What I learned during practice today :

[flyinfingers]

Perhaps they were "out of touch," like you've stated to me.  Can't everyone be "out of touch'?

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

Binary? Implying that all black keys are synonomous, as a group, and that all white keys are synonomous as another group? What is this supposed to mean? All you have to do is move from the key of C major into any other, to make a complete mockery of the idea that black/white keys function as opposing groups. The inherent blackness/whiteness of a key is a total non-issue. The role of each note is solely dependent on what key you are playing in- which is why a major scale can have any number of sharp/flats. A major third is a major third. It matters nothing what combination of white or black keys its spelled with. The layout of the piano is just a way of organising 12 pitches. If there's any heirarchy, it is abandoned in the instant you change key.

While your language sounds pleasantly poetic, I'm afraid I haven't got the slightest idea as to what you your analogy could possible mean. What two groups are you dividing things into, in order to create a binary code?

[m1469]

While your language sounds pleasantly poetic, I'm afraid I haven't got the slightest idea as to what you your analogy could possible mean. What two groups are you dividing things into, in order to create a binary code?

For now, you could say it's between whole steps and half steps.  Nothing new about that .

What is your own fundamental organization of the piano in your thoughts?  As you said; 12 tones?

[nyiregyhazi]

For now, you could say it's between whole steps and half steps.  Nothing new about that .

What is your own fundamental organization of the piano in your thoughts?  As you said; 12 tones?

? How can you view the whole of piano playing this way? What about wider intervals? They have no flavour of their own? I can see your point with reference to a major scale (although harmonic minors require a larger interval- hence going beyond binary). But how much music is so simple? By the time you get to Wagner, there's not necessarily any expectation of a particular series of notes. If he writes a 6th or 7th, the interval is frequently its own entity. It doesn't occur that way, simply because both notes lie within a particular major scale. By this point, every interval is its own thing- not a specific degree of a predictable scale that is formed by tones and semitones. Music is not binary. Only the stepwise movement of a major scale is.

The only obvious way of making sense of the bizarre system that is the piano keyboard lies in key based thinking, for me. Each key has its own look and feel. A good pianist should be able to "see" every note of each scale as one entity- as if it sticks out as different colour to every other note. I personally get all students to play through sharps and flats in order on the piano and hold them all down. I also get them to very slowly play all major/minor scales with one finger, so they are visualisng the layout of every individual key that is part of the most significant patterns. Obviously, the tones and semitones are a big part of what creates that, but I think you have to internalise this part very quickly and learn to see whole keys as one single thing- not just individual steps that create them.

[m1469]

? How can you view the whole of piano playing this way? What about wider intervals? They have no flavour of their own? I can see your point with reference to a major scale (although harmonic minors require a larger interval- hence going beyond binary). But how much is music is so simple? By the time you get to Wagner, there's not necessarily any expectation of a particular series of notes. If he writes a 6th or 7th, the interval is frequently its own entity. It doesn't occur that way, simply because both notes lie within a particular major scale. By this point, every interval is its own thing- not a specific degree of a predictable scale that is formed by tones and semitones.

Yes, I guess I've always wanted a system of organizing notes on the piano and in the music where every single note could be somehow classified at least in one way that makes sense to me and still within context of all of the others.  One of the aims in that, for me, would be so that it's not just like there's a bunch of floating intervals or notes or chords etc. that I try to memorize in a bit of a haphazard way - and whose meaning is almost only that which I impose upon it (arguably, you could be philosophical about it and say that's the only meaning there can ever be, etc., but I think there are truly arguable aspects of that).  Ultimately, to me, to be able to somehow classify each note means that interpretation and performance wise, every note will have some kind of musical purpose and that I can make musical decisions ("ideally") about every, single note!  I feel like I've never truly had that before, at least not since I was a child and even then it would not have been consciously in the same ways.

(...) and learn to see whole keys- not just the individual steps that create them.

Yes, I agree with this and this is an aspect of what I wrote just above this.  I suppose everybody goes about this in a different way, perhaps.  But, what do you think makes one way "better" than another?  So, for example, why should an average 3 yr. old have a teacher like you or me to help them to organize their thinking about this - why not let them just do it any old way they please?    

