Ultra-fast arpeggios (ARGERICH)!!!

[comme_le_vent]

If you prefer, open a new topic and answer there.

methinks this is bernhard's prefered course of action, due to his ever-tidy mind.

but rhythm for me is VERY natural, i feel ive never aquired it, it was with me before i started piano, i think i just have a natural feeling for rhythm.

from what your saying - its possible to teach rhythm?

i believe to a degree - youve either got it, or will never have it.

[Xelles]

methinks this is bernhard's prefered course of action, due to his ever-tidy mind.

but rhythm for me is VERY natural, i feel ive never aquired it, it was with me before i started piano, i think i just have a natural feeling for rhythm.

from what your saying - its possible to teach rhythm?

i believe to a degree - youve either got it, or will never have it.

There are just so many ways to argue your last point, who's to say that only certain people can be taught rhythm? Who defines what a person can and cannot learn? To say that a person's "got it, or will never have it" is a pretty harsh statement, especially with something as rhythm that has so much complexity in some areas that even the "pro's" stumble on.

[veryangrystorks]

Excuse me, but can anyone tell me how to go about praticing this thumb-over technique?  I know it involves a lateral shift in the hand, but when I play slowly, it sounds as if there is a "break" in my playing when I shift my hand, no matter the speed of the shift.  Will this disappear when I begin playing extremely fast?  Should I start slowly and "metronome" my way to light speed?  How would one go about this technique?

[BoliverAllmon]

Metronome work will teach rhythmn. Rhythmic difficulties can be overcome with ease.

boliver

[bernhard]

Excuse me, but can anyone tell me how to go about praticing this thumb-over technique?  I know it involves a lateral shift in the hand, but when I play slowly, it sounds as if there is a "break" in my playing when I shift my hand, no matter the speed of the shift.  Will this disappear when I begin playing extremely fast?  Should I start slowly and "metronome" my way to light speed?  How would one go about this technique?

Yes, the gap will disappear as you play fast. (Use thumb under for slow, legato passages).

Do not practise slow and then increase speed via the metronome; this will create speed walls. Instead start the fastest you can and slow down. This is much easier, and bypasses any speed wall. The fastest anyone can play is together. So play the passage as a chord (e.g. scales: 123 as a chord, displace the hand to the new position, 1234 as a chord). Once you can play chords and displacements accurately, slow down by breaking the chord. It will still be unbelievably fast. The only limitation to your speed will be your accuracy at speed when displacing the hand. Therefore this is what really needs to be practised. This subject has been discussed a lot in the forum. So for more details on the above as well as views that disagree with mine see these threads:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=perf;action=display;num=1072372668

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1052872232

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1067332140


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Metronome work will teach rhythmn. Rhythmic difficulties can be overcome with ease.

boliver

I agree with you at a certain very basic level.

The metronome can also be useful to impart regular pulse to someone who lacks it.

However, real rhythm cannot be taught through a metronome. Rhythmical notation is an approximation at best.

First we have the obvious conventions (like unequal notes in French Baroque music where notes notated as of equal value are meant to be played as dotted rhythms - if you are unaware of this convention the metronome is not going to help you - and of course Jazz swing notation - where again if you are unaware of the convention practising with a metronome will destroy the performance - in fact even if you are aware of the convention, you will not be able to practise it with a metronome).

Second, even when the notation actually represents what you should be playing, playing by the metronome will not impart or teach you the rhythm - any Chopin piece will serve as evidence.

So the question remains: How do you teach this "natural" rhythm? My own answer for the moment is : by example and imitation. But this begs the question of origins: If that is so, how did the first teacher learned it?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Herve]

Bernhard, over the past couple of days I have been thinking about rhythm.

Look at some video recordings of performances of rock groups and then of piano concertos.  The cameras recording these events sometime pan onto the members of the audience.  But it happens far more often at the rock concert - almost as if the crowd were part of the performance.  Not much video of the concerto audience because the folks shooting it realize that nobody watches slent movies anymore -  let alone “still”, silent movies, and that’s what people would see if they showed much of the concerto’s audience - a crowd of “statues”.

The behavior of the audiences at these two events is vastly different because that at the rock concert is “supposed to be” completely and unabashedly uninhibited (just like the performers), and the one at “The Symphony” is “supposed to be” precisely the opposite.  Even though members of the symphony audience may be going through an emotional, AND PHYSICAL, experience every bit as intense as the rock crowd’s, similar uninhibited displays of rhythm at the concerto are not allowed - EXCEPT, ironically, by the performers themselves (!) and the audience - but only AT THE END of the performance, AFTER the music has stopped.  It’s all about INHIBITING the rhythmic behavior that the music inspires.

