The secret of a concert standard technique = Be born with it

[demented cow]

Every 2 months we get posts basically asking 'Why can't I play fast enough?' In thinking about one such post, I just had the following thoughts. I hope they are wrong.

Perish the thought, but the problem might be simply that that people who have professional-level mechanical skills had something in their physical makeup that allowed them to master mechanical difficulties relatively easily, and many of us amateurs would simply never get a hard piece (I mean e.g. Schumann Toccata, Beethoven op. 57, not super-hard things like Chopin-Godowsky) up to concert standard, however much we practise with whatever method, simply because we were not born with 'pianist's hands' (a shorthand for notions like natural suppleness, finger independence, neuromuscular coordination and no doubt other things). Or if that’s wrong, hopes of a spontaneous, deeply-felt performance would be napalmed once we realise how long it would take to get the piece appropriately fast and accurate.

Many long-term, dissatisfied amateurs like me have exposed themselves to various books and teachers, who ritually contradict each other, each teacher giving advice based on their own experience with what worked for them (with their pianist’s hands) plus commonsense thoughts about how their pupils (who may not have pianist’s hands) could practise to get the required skills.  We lesser-gifted souls don’t know which teacher to believe. But maybe deciding between them is a waste of time, since the solution is to be physically talented, not to use this-or-that method. If you have pianist’s hands, you can play well using methods that many teachers see as a hindrance to technical development. Evidence comes from the differences between the good technicians. Horowitz used flat fingers even in fast passages, unlike most others, but his finger work was as good as that of many other great pianists. In Schonberg's 'Great Pianists', we read that some good octave players used only their wrists, while others used larger movements. Some say these days that you can't play fast scales using thumb-under (=thumb turns), but is it really true that every fast scale player in history used thumb-over (=jumps instead of thumb turns)?

Sorry to offload all this discouragement at everyone, but if the above is right, then maybe it’s useful warning people against waisting their time and money on books and teachers, hoping that the next one they consult will cure them of their general technical malaise and give them Barere's fingers and Argerich's octaves. If I'm wrong, then it's good news and hopefully instructive for teachers to think about why I'm wrong.
The Cow.

 

[dnephi]

Don't even think of it as tumb under :p.  It's always good to do music lessons, even if you won't be Hamelin. 
I don't believe that.  But you know, some people naturally have better technique-that doesn't mean that others can't develop it.  Like me ...

I strongly disagree.  My great-grandmother was 4'11'' and barely had an octave but she was an incredible pianist in spite of that.

[bench warmer]

There is some truth in the Cow's Oracle.

Each of us has an inherent potential. We may through hard work/practise develop it to its maximum level. Yet each person's realized potentail will vary. So not everybody can be a Maestro. 

Luckily, the piano is heavier than a golf club so you can't wrap it around a tree when you're frustrated. And to mix metaphors even worse, You can play only with the hand(s) you're dealt with.

[whynot]

Yes, I do see what you mean.  I don't think it's a waste of time to study anything you care about and try to be better, but I realize that's not your point.  I have heard people argue that anyone can do anything if they just put in the time and practice correctly/productively, but I don't see that happening.  Not everyone could be a brain surgeon (can you imagine?) or a champion sprinter or a ballet dancer.  I think it's a rather American idea, certainly one I was brought up to believe, that "you can do anything if you put your mind to it," and I believe now that that is not so.  At all.  I think people can try anything (almost), and welcome to it, and a good teacher can certainly facilitate growth that might not otherwise happen (or, as a teacher, I like to think so! who knows).  But I believe you're right, that there's a case to be made for inborn ability, whatever is the current way to express that.  I grew up with the word talent, but I sense that it's fallen out of favor.  There was a kid in my tiny hometown who could run like the wind.  No one taught him to run, he didn't live in a family of runners, he could just do it.  He ended up qualifying for the Olympics shortly out of high school.  He was built like other sprinters, so you could point to physique, which does seem to be a factor in many things (although I don't think it is in piano).  But there was something else, too.  What?  I have no idea.  Anyway,  interesting topic!  Good luck with your playing.   

