What I learned during practice today :

[m1469]

Yes.  I think in terms of our concentrative capacity.  The poorer our technique, the more concentration we must give to it, and less to making music.  And as our technique improves, we are that much freer to make music.  And the independence of the hands that you discuss would be another territory to reclaim for the increase of our freedom.

I suppose the goal is for our technique to become unconscious.

I guess we'd like it to be something like walking .


Today, lately, I just am working with ideas to begin my day.  But, something I am coming to terms with as a result of some of that "working" on those ideas is that, it seems the goal of development and progress is not actually to reach an end which is of greater complexity, but rather a kind of clarity with the characteristics of simplicity.  And, if that doesn't mean much, let me put it another way in that, I feel I can see that my main goal as a musician for life would be for my concepts and demonstrations of music to be more clear, more simple, no matter what the outward complexity seems to be.  And, I am always reaching towards this goal.

I think science does this, too, in that it is always breaking our world around us down into some basic form.  Science is looking for some fundamental source and/or cause, and keeps breaking the smallest elements it admits to knowing, down into the study of smaller elements.

Lately, lately, lately ... it seems to me ... that you break a thing down far enough, all you've got left is Intelligence as an immortal substance. And Love .

[akasimone]

I think science does this, too, in that it is always breaking our world around us down into some basic form.  Science is looking for some fundamental source and/or cause, and keeps breaking the smallest elements it admits to knowing, down into the study of smaller elements.

YES.  Haha, I just got so excited reading that, because I am totally that guy who thinks that science and music (or art in general) are really basically the same thing.  We're all just looking for some kind of capital-T Truth.  (And we all know we're never really going to find it...)

[m1469]

YES.  Haha, I just got so excited reading that, because I am totally that guy who thinks that science and music (or art in general) are really basically the same thing.  We're all just looking for some kind of capital-T Truth.  (And we all know we're never really going to find it...)

Well, it's nice to read your thoughts.  I don't think it's unfindable - in fact, I think it's findable.  But, here we experience it in "degrees" or so ... or, you could say, in a relative way.

[pianowolfi]

Today I learned once more that it is at some point very important to really push the speed (while letting go the fingers, just let them fly, while you're conducting the whole thing) as well as being able to practice slowly and accurately.

[pianowolfi]

Well, it's nice to read your thoughts.  I don't think it's unfindable - in fact, I think it's findable.  But, here we experience it in "degrees" or so ... or, you could say, in a relative way.

Likeylike

[hastur]

Teacher got me started on Russian Folk Song when I said I wanted to familiarize myself with Beethoven. It's a really nice piece! Probably going to do Sonatina in G afterwards, before getting started on that Adagio Cantabile movement from his 8th Sonata which I'm hoping to play by Christmas. : D

[keypeg]

It's taken over 3 years to finally have a teacher.  I was self-taught decades ago and didn't like restarting piano on my own.  We're working on the technique side of playing and have gone right back to the beginning.  I expected to.  The way I was playing chords was awkward: I have some new things to do.  Individual notes ditto.  I am relearning how to do basic things in playing differently that I have been doing them and we're still finding things.  I'm working on very simple pieces as well as a couple of advanced ones that don't stretch what I'm not doing well yet.

The last practicing that I just did was not long.   It had to do with doing crossovers in scales when the RH descends or LH ascends.  There were some right things in what I had done on my own, but other things were I was hurting myself.  When I practiced after the lesson it seemed I had it right so that was good.  I used to play Inventions, Sinfonias, and now I'm working on scales going in one direction and feeling comfortable.  With those Inventions my hands used to get stiff and I knew something was not ok.  Now there are solutions.

I am catching when my playing is stiff and awkward.  Before I didn't know how "comfortable" felt so that awkwardness was normal and nothing to catch, and no way to change it.  Now I can apply at least the things I've learned about so far.

The second part of this morning's practice I went over another piece I've been doing. I traced that the thing I was doing which tugged at my shoulders actually involved something that was (not) happening at the elbows.  My teacher and I had gone in that direction briefly.  It went a bit better after I found this but I'll wait until the next lesson to see about this.

Some excerpts from m1469's opening post of this thread actually match where I'm at:

Today, one of the most interesting and influencial things I learned was that inaccuracies in what seems like hand and finger coordination, can actually be caused by having another region of one's body being "fixed" or tense. ....He (Marks) mentioned that most pianists practice compensations -- in that they are practicing things that are necessary only because the quality of movement is poor.  (18/10/06)

My other major thought from yesterday is also along the lines of something I have recently been told.  But as I heard it in my head : The most difficult part of piano playing is rendering the motion to match the musical passage ... but along with that, I realized that this does not *need* to be difficult at all -- or at least not as difficult as I have felt it is sometimes (we'll see how this goes over time). (21/10/06)

This is essentially where I'm at.  I understand a lot of theory.  I can "feel" music inside myself, and I can be expressive to some measure on some instruments.  But the sheer physical movement, acting with your body toward the character of the instrument, is something I have not done consciously to any measure.  (And I have the book by Marks)

[m1469]

I am catching when my playing is stiff and awkward.  Before I didn't know how "comfortable" felt so that awkwardness was normal and nothing to catch, and no way to change it.  Now I can apply at least the things I've learned about so far.

