nearly impossible to pinpoint it, or give any advice without actually seeing (or at least listening) what is going on.

The first thing, I believe you need to find a good teacher, who would be able to wisely find out your problem and methodically, step by step work on it.

In any case I will try to explain how it works. May be it will address some areas to pay attention to.

But first, there are three main aspects of piano playing (including ability to play “fast”).
1)   Music image.
2)   Mental and physical reaction.
3)   Physical comfort and relaxation.

All of those are tightly connected and cannot exist separately.

The 1) is obvious—it dictates everything and is the main object.
The 2). You should “think” fast, and have a good motorical reaction, meaning your musical image should be immediately translated into physical impulses, which immediately reach your fingertips. Next step, depending on what you hear, your brain should send a next impulse, and so on. The faster this process, the faster you can play. 
The 3). It is obvious the motorical reaction is impossible once there is some kind of tension block. As I mentioned in another message, once any physical tension blocks out the initial brain impulse, the whole mechanism gets completely mixed up.

Try to analyze what is going on when you throw a stone. Your arm is completely free, giving the most of the momentum, and maximum efficiency. Now try to throw the same stone with your arm tense. The stone would not go even half way.

The interesting thing is that when you throw the stone you are completely natural, but most of the time (from what I see from the students) the piano playing is not.
The ability of complete relaxation is a primary tool in a good impulse translation.

I will never forget my dearest teacher Lev Naumov, who unfortunately passed away not long ago, showing me climax in Scriabin’s 10th Sonata. He never played it before. He showed it basically playing with his palms, when it was impossible to distinguish one single note from the set of clusters. But the effect was STUNNING!!! The whole class literally gasped. He knew exactly what musical effect he wanted to create, and the most amazing thing was to watch his hands! There was a feeling they had no bones, like ropes embracing the keys, directly translating his great musical mind into some wonderful cacophony, which explained the character better than thousand words.

Now, the most obvious, the most trivial, but yet, the most important—the way you treat the piano, the way it responds back. At the same time, your mental and physical energies are closely tied together. Any discomfort in one creates discomfort in another. On the other hand their close union “frees up” each other.
 
The most common mistake, especially for those who were taught with “weight approach” but for some reason did not follow through completely, is staying tight, without releasing energy. I suspect it might be your main problem.

Think about darts. You throw the thing, the needle gets into the target, the whole energy gets released and the dart stays there just hanging—it GOT INTO THE CORE OF THE BOARD—THERE IS NO PRESSURE ANYMORE. Exactly the same way the finger gets into the core of the key (sound) and all the energy immediately gets released—the energy of whole your body, starting from your toes GOT INTO THE CORE OF THE SOUND AND IMMEDITELY SHOULD BE RELEASED!!! That’s it, you are there, there is no point of any residual pressure anymore. This complete release (so much overlooked) is the fundamental of the piano playing, slow playing, fast playing, whatever you have in your mind, whatever your image tells you.

And now we are back to my initial relation between mental and physical approach. Heavy playing, with the weight staying in the keys, results in the fingers “stucking” there, over weighting the music itself, and affects your image in a way of “heavy thinking”.
You completely lose the correlation between your brain impulses and physical responses.
 
The whole beauty of sound is in its lightness, but yet deep initial “getting in”, with immediate release. Listen to J. Hoffman, I. Friedman, or S. Rachmaninov, to understand what I mean.

The way I understand and teach the physical approach is how to play piano basically resting most of the time. This resting, this release gives you space, air, and time for the thinking about your image and accumulating whole your energy for the next wave of music phrase, which is the main idea and is what you ultimately want to say with your music.

In this respect, I don't see any difference between fast or slow palying. If you do it right you do what your brain tells you. You are limited only to how fast your reflexes respond to it. And now your task is to find what you do not right and where are your limits.

Hopefully all this is not confusing.

[bernhard]

MY QUESTIONS:
1) My problem is speed. I can't play fast. I can control the sound, beautiful sound but I can't reach the desired tempo.