[nyiregyhazi]

"Yes, I agree with this and this is an aspect of what I wrote just above this.  I suppose everybody goes about this in a different way, perhaps.  But, what do you think makes one way "better" than another?  So, for example, why should an average 3 yr. old have a teacher like you or me to help them to organize their thinking about this - why not let them just do it any old way they please? "

Well, why teach them anything? You could argue that they should only be told what blacks keys come in each scale and what the notes of each piece are- not taught to understand. Sadly, this is actually pretty common- but it's not really teaching. Teaching involves showing where things come from and encouraging further explorations. Then students can use their own intelligence to hopefully find new ways of looking at it. However, few students are going to have the intellect to spot where patterns come from. Left to their own devices, they'll either be likely to make inaccurate assumptions or to simply fail to make any analysis at all. Something needs to at least get the ball rolling.

Personally, I think it should be standard to train students to think in keys- not simply by telling them what black notes to play, but by showing them what makes up every key and showing them how closely related the layout of keys is, when you progress through circle of fifths. When training scales, I try to involve this to the greatest extent possible. Arguably, pointing out tones and semitones in scales does this too, in a way. But it would take a genius student to see the bigger picture, from this stepping stone. Ironically, the whole reason we have key signatures is to make life EASIER! Sadly, most students aren't familiar enough with the sense of how black keys accumulate, to realise this. 

[m1469]

"Yes, I agree with this and this is an aspect of what I wrote just above this.  I suppose everybody goes about this in a different way, perhaps.  But, what do you think makes one way "better" than another?  So, for example, why should an average 3 yr. old have a teacher like you or me to help them to organize their thinking about this - why not let them just do it any old way they please? "

Well, why teach them anything? You could argue that they should only be told what blacks keys come in each scale and what the notes of each piece are- not taught to understand. Sadly, this is actually pretty common- but it's not really teaching. Teaching involves showing where things come from and encouraging further explorations. Then students can use their own intelligence to hopefully find new ways of looking at it. However, few students are going to have the intellect to spot where patterns come from. Left to their own devices, they'll either be likely to make inaccurate assumptions or to simply fail to make any analysis at all. Something needs to at least get the ball rolling.

Personally, I think it should be standard to train students to think in keys- not simply by telling them what black notes to play, but by showing them what makes up every key and showing them how closely related the layout of keys is, when you progress through circle of fifths. When training scales, I try to involve this to the greatest extent possible. Arguably, pointing out tones and semitones in scales does this too, in a way. But it would take a genius student to see the bigger picture, from this stepping stone. Ironically, the whole reason we have key signatures is to make life EASIER! Sadly, most students aren't familiar enough with the sense of how black keys accumulate, to realise this.

Okay, but, what is - do you think - the essence of an understanding at the piano which makes one way better than another?  I don't mean to be stubborn about that question, but I don't feel that what you wrote answers it - true as what you say may be.



Last week I fell into a kind of expression at the piano that was quite fulfilling (though I don't feel I'm living with it on call right now).  It was related to a sense that develops for me through theater and Opera, which I had been involved with for about a month.  Something I've realized, though, is that while theatre and Opera and singing are a form of "fun" and are opportunities for growth, one thing I enjoy so much about the piano is that as a pianist, you are not just a character in the story, you are the entire opera!  You have to be absolutely everything imaginable ... the set, the music/orchestra, every character, the story ... everything!  That is pretty cool .

I definitely feel a form of stretching when I participate in alternate activities, like opera, which help me in my playing.  I think in Opera, you are ideally a kind of embodying and/or reflecting of the entire story and music and each character, as well, but it's different and a different responsibility.  

*to the piano*

[hillphotos2009]

Hello everyone, Miss m1469.

I really like this thread.  I noticed it started in 2006 - awesome that its still going!

I am a violinist, I've played for 12 years and am currently on a 10 year hiatus.  I love my violin, I love getting lost in my music, and I love the sound of the classical tunes.  BUT, its turned into such a chore lately.  I have four boys that I have to keep up with and it seems like as soon as I sit down to relax and play SOMETHING I break a string, can't get the violin tuned because the strings have gone false, or I get it tuned and the boys need me.