The second part of this morning's practice I went over another piece I've been doing. I traced that the thing I was doing which tugged at my shoulders actually involved something that was (not) happening at the elbows.  My teacher and I had gone in that direction briefly.  It went a bit better after I found this but I'll wait until the next lesson to see about this.

Some excerpts from m1469's opening post of this thread actually match where I'm at:
This is essentially where I'm at.  I understand a lot of theory.  I can "feel" music inside myself, and I can be expressive to some measure on some instruments.  But the sheer physical movement, acting with your body toward the character of the instrument, is something I have not done consciously to any measure.  (And I have the book by Marks)

It is strange to think back on these particular days.  Actually, it's more than strange ... it's rather indescribable!  This was before I actually started studying again (Fall of 2008) and I remember reading this book and becoming aware of my body at the piano in ways I just had never been aware of before - along with learning forearm rotations which seemed to compliment the book info. quite nicely.  I remember that feeling of awareness kind of washing over me like it was an ability and a power.  That was an aspect of me completely restructuring my technique, which has been done in great detail since then, with last Fall bringing about the addition of Bel Canto technique to my playing (and changing my world).  I've never departed, though, from some of the particulars of what I learned during that time which you remarked about (was that the beginning of the thread?  I'll look in a bit).

It's really great if you are developing that awareness, keypeg.  I have one student who read the book and we worked on some ideas together, and it's all helped her quite a bit (because you need that physical sense of foundation to support you and your motions and the pieces!), but she still finds herself having a difficult time being aware.  I suppose it's an ongoing process!

Not all too long ago a little student of mine wanted me to play the Star Spangled Banner, which I had to quickly relearn by ear for him on the spot.  I had taught myself how to figure this out on the piano when I was itty ... but, this experience triggered a major memory into my child musical-mind and I was able to catch a glimpse of another dimension.  That glimpse, coupled with something which has been on the tip of my mind for about a month now is starting to have more of a physical feeling, too.  It's like I get these little whispers of ideas and little further glimpses and I can feel in my whole body as though my whole body and being are sucking some idea to it from an invisible dimension, which will be manifested as myself.  It's such a strange feeling ... this one seems big in the sense that it's not just a little thought that will go in my head and be in my mind, but it's like it's the shape of an entire person, an entire entity or soul which is just going to imprint itself onto my own shape and that we will become inseparable!  And, I find myself listening ... listening for it ... especially in the silences.  

When will you come to me and make yourself clear to me, hmmm?  *tries not to force it*

[m1469]

That glimpse, coupled with something which has been on the tip of my mind for about a month now is starting to have more of a physical feeling, too.  It's like I get these little whispers of ideas and little further glimpses and I can feel in my whole body as though my whole body and being are sucking some idea to it from an invisible dimension, which will be manifested as myself.  It's such a strange feeling ... this one seems big in the sense that it's not just a little thought that will go in my head and be in my mind, but it's like it's the shape of an entire person, an entire entity or soul which is just going to imprint itself onto my own shape and that we will become inseparable!  And, I find myself listening ... listening for it ... especially in the silences.  

When will you come to me and make yourself clear to me, hmmm?  *tries not to force it*

I think it's maybe about an inch or two closer now ...

*gets super still and calm and quiet*

*gets very accepting*

[akasimone]

Forum!  Long time, no see.  I am FINALLY practicing (mostly) regularly again.  Phew.  Moving sucks.

What I learned today is that I'm restless.  I've been working on the same pieces for what feels like a really long time, which is a little worrisome.  On the other hand, it's a lot more music than I've ever tried to learn at once before, even if some of it is just a hair on the easy side for me.  There are moments when I feel like I'm making progress but then there are moments that feel totally hopeless. I also realized it's been a while since I've had one of those moments where I hear capital-M Music in my playing.  Which might be because I'm just getting back into practicing again or because I've actually been practicing more than before and expecting it to make more of a difference than it does or I'm working on too many different things at once or I'm just listening a lot harder which is sort of good except that sometimes I think too much while I'm playing and then you can definitely hear it sounding stiff.

I think I'm going to pick up something new soon to get myself excited again.  (Schubert?  The Moments Musicaux are nice.)  I can't decide whether to table something easy that I'm already reasonably comfortable with or the Rachmaninoff that is a tiny bit too difficult for me anyway (but I've already invested a lot of time in it).

Crossing my fingers I don't plateau now that I don't have a teacher anymore >_<

[akasimone]

Also, yesterday I learned that, while I love the IMSLP, glossy covers and staples and the occasional editor's note are really nice things...

[m1469]

To become a great pianist or singer or composer or person ... is not the goal. The goal is to cultivate, clarify, communicate, and live the understanding of a Great Truth.