You must approach this with a "diagnostic" frame of mind. You say you can't play fast. What stops you from doing it? What happens when you play (or try to play) fast? You must investigate the root causes of the problem and deal with them. A knowledgeable teacher, observing your playing should be able to detect many of these causes and suggest appropriate solutions. If you don't have access to this kind of teacher, have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2076.msg17157.html#msg17157
(Speed – the 3 most important factors)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,1808.msg23879.html#msg23879
(Ultra fast arpeggios – slow practice x slow motion practice – good post by Herve – Abby whiteside is also mentioned)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4282.msg39831.html#msg39831
(How to increase speed: slowly using metronome x fast with chord attack – juggling and skiping rope as examples)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8322.msg84686.html#msg84686
(speed and muscle tension – 3 important components of speed playing)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2313.msg19807.html#msg19807
(Speed of scales – the important factors in speed playing - an alternative fingering for scales).

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5083.msg48306.html#msg48306
(More questions on fast speed practice – the eldorado analogy - collection of links)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4851.msg47341.html#msg47341
(Practising for speed – Example: Beethoven Op. 49 no. 2)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4123.msg37829.html#msg37829
(How to investigate the best movement pattern: Example Scarlatti sonata K70 – How to work out the best fingering. Example: CPE Bach Allegro in A – Slow x slow motion practice – HS x HT – practising for only 5 – 10 minutes)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3778.msg35061.html#msg35061
(Speed: discussion about gradually speeding up with a metronome or using Chang’s approach)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3371.msg30141.html#msg30141
(zoom-zoom – all about speed playing – example: 3rd movt of Moonlight)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19129.html#msg19129
(practising long pieces – Good discussion if one should or should not listen to CDs - Slow motion practice, comparison with walking/running)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8335.msg84684.html#msg84684
(circular movements to avoid co-contraction)

2) In prof. Neuhaus book "The Art of Piano Playing" he talks about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!! opposed to the other very close key approach. Should we raise fingers when practicing?

As many excellent teachers and superb pianists have done before Neuhaus and after, he is talking nonsense.

To start with, there are no muscles in the fingers. And no, you should not raise your fingers (except perhaps minimally) simply because there is no reason or need to. Have a look here for more information:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2033.msg16635.html#msg16635
(finger strength)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5034.msg47829.html#msg47829
(The finger strength controversy – some excellent posts by xvimbi)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4145.msg38568.html#msg38568
(beginner’s muscle development – anatomy of the hand forearm – true reasons for extremely slow practice)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7887.msg79326.html#msg79326
(why the lifting of the 4th finger is a non-problem)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,7341.msg114168.html#msg114168
(repeated note-groups for difficult passages – correct technique is never uncomfortable – rotation as the solution to 5th finger weakness – criticism to misguided technical exercises – trusting the unconscious)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,7175.msg114163.html#msg114163
(wrist action – the movements that should be avoided when playing and the movements that should be used).

3) May be that this whole idea that certain movements or positions of hands or arms will produce beautiful sounds is wrong. That's what I should start to understand.

If we are talking single notes, the only think you can change in the sound is the volume and how long it rings. Depress the key fast (not hard) and you have a loud noise. Depress it slowly (not gently) and you will have a soft sound. Keep it depressed and it will keep ringing, let it go and the sound will be cut. That's pretty much all you can do. The movement is mostly irrelevant. You can get the same sound of a single note if play it with a toe, or a pencil.

Due to the piano mechanism, once the hammer has been sent to the string (about 2/3 of the way down) there is absolutely nothing you can do to change the sound. So "massaging" the key bed, shaking your finger on the depressed key in order to get a vibrato (a la Gould) and all this nonsense is not going to make any difference whatsoever. So the beauty of the sound of a single note has almost nothing to do with the movement (except for the triviality that depressing a key faster or slower and keeping it depressed or letting it go will be different movements), and everything to do with the piano maker (Bosendorfers will sound differnt from Steinways), and I am told that of the several factors, the felting of the hammers is one of the most important in this respect.

Once you have several notes, however, everything changes. The beauty, or should we say the difference of tone then will result from the combination of volume and agogics (how long you hold to a certain note) since the several notes played in succession will build ovetone patterns. It is those overtone patterns that make the sound distinctive. So yes, at this point movement becomes important and specific to the passage and to the sound you want to produce. Needless to say this movement is not unique - otherwise every pianist would sound exactly the same, and every pianist would have to move in exactly the same way (and play the same piano brand).

This "machine" like attribute of the piano, leads to "pianist envy": Pianists are envious of wind players (who truly need to create their sound with their breath) and string palyers (who are in direct contact with the strings and can thus directly in sound). This envy has caused all the superstition on "touch" and beauty of sound.

