G. Sokolov (won Tchaikovsky at age of 16), who has the most unbelievable pianistical reflexes one could imagine. I went to a lot of his recitals in 80s. One of his favorite encores then along with unbelievable rendition of Russian Dnace from Petrushka was Chopin Etude Op.25/11. Let me tell you, never ever in my life I heard something like that, not in recordings, not live. And it was consistently phenomenal from one recital to another... untill one day, when I heard it completely slipped. It was a mess!!! After the concert I came to him. Being very apologatic he explained: "I did not practice it for two days".Best,M.
I feell Ali v Frazier coming on.
Here is the very short answer: Thumb under – the thumb goes under the hand. Thumb over – the thumb does not go under the hand (it does not go over either). In order to play a clean, fast, pearly scale the thumb must not go under the hand, therefore you must use thumb over. If you are happy with this explanation, go home. Otherwise, read below a slightly more elaborate one.Almost everyone is taught to play scales (say, C major) by playing CDE with fingers 123 and then FGAB with fingers 1234, then move on to the next octave CDE with finger 123 and so on. Playing CDE with 123 and FGAB with 1234 is easy. The real difficulty comes when you need to move from E (3rd finger) to F (thumb) and from B (4th finger) to C (thumb).Almost everyone is taught to bring the thumb under the hand in order to reach for the F or for the C. For several anatomical reasons, this motion (known as “thumb under” because the thumb goes well under the hand) is very awkward. So several piano pedagogues (including Cortot and Hanon) devised all sorts of “preparatory exercises” to develop the ability to pass the thumb under the hand, and to make the motion less awkward. Although these exercises do work to a certain extent, the anatomical limits cannot ultimately be circumvented, so the motion will always feel awkward, and will always have a potential for disaster (hitting the wrong note, uneven playing – both in rhythm and tone – at fast speeds, misco-ordination of fingers, etc.). Moreover, you must keep practicing it for the rest of your life. Any neglect and the illusory facility you have acquired slips away and you are back to ground zero.Fortunately there is an alternative motion to negotiate the movement of the thumb. This motion is anatomically natural – which means that you are not constantly fighting your own body, and more importantly, once you figure out this motion, it does not need to be practiced anymore . The reason why it does not need to be practiced anymore is the same reason one does not need to practise eating with a fork after figuring out how to do it: you will do it all the time, since it is such a natural, easy motion.This alternative motion is “Thumb over”. However, this is a misnomer: the thumb does not really go over the hand. Rather, it never goes under the hand. And the way to do it is to integrate four basic motions: shift, slant, rotation and back and forth movements. The link I gave above explains in detail each of these movements and how to integrate them. A lot of people tend to focus in just one of these basic motions, so often in the forum you see people talking about thumb over as a simple hand shift. But that is not so. Just shifting the hand (although already much better than thumb under) will not lead to a clean, fast, pearly scale. You need to integrate the other three motions to it.Best wishes, Bernhard.
Why "MUST NOT"? Many pianists play clean, fast, pearly scale with thumb under. Why "THEREFORE" we must use thumb over? Or do they do something terribly wrong?
In order to play a clean, fast, pearly scale the thumb must not go under the hand, therefore you must use thumb over.I ask:Why "MUST NOT"? Many pianists play clean, fast, pearly scale with thumb under. Why "THEREFORE" we must use thumb over? Or do they do something terribly wrong?
You say:For several anatomical reasons, this motion (known as “thumb under” because the thumb goes well under the hand) is very awkward.I ask:What are those anatomical reasons, and why this motion is very awkward? Thousands of pianists (including myself) feel it very natural.
You say:So several piano pedagogues (including Cortot and Hanon) devised all sorts of “preparatory exercises” to develop the ability to pass the thumb under the hand, and to make the motion less awkward. I ask:Could you provide names of the pedagogues who advocated thumb over as a universal and only principle?
I don't think he is. Be patient! I for one keenly await to what he has to say
It's physically impossible for me to do what he is doing with the "quiet hand". Beyond the first couple of small movements - I simply do not have a thumb that is long enough to reach the pass under the 4th. No amount of practise or exercise will change that and although he angles his hands slightly, the amount I would need to would be ridiculous, I wouldn't be able to cover the other notes.