[pianowolfi]

To become a great pianist or singer or composer or person ... is not the goal. The goal is to cultivate, clarify, communicate, and live the understanding of a Great Truth.

 

Yes! That goes well together with those words I once wrote, that were given to me: "Only care about the clarity of your message"

[go12_3]

After  diligent practices, I can play poly-rhythms on Debussy's First Arabesque.   

[pianowolfi]

Congratulations! 

[go12_3]

Congratulations! 

Thank you so much!     It was a challenging piece to learn and to play
proficiently without sounding choppy.  I love the flow of this piece and each time
I play it, I play with a different mood, some sections may be more dominant than
others.  I think that's what I love about Debussy's pieces.  Oh, I'm learning "Claire de Lune"
now. 

[akasimone]

Holy moly Batman I just made the most amazing discovery.  Sort of by accident I figured out that if I tweak my hand position justttt so, it makes my E-flat major arpeggios SO MUCH BETTER. They still need a lot of work but this feels like a minor breakthrough.

[m1469]

Holy moly Batman I just made the most amazing discovery.  Sort of by accident I figured out that if I tweak my hand position justttt so, it makes my E-flat major arpeggios SO MUCH BETTER. They still need a lot of work but this feels like a minor breakthrough.

I love experiences like that .


I've been pondering Rachmaninov's music, specifically Op. 23/4, along with other musical ideas of late.  The opening two measures are very wide D Major chords (you could classify them that way) and I've been growing into some idea about that which is related to a growing idea of scales, as well.  Originally, when I would classify it as D Major, I would automatically have in mind the idea of a triad in root position as the kind of "ultimate" classification of a D Major chord and these opening two measures would always seem like some kind of mere variated version of that triad (which, arguably you could say it in fact IS), and it's tempting to think that one of the reasons for this expanded version (musical interest aside) is Racmaninov's big hands ... he just could ... his hands were so big they just needed that bigger shape.  But, it still fundamentally seemed to be like a mere variation of a triad and that's pretty much it.  

Gradually, though, I've been seeing it as something more artistic and creative, as well as a kind of clarification on the fundamental idea behind it.  Of course, its purpose harmonically is to establish that we are in the key of D Major, and this it very well does.  My mind has begun expanding into its shape in a new way though, leaving that closed harmonic thinking in terms of a triad behind - but allowing it to be more about a polarity of pitch, etc..  

Just today, just several minutes ago, though, I realized even further that while it is not a mere triad or triad variation, I mean, its creativity is not limited to the physical notes as such, I feel I realized that its musical function is actually very similar to something like an alberti bass (keeping in mind, also, period instruments in all cases), and in that sense there is a basic simplicity to it, similarly to an alberti bass and some of the functions that particular figuration served in Classical music.  Rachmaninov's wide and expanded figurations are not just a result of his bigger hands (and Chopin's not just a result of his apparently stretchy ones), but of a creative and expanded view on very, very similar musical fundamentals as found in music before their times.  Their figurations are something like a more modern alberti bass and the functions those served!

[nyiregyhazi]

Just today, just several minutes ago, though, I realized even further that while it is not a mere triad or triad variation, I mean, its creativity is not limited to the physical notes as such, I feel I realized that its musical function is actually very similar to something like an alberti bass (keeping in mind, also, period instruments in all cases), and in that sense there is a basic simplicity to it, similarly to an alberti bass and some of the functions that particular figuration served in Classical music.  Rachmaninov's wide and expanded figurations are not just a result of his bigger hands (and Chopin's not just a result of his apparently stretchy ones), but of a creative and expanded view on very, very similar musical fundamentals as found in music before their times.  Their figurations are something like a more modern alberti bass and the functions those served!

I don't quite follow what you mean. How often is a harmony just a harmony, in ANY context? Is the Grandioso in the Liszt sonata just a D major chord? Are the figurations in Chopin's B flat minor nocturne just there to provide a harmony? Also, I find it strange to compare to something as formulaic (and arguably lazy) as an Alberti bass. While very little  is ever just a harmony, Alberti bass isn't too many rungs up the ladder from simply chucking a triad in. Other than involving decaying triads that would leave a gaping hole in the sound, how much more simply can you provide a clear harmony than with an Alberti bass? It's the fact Rachmaninoff went so far from simply grabbing any age old cliches to sustain the sound that makes it interesting despite harmonic simplicity. For me this takes it a world apart from the simplistic function of an Alberti bass. While Alberti bass necessarily implies at least some level of minor counterpoint, it was the most basic and obvious way to prolong a harmony. The only "simplicity" in the Prelude is in the mood created by a pure D major harmony- not in the Scriabinesque spelling. Rachmaninoff went as far away from the Alberti bass concept (of prolonging harmony in the most convenient and predictable way) as could conceivably be imagined.