My church's pianist surprised me one day while she and I were practicing some vocals with one of her Yamaha electric pianos to take home and play with.  She showed me how she finds the key and melody of the song she wants to play and just plays the piano to fit her singing.  Well, I had the piano for several months in packed behind my husband's dresser wanting to get it out but I am not the type creative enough to play by ear.

Something compelled me last week to get the piano out and at least set it up by my computer where the kids won't mess with it and ever since I have not been able to keep my hands off the thing!  I find myself everyday being more and more relaxed and comfortable with playing the piano.  I learned 22 years ago how to read sheet music from playing the violin and I've actually found my self easily maneuvering through piano sheet music as far as reading the notes and figuring out where my fingers SHOULD go. 

I figured out the other day that I can crawl up and down any scale while I'm on the phone, having difficulty figuring something out, or just a bit stressed and it calms me down and my fingers move about the keys more easily every time I do it.

One of the pieces I've had memorized from childhood for the violin is Mozart's Minuet and I just so happen to have the music that has the violin and piano parts on it.  I had my violins out yesterday and got so freaking frustrated with them that I put them up and shamelessly attacked my goal for the violin on the piano.  I forgot about my frets over my violins and was just having fun with the piano.

I feel like a traitor and I have no idea why I'm posting to this thread, but it just feels so cool to play the piano.  The language seems so clear to me and I like being able to actually use a bass cleft.  I am really excited to actually learn a piece and maybe play it for my church just to show off.

Anywho, how long should it take to learn a piece?  Is there a golden rule as far as time goes?  And I've been learning piano music the way I was taught to play violin music, one measure at a time.  I learn one measure with my right hand, then I move on to my left hand, put those together and when I can play the measure over and over comfortably I move on to the next measure.  Is that the standard practice for piano or is there a more efficient way to learn? 

Thanks,

Stephanie

[m1469]

Hello everyone, Miss m1469.

I really like this thread.

Great!  Thanks for joining in!  No golden rule, exactly, for how long it takes to learn a piece.  You must do what works for you and the circumstances surrounding your reason for learning i

[m1469]

Yes, we play the music and aim to be as true to it as can be, but our dose of individuality and soul lay in the fact that we actually play the impression of the music upon our being. We must let, first, the music impress itself truly upon our being, we must let it in deeply and we must live with it as though it's an inseparable part of who we are. And then, we express this impression and it is whatever is true about the music, and whatever is true about our being, at once.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, we play the music and aim to be as true to it as can be, but our dose of individuality and soul lay in the fact that we actually play the impression of the music upon our being. We must let, first, the music impress itself truly upon our being, we must let it in deeply and we must live with it as though it's an inseparable part of who we are. And then, we express this impression and it is whatever is true about the music, and whatever is true about our being, at once.

So in other words, don't perform a piece too soon after you learn it. Am I translating accurately?

[49410enrique]

.

[m1469]

Am I translating accurately?

No.

[akasimone]

Currently devouring Chuan C Chang's book.  Wow.  Why didn't I do this sooner?!  Trying not to get overly excited because I've only just started trying to put the stuff into practice... I think parallel sets are already starting to help, though. And today when I was practicing, several times I made a mistake and realized that probably wouldn't have happened if I had the piece memorized through mental play.  Basically PS-ing my way through the Mozart A-minor Sonata... 

they will (even the onles i like ) inevitably give me new music at the very the last minute

yikes! Though I admit I've been on the other side of that... I tend to assume that accompanists (aka anyone who will play for us, not necessarily professional accompanists) have sort of god-like abilities to sight-read anything Funny, even being a pianist myself, I just assume "real musicians" can do anything :-p

And I've been learning piano music the way I was taught to play violin music, one measure at a time.  I learn one measure with my right hand, then I move on to my left hand, put those together and when I can play the measure over and over comfortably I move on to the next measure.  Is that the standard practice for piano or is there a more efficient way to learn? 