Gyorgy Sandor from On Piano Playing p63 "avoid placing the thumb under the palm of the hand at all costs.
Unfortunately placing the thumb under the palm is the most widespread method of teaching scales; we must protest against it vigorously....Although it is the most agile and can move in any direction while it is alongside the hand, the thumb is totally handicapped and cramped when it is pulled in...If we force it into that unnatural and tight position (under the palm), we practically incapacitate it, and we lose all hope of achieving even, fluent playing".
As for absolute trust in your teacher. Why? Sure, you must trust him enough to try out what he suggests, but if he tells you, drink this weird looking beverage, and I promise you that after half an hour you will be playing like Liszt himself, will you do it? Religious people make faith (blindly believing what is clearly non-sense, and even if it wasn´t how would they know?) to be a great virtue, but them much money can be made out of the faithful...
It´s a shame that Bernhard shirks this discussion.
Now make an excersise. Put your completely relaxed hand on the keys with thumb on the F. Press it gently, putting only as much weight, as it is nessessary to hold the key down. Feel your hand relaxed. Hold the F with your thumb and lightly press G with your 2nd finger. Release the 2nd and slowly and smoothly (while still holding the thumb) move your 3rd down on E. The thumb should feel straight, relaxed, and "growing" from the 3rd joint. Your palm should not change any angle, remaning calm and relaxed. Repeat a few times.Then put your thumb (all feelings are exactly the same) on C. Repeat the process, but with 4th on B.What do you feel?
What you say is instead of facing the problem, working on it, developing as many tools as it is possible for being ready to tackle ANY difficutlies you might meet on a life-long jorney called piano playing and music making, we like oistridges should put our heads into the sand (at least what they say), and pretend the problem does not exist?
That depends in which range of the piano I play the exercise. Generally the higher up I play the more awkward it becomes – starting from somewhat awkward proceeding to very awkward. If I play in the upper range the thumb feels very cramped and unnatural.
In all instances turning 3 over the thumb is easier than turning 4 over the thumb. However the primary difficulty is not depressing the keys with fingers 2-5 while the thumb is in this position. The primary difficulty is in using the thumb while it is in this tucked under position. With your right hand with thumb on C and 4th holding down B repeatedly play the thumb's note. What do you feel?
I didn't say that. I merely responded to your question Could you provide names of the pedagogues who advocated thumb over as a universal and only principle? You called for examples from authority and I gave you one.
Dear Leahcim,Throughout my life I had maybe about 200-300 students (starting from age as young as 4) and don't remember one single case when the thumb was too short to do the task.
It is very hard to give any advice without seeing what you are doing, but it is clear that you do something not quite right.I will try to outline at least where to look.
Excellent point! I have exactly the same problem. But there is a way around. Find a position of your body when you feel it as natural as in the middle range. Usually, for some people it is when your body moves towards the upper range, and for some when they lean back. You can also experiment combining both. Just feel that the thumb is a continuation of your arm. What did you get now?
To play repeatedly the thumb on C, while holding 4th on B is not the subject of this excersise.
But if you ask me, it is not as bad as hold 3rd and 5th and repeatedly play 4th .
Huh! I apologise for that--my mistake. I should've read more carefully and pay attention to the parentheses in your citation. Please address that whole my section to Mr. Sandor.
I am sure Bernhard has life outside this board as well, and might be busy. Once he has time, or feels it is nessessary, I am sure he will come to put some light. Best, M.
Me too, because here we have differences of opinion between a stupendous pianist and an extremely knowledgable teacher.