[m1469]

I don't quite follow what you mean. How often is a harmony just a harmony, in ANY context? Is the Grandioso in the Liszt sonata just a D major chord? Are the figurations in Chopin's B flat minor nocturne just there to provide a harmony?  Also, I find it strange to compare to something as formulaic (and arguably lazy) as an Alberti bass. While very little  is ever just a harmony, Alberti bass isn't too many rungs up the ladder from simply chucking a triad in. Other than involving decaying triads that would leave a gaping hole in the sound, how much more simply can you provide a clear harmony than with an Alberti bass? It's the fact Rachmaninoff went so far from simply grabbing any age old cliches to sustain the sound that makes it interesting despite harmonic simplicity. For me this takes it a world apart from the simplistic function of an Alberti bass. While Alberti bass necessarily implies at least some level of minor counterpoint, it was the most basic and obvious way to prolong a harmony. The only "simplicity" in the Prelude is in the mood created by a pure D major harmony- not in the Scriabinesque spelling. Rachmaninoff went as far away from the Alberti bass concept (of prolonging harmony in the most convenient and predictable way) as could conceivably be imagined.

One of the points in my mind is that the types of harmony, or let's say the combinations of pitches in a given period of time, that Rachmaninov employed would have been lost on a Classical (and earlier) period instrument.  Even simple harmonies in wider spreads would have been lost as a single concept on an instrument which couldn't sustain the sound.  In a sense, they employed what they could, and the options were limited.  Alberti bass is meant to aid in employing a textured, harmonic concept over a greater period of time than just playing the chord would allow.  The fact that the modern instrument can sustain the sound as it does basically means that the combination of pitches and distances between them can include what materialistically seems like a greater or expanded complexity, however, the basic idea can still function in a very simplistic kind of way.  

Basically, a single harmonic idea, the way in which we fill space and time with sound, can include a larger combination of notes and wider spreads without losing its identity as a cohesive musical idea (yet, sometimes one that eludes simplistic harmonic classification).  Also, just because a musical idea may include more notes doesn't necessarily make the essence of that musical idea more complex (unless you think only in a very materialistic way in that there might be more quantities).  We are still filling time and space with sound-ideas/shapes, there is still a hierarchy in how musical concepts "must" interact, and how these sounds musically function within the scale and form of the pieces, and overall musical concept.

In the Rachmaninov, the original conception probably included many notes all at once, which materialistically must unfold through our concept of time (just like any idea that we attempt to communicate beyond the original conception), and, of course, notation is limited.  It doesn't fully reflect the essence of a metaphysical idea that may be conceived as complete all at once and so our view and experience with it is spread out - very similarly to the simple problem of notating two adjacent notes, where one is displaced and an unknowing eye may see these two notes and think they are not meant to be played at the same time since one is slightly to the side simply for lack of a better way to notate! Alberti bass is lucky as a materialistic idea because its notation is as simplistic as its concept seemingly is, Rachmaninov was not so lucky.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Even simple harmonies in wider spreads would have been lost as a single concept on an instrument which couldn't sustain the sound.  In a sense, they employed what they could, and the options were limited.  Alberti bass is meant to aid in employing a textured, harmonic concept over a greater period of time than just playing the chord would allow."

The point about wider spreads of harmony being lost just isn't true. Look at the Mozart D minor Fantasia, for example. Although there is no melody against these figurations, the style of writing is far more in the vein of Rachmaninoff's than any cliched Alberti bass. It covers a large range of the keyboard and the sounds blend throughout this wide range. Rather than use a bog-standard pattern, Mozart experiments with completely different ways of extending a harmony. Composers just weren't being terribly imaginative when they used Alberti bass. Yes, it goes beyond just playing the chord. But it is the most minimal way of going beyond that. It's the laziest style of prolonging harmony.

The classical composers had sustain pedals and such things could indeed sustain perfectly well. There's an oft-repeated claim that the Moonlight 1st movement and the Tempest recitatives do not sound blurred on a period instrument. However, it's a myth. You get plenty of blurring (just not as much as an extremely insensitive pianist can end up with on a modern piano).


"Also, just because a musical idea may include more notes doesn't necessarily make the essence of that musical idea more complex (unless you think only in a very materialistic way in that there might be more quantities)."

Who referred to quantity as a factor? It's not about more notes in the Rachmaninoff but rather the unpredictable intervals used to spell out the harmony. The intervals make it more complex. However, if more notes don't make it more complex, doesn't that imply the kind of thinking that says it IS just a harmony? All of these things contribute to whether the music just says "this is D major" or whether it creates something way beyond that.

"In the Rachmaninov, the original conception probably included many notes all at once, which materialistically must unfold through our concept of time (just like any idea that we attempt to communicate beyond the original conception), and, of course, notation is limited."

?
 
"Alberti bass is lucky as a materialistic idea because its notation is as simplistic as its concept seemingly is, Rachmaninov was not so lucky."