Not surprisingly, the behavior of non-player folks sitting around at home listening to classical music is much the same.

When a young person enters public school he/she soon gets the message that quiet, studious behavior is the right way to be - “don’t act out” -  and, unless one becomes a professional athlete, that really IS the road to success in both “blue collar” and “white collar” professions.  Unfortunately, it does not represent the same in learning to play the piano, or, more accurately stated, the whole body technique to be executed PRIOR to “playing the piano” (making impact with the keys of the piano).

But it is not that rhythm has been lost in those people - it has been “internalized” - much as speaking can can be internalized to “thinking”.  They’re both identical to their “external” counterparts, but neither is “visible”.  I believe this must be the case, otherwise these people could not enjoy music, let alone desire to play it.  (Children of professional musicians learn very early on not only how to speak, but also, by observing their parents’ behavior during performance, to “externalize” their rhythmic behavior.)

So a person who develops a love for classical music can be at a distinct disadvantage when trying to learn to play the music he/she loves.  Combine that with the “I hate the affectations of that pianist” attitude, and the student’s already got two strikes against him before he even sits down at the piano.

The behavior that I am executing now as I type this letter is vastly different than the behavior required to play a piano.  I think many piano students don’t realize this - I sure didn’t.  And, by the nature of the questions of “fingering”, and relative lack of questions regarding most of the rest of the body (and rhythm in general), on this forum, I believe that the most important “thing” about piano playing is certainly not getting the attention it deserves.  It’s like talking only about fingers when trying to learn to throw that basball a great distance.  The “fingering” should be way down on the list of priority.

But how can this rhythm which is within us all be “re-externalized” to it’s pre-school glory?

I noticed the link to the site which has on it links to other sites which have on them videos of various pianists.  I love it!  I was absolutely mesmerized as I watched Valentina Lisitsa playing Liszt’s Don Juan Fantasy.  In a quite-obviously extroverted fashion she demonstrates the pianistic rhythmic technique she requires to play the piece.  

In my opinion, any piano student who is repelled by her “affectations” is going to have far more trouble learning to play romantic music than the one who embraces it - because it is within those gross rhythmic gesticulations that a universe of “technical” possibilities exists.

If I wished to perform this Liszt piece, I’d acquire the score and a grab a pencil.  I’d then play that long clip and highlight on the score the “important” notes which will then become my practice “skeleton”.  Then, BEFORE PLAYING A NOTE, as I watched her performance from my own piano, I would LEARN HER DANCE (HER RHYTHM) - not her “finger technique”, but every other motion of her entire body.  (“AIR PIANO!”)  After I had learned the dance, I would then proceed to the skeleton (always within the dance), and finally to the unimportant embellishments - by far the vast majority of notes in the piece.

Therefore, I imagine that for a teacher to help a student to “externalize” his rhythm he must demonstrate his own rhythmic technique and try to get the student to mimic that behavior.  If I were a teacher, I would be doing most of the playing and asking the student to do what I’ve described above.  The teacher should resort to whatever trick or device imaginable to elicit this from his student.  (Just saying this has inspired in me several new ideas about how to accompish this, but I can’t ramble on forever.)

To those who may say that copying Lisitsa’s performance, or the performance of one’s teacher, denies one’s creativity in interpreting the piece, I say - “I’ll live with it.”  (I doubt very much if even SHE can “copy” her OWN performance from night to night.)

I’ll further “drive the point home” by telling a little fictional story.

Once upon a time.......... I was feeling in a rather foul mood because someone had accused my piano-forum posts of being waaay off topic, and I wanted to express my displeasure through a new composition rather than physical or verbal retaliation.  I connected my digital practice piano to my computer and prepared my mucical-notation software to record my new compositon.  (Isn’t technology marvelous?)  I already knew what I want to “express”, so I just got right to it.

Because I’m a very self-centered snob, I also set up my digital video camera on a tripod in order to record for posterity my first performance of this piece.  After turning on the video camera, I walked up to the piano and, as a boxer approaches an opponent, without even sitting down, I pounded my flattened hands down onto the keyboard, then I raised my right elbow up as high as I could and then smashed it down on the treble end of the keyboard.  Then I sat down on the bench and used my flattened hands to rub the keyboard up and down, back and forth and then did a little up and down “splish splash” with both fists and, for a final touch, I stood up, turned my back to the keyboard, jumped up as high as I could and landed my butt on the bass end of the keyboard.  “There, that will do quite nicely” I said to myself, and I turned off the piano and camera.  I then turned my attention to my computer which had dutifully recorded my performance, and examined my “musical score”.  “Yep, that’s just what I wanted” I said to myself as I printed my pride and joy.