Hi Stephanie!  I'm no expert but your method sounds textbook... In fact there's a mysterious poster called "bernhard" who apparently left this forum long before I got here, but everyone says he's an amazing teacher and reads his posts like the bible--anyway, from what I can tell, this is basically the type of thing he suggests.  (Search for his posts when you have lots of time--reading them is addictive!)

[akasimone]

OH ALSO I had this mini-revelation that I could not wait to share with anyone who would listen (ie a forum of captive internet-listeners )

I'd been feeling so tentative and stiff at the piano lately; nothing had really felt comfortable in a long time.  Last week I had a lesson and started Chang's book, and both Chang and my teacher pointed out where I was tense and, importantly, showed me how to work on relaxation.  So I realized maybe it's not that I'm uncomfortable because my I'm not playing well, maybe it's that I'm not playing well because I'm not relaxing enough.  Basically I'm starting to realize that maybe relaxation should actually be my focus--the cause, not the effect, of good playing.

I think it's helping.  In particular, getting all my finger muscles to un-tense while they're not playing seems to help me keep my fast play in time.

[nyiregyhazi]

No.

Could you give your own translation? Poetic as your language might be, it conveys nothing more to me about piano playing than any of Yoko Ono's tweets. Specifically what are you actually talking about, that another person might attempt themself (without first smoking anything)?

"we must live with it as though it's an inseparable part of who we are."

What on earth does that mean? Is my demeanour supposed to be affected when conversing with strangers, according to the mood of the music I am "living with"? What if I were working on some late Liszt? Should I carry a dour mood about my person in day to day life- lest I accidentally separate who I am from the funereal atmosphere?

[hastur]

(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.

I know what you mean.. I'm thinking of tackling the problem by getting together with one of my piano buddies once a week or so, and kind of giving each other homework to practice until next time we meet. That way you get the deadlines that creates the precious focus needed to advance forward. Because you don't want to meet up with your friend and have nothing to show them. I haven't gotten around doing this yet, but it's my intention to try persuade a friend of mine tomorrow when we're having lunch together.

[hastur]

Earlier this week I made my first serious attempt at learning Beethoven's Pathétique Mvmt. II Adagio Cantabile. It's quite a ways above my level I feel, but it has some interesting challenges that I think I'll learn a lot by solving. I've broken it down into smaller bite-size fragments, identifying the recurring main theme and it's transitions. It is probably 2-4 levels above my comfort-zone (Though, I'm honestly not entirely sure where my real level of playing is).

Is it advisable to take on such a project? Or should I indeed leave this piece alone until I reach the level of play required? I'm not really sure on the best way of progressing here. I understand the idea of building a strong foundation of skills, and I'd love to do this, however, I can only buy so much sheet music at a time. Perhaps I should try picking up some collection of children's pieces, such as those by Kabalevsky that I've played a few from to continue working on this foundation with pieces that in themself present little in the ways of challenge, but give me experience in reading and then playing music...

[pianowolfi]

Could you give your own translation? Poetic as your language might be, it conveys nothing more to me about piano playing than any of Yoko Ono's tweets. Specifically what are you actually talking about, that another person might attempt themself (without first smoking anything)?

haha, I am not smoking anything and I don't feel like I need a "translation" for this. Why not talk about music in a poetic way? It's one of the best ways to talk about it, perhaps

[nyiregyhazi]

haha, I am not smoking anything and I don't feel like I need a "translation" for this. Why not talk about music in a poetic way? It's one of the best ways to talk about it, perhaps

For a long time, I've had this quote as the footer to my emails.

"Talking about music is like Dancing about Architecture."

If I want to be inspired, I'd rather read some actual poetry than something that reads like advice, but which is too ambiguous to have any practically explicable meaning (beyond the claim that would dictate that I supposedly "must" conduct myself among others in a way that reflects what music I am learning, if I am to do it any justice). Personally, I find analytical discussion far more interesting than vaguery. If being poetic is the goal, why not drop the pseudo-explanations altogether and just write a poem- without the distractions? Inspiration can be found all over the place, without attempting to make sense of one person's ultra-subjective attempt to convey the experience of how music tickles their soul. Frankly, a dance about architecture could literally convey as much to me, if not more.