? I've never had a problem reading the notes or understanding a basic triplet rhythm and I've never heard many pianists misunderstand how to play it. What exactly do you mean? What problem is there in Rachmaninoff's notation and how does that manifest itself, specifically speaking? What do people get wrong due to notational issues? I'm a bit confused, because if we think of it as basically just being one single thing that had to be spread out for the sake of realisation, that surely comes back to the idea that it's basically just a D major harmony? But that's what you were saying it goes beyond being. I think the horizontal movement is every bit as important as the way it combines to make harmony. I don't see it as just a single texture that had to be spread out. Had he orchestrated it, I should be most surprised if he replaced all horizontal details with singular prolonged harmonies.

[m1469]

Sorry, I've got about 5 minutes today -

When I "compared" it to the alberti bass figuration, it had nothing to do with the literal figuration.  When I talked about notation being a problem it had nothing to do with being unable to read the notes on the page nor understanding the literal rhythms.  Also, I can't imagine your own progress is hinging in the remotest way on understanding what I mean ...

I guess it's just something in my silly mind that I can't explain in any truly meaningful way! 

[nyiregyhazi]

"When I talked about notation being a problem it had nothing to do with being unable to read the notes on the page nor understanding the literal rhythms."

Yeah, that wasn't really what I imagined, but I was largely wondering what it is that you do mean.


"Also, I can't imagine your own progress is hinging in the remotest way on understanding what I mean ... "

Well, maybe not, but I do find these things interesting. I realise that in the past I often used to treat these things pretty much as melody and bass (which I would pay attention to) and accompaniment (which I would basically just aim to keep as much out of the way as possible) . Certainly, I prefer this to those pianists who overload melody with the accompaniment and kill the impression of sustain- although what I did was not really a very sophisticated way of voicing. As my technique has developed over time, I've realised that (with adequte control of tone) you don't have to think of secondary lines as being pushed all the way into the background of your conception. There's a whole lot more detail you can put into the softer notes- as long as that does not compromise the ability to make adequate distinction between the voices. I do still tend to find that most pianists play accompaniments in a way that gets in the way far too much, but with many others it sounds completely empty- with no real life of its own. I think it's very interesting to consider how you can make an accompaniment a genuine point of interest in its own right, while still striving to keep it massively out of the way of the melody.

Funnily enough, Rachmaninoff is exactly the pianist who springs to mind here. The way he plays the 2nd subject in the 3rd concerto is a classic example. The semiquavers have great significance- yet they in no way interfere with the melody. When modern players attempt something similar, they generally take attention away from the melody and it doesn't sing.

[m1469]

I don't know how to explain it any better than I've already tried ... yet.  


Today I took a look at Bach's Invention number 1 again.  I started seeing new things in it that I've never quite grasped before, and one thing led to another and soon I had deep questions ... which, all of a sudden (this evening), I seem to be possibly finding answers for.  But, Bach and the Inventions/Sinfonias as well as the WTC bk. I and II are crazily calling me to them as something like the Bible.  It's like, I just want to look at them, ponder them, listen to them, study them, pour over them and absorb them ... as though I'm going to find the answer to life in them.  As though Bach left a message and secret code and this whole Truth within them.  That's how I feel and I don't know why.  It's like my guts are getting sucked to them ... or that my guts are sucking them in.

*trembles a little for the truth of it*

[akasimone]

This week:

1.  Music isn't fun anymore.  Not in a bad way, just... At the risk of sounding over-serious (and thus, ironically, naive) it is a bit more than that to me, now.  I hear more ideas and stories and concepts and dialogue when I listen.  This is making me so much more anxious to get better technically so I can bring these things out when I'm playing, and even put my own interpretation into the mix.  At the same time, I'm somehow having trouble translating that into actual motivation to practice.  It might be because I'm in a little bit of a rut, so the increased desire to play better makes me that much more reluctant to actually hear myself and admit where I am :-/

Also, this is making me really want to pick up a theory/composition textbook.  I'm relatively untrained in that area but now I feel like it would be especially helpful, or at least give me more to think about.

2.  Not having a teacher makes it so hard to convince myself to FINISH a piece before adding like 12 new ones... I'm trying to find a happy medium, where I at least get to a reasonable level with the pieces I care most about, and at least make sure to learn SOMETHING from the ones that get tossed on the back burner.

[m1469]

This morning I just digested what is for me an insane amount of information - which began as a spark of inspiration while I was going about my regular business, then it united with ideas from a few days ago ... I proceeded to feel crazy between my thoughts and my feelings ... I made a point to try to remain calm ... wrote down about 2-3 pages within my journal ... reasoned things out in a focused way (I had to force the focus), went about more of my usual routine, got more inspiration, went a little crazy with thoughts and feelings, forced more focus, wrote another 2 pages in my journal, then cycled all the way to being calm and all of that as being a part of my somewhat "regular" understanding of the piano and music.  

Still have lots to go in the application/expression phase, but I've mapped out a plan.  In the meantime, I'm trying to tell myself and let it resonate that it's OK if this takes several days!  It doesn't have to ALL be 'there' in one gulp!  I must be getting so much more mature  .