I then called a pianist friend of mine and asked him if he might be interested in futhering his career by giving my piece its first public performance.  “I sure do” he said, and he arrived at my house shortly thereafter.  After some intial pleasantries and explanation of my piece’s inspiration, I handed him my composition and said “why don’t you take it home with you and study it and then we’ll discuss it right back here next week”.

A few hours later, I was quite surprised to get a phone call from him during which he told me that he had worked feverishly on the piece since he left my place (even going so far as to use a metronome!) but he just couldn’t seem to “get the right fingering” and could he come by so that I could give him some direction on the piece.  I said “sure, come on over”.  

He arrived shortly thereafter and I pointed to the piano and told him to “give it a shot” so that I might be able to help him out.  He sat down at the piano and then, before he struck a note, he was very surprised to hear me say  - “uh ............... hold it right there!  I want you to see something that I think will really help ...........YOU IDIOT!”

And they lived happily ever-after.

[bernhard]

Herve,

Thank you for a most interesting and informative post. Please do ramble on!

In my opinion, any piano student who is repelled by her “affectations” is going to have far more trouble learning to play romantic music than the one who embraces it - because it is within those gross rhythmic gesticulations that a universe of “technical” possibilities exists.

Although I certainly agree with you that whatever movement is necessary should be there, I must also say that I am repelled by what I would call unnecessary, "carefully studied" movement.

For instance, Glenn Gould had certainly a very peculiar and obvious way of moving, but I never minded it in the least, because it was clearly necessary for him to do it in order to play the way he did (I don't like his singing along though).

But then you have certain pianists (who I guess have been instructed to do so by some acting coach) who will do movements that are a) clearly unnecessary and b) obviously artificial. I have recently watched on TV Helene Grimaud (but I forgive her because she is pretty, he he ), and at the lyrical moments she would roll her eyes up and look at the ceiling, presumably to tell the audience something that she could not convey through her playing. The problem was, it was completley obvious that it was acting, and bad acting at that.

I also read an interesting article somewhere, where it was told that Alfred Brendel at some point in his career, watched a video of himself and was horrified at the unconscious grimacing that he was doing while playing. He was particularly distressed that his grimacing did not correspond to the emotions he was trying to convey in the music. Instead of fighting it, he decided to put it to good use. So he started practising with mirrors, so that he could check himself out, and he could make facial expressions that would correspond more to the music he was playing. Now I must say at this point that I would much more prefer that he kept with the original unconscious grimacing, than with an imposed artificial  one.

Any thoughts?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[faulty_damper]

Artificial movement: similar to bad acting/melodrama/soap opera acting.

I sometimes think that pianist don't move very much.  They move their upper bodies but their legs are dead.  Some grimace a lot; some don't grimace at all.  I prefer those that grimace because it conveys an idea/emotion to the audience but this is usually with emotional music (Beethoven), not dead music like Mozart (Uchida grimaces too much, IMO).

Uchida's grimacing while playing Mozart doesn't work for me.  It's Mozart.  How emotional is his music?  Her face contorts in strange ways but the music that comes out is great!  But looking at her face and the music somehow is disconnected.  An example of this: A waltz is playing and a couple are dancing hip hop to it.  Anyone looking at this would think "HUH?!?"  But no one would think this if they were waltzing to a waltz.

Another pianist: Lang Lang.  His face is too off-the-wall and draws far too much attention.  In this situation, I'd just be confused and thinking "HUH?!?" with a confused grimace on my face with short burst of laughter because his facial expressions make me laugh.  In his case, it seems phony because his expressions don't match the impecable way he's playing - his playing isn't very expressive at all and no amount of grimacing would change that.

Grimacing and playing should match.

[trunks]

It's quite amusing to watch Brendel grimacing through the first two volumes of Liszt's Annees de pelerinage, especially the somewhat sinister grimaces he occasionally made in the Danta Sonata. Suited the music well . . .

[Herve]

Did you ever hear the one about the Frenchman (I’m of French descent) who used his hands so much while he spoke that if you held them still, he couldn’t speak?  Well, Glenn Gould was the opposite.

The only time I’ve grimaced while playing is when I’ve learned a piece from the unimportant details “outward”, rather than from the confidence of a well-established skeleton “inward” to the details.  Whenever I’ve had problems in performance it has ALWAYS been because I have not thoroughly learned the skeleton, or haven’t played it by itself often enough during the learning of the details.  The rhythm of the piece makes obvious the required technique to fill in details - not the reverse.