[m1469]

I'm pondering the importance of practicing repeating patterns which extend over the majority of the keyboard, and the importance of practicing those consistently (as in, every day).  As well as what materials really give the opportunity to do so.

[timothy42b]

As well as what materials really give the opportunity to do so.

Sightread.

[m1469]

Sightread.

Probably that's a good thing to practice everyday, too.  But, I mean the opposite of that.  I mean practicing the same, exact, repeating patterns (what most people consider "exercises") everyday, and the benefits of doing that over long periods of time (years).

[goldentone]

Probably that's a good thing to practice everyday, too.  But, I mean the opposite of that.  I mean practicing the same, exact, repeating patterns (what most people consider "exercises") everyday, and the benefits of doing that over long periods of time (years).

So you're starting to think they may have value?  The interesting thing is I've never heard any of the greats say that they developed their technique solely from repertoire.

[m1469]

So you're starting to think they may have value?  The interesting thing is I've never heard any of the greats say that they developed their technique solely from repertoire.

Well, I've never exactly thought for sure that they didn't, though there have been times in years-past where I've tried out the attitude that they are unnecessary and that you can get the same results from simply practicing repertoire.  Now, it's more that I am starting to develop a better and more conscious understanding of the actual benefits, from first-hand experience of living and trying to progress either way.  It's been a developing yet inarticulate idea/feeling since I've started truly using exercises consistently.  It's just barely brinking into a more articulate understanding, and then there is more to it that is still undefined for me just yet.  

I can see though that there are principles being developed as conscious thinking/ideas, and which are becoming more readily usable for me.  I can see within that, how it's the principles which matter probably the most, vs. just the exact way of finding them (material used), but there are perhaps particular materials which are nearly indespensible.  For example, right now, I don't know that there is any actual replacement for scales and arpeggios in 4 octaves and the more precise knowledge you can gain by a strong familiarity with them (and some permutations).  And, I think that a strong knowledge in the fundamentals of them benefits music and repertoire (and our knowledge of those) much more than pieces alone would benefit our knowledge of scales and arpeggios in a fundamental way ... and, it's the fundamental understanding which is very needed, as that effects a musical and repertoire understanding!

[timothy42b]

Probably that's a good thing to practice everyday, too.  But, I mean the opposite of that.  I mean practicing the same, exact, repeating patterns (what most people consider "exercises") everyday, and the benefits of doing that over long periods of time (years).

No, you are misunderstanding.

(which of course is the same thing as saying I haven't explained well.  But more palatable to one or the other of us!  <hee, hee>

I think maybe you are suggesting that practicing sightreading novel material every day would be a good idea.  But I disagree.

i think that really good sightreading does not depend at all on the ability to cope with novel material.  Rather, it consists of having a large repertoire of thoroughly learned pre-memorized chunks. 

Therefore, it makes more sense to spend the time being sure that what patterns we've learned, we've learned very very well.  Then when we recognize them while sightreading we instantly retrieve them and execute them effortlessly. 

Truly novel patterns of rhythm, chords, or fingering are beyond the capabilities of anybody but the few Mozarts.  (My mother was apparently one of these - I never heard her stumble reading anything, i came to think it was easy.  Until I tried it myself, long after she was gone.  Still don't know how she did some of it.)  But the good sightreaders aren't the mozarts, they are the people who are prepared.

In my opinion, of course.  And I am somewhat biased, as my primary instrument is monotonic (trombone). 

[m1469]

Thanks for your very nice explanation of what you mean, your ideas are very appreciated!  I have for a long time thought (but it's been deep in some cavern nearly out of reach) exactly what you articulated about memorized patterns and sightreading, and have been forming strategies based upon this, but it's not developed yet.  My idea is that it would be the same as with reading a language, in that our recognition of shapes, patterns, note-groupings, sound-relations and motions would all be tied together as one idea.  

This is actually exactly why (well, one reason) I think it's important to have materials which are repeated over years, and which cover some very fundamental and basic patterns and sounds.