[m1469]

I must find those Bach's orders of learning ... which, I know have been posted by Bernhard.


*loves music and the forum*

[hastur]

I just love reading your posts, m1469. You are quite the inspiration, and somewhere between my absent-mindedness and frantic scrambling to remember what I might not have forgot I feel some sort of connection the way you describe your thought processes.

It would be interesting to read how you go about taking in new pieces and study material.

On a not so related note, I went back to my Hanon book and realised that the endless note patterns that felt amazingly intimidating just a couple months ago now feels much less so. I want to say that it looks much more 'digestible' (is that even a word?), if that makes any sense at all.

EDIT:

*loves music and the forum*

I second this sentiment fully.

[m1469]

I just love reading your posts, m1469. You are quite the inspiration,

Thank you, that is really warming for me to consider.  

It would be interesting to read how you go about taking in new pieces and study material.

I'm working to become more clear on this, myself.  Right now some of it is extremely normal, like repeating passages or ideas several times in a fairly methodical way.  But certainly I am almost always looking for principles to grab hold of.  I'll sometimes find that much more quickly in some things than others, while at the same time I tend to feel there is *always* more to better understand.  Occasionally I'll completely obsess about something that I can't put down until my entire system says "Ok, I've had enough for a time, just let me be for a bit."  Today I've suddenly reached that point after an incredibly intensive week of studying and figuring and absolute obsession over some things I couldn't ignore - and, have even been aware and feeling myself doing this figuring in my sleep.

On a not so related note, I went back to my Hanon book and realised that the endless note patterns that felt amazingly intimidating just a couple months ago now feels much less so. I want to say that it looks much more 'digestible' (is that even a word?), if that makes any sense at all.

Yes, this is a very enjoyable view, isn't it?  I remember a time when that was the case for me, where I'd pick up a piece and it seemed like something I wasn't able to easily digest, I'd learn it and then it would change in appearance on the page to me - it would make much more sense to me and look easy.  There was a long time when that didn't happen for me anymore ... years, but recently it has started to happen in a related fashion, again.  

[mike_lang]

 I remember a time when that was the case for me, where I'd pick up a piece and it seemed like something I wasn't able to easily digest, I'd learn it and then it would change in appearance on the page to me - it would make much more sense to me and look easy.  There was a long time when that didn't happen for me anymore ... years, but recently it has started to happen in a related fashion, again.  

This happens with clefs, orchestral scores, and languages as well . . .

[hastur]

I'm working to become more clear on this, myself.  Right now some of it is extremely normal, like repeating passages or ideas several times in a fairly methodical way.  But certainly I am almost always looking for principles to grab hold of.  I'll sometimes find that much more quickly in some things than others, while at the same time I tend to feel there is *always* more to better understand.  Occasionally I'll completely obsess about something that I can't put down until my entire system says "Ok, I've had enough for a time, just let me be for a bit."  Today I've suddenly reached that point after an incredibly intensive week of studying and figuring and absolute obsession over some things I couldn't ignore - and, have even been aware and feeling myself doing this figuring in my sleep.

I've been trying to get myself to make some sort of list with some general steps/guidelines for what to do and in what order, but I never get around to actually doing one (even though I'm very sure it would help me a lot with my practising).

Yes, this is a very enjoyable view, isn't it?  I remember a time when that was the case for me, where I'd pick up a piece and it seemed like something I wasn't able to easily digest, I'd learn it and then it would change in appearance on the page to me - it would make much more sense to me and look easy.  There was a long time when that didn't happen for me anymore ... years, but recently it has started to happen in a related fashion, again.  

It really is! Whenever I looked at those sheets, I'd just see a myriad of notes with intervals I couldn't easily figure out. But when I look at it now, it actually makes sense to me, and I see patterns as well as get an idea about the mechanical part of playing through them (and with Hanon there isn't much beyond the mechanical). It was such a happy moment, and it makes me want to revisit some of those exercises and perhaps incorporate them in this future practice regimen I've been meaning to formulate.

I think that if I had some form of schedule for my practice sessions I would get more done. I'd have to include everything, warmups (and what kind of warmups, possibly Hanons coupled with some chord play), scales (focusing on the scales used in my current pieces? probably), and then my pieces.. but it wouldn't be enough to just say "work on this and that piece in this and that order" I don't think. Prior to each session (possibly at the end of the former session?), I would need to identify areas in the pieces that give me trouble, that needs more polishing, or whatever might be appropriate.

Oops, there I went rambling again.. but I think something like this would be highly beneficial instead of just sitting down at the piano with a pile of sheet music that I go through without thinking things through. I think structured planning ought to up the efficiency of practising by quite a lot.

[m1469]

I've been trying to get myself to make some sort of list with some general steps/guidelines for what to do and in what order, but I never get around to actually doing one (even though I'm very sure it would help me a lot with my practising).

Yes, I've been a bit ungrounded for a little while.  I've actually written out a number of lists like this over the years.  Here's what I would list today, and incidentally helps me be more organized going into a long practice day today .