As far as over-acting at the piano goes - as long as it doesn’t involve gunfire or bad smells, I don’t get repelled.  Why is it that practically everywhere else - from the modern classroom, to the preachers’ pulpits, to the politicians’ podiums - anything goes, but when it comes to behavior at the piano we’re put off by a pianists’ eyes turned heaven-ward?  I believe there’s more to the answer than one may at first think.  It’s very personal to each of us - but, for the sake of our technique, we all must attempt to answer it.

It is not simply a desire to be “expressive” that should drive one to develop a whole-body rhythmic technique - it is because, particularly when many strings of the piano must speak in a short period of time (SEE, STILL ON THREAD TOPIC!), that it is the only way the task can be accomplished.   Ultimately, it is the “resistive” mechanism of the piano which commands this of its player.

Many years ago I discovered a paradox in learning to play the piano (maybe it’s now in Piano 101 and I’m simply ignorant).  Ideally, one must travel from not knowing a piece at all, to beautifully performing it - while going through as few intermediate “levels” of performance as possible.  

Why learn a whole bunch of intermediate techniques when the only one really necessary is that which will be required for final performance?

But rather than now provide reinforcing arguments to this question's implied answer,  I’d more like to get into some “back and forth” discussion - so I pose what to me is one of the most significant questions a piano student can ever ask:

“What is the minimum distance a piano key must travel downward in order to “sound” its note?”

[faulty_damper]

"Did you ever hear the one about the Frenchman (I’m of French descent) who used his hands so much while he spoke that if you held them still, he couldn’t speak?  Well, Glenn Gould was the opposite. "

Actually, most people have problems with talking when you stop their arms and hands from moving.  People who talk very fast and use their arms slow to a stutter and can't seem to say what they want to say.  But certain cultures don't have this problem because they don't move their arms very much when talking.

Here's a joke:

How do make an Italian shut up?

Cut off their arms.

[Herve]

The location of key at rest and the location of key-making-a-sound can be virtually the same or any point between rest and bottom of key drop.

[newsgroupeuan]

The location of key at rest and the location of key-making-a-sound can be virtually the same or any point between rest and bottom of key drop.

I agree.  It depends on how fast the key is pressed downwards i.e. how much acceleration the key goes through.  You can slowly push the key fully down and not make a sound

[Xelles]

"Did you ever hear the one about the Frenchman (I’m of French descent) who used his hands so much while he spoke that if you held them still, he couldn’t speak?  Well, Glenn Gould was the opposite. "

Actually, most people have problems with talking when you stop their arms and hands from moving.  People who talk very fast and use their arms slow to a stutter and can't seem to say what they want to say.  But certain cultures don't have this problem because they don't move their arms very much when talking.

Here's a joke:

How do make an Italian shut up?

Cut off their arms.

How do you fix a faulty damper?

You send the piano back to the assembly line.

The real joke here is my return of a bad joke, after reading one.

[Herve]

Remember the child's toy (now on some CEOS’ desks) consisting of a horizontal row of small steel balls, each hanging independently by a string from a small beam?  As they hang there -“plumb” - the balls just touch each other at rest.  One ball at the end is then gripped by the CEO, swung upward and released.  The ball swings down and strikes the ball which is at the end of the group at rest.  The only ball that moves as a result of the strike is the one at the opposite end of the "pack" - it shoots outward while the others remain still.

The well-regulated action of the piano is remarkably similar.  Just as the balls of the toy rest against each other, the whole “hammer-moving” mechanism of the grand piano rests on the key capstan.  If the player’s finger stikes the top of the key, but stops as soon as the key is struck (let's not get philosophical here!), the player’s kinetic energy is transmitted through the various parts of the action and the hammer will rise and hit the string.  So the key moves downward maybe not at all, but the hammer rises to strike string.

The significance of this fact to the player should be astromomical because he/she no longer has to be concerned about “finger technique”.  The empasis now naturally turns to the more-fertile world ABOVE the keyboard - the land where big motions of powerful weights and levers produce beautiful music to the ear.  Once this is fully appreciated, it completely changes the player’s attitude toward piano music, piano technique, and method of practice.  Contact with the keys occurs AFTER something, not as the BEGINNING of something.

Because quite a hard key-strike is necessary to move hammers while barely moving keys, it is necessary for the player to use his entire body as a whip with properly-spaced “solidified” fingers making the required forceful impact at the “crack”.

The dynamic range of sound using this technique (attitude) is very wide - from barely audible to very loud.  The amount of energy required to play softly is a fraction of that required to play loud, so this technique is most suitable for playing large groups of notes softly and very rapidly.