[steve jones]

I think that you seriously discount how hard some people work. I mean, Kissin openly admits that when he first started playing, he would do his set practice... then spend the rest of the day playing for fun! I hear that as a kid, Lang Lang practiced / played for 8 hours a day etc.

Its my belief that this kind of intensive practice at a young as is the key to having first rate technique (obviously combined with the right direction).

Maybe some are natural 'quicker' at picking it up than others. But it is amazing how the human body can adapt to meet requirements. I honestly think that any able bodied person with the right level of dedication, time and instruction could achieve a first rate piano technique.

I certainly dont believe that you are born with it. Maybe if a kid shows an aptitude towards piano, then it might inspire them to work long and hard, which in turn results in their highly developed technique. That I would be prepared to hear. But natural talent being the differentiating factor between concert grade technique and amateur noodlings? No chance.

Now, if you were to ask me whether I believed that musicial talents were born... then I might have a different answer for you!

SJ

[stevie]

I honestly think that any able bodied person with the right level of dedication, time and instruction could achieve a first rate piano technique.

im somewhere between this belief and the first posters belief...

i believe the vast majority of people with average co-ordination and physical ability can get a CONCERT-PIANIST-LEVEL-TECHNIQUE.

but THIS IS NOT A FIRST RATE TECHNIQUE, let me make this clear.

there is a big difference between the AVERAGE concert pianist's technique and the supreme elite.

i believe the supreme elite go that extra mile in terms of effort and practice, and on top of that have 'super-natural' physical inclination, can any average person become a great runner? sure
but can any person become the world record holder at the 100m race? no

[lostinidlewonder]

....the problem might be simply that that people who have professional-level mechanical skills had something in their physical makeup that allowed them to master mechanical difficulties relatively easily....

Ah the mysterious unknown gas of knowledge, the golden rod of power which only few can ever have. I wish this was true, unfortunately even if you have this magical gift it will amount to NOTHING if you do not practice. If you do not have a natural musical gift your skills will amount to SOMETHING if you practice hard, it is what always happens, no one DOESN'T progress if they study hard and correct.

....many of us amateurs would simply never get a hard piece.... up to concert standard, however much we practise with whatever method, simply because we were not born with 'pianist's hands' (a shorthand for notions like natural suppleness, finger independence, neuromuscular coordination and no doubt other things).

This is usually true simply because amateur players could not be bothered to sit at a piano until their problems are solved. Where as ALL great pianists have this one thing in common, TIME is of NO importance when practicing or playing, it is not even considered. What is considered is the work that needs to be done and the comfort that needs to be aquired to produce what we need without effort. This motivation pushes us, amature players simply do not have the motivation to work. All professional players sacrifice a huge amount of their time to studying their instrument where amature players will only make time when they are free.

I have proven this exact point to many students who have said to me, how on earth do you memorise "hard" music. So I simply pull out something hard and ask them ok now memorise the first 10 or so bars for me. Then they will see how much work is required to memorise it but it is exactly the same procedure as when you study easier music, except there are more layers of work to get through, more things to learn to control. IN essense to practice harder pieces you will need to have developed your PRACTICING skills to a very good level. Some people never consider how to improve HOW they practice. They mindlessly repeat sections hoping that repetition will solve everything. It does eventually but it is extremely inefficient and to learn hard music will be out of amateur players grasp not because they cannot physically produce the notes but simply they do not know how to practice to attain muscular/sound memorisation of the passages they play.

Many long-term, dissatisfied amateurs like me have exposed themselves to various books and teachers, who ritually contradict each other, each teacher giving advice based on their own experience with what worked for them (with their pianist’s hands) plus commonsense thoughts about how their pupils (who may not have pianist’s hands) could practise to get the required skills.