[m1469]

There's this strange kind of thing starting to become apparent, yet still elusive.  A time ago, I wrote in this very thread (I think) about wondering if sometime playing could just be something like stretches in one direction or another, and there is something related to this, some kind of principle which is actually seemingly true.  But, it seems like there's some kind of mathematical activity to it, and as though there is some kind of "order of operations" but I wouldn't know how to even start putting it into words.  hmmmm ... it's also helping with problem solving but it would probably be even better if I could really define what's going on.

[m1469]

Then when we recognize them while sightreading we instantly retrieve them and execute them effortlessly.

I want to amend my last comments a bit, as what I am getting at is becoming more clear to me even over the hours.  To me, the part about "execute them effortlessly" is actually the big importance, because it implies a principle behind the shape or pattern, that yes we may consciously or intuitively be aware of upon seeing the pattern or shape, but the principle being the key in actually being capable of executing what we see.

It's a strange line because, fundamentally, I believe that exercises are a grounds for working on defining and refining principles, yet we can (and perhaps should (?)) play them in a musical way, whereas music itself is grounds for the application of the principles found, yet we can or perhaps should further define and refine principles within it.  To memorize all the possible patterns found within music is a kind of endeavor I don't quite have a handle on just yet, though I can see there are recurring themes in what we may find on the page and developing an instantaneous (or at least knowledgeable) ability to execute that.  But, to know the patterns themselves has never yet been my precise goal, even though I do currently argue the importance of consistently, repeatedly, practicing certain patterns.

But, one of the reasons I think something like scales and arpeggios in four octaves is irreplaceable is that in executing them, you have a textually "simple" pattern -which happens to also include a fundamental musical application- through which you *can* get to know principles of execution as it relates to different registers of the piano (for one example).  Playing something like a Bach invention instead, though perhaps helpful in many ways and which may include some areas of applying the same principle, just doesn't cover the same grounds as scales in four octaves does.  There is more to it, too, but that's either for private lessons and in the moments, or non-explainable in entirety, or not quite explainable by me just yet.

That said, I don't think we need to spend hoards of time trying to play every exercise in the books ... precisely because IF it's strictly about textual patterns, we can just as easily find those or perhaps only find those in repertoire.  That I get and agree with.  But, I think there is use -and perhaps need- for a handful of very purposeful exercises which help us develop a strong sense of principled execution and application, which can be applied to and worked in conjunction with repertoire.

[simon13]

Studying isnt all about learning all you can in a period of time that is as short as possible. Playing the  piano properly takes years, persistance, daily practise and motivation. The time you invest in writing this, you could well better use playing the piano!

[hastur]

The time you invest in writing this, you could well better use playing the piano!

Think we got a feisty one! Regardless, welcome to Pianostreet. Hopefully in the future you will find the wonderful demeanour of the many more amiable members to be contagious.

Back to topic.. I'm pondering purchasing the Notebook for Anna Magdalena. It would provide a whole bunch of easy pieces to practice sight-reading I think.

[amelialw]

That its a pain working Schubert op.90 no.1 at full-speed, especially the section where it modulates to a flat major onwards...
I can finally grasp solid chords which my l.h!! I found that out when I went through mendelssohn's g minor concerto. FYI my hands can grasp no bigger than an octave so it's taken me forever to be able to play solid chords without arpegiating them.

[m1469]

A musician can still be musical even without necessarily having anything personal or in particular to "say" ... hmmmm ... that blows my mind a little because I've for quite awhile thought they were (supposed to be) pretty much synonymous with each other, but they're not, and that fact is an important distinction.  So, just because you're musical doesn't necessarily mean you've got something to say, and just because you've got something to say doesn't necessarily mean you're being musical (though if I had to choose between one or the other, I *think* I'd prefer the latter ... but ideally, of course, it's both together).  

This is actually a very big realization for me and explains a lot to me about certain traps of mine, and of course it's a realization made with help from lessons I've learned with teachers (as in, I'm sure it's fairly connected with some aspects of what somebody's been trying to help me to understand for quite awhile now ).