It is a failure to recoginze and appreciate this that has killed the incentive of  99% of people who have attempted to play the piano - although a close second is the behavior cultivated in a student while he/she is learning standard notation.

Additionally, the fact that the player has to do some rather strange contortions to get a sound doesn't help in the least.  In fact, the tendency to be LESS active when in the presence of listeners can be a killer when it comes to "getting the product out".  

Self-consciousness has to go out the window or all is lost.  Again, Glenn Gould is the perfect example of un-self-consciousness player.  If anyone is more bizarre than he - humming loudly, wavering around like a top, and sitting on a chair most folks would consider a torture device, I'd have to see it for myself.

[bernhard]

This is a beautiful, awesome post.

Well done, Herve!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Herve]

You're very welcome, Bernhard.  

I must say that I've found many of your posts very useful.  It's quite obvious to me that you are very passionate about the piano, and want to spread the good word.  I decided to make my first post mostly out of guilt that I wasn't doing the same.

It is a testament to the imagination of Abby Whiteside that to this day she continues to inspire in players new ideas about how to play and teach.

[guermantes]

I've made myself a summary of this thread which I reprint here in case anyone besides myself finds it useful :
Summary of Ultra-Fast Arpeggios

Group the arpeggio into clusters (chords) and play without dropping the wrist with strict horizontal motion(as little vertical motion as possible). Then play each cluster as quickly as possible (rolling motion) and result is faster and cleaner arpeggios.

For learning fast arpeggios, try Chopin’s Op.10 N°1 and Godowsky’s first Chopin Study.

Don’t rely only on slow or fast prace, do a mixture of both. Learn movements and commit to memory with slow practice, then play small chunks above tempo to build speed.

Very interesting comments from Herve:
Read Abbey Whiteside’s Mastering the Chopin Etudes (available in one volume as Playing the Piano at Amazon.com). None of the great fast works for piano were ever conceived or performed in a way lending themselves to slow practice. The behavior which cultivates slow practice is not similar to the whole-body technique required to play it. Performance speed is not slow playing that is sped up.
 A good idea to hear and hopefully see the piece performed as was originally intended by the composer before undertaking to study it.
Outline the piece by noting the important notes within the rhythmic framework and learn the outline – the less important notes will take care of themselves. Play at tempo only the notes essential to recognize the melody (might be only 1 note per measure or less) that would cause the listener to say “yes, I recoginize this piece”. Establish the overall rhythmic and melodic idea of the piece as a whole at tempo. Ideas will come afterwards on how to fill in the embellishing not. Go back frequently and repeat the initial outline which is the glue holding everything together and it will allow consistent reliable performance. Decide the tempo before learning the outline. Only after the extra notes are added in and mastered, should any attempt be made to increase tempo if necessary.
When starting to fill in the remaining notes, try every motion, position, gesticulation with body part that comes to mind and always within the chosen rhythmic framework. If something doesn’t work, reject it and try something else. The relative merits of each attempt will be remembered and spur new ideas of combinations and variations of previous attempts. When the correct technique stumbled upon, a bolt of lighning never forgotten.
The entire body must get into the rhythmic act. What happens at fingers is the crack of the whip, almost everything happens before cracking it. It’s not the fingers but the whole body : almost invariably a large group of keys will have to struck in a single landing of the hand played almost as a single note and felt very sensitively by the fingers as they make their impact (they feel the “texture” of the landing). It’s the rhythmic dance that runs the show during performance – the body does all the moving and the piano just sits there.

Bernhard explains that slow practice is not the same as slow motion practice. Slow practice is only useful for purposes of memorisation since it makes hand memory ineffective. Incorrect slow practice may cause all sorts of incorrect movements causing speed walls.
Abbey Whiteside’s book is wonderful and a great influence but the notion of a basic rhythm is not clearly explained and taken for granted. Wonders if Hervé can comment on this natural rhythm and the way to acquire/teach it.
He also explains for fast arpeggio technique to avoid practicing slowly then increasing speed with the metronome as this method causes speed walls. Start at the fastest possible tempo then slow down. The fastest is to pay the passage as a chord then displace hand to the new position, etc. Once chords and displacements are played accurately, slow down by breaking the chord. The only speed limitation is time it takes to displace the hand, therefore this is what needs to be practiced. Real rhythm cannot be taught through a metronome : for the moment, his only method is by example and imitation.