So, yes, specific patterns of movement are necessary to create beautiful sounds on the piano, but not in the same way as in other instruments (to start with there is no way you can paly a piano that will make it sound out of tune - while a violin or recorder player must make the intrument in tune by their specific movements).

Have a look here for more discussion on this:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2163.msg18345.html#msg18345
(Colour – it is all about overtones)

You may also enjoy this article with a discussion on this subject by Charles Rosen:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/273

and its follow up:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/214

excerpt:

all I said was that one cannot change the quality of sound by the way the note is played—one can only play softer and louder, longer and shorter. In spite of the beliefs of many piano teachers, the beauty of sound depends on purely musical considerations—shaping the melodic line, balancing the harmony—not on whether the notes are played gracefully or with a relaxed arm and body.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[m]

You must approach this with a "diagnostic" frame of mind. You say you can't play fast. What stops you from doing it? What happens when you play (or try to play) fast? You must investigate the root causes of the problem and deal with them. A knowledgeable teacher, observing your playing should be able to detect many of these causes and suggest appropriate solutions.

Could not be said better!!!

As many excellent teachers and superb pianists have done before Neuhaus and after, he is talking nonsense.

Kind of. But one should know context it was said.
Don't forget, as many greatest teachers Neuhaus was quite spoiled with students, meaning his students knew exactly what he meant when said something like that. ALL OF HIS STUDENTS were quite advanced and there was no basic stuff in the lessons. If you enter Moscow Conservatory to Neuhaus class it means you know the basics. When he was writing his book for some reason he assumed it.
When he says:

"about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!!"

by the "very active fingers" he meant "very active listening to the fingers", and by " finger muscles" he meant ability to recreate this "active" sound. Although I know it second hand, the sources--Lev Naumov, who was Neuhaus' assistant for many years; Neuhaus' great son Harrik; and my dear friend Alexander Slobodyanic, who studied with Neuhaus for many years, confirm it.

To start with, there are no muscles in the fingers. And no, you should not raise your fingers (except perhaps minimally) simply because there is no reason or need to.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we are talking single notes, the only think you can change in the sound is the volume and how long it rings. Depress the key fast (not hard) and you have a loud noise. Depress it slowly (not gently) and you will have a soft sound. Keep it depressed and it will keep ringing, let it go and the sound will be cut. That's pretty much all you can do. The movement is mostly irrelevant...

all I said was that one cannot change the quality of sound by the way the note is played—one can only play softer and louder, longer and shorter. In spite of the beliefs of many piano teachers, the beauty of sound depends on purely musical considerations—shaping the melodic line, balancing the harmony—not on whether the notes are played gracefully or with a relaxed arm and body.

Yes... and no!!! Music does not operate with softer and louder, or longer and shorter terms. Great master could play a single note with more into it than some others into whole melodic line. Remember the passage about Dinu Lipatti, when in his single note one could recognize major or minor mode? I believe it.

In music there are higher powers, which in one single note enable you to express zillions of moods... once you have the right image and technical means of execution.

[PaulNaud]

"about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!!"

by the "very active fingers" he meant "very active listening to the fingers", and by " finger muscles" he meant ability to recreate this "active" sound. Although I know it second hand, the sources--Lev Naumov, who was Neuhaus' assistant for many years; Neuhaus' great son Harrik; and my dear friend Alexander Slobodyanic, who studied with Neuhaus for many years, confirm it.

Marik,

What Heinrich Neuhaus wrote in his book "The Art Of Piano Playing" seems to contradict what you said last time.
In the chapter devoted to the acquisition of technique, he said (Sorry, I'm translating from my french edition book):
  " In order to study the trill. I advice to study it from two opposite means. The first solution consists to play the trill only with the fingers  by lifting them from the metacarpus; keep your hand in a relax position but motionless (avoid tension or hardening)........Play slowly and then fast. For the "non legato", lift up the fingers above the keys in order to feel their free and light momentum. Play also without lifting the fingers so that a cigarette paper could not fit between the finger tips and the keyboard. This is the most difficult and requires some experience........The other way of practicing the drill is opposed to the first one. It consists to use arm and forearm vibration. This vibration is achieved thanks to the ulna and the radius and also the muscles that surround them. This method is used mostly when we want to obtain a very loud tone; but we use it also in other cases because it is more natural and more convenient than the first one that excludes hand and forearm participation and that constitutes a repressive measure from the point of view of Nature. I insist however on the use of the first method because it's an irreplaceable exercise for the autonomous work of each finger..........Let each finger work autonomously...........In this position the pianist will pay attention to his hand that should be stress free, almost immobile and perfectly supple, it will rest on the fingers as a natural support. In this position, the metacarpus bones lift up (especially at the root of the little finger) and forms an arch from finger tips to the carpal bone....... "