In terms of an initial mental grasping of the piece, I like to work from a large picture downwards:

1.  Formal Analysis.
2.  Phrasal Analysis.
3.  Harmonic/Melodic Analysis.
4.  Motivic Analysis.
5.  Pianistic/Topographical Analysis.
6.  Motional Analysis.

Of course some of this analysis happens simultaneously.  Once I get a feel for a broader view and how it fits together in a general way, I feel the next step in learning can have a better mental organization right away.  Then, the basic next step involves repetition.

[bustthewave]

I hope that this doesn't sound overly dramatic , but I learned that I can be a pianist today . I've played my whole life by ear, but only really started delving into sheet written music a few months ago. My second piece that wasn't my own I've ever started learning, and started learning yesterday at that; Chopin's fantasie impromptu, I was able to play at proper speed the first 6 measures comfortably.

Today is going to be a good day .

[hastur]

Yes, I've been a bit ungrounded for a little while.  I've actually written out a number of lists like this over the years.  Here's what I would list today, and incidentally helps me be more organized going into a long practice day today .

In terms of an initial mental grasping of the piece, I like to work from a large picture downwards:

1.  Formal Analysis.
2.  Phrasal Analysis.
3.  Harmonic/Melodic Analysis.
4.  Motivic Analysis.
5.  Pianistic/Topographical Analysis.
6.  Motional Analysis.

Of course some of this analysis happens simultaneously.  Once I get a feel for a broader view and how it fits together in a general way, I feel the next step in learning can have a better mental organization right away.  Then, the basic next step involves repetition.

I just wrote up a similar list, mostly just verbalising thoughts I've had over the past couple months and things people have suggested to me:

• Listen to the piece as played by somebody else while reading along with the sheet music, this will help you identify parts and repeated patterns. Also try to identify passages you think might be difficult to you. Feel free to make notations of these in your sheet music.
• Work with the parts you divided the music into, don't play through the whole piece. (If you did; Your beginnings would bevery solid, while your endings would get increasingly shaky).
• Depending on the piece, first learn each hand separately to join them later, or learn hands together right away. I personally like to include articulation while doing this, but exclude dynamics. Remember to practice each of the parts you divided the piece into earlier separately, this is very important, and makes memorising the music a much less daunting task.
• If you chose to learn each hand separately, after doing so; Work on bringing them together.
  After practising a piece, again try to identify parts, patterns, and trouble areas. Make notations in your sheet music as necessary.

Not sure when I should add working in the dynamics really.. and I'm probably missing a lot of important steps that should be there. For example I do very little analysis of the piece beyond breaking it down into parts to make it easier to digest. Mostly because I don't really know much about formally analysing a piece.

[_achilles_]

I learned that having a piano teacher for the first time in three years (since I left high school) is definitely the best decision I've made since leaving high school.




@m1469: Up at the top of this page mentioned a book you read that helped you appreciate become more aware of your body when playing.. what's the name of it if you don't mind me asking?

[mike_lang]

6.  Motional Analysis.

Would you mind giving a definition?  I may be familiar with this, but just under another name.

Thanks,
Mike

[m1469]

@m1469: Up at the top of this page mentioned a book you read that helped you appreciate become more aware of your body when playing.. what's the name of it if you don't mind me asking?

I don't mind - I guess I'm giving this guy some business  .  But, the book is "What Every Pianist Needs to Know About the Body" by Thomas Mark.  I haven't read all the way through it word for word, but what I read was quite helpful for me.  

Would you mind giving a definition?  I may be familiar with this, but just under another name.

Thanks,
Mike

I don't mind!  All I mean is taking note of what kind of pattern you are playing on the piano and where on the piano you are playing it, and based on that what kind of motion/posture would be required to play the text - keeping in mind that you will be going somewhere new, too, and need to consider that motion as well.  It seems like "spotty" motions when described like that, but ultimately a person would want one continuous kind of motion throughout the whole piece.

[mike_lang]

I don't mind!  All I mean is taking note of what kind of pattern you are playing on the piano and where on the piano you are playing it, and based on that what kind of motion/posture would be required to play the text - keeping in mind that you will be going somewhere new, too, and need to consider that motion as well.  It seems like "spotty" motions when described like that, but ultimately a person would want one continuous kind of motion throughout the whole piece.

Have you read the Sandor?  This sounds almost exactly like what he does (denoting fundamental motions with letter names).

[m1469]

Have you read the Sandor?  This sounds almost exactly like what he does (denoting fundamental motions with letter names).

Yes, I've dabbled a small bit years ago, and have been meaning to revisit, thinking that at least a large part of what I'm talking about would be either there, or in a video I had started watching at one point (but, I can't remember who that was).  I have the book and the video, as well as Bernstein's book about choreography, and I'm betting that's related, as well.

[m1469]

What I've learned so far today:

I don't think I believe in sharps and flats as we have thought of them, anymore - though I will still use that classification (at least for now) in language.  I haven't thought through double flats and sharps, but I will ... and maybe my mind will change back.