Hervé replies about natural rhythm :
Fingering is way down the list of priorities. It is within gross rhythmic gesticulations that the universe of technical possibilities exists. He suggests watching a video clip of a performer and noting the important notes of the score which becomes the outline of the piece. Before playing a note on the piano, , he would learn the dance rhythm of the performer while watching the video clip (what he calls on an “air piano”). Once the dance learned, he would proceed to the outline always within the dance and finally to the remaining notes. A teacher should help a student to acquire this rhythm by demonstrating and getting the student to mimic.
He doesn’t find repellant grimaces made while playing, (Bernhard had mentioned facial grimaces in his above reply). The only time Herve has ever grimaced is when he’s learned a piece from the unimportant details outward rather than from the outline inward to the details. The rhythm of the piece makes obvious the required technique to fill in the details and not the reverse. Self consciousness must go out the window.
Herve asks the question : what is the minimum distance a piano key must travel downwards in order to sound its note ? and replies : the location of key at rest and the location of key making a sound can be virtually the same or any point between est and bottom of key drop. If the player’s finger strikes the top of the key but stops as soon as the key is struck, his kinetic energy is transmitted throught the various parts of key action and the hammer will rise to hit the string. So the key many not move much downward, but the hammer will sound the note. The significance of this phenomenon means that the pianist need no longer be concerned with finger technique. Put more emphasis on the world above the keyboard. Contact with the key occrs after something and not as the beginning of something.
All the best,
Béryl

[bernhard]

Nice summary!

[pianistimo]

i thought herve was going in a different direction when he was speaking of the 'world above the keys and below.'  it takes very little physical effort to produce an fff (especially if you play faster and like to practice fast).  many many notes within a measure give you natural dynamics that sound louder without 'hitting' or making extra effort.

what herve may be trying to give you is carpal tunnels (if you take it to the extreme).  be  careful about how much movement you use to produce sound.  it is not about producing sound above keyboard as 'learning the dance.'  i like that idea  A LOT. 

ok.  here's some things NOT to dance with:

tapping the other foot.  this doesn't look so good.  and, my teacher doesn't like it.   so, i quit.  (no, not the piano)  looking up at the left hand corner of the ceiling, obscuring your face from the audience.  snapping your fingers when playing a difficult rhythm, and incorporating in whenever it works out (to the dance motion).

here's some things TO dance with:

take a workshop in body motion and become more comfortable with your body and NATURAL movements (things that look natural for you MAY BE DIFFERENT than others).  take for instance a female and a male.  do you want males imitating your DANCE so that there is no one at the lead?  i say men and women should dance differently (but this is my opinion).  there is a certain advantage to being a woman (lighter bones - perhaps lighter playing) and there is a certain advantage to being a man (larger stretches, more muscular involvment at times).  ok.  what i'm saying is that your dance should follow your physical attributes and not be 'preplanned' as much as allowed 'out.'  i would watch a LOT of videos and find a style that you think looks PROFESSIONAL and has qualities you may emulate as well as add to (who wants to be a copy?)

ps  some might think because of what i said in the paragraph above, that women cannot play the piano as well as men (taking the lead).  this is not necessarily what i meant (although there are many more men prof. pianists).  i think what women naturally do (body movement much more) they have to make up for in other areas.  perhaps self-confidence and pulling in- reigning in - the natural tendendcies to be the opposite.  too demonstrative!  as a teacher you have to let your students know what looks natural vs. what looks contrived.  if the motion doesn't lend itself to a relaxed manner of playing, it is simply unneccessary.  but, you don't want to be a stiff marble pianist either.

i think the dance is more upper body.  you don't typically see people slapping their legs every other beat, or twisting the spine from side to side.  but, you do see a similarity with conducting.  basically, you are conducting your own performance.  you are making sure that your movements allow you to keep the rhythm, keep the dynamics, keep the intensity (important - and most likely what herve was adding into the recipie) and flow, and lastly 'excitement.'  remembering, that what is exciting about a performance is the music (not the movement alone).

ok all this advice comes from an average pianist (who doesn't play much chopin) but has thought about this stuff a lot and wants to contribute.  i find my happiest playing in beethoven (which still requires attitude).  a big portion of how i conceive a piece is already in my head (5 minutes before i play it).  i start actually hearing the piece (in my head) and subconciously moving to it way before i start playing.  if i were to attempt more chopin now, my 'attacks' for very fast arpeggios would not be 'attacks' anymore, but 'relaxations.'  i used to tense up at every passage that was difficult (psychologically tense up).  i would think 'this is going to be difficult.'  therefore, it was.  now, i think 'this is easy.  all i have to do is RELAX.'  when you relax, you allow your nerves to function quickly and painlessly - just like minimal effort of the keys to activate the action of the piano.

look at how little effort is needed to set all that in motion.  just like the kinetic balls.  you only need to lift one a very slight amount and it follows a straight line (not a curved one - although i suppose a little curve adds aesthetic appeal).  minimal is in nature, too.  things are not excessive (we don't see horses adding to their strides with any more movement than necessary).  i like to watch very fast animals LIKE CATS.  all kinds of cats.  you can learn about pouncing at just the right time.