Is there a contradiction?
Paul

[PaulNaud]

"about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!!"

by the "very active fingers" he meant "very active listening to the fingers", and by " finger muscles" he meant ability to recreate this "active" sound. Although I know it second hand, the sources--Lev Naumov, who was Neuhaus' assistant for many years; Neuhaus' great son Harrik; and my dear friend Alexander Slobodyanic, who studied with Neuhaus for many years, confirm it.

Marik,

What Heinrich Neuhaus wrote in his book "The Art Of Piano Playing" seems to contradict what you said last time.
In the chapter devoted to the acquisition of technique, he said (Sorry, I'm translating from my french edition book):
  " In order to study the trill. I advice to study it from two opposite means. The first solution consists to play the trill only with the fingers  by lifting them from the metacarpus; keep your hand in a relax position but motionless (avoid tension or hardening)........Play slowly and then fast. For the "non legato", lift up the fingers above the keys in order to feel their free and light momentum. Play also without lifting the fingers so that a cigarette paper could not fit between the finger tips and the keyboard. This is the most difficult and requires some experience........The other way of practicing the drill is opposed to the first one. It consists to use arm and forearm vibration. This vibration is achieved thanks to the ulna and the radius and also the muscles that surround them. This method is used mostly when we want to obtain a very loud tone; but we use it also in other cases because it is more natural and more convenient than the first one that excludes hand and forearm participation and that constitutes a repressive measure from the point of view of Nature. I insist however on the use of the first method because it's an irreplaceable exercise for the autonomous work of each finger..........Let each finger work autonomously...........In this position the pianist will pay attention to his hand that should be stress free, almost immobile and perfectly supple, it will rest on the fingers as a natural support. In this position, the metacarpus bones lift up (especially at the root of the little finger) and forms an arch from finger tips to the carpal bone....... "

Is there a contradiction?
Paul

[andhow04]

Could not be said better!!!

Kind of. But one should know context it was said.
Don't forget, as many greatest teachers Neuhaus was quite spoiled with students, meaning his students knew exactly what he meant when said something like that. ALL OF HIS STUDENTS were quite advanced and there was no basic stuff in the lessons. If you enter Moscow Conservatory to Neuhaus class it means you know the basics. When he was writing his book for some reason he assumed it.
When he says:

"about very active fingers as a way of practicing to build fingers muscles!!!"

by the "very active fingers" he meant "very active listening to the fingers", and by " finger muscles" he meant ability to recreate this "active" sound. Although I know it second hand, the sources--Lev Naumov, who was Neuhaus' assistant for many years; Neuhaus' great son Harrik; and my dear friend Alexander Slobodyanic, who studied with Neuhaus for many years, confirm it.

can anybody quote the exact words from the book that're being referred to? i dont really understand this reply. how could the precise phrase, "..build finger muscles" refer to anything else except, building muscles? but then again i dont know, did neuhaus write that or what.  But if he did, it seems weird to me to say, no, he really meant something else, even if other people would confirm  it. youa sked them about this phrases in particular? and if it is such an "advanced" topic why wouldnt he just express himself clearly? if he meant to listen in an active way or wahtever, how come he didnt just say that?
the bigger point is that a lot of ppl will read the neuhaus book and not have the benefit of marik's connections or whatever, and will do the right thing by thinking he meant what he said! so def. we should disagree when it seems (or is) wrong.
another thing i thought of is that sometimes i myself will meet ppl that know much more about this or that than me, and try to explain it, and i come away being able to be successful at something, but having a totally different approach than they were suggesting. then they say, "well, that's not really what i meant..." but it is still working. could this be the case with your peopel? I mean, that they misunderstood him and just interpreted his words in their own way. i mean i do that all the time, but somehow it works sometimes.

In music there are higher powers, which in one single note enable you to express zillions of moods... once you have the right image and technical means of execution.

but it seems to me that if i just woke up, and haven't ehard a single note all day, and you just played one and i wasn't watching you to be influenced by anything, and asked whats the mood, it seems to me, i couldn't be able to say! and could you? for instance if it is a soft note. it could be something tender, or something threatening! even in the same regsiter. i really think that what you say is only possible in some kind of context, sure for instance u can suggest a lot with the repeated "la's" in beethoven op.110 3rd mvmnt recitativo. but not without everything else. and what about the Do that opens the chopin g minor ballade? it could mean anything and only takes on a meaning after we hear the rest of the line. dont u agree?