In life, there are people who talk and people who play.Fascinating.Thal
Here is my take on the Liszt´s story:When Liszt was brought to Czerny at age 12, he was already a full fledged pianist, with a few years of concert experience behind him. He played with great ease the most difficult repertory, having been allowed to develop his personal technique intuitively. The result was that he had found movements and motions that were completely natural for him.That is when he had the great misfortune of meeting Herr Czerny. Czerny was horrified by Lizst´s natural and comfortable movements, since they did not conform to his own fixed ideas. He was convinced one had to play with one´s fingers and generally experience the utmost discomfort when playing. He proceeded to “correct” Lizst´s technique over the next few years, and Lizst complied and actually became very good at playing with a very limited and ultimately inappropriate technique. In his twentys, he had become just another indifferent pianist playing with an inapropriate technique in Paris, just like so many other pianists in town. This was Czerny´s legacy.Had Lizst died then, no one would have heard of him. He would just be another mediocre pianist amongst mediocre pianists.But then two momentous things happened. Pay attention, exercise supporters, because there is a moral and cautionary tale for you all here.Had Lizst not gone through these two momentous happenings and not died, he would still have been a mediocre pianist, and as he got older, his uncomfortable, inappropriate Czerny style technique would deteriorate and again we would never have heard of him. Look at this thread to see the fate that would have befallen Liszt (and to a great extent has befallen Cortot):https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740(an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)So what were these two life changing events?It was his meeting with two men. Nothing would ever be the same after that. The first meeting was with Chopin.Chopin – like Lizst in his early years – had developed a highly idiossincratic technique (= way to move) when playing the piano. But contrary to Liszt he had not had the benefit of a Czerny to “correct” him. When he first arrived in Paris at 20, the most famous pianist of the day was Kalkbrenner. Kalkbrenner watched Chopin play and like Czerny with Liszt, was horrified at the neglect of Chopin´s technique. He offered to teach Chopin and estimated that in four years time he could turn Chopin into a piano virtuoso like the many swarming Paris. Chopin was actually tempted by this offer (he was impressed with Kalkbrenner´s playing), but in the end declined. The interesting thing was that all those virtuoso pianists could not play to satisfaction any of Chopin´s pieces, in spite of their apparent superior technique. This was not lost on Lizst. Apparently Chopin´s idiossincratic technique was necessary for the correct rendition of his pieces.The second meeting was with Paganini. After witnessing Paganini in concert, Lizst was so overwhelmed that he vouched to do on the piano what Paganini did on the violin.And here is where Liszt phenomenal technique starts. Not with Czerny, because it became completely obvious to him that Czerny was completely inadequate to emulate Paganini, but with Chopin, because the key to the transference of Paganini´s umbelievable virtuosity on the violin to the piano, lies not with Czerny´s limited and limiting pedagogy, but with Chopin´s weird way of playing the piano.It is now that Lizst will retire from concertizing for a while and feverishly pursue Paganini style virtuosity for up to ten hours a day. But what do you think Lizst was doing for ten hours? Do you really believe he was practising Czerny or Hanon/Dohnanyi/Cortot types of finger exercises mindlessly hour after hour? Don´t be silly. If this would work, he would already have been the Lizst of legends. After all he had been there and done that with Czerny. No. What he was doing during these ten hours was investigative practice. Not repetitive mind numbing repetitions of some finger pattern, but intelligent, totally focused piano work. He knew the result he was after, and he knew that in order to achieve it he had to recover the technique of his early years, the one that Czerny had destroyed. Chopin had shown him this, and Paganini was the ultimate proof that this was the only way to go.When he was finished with the process (it didn´t take that long), he had so completely transformed his technique that it was a different pianist altogether that emerged from that practice room. And everyone noticed. Lizst always refused to teach technique. He knew that the process through which he had acquired his technique could not be systematized. He knew Czerny was crap (and therefore never told his students to go through it - but being a good, polite boy, he never bashed his teacher for it). He knew that technique was highly personal, highly idiossincratic and could only be achieved by a process of intense investigation as he himself had gone through. Hence he never wrote anything about it.His masterclasses – in which he never discussed technique – consisted of listening to the student play, and then playing himself in such a superior fashion that the student had to face the same experience he had faced when he first listened to Paganini: “sh*t, I am crap!” (incidentally, Chopin used the same pedagogical approach in his lessons)After that time of intense, investigative practice – we do not know for sure but I am prepared to bet it was all based on repertory and most likely Chopin´s pieces – he never “practised” again. He had discovered – or perhaps rediscovered – his natural way of playing, and it felt so easy that all he had to do was play. And play he did!Anyone who believes Liszt practised ten hours of exercises a day until the end of his life should consider this: Where would he have had the time? He was traveling around, bedding whatever pretty face happened to cross his way, running away from husbands, fathers, authorities, concertising, composing prolifically a daring, highly complex musical oeuvre, supporting new pianists and composers, teaching and even dedicating himself to a religious life.To think that Lizst technique owes anything to Czerny is simply laughable. If so, every Czerny player would have become a Liszt by now.Best wishes,Bernhard.