[musicsdarkangel]

 to practice arpeggios efficiently, you must do it slowly, AND in real time.


Practice the pivotal movements (where it will slow you down or sound sloppy).  Get those movements down.

[looknsee]

I suggest the best is sticking your own way on playing.

My way is play slowly.The best is memorize every note and the master the key on the piano.i dont how to say.That mean play until you know wats the next note will be coming on then you can go to that key wothout looking at it.But that takes long time to get to that lvl.My suggestion in memorize the score note and the keyboard note.

[pabst]

If someone mentioned it already, sorry, but:
Coffee!

[Herve]

I’ve thought quite some time about whether to respond to the summary Beryl made of my contributions to this thread, and I have decided that I must.

I've made myself a summary of this thread which I reprint here in case anyone besides myself finds it useful :

I’m not exactly sure here what “it” is that is to be found useful – the summary, or the original posts - but, in either case, the objection I have is that this summary is apparently being presented as something others can effectively use as a substitute for reading the more lengthy original posts (otherwise, why post it?), when there is far more to be “obtained” from them than the summary.

I think personal summaries (“notes”, if you will) for one’s own use privately are to be expected and acceptable, but, on a public forum, even if it is presented merely as such, I think it almost certainly diminishes the author’s original work - especially if it appears at the end of the same thread on which the authors’ were posted.

If after each of my posts there appeared such a “summary” of what I had just written, I certainly would have said something about it at that time, and I am no less inclined to do so now.  I don’t think anyone would ever do such a ridiculous thing, but I think that the mere passage of time, and its position on the thread, does not make this summary any less so.  Rather than flattering, to me it’s insulting.

The summary may very well help Bernhard or Beryl, or other readers of the original posts, to remember these AND OTHER ideas which were expressed within them, but it will definitely not do the same for those who have read the summary and then, because of its inadequacy, choose NOT to read the originals which they supposedly summarize. That is exactly what I fear will happen and that would be a shame.

I also think that it is fair to say that whether a personal summary accurately represents the intent of the author’s work is, at the very least, debatable and, therefore, if it even appears at all, should be separated from it – in this case, on a thread of its own.

Of course I did precisely this same thing in my first post, but I did so with the caveat that Mastering the Chopin Etudes should be read by folks interested in playing “ultra-fast” arpeggios.  In other words, while attempting to paraphrase what Abby had said, I pointedly directed readers to the original work. No such direction appears in the summary presented above and, in my opinion, would be counter-productive even if it contained such direction.

In a world now so dominated by “scientific” thinking – where things are dissected and analyzed in agonizing minutiae (even to the detriment of the intended goal) – there is an irresistible desire to accomplish things faster and more efficiently.  But just as life itself cannot be “ascertained” from a living being which has been dissected to the molecule, the “life force” or behavior required for great piano performance likewise cannot be “summarized” from an artful attempt at its description.

Regardless of how others interpret them, I intended my posts more as works of art which may instill in their readers a glimpse of what it is like to play the piano and maybe inspire them to attempt it for themselves, rather than as the uninspiring piano-playing “recipe” of the summary. 

How can one “sum up” what is intended as a work of art, as opposed to a piece-of-furniture painting, or background-noise music?  (What IS art, anyway?) 

I am startled by every painting I see, even though I may have seen its photograph a thousand times before, and I am startled every time I sit next to a performer and watch and listen, even though I’ve heard and seen recordings of the piece a thousand times before.

I believe someone who has read that summary will be similarly startled if they then undertake to read the “originals” which it supposedly summarizes.
 
Photos of paintings and statues, summaries of written works, and recordings of musical performances are merely “shadows” or “tracks” of a reality which has been brought to life by “a something” that I was attempting to describe in my posts – in the case of the latter, an intimate understanding of the piano’s mechanism and the all-encompassing dance which the player must wittingly or unwittingly employ to effectively “interact” with it.

Unlike “skeletons” or outlines (summaries) of music - where the harmonic and melodic foundation of the piece can be fully exposed to the light of day - the “melody” of written speech is a far more difficult thing to discern.  Different readers will “hear” different melodies.  So, just the same as in music, it must not be tampered with too much or the overall effect – the real purpose for its creation and the “whole” which is greater than the sum of its parts – may very well be lost and is at the least certainly diminished.