[PaulNaud]

May be that Neuhaus used a non-scientific vocabulary to explain something completly different. As a matter of fact, perhaps he was using a colourful vocabulary intended to create images that could help the student in his struggle to achieve piano playing mastery.

[m]

Marik,

What Heinrich Neuhaus wrote in his book "The Art Of Piano Playing" seems to contradict what you said last time.
In the chapter devoted to the acquisition of technique, he said (Sorry, I'm translating from my french edition book):
  " In order to study the trill. I advice to study it from two opposite means. The first solution consists to play the trill only with the fingers  by lifting them from the metacarpus; keep your hand in a relax position but motionless (avoid tension or hardening)........Play slowly and then fast. For the "non legato", lift up the fingers above the keys in order to feel their free and light momentum. Play also without lifting the fingers so that a cigarette paper could not fit between the finger tips and the keyboard. This is the most difficult and requires some experience........The other way of practicing the drill is opposed to the first one. It consists to use arm and forearm vibration. This vibration is achieved thanks to the ulna and the radius and also the muscles that surround them. This method is used mostly when we want to obtain a very loud tone; but we use it also in other cases because it is more natural and more convenient than the first one that excludes hand and forearm participation and that constitutes a repressive measure from the point of view of Nature. I insist however on the use of the first method because it's an irreplaceable exercise for the autonomous work of each finger..........Let each finger work autonomously...........In this position the pianist will pay attention to his hand that should be stress free, almost immobile and perfectly supple, it will rest on the fingers as a natural support. In this position, the metacarpus bones lift up (especially at the root of the little finger) and forms an arch from finger tips to the carpal bone....... "

Is there a contradiction?
Paul

No there is no contradiction.
As I said earlier, the books (and my messages) are mostly confusing. Another problem is that the book was translated from Russian. I have to admit the last time I read it was about maybe 20 years ago.

But the main problem comes from missing the point. He says: "...lift up the fingers above the keys in order to feel their free and light momentum."

If you remember, I wrote somewhere earlier, I also make this kind of excersises with my students as a preliminary preparation stage. This Neuhaus phrase explains it all.
The main point here is not to "raise our fingers" for sake of lifting, but the idea is concentration on "their free and light momentum" and then complete energy release after the finger gets into the key (see above about darts).

I have a few Neuhaus playing videos--his fingers literally glued to the keys.

can anybody quote the exact words from the book that're being referred to? i dont really understand this reply. how could the precise phrase, "..build finger muscles" refer to anything else except, building muscles?

First of all, in Russian, expression "finger muscles" applyed to piano playing does not make any sense. Unfortunately, I don't have the Russian version of the book at the moment, to check exactly what originally he wrote.

Anyway, if you want to built "finger muscles", in any sport supply store there is kinda ring or spring, made exactly for this purpose. I highly doubt after a month of excersising you could play piano anymore. 

but then again i dont know, did neuhaus write that or what.  But if he did, it seems weird to me to say, no, he really meant something else, even if other people would confirm  it. youa sked them about this phrases in particular? and if it is such an "advanced" topic why wouldnt he just express himself clearly? if he meant to listen in an active way or wahtever, how come he didnt just say that?

You see, when you write a book and have a very clear concept of something, you assume that others have the same concept and there is no way for misunderstanding. Another thing, in translation (esp. if translator did not have piano background), many things get distorted.
And the last, but not the least. How many times even the greatest mind (actually, especially greatest minds) would think one thing, say another, but do something completely different.

Just take it critically, except what works for you, and filter out what does not.
 

and what about the Do that opens the chopin g minor ballade? it could mean anything and only takes on a meaning after we hear the rest of the line. dont u agree?

In fact, this Do is a very famous example. There are thousands ways of taking it, but only one is correct--when you take it so that it gives your listener a feeling that the whole phrase is coming out of this one single note. If it does not, there is no need to continue.

[m]

May be that Neuhaus used a non-scientific vocabulary to explain something completly different. As a matter of fact, perhaps he was using a colourful vocabulary intended to create images that could help the student in his struggle to achieve piano playing mastery.