Music is not Maths, there is many ways to approach music. One of the main problems learning any instrument is finding time to sit down and actually practice alone. This self disipline is really what seperates those who can play a musical instrument well and those who do it half heartedly. I rely a great deal more on hard work than my own talent to progress in music.
       Talent is how effective your ideas/musical expression comunicate to a listener, it can also relate to someones physical ability to play the instrument. So talent in itself should be considered in two ways; the physical technical excecution of notes and the musicality of their playing.
       A real talented musician does not have to think of both the physical and emotion, instead they simply produce what music they hear from within. This is fortunate for those who know how to get louder or softer, faster or slower in the music they play, but this is definatly not something that cannot be learnt. It in itself doesn't make a great musician. What makes a great musician is one who has a maximum of musical efficiency and musical efficiency generally relates to how fast a musician can memorise music and then perform at a concert standard.
       You will find, once you can play a number of intermediate pieces people (who don't play an instrument themselves) will consider you talented. If they realise the amount of work you put behind it then that fantasy of talent vanishes. So too a musical student should release that talent isn't a prerequisite to become a good musician. When those say I wish I was talented I always reply with you should wish you had more time to give to your music. That is simply the issue most of the times when a student is slow in progress. It is because they cannot dedicate time to the music, they cannot make themselves sit down and study the music themselves. Whether because it really is a time issue and if they have many more commitments is one thing, but if it is because they do not have the facility to create a strategy to study their music, target their problems and work towards memorisation, this is something that can be helped with good tuition.
       A music tutor cannot magically create time for a student and hope that 7 days a week the student will work on their music. But the teacher can definatly show the student how to use what little time they give to their music in the most efficient way. 2 hours or inefficient study can be replaced with 30 minutes of efficient study.

I think it is essential that you realise studying music, either theoretical or practical, is unlike any other subject you studied at school. Where in mathematics 1 + 1 = 2 in music 1 + 1 = a few things. One example of this might be when studying Bach. A pianist may have a lot of concern as to volume control since Bach doesn't write any volume dynamics. When you encounter fugues one might be tempted to undergo a journey of trying to determine which voive should be "brought out" more than the other. Or you may balance the volume of the polyphony creating another dimension of sound with the mass of voices acting as one.
       What about when we consider fingering? A beginner might assume that all people use the same fingers for a passage of music and there is no other way. In most cases we do, but often different hands sizes call for different fingering, there lies also a lot of variation and subjectiveness which one has to understand rather than try to solve.
       Things can become even more confusing when you ask yourself what are the volumes of pppp through to ffff, or how would you effectively excecute a cresendo or decresendo? This is an extremely difficult question to answer with a general statement. One has to consider the instrument and the size of the room. These things effect the volume of your playing, where you might strike a note with 80grams of pressure at home, you might have to strike it with 120grams in a concert hall to produce the same effect. This is where the ear becomes such a dominant figure to control your playing and making the right choices.

This subjectiveness of music is what can make the progress of student erratic if they do not realise how to apply what they are learning, and much more importantly, where to store their musical knowledge.

It is important to be able to categorise where you file your new and old musical knowledge. I find there are three places you can place them:

Not in any order, we target,
1) Physical playing - for instance, how the fingers, palm, wrist, forearm, elbows, shoulders, back, all move at the piano with the given music.

2) Preparation - encompasses some sort of timetable creation, mental or written, writing notes and guides on the sheet music, researching music and composers you play. Mental preparation for perfomance, exam, pressure study etc. Monitoring efficiency of your musical progress and tactics to learn.

3) Interpretation - How to develop the way you hear music and use that to make decisions at the keyboard.

Brief elaboration, on each,

i) Physical Playing
A lot of people playing piano have their progress tied down with the issues of coordination, finger independence and dependance.

Coordination is how well you can play notes in one hand or both hands (x notes in Lh against y notes in Rh, syncopation, rhythmic qualities etc) and observe directions (similar, contrary).

Finger independence is where for example you use one hand or both to reveal more than 1 voice in notes written. Finger dependance is how well you can control shapes in the hand, each finger depends on the another to reveal the overall hand form and shape asked for in the music (arpeggios, chords etc).

If this physical nature is somewhat mastered we are still faced with, Preparation and Interpretation issues.

ii)Preparation
Without correct preparation your efforts will become scattered and inconsistent. Music is a subject which grow and develops best with continual contact. Simply you will not learn much if you do not maintain constant contact with your music.