[akasimone]

A musician can still be musical even without necessarily having anything personal or in particular to "say" ... hmmmm ... that blows my mind a little because I've for quite awhile thought they were (supposed to be) pretty much synonymous with each other, but they're not, and that fact is an important distinction.  So, just because you're musical doesn't necessarily mean you've got something to say, and just because you've got something to say doesn't necessarily mean you're being musical (though if I had to choose between one or the other, I *think* I'd prefer the latter ... but ideally, of course, it's both together). 

This sounds kind of like a mini-revelation I had about six months ago. I don't know if I've mentioned it here yet. But it has to do with my personal motivation to play music. I had always thought previously that what separated me from Real Artists (besides talent and dedication) was that I didn't really have this overflowing Creative Energy that I felt desperate to express. I felt like artists must have such huge souls, or something, and that comparatively I was a bit empty, myself. BUT then I realized that feeling of (comparative) emptiness was driving my own creative urge, and maybe I should embrace that and maybe it's not necessarily a bad thing. So I came to this idea that music, for me, is less of an attempt to shunt off some kind of energy or feeling or message that needed to get out, and more of an introspective effort--because if I can dig down into myself enough to play a piece of music convincingly, it's proof that there is SOME kind of creative soul in me. And that's different than what I'd thought art should be, but I'm accepting that it's not necessarily inferior.

In your words, I guess, I am not musical because i have something to "say", I am trying to be musical so that I can find something to "say" within myself.

I don't know if that makes any sense.  What makes slightly more sense: This week I have been focusing on (a) relaxing unnecessary muscles and (b) thinking in groups or chunks of motions, instead of getting hung up on individual notes but also (c) keeping beats and subdivisions in mind so that I don't play so unevenly.  I have read or been told about all of these things before, but I'm finally figuring out how to make sense of them and let them actually affect the way I play. It's been a good week.

[m1469]

Yes, that makes some sense to me.  I'm not sure to what degree I would think of it or aim for it in that way, myself, but I'll give it some thought and consideration.

Your last comments also remind me of something I've been working on and which has been developing a different meaning for me lately.  I've been thinking about the technical and musical importance and effect of feeling the pulse.  That seems maybe silly because, as you write, it's stuff we hear about for a long time, and read about and such, but until it really starts being something inside of us and intimately tied directly to the music at once (and in that, to our technique), it's just not the same thing.      

[m1469]

Here is such a very peculiar thing for me about being a singer and a pianist; last weekend singing changed my world, and I find I'm just barely scratching the surface of what I learned by doing so, along with the preparation I did for the competition.  I don't know exactly which part I've learned the most for, the actual audition/performance, or the preparation, but either way, I come to the piano and it isn't the same to me as before, either.  Something is extremely different.  And, I find myself having access to ideas from the preparation I did for the competition in my playing/practicing for piano, and here's the most peculiar part; it's application feels so acute that it's nearly as though I did all that preparation JUST for the sake of my playing on the other side of it, yet while I was doing the actual preparation, it was primarily for the sake of my singing.  I don't get it. 

Well, I hope to start making it all more practical soon.

[ajspiano]

...bringing new meaning to "cantabile" perhaps?

I'm not a singer.. but I certainly get away with singing at times. And i apply it to piano in that I should always be able to sing the next note I'm about to play (though sometimes of course in a different octave). Or be able to sing a harmony line to the notes i'm playing..  or play a harmony to the notes I'm singing..  Its of huge benifit to pitch skills and musicality in general.

I know a few teachers who have "singing is compulsory" as part of their studio policy.

What kind of ideas did you get out of your preparation/audition/performance that you can apply to the piano?

[m1469]

...bringing new meaning to "cantabile" perhaps?

Well, perhaps only in the respect that I develop a new meaning to singing itself.

I know a few teachers who have "singing is compulsory" as part of their studio policy.

I've thought about this, since I teach both piano and voice, and personally find the crossover invaluable.  I've thought about having the ideals of each being compulsory for the other, and actually acting lessons/classes, as well.  Those ideals for my students are either let go of or completely on the back burner until years from now.  I guess I can start with myself!