He indeed had wonderful imagination. Usually, his lessons were not about technical execution, but serveys about art, painting, theater, etc., for sake of engaging students imagination and shaping musical image.
But on the other hand, it is only one of numerous possible ways. Needless to say, for some it worked, for some it did not.

[PaulNaud]

Another topic deals with the passing of the thumb when playing a scale. I would like to know what is Neuhaus opinion ? Does he talk about thumb-over technique?

[PaulNaud]

Another topic deals with the passing of the thumb when playing a scale. I would like to know what is Neuhaus opinion ? Does he talk about thumb-over technique?

Neuhaus also said that it's "quite usual and practical to pass the hand over the thumb than to pass the thumb under the hand."................"The major difficulty in playing a scale is the concern of the thumb that tends to break the rythm when hitting the key. The thing to do is to put the thumb prematurely at its right place, which means that it's prepared to play just in time."

[will]

If we are talking single notes, the only think you can change in the sound is the volume and how long it rings. Depress the key fast (not hard) and you have a loud noise. Depress it slowly (not gently) and you will have a soft sound. Keep it depressed and it will keep ringing, let it go and the sound will be cut. That's pretty much all you can do.

Yes, I think along the same lines. However if you depress the keys fast to create loud sounds then how do you play fast music softly?

[PaulNaud]

If we are talking single notes, the only think you can change in the sound is the volume and how long it rings. Depress the key fast (not hard) and you have a loud noise. Depress it slowly (not gently) and you will have a soft sound. Keep it depressed and it will keep ringing, let it go and the sound will be cut. That's pretty much all you can do. The movement is mostly irrelevant. You can get the same sound of a single note if play it with a toe, or a pencil.

This topic should be clarified indeed!!!

[PaulNaud]

I would add to this subject a quotation from Joseph Lhevinne: "It thus happens that many amateurs, who know little about music itself, possess a touch which is very beautiful merely because they have accidentally learned how to play with right arm conditions and with the proper part of their finger tips, so that, instead of delivering a bony blow to the ivory surface, they touch the keys with felt-like cushions of human flesh and produce a really  lovely tone without knowing  how they do it."

[zheer]

I have noticed a number of famous teachers talking about the shoulder in relation to creating a good sound isnt that B**X.

[nick]

  " The records have shown, beyond any doubt, that a muscular coordination changes with each change of tempo, intensity, or pitch of the tones. In order, therefore, to exercice the muscles used in the actual movement, we should, from the beginning, have to practice each passage at the tempo, intensity, and pitch at which it is finally to be played.  " OTTO ORTMANN, p. 376.

Comments.......................................................

Has anyone heard Ortmann play?

Nick

[nick]

Who is that Otto Ortman?
Once again, a good example of how physical approach and muscular coordination are taken out of musical context, whatsoever .
 
Have you ever seen how painters work?
They'd make a stroke, then come close, then go far, then get back, before the next one.

Have you ever seen how masters of Kuhg-Fu practice, slowly and conciously following each slightest movement of their body, with greatest possible concentration? And this is the art, where seemingly the physical approach might dominate!!!

The slow tempo is a magnifying glass, showing you every little detail, that you would be able to feel and get identified with. This is a hard menthal work, when you  conciously realize and find what you need to deliver in a faster tempo. 

I knew MANY great pianists. Some of them are super stars. Some of them were my classmates, some roomates, some closest friends. Most of them, as well as such pianists as Richter, Gilels, Rachmaninov, and many more practiced slow only. Some of them would play up to a tempo on stage, only. Horowitz practiced slowly, repeating some passages hundreds times. The same goes to the greatest Friedman.

On the other hand, each person is different and to be historically correct, there were some, who never practiced slowly. It was just how their system worked the best. The difference is they never asked how they should practice...

This has been what I have discovered through years of experimenting, that the slower practice, or medium speed,  is most important. The faster practicing causes tension in ones playing that you don't suspect will be a problem. At this point it appears that one cannot play slowly with no tension for a short while and then play faster with tension. The slower practicing must be a long enough period to allow strength with relaxed hands, which will allow faster playing. I think the problem most encounter,   is they expect lightening speed (as i did) after some weeks of the slower playing. The fast attempt was tried with tension because one cannot handle the fastest speed. So I assumed in the past that one must push for the speed, rather than the current observation that more medium speed practice is needed for development, and then the fast attempt must not be with tension, but rather with the same feeling one had with the medium practice speed.

Nick