[mike_lang]

What I've learned so far today:

I don't think I believe in sharps and flats as we have thought of them, anymore - though I will still use that classification (at least for now) in language.  I haven't thought through double flats and sharps, but I will ... and maybe my mind will change back.

How do you believe in them?

[m1469]

How do you believe in them?

I see them as part of an infinite, mathematical perfection, not as alterations.

[nyiregyhazi]

I see them as part of an infinite, mathematical perfection, not as alterations.

What do you mean mean? Obviously F sharp is not really an "alteration" when playing in D major. It's as "normal" as E is in C major. However, I've never been under the impression that this is any kind of well kept secret.

Also, for students in the learning stages, I believe that awareness of an alteration is of paramount importance, before you can get to the stage of seeing sharps and flats as normal. The classic mistake for students is to reach for a nearby black note without really thinking it through. It's essential to go through a stage of starting with the letter itself and then adjusting up or down a semitone. It's the only way to eliminate all possibility of guesswork. It also makes sense of notes like B sharp or F flat very early on- rather than allowing them to seem different to any others. The only problem is when students think of alterations as being a last moment alteration- rather than an alteration that was conceived at the very outset.

I think evolved understanding should put anyone in a position of having free choice over whether they might consider them "normal" or alterations. It's the most rounded understanding possible, when you can freely look at it either way.

[m1469]

What do you mean mean? Obviously F sharp is not really an "alteration" when playing in D major. It's as "normal" as E is in C major. However, I've never been under the impression that this is any kind of well kept secret.

Also, for students in the learning stages, I believe that awareness of an alteration is of paramount importance, before you can get to the stage of seeing sharps and flats as normal. The classic mistake for students is to reach for a nearby black note without really thinking it through. It's essential to go through a stage of starting with the letter itself and then adjusting up or down a semitone. It's the only way to eliminate all possibility of guesswork. It also makes sense of notes like B sharp or F flat very early on- rather than allowing them to seem different to any others. The only problem is when students think of alterations as being a last moment alteration- rather than an alteration that was conceived at the very outset.

I think evolved understanding should put anyone in a position of having free choice over whether they might consider them "normal" or alterations. It's the most rounded understanding possible, when you can freely look at it either way.

Yes, if we take a single step, we are on a path.

[akasimone]

(Insert best teenage-HUFF-and-epic-pout-even-though-I-am-no-longer-teen-age...) Being your own teacher is HARD.  I keep starting new pieces and now I think I have too many; it feels like I'm hardly making progress on any of them.  Also some of them are a litttttle easy for me, which is good except they still take a certain amount of work but sometimes I don't love them enough to focus hard.

And I'm in this mood where I really really want to get better and am so extremely motivated to practice but then I get very easily frustrated by how far I am from where I want to be and then I don't actually get better I just get mad.

But I guess everyone goes through weird phases like this.  I'm inclined to say that everyone is not as bad a player as me but I suppose everyone must feel like they're terrible sometimes, which is basically the same thing.

[m1469]

But I guess everyone goes through weird phases like this.  I'm inclined to say that everyone is not as bad a player as me but I suppose everyone must feel like they're terrible sometimes, which is basically the same thing.

Phases of perception, they definitely come and they go.  The real trick is in finding something concrete and factual which serves as a path amidst phases, and then being willing to stick to that as a foundation to remaining open for more.  If you can't find anything factual, then you've actually found a type of fact upon which a step must follow .

[m1469]

Understanding the piano keys/topography is like cooking and eating with quality salt and pepper.  

[mike_lang]

Understanding the piano keys/topography is like cooking and eating with quality salt and pepper.  

How so?

[akasimone]

Phases of perception, they definitely come and they go. 

Oh, good.  That's a relief.  Thanks

Today I told myself something, which I might actually write on a post-it and stick onto the front of my practice journal.  Maybe it should be common sense but sometimes I need to consciously remind myself of common-sense things... I told myself:  Stop.  Before you play, think.  What do you want to hear?  What must that feel like in your fingers?  In your shoulders?  In your brain?  In your soul? 

I think it helped.

I might take a lesson with my sister's teacher when I go see my family over Thanksgiving.  He doesn't know me or my quirks, but I can tell he's good because she's good, and it would be nice to have a technique check-up; I sort of worry about (re)developing bad habits...

[m1469]

How so?

I start to see and hear the piano in a kind of binary code, and I start to hear when it's mixed between these two possibilities and why something sounds the way it does.

Today I told myself something, which I might actually write on a post-it and stick onto the front of my practice journal.  Maybe it should be common sense but sometimes I need to consciously remind myself of common-sense things... I told myself:  Stop.  Before you play, think.  What do you want to hear?  What must that feel like in your fingers?  In your shoulders?  In your brain?  In your soul?

Well, I don't know maybe it's common sense, but it's so easy to just get into a certain mindset where we forget to check in like that.  In what sense do you feel it helped?