Even with constant contact established we still must ensure the efficiency of our study. Are we absorbing music at the maximum rate for ourselves, or are we adding unnecessary time and effort to our musical development. Questioning our memorisation rate and how we are observing the music, are we using the general shapes of chords, arpeggio and shapes at the hand to help us learn music etc. We must also consider what repertoire is suitable to develop our ability.

iii)Interpretation
Finally, if we have the physical and preparatory side worked out we will play like emotionless robots if we do not develop our interpretive side to music. One must know how to make musical decisions when learning music and playing. One must understand why music gets louder or softer, or why it slows down or speeds up. How well we develop our ear and sense for music will determine our ability to play music with emotion as well as technique which simply should always go hand in hand.

If all of these three are working together and continually targeted for improvement we will ensure a "Better" growth in our musical development.

Of course I haven't really given advice as to exactly how to maintain any of these three things, rather saying, here is the foundation. Each person will answer HOW to develop these differently.

Horowitz used flat fingers even in fast passages, unlike most others, but his finger work was as good as that of many other great pianists. In Schonberg's 'Great Pianists', we read that some good octave players used only their wrists, while others used larger movements. Some say these days that you can't play fast scales using thumb-under (=thumb turns), but is it really true that every fast scale player in history used thumb-over (=jumps instead of thumb turns)?

As you can see there is no one way about doing things, we must go on a journey of SELF DISCOVERY no one is going to hand over to you a set of instructions which tells you how to play at a masters level, you must experiment, experiment, experiment, trial and error, trial and error, listen to advice, try advice, use advice and alter it to your own prefference. My hands are tired now.

[steve jones]

im somewhere between this belief and the first posters belief...

i believe the vast majority of people with average co-ordination and physical ability can get a CONCERT-PIANIST-LEVEL-TECHNIQUE.

but THIS IS NOT A FIRST RATE TECHNIQUE, let me make this clear.

there is a big difference between the AVERAGE concert pianist's technique and the supreme elite.

i believe the supreme elite go that extra mile in terms of effort and practice, and on top of that have 'super-natural' physical inclination, can any average person become a great runner? sure
but can any person become the world record holder at the 100m race? no

Yeah, I do agree with that totally. When I say a first rate technique, Im talking about a respectable concert level. I certainly dont mean the Cziffra style technique! For that you probably have to be an alien!

SJ

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i just believe that the right kind of environment (piano in the house, record player, musicians among the family, smart parents, good teacher, a great deal of encouragement and discipline, etc...) for the child will develop his brain to become an instrument player and most likely a prodigy. it has nothing to do with the hands coz the physical will always follow the mental ability. like Suzuki says that every kid has the ability to learn - and that is all we need. we just need to develop the brain activity. if math wizkids were trained to become pianists instead of math geniuses, they would probably succeed the same, given the same good intensity of the the environment he was given to become a math wiz.

- but the brain will have to remember hundreds of muscle movements in order to have great technique. that's why a good foundation as a kid is very crucial, because everything we learn as a kid, we will always bring as we grow up as adults. HABITS.

LATE BEGINNERS (and also badly trained piano students), no matter how good they analyze piano technique and even if we give them the best environment, will still have to WAIT until good HABITS find their way through the brain by constantly practicing those passages on the keyboard. YEARS! it will take the same or more number of years as a child's training. the only difference would be that it was easier for the child prodigy because he took it unconsciously and naturally (considering he had a good teacher). he breathes technique like air.

but of course there are exceptional late beginners. they probably have smart minds that probably fit the thinkings of a pianist/musician- probably those good with numbers, visuals, multi-tasking, etc.. just a guess.



so, what i'm trying to say is, that all are born with that wonderful ability to learn anything. it is up to its environment to develop that mind to become what it will become someday. sometimes, parents do something stupid to their babies, not knowing that it just sparked the baby's interest in numbers.... or something... then the interest grows and grows and grows, then he becomes a math wiz.

if you believe in God, this is where His gift comes in, through the ENVIRONMENT.
i don't ever think he put a Piano Seed in this brain, a Math Seed in this one, or whatever... because He gave us free will. Instead, He just gave us the gift to be able to learn just about anything.

[pianogeek_cz]

*points to lostinidlewonder's post* Hear, hear! This has given me quite a LOT to think about.

This looks like the old dispute "genetics vs. learning"... I'm don't really have a clear opinion on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that inborn abilities are definitely not a prerequisite to becoming a decent pianist... I will give the subject some more thought and return to it later...