And also just like a musical composition, if what is being “described” by a “composer” cannot be grasped by the reader in its entirety on the first – or the thousandth – reading, its realization will certainly not be achieved by removing and “stacking up” its “notes”.   What is needed is elaboration of ideas, not diminution and, if anything, that is precisely what is needed at the end of this thread instead of a “summary”. 

After reading the summary, will the reader read the original work?  I very much doubt it.  In fact, they may very well conclude from reading Beryl’s summary that “what herve is trying to give you is carpal tunnels” – a comment which only appeared after the summary’s belated appearance.  (What a coincidence!)

As I now give an example of the inadequacy of the summary, I will be guilty of doing precisely that which I have just criticized – taking something out of the context of “the whole” that diminishes it as well as its own part within it.

The summary does not contain these statements that I consider to be of utmost importance to anyone studying the piano:

“It is not simply a desire to be “expressive” that should drive one to develop a whole-body rhythmic technique - it is because, particularly when many strings of the piano must speak in a short period of time, that it is the only way the task can be accomplished. Ultimately, it is the “resistive” mechanism of the piano which commands this of its player.”

Once again, what if the reader of what is purported to be an accurate summary of previous posts (and the unqualified “Nice summary!” endorsement which follows it) decides NOT to read the original posts?  Just because Beryl did not think that this was important enough to mention does not mean that another reader would come to the same conclusion.  Obviously, I’d like the reader to have the opportunity to decide that for him/herself.

Of course this forum is a “free for all” place where anyone can post pretty much anything within taste and with sensitivity to others and that summary certainly meets those easy criteria. 

I have also chosen to indulge in that same freedom. 

For the reasons I’ve detailed above, I don’t like the summary and I would have preferred that this thread would never have again seen the light of “Page-1 day” rather than once again be given prominence by it.

I encourage any person who has never read this thread in its entirety to please do so rather than rely only on the summary to convey what I and others have tried to express.

[leahcim]

I’ve thought quite some time about whether to respond to the summary Beryl made of my contributions to this thread, and I have decided that I must.

It's very long, can we have a summary?

[stevie]

Ultra-fast arpeggios?
And what is the point here playing those final arpeggios so fast anyway? What service has that on the music?
I once heard Alexis Weissenberg in Hong Kong play the Schumann Arabeske Op.18 at double or even close to triple the normal speed. What a brutal disservice to the music. I almost couldn't help shouting "STOP!"

ive heard he is a serial rapist, is this true?

[Herve]

ive heard he is a serial rapist, is this true?

Mission accomplished.

[stevie]

of course i mean pianistically, he virtually raped the chopin 3rd sonata in a live recording i heard, the finale was played in 2 minutes 40 seconds.

[opus10no2]

bernhard, i am infuriated by you, i may just try to douse you in alcohol and set you alight, just to watch you burrrrrrrrrrrn, but oh....i just remembered your bernhard = hard to bern, bwahahahahaaaaaa

Legendary classic 

[moe]

argerich's arpeggios arent that fast, ive only been playing a couple years and i can play almost as fast cleanly

even mo clazzic

[daniloperusina]

Sorry, no time to read through all posts here, but I felt inclined to mention about practising slow, that it's also a point to try to imitate fast playing, only make it slower. Otherwise, we practice one way slowly, then completely change our technique and touch when we speed up. Sort of wasted practicing (if it's speed we are devoting practice time to).

[mcgillcomposer]

I don't think it's wise to compare our own playing as mere mortals to that of Argerich. Otherwise we may try and poorly imitate her and have nothing to say of our own,
Ed

Or we might give up piano and jump off a bridge...

[rob47]

even mo clazzic

 

[nick]

The faster you want to play, the slower you must practice. Play even quarter speed making sure your technique if perfect on every single note.

boliver

I disagree. The slow playing could have been for a variety of reasons. My experience is the speed must gradully be increased, but very accurate, and production of sound with weight.

Nick

[iratior]

In this discussion of ultra-fast arpeggios, I don't see where anybody mentions the value of 12345 fingerings.  In the Mozart fantasia in d-minor, just before the final d-major section begins, there is a run of 16 32nd notes, outlining a diminished seventh chord, and beginning at G-sharp above low C. I finger it as 543212 with the left hand and then 1234512345 with the right.  It feels good on my hands and sounds better too.  Runs in my mind I've used 12345 fingerings for some of the runs in Chopin's 24th prelude, too.  It feels good and can be done super-fast.