What kind of ideas did you get out of your preparation/audition/performance that you can apply to the piano?

Well, I tried to answer this, but it's definitely still percolating!  It's going to take more practice action on my part.  Perhaps I'll be back soon .

[nyiregyhazi]

A musician can still be musical even without necessarily having anything personal or in particular to "say" ... hmmmm ... that blows my mind a little because I've for quite awhile thought they were (supposed to be) pretty much synonymous with each other, but they're not, and that fact is an important distinction.  So, just because you're musical doesn't necessarily mean you've got something to say, and just because you've got something to say doesn't necessarily mean you're being musical (though if I had to choose between one or the other, I *think* I'd prefer the latter ... but ideally, of course, it's both together).  

Is there really any meaningful distinction? All musicality is something to say, in some respects. Otherwise there would be no diversity of interpretation at all. If we get lost in these constructs for describing the product, in my opinion it merely distracts from that product. What value really lies in trying to separate 'musicality' and 'something to say'. Firstly, nobody is going to agree on what these terms actually mean and secondly, they are merely a synthetic segregation of the things that really matters- ie whether the results are interesting and emotionally engaging etc. If a performer bores me, I couldn't care in the least which of two vague premises they fell short on. Where they fell short was in not sounding good.

This false dichotomy is presumably founded on the premise that musicality is an absolute that contains nothing personal and that interpretation is separate. This is not true. Musicality is an individual thing. If someone can only do a basic version of it, their very musicality is at fault. Personality is not a separate thing that can be tacked on. A person's musical vision is just their musical vision. If the results are boring, their musicality is boring.

[timothy42b]

How does an actor convincingly portray a serial killer?

(assuming, of course, that he is not actually one!) 

Does he actually act, using his craft to produce something not inside him?  Something created by the writer/composer? 

Or must he somehow reach deep inside him to find the killer, if there exists some personal darkness that can be built on? 

This debate has been ongoing in the acting community, the dance community, in fact most of the arts community for decades if not centuries.  It applies to music as well, though I've seen little discussion.   

Many musicians seem to think it is settled.  You hear this when they claim a young prodigy cannot possibly have anything to say, lacking sufficient life experience.  But the rest of the arts community doesn't agree. 

[m1469]

Many musicians seem to think it is settled.  You hear this when they claim a young prodigy cannot possibly have anything to say, lacking sufficient life experience.  But the rest of the arts community doesn't agree.  

Yes, well, never fear because child prodigies are not alone in having nothing to say and, consequently, nothing of import to add to the music world.  We'll just throw them in the same ditch with many others; those who are too old, those who don't have the right background and upbringing, etc..

Actually, I disagree with the notion that child prodigies, or more practically, children and adolescents don't have anything to say and to potentially add to the music world.  Simply on the grounds of my own personal experience growing up.  Back then, I had very deep, inexplicable thoughts, emotions, and pain in my life. I didn't know anything about "having something to say" yet I had a deep desire to express myself through music at the piano, and I still remember the moment when I was in adolescence where I seemingly broke through the wall, and consciously got it out through improvisation - I set out in my session on a mission and I accomplished it.  That seems quite different than any student I've had so far. Then again, who cares about that?  Nobody knew at the time, plus, now, years later, I haven't won the appropriate competitions, nor did I have a proper musical upbringing, and I'm too old for it to matter  :-.

Anyhoo, *back to my pointless life as a musician*

[Bob]

One of those piano/life ones....

I already had...
You have to be willing to destroy what you've created/worked for in order to improve.
That's the same as, "You have to break some eggs to make an omlet," saying.

A slightly different take on that today... I don't have the wording concise though...
The things that are strengths also hold you back because they are strong.  Strong, firm, and less easily changed.

[m1469]

One of those piano/life ones....

I already had...
You have to be willing to destroy what you've created/worked for in order to improve.
That's the same as, "You have to break some eggs to make an omlet," saying.

A slightly different take on that today... I don't have the wording concise though...
The things that are strengths also hold you back because they are strong.  Strong, firm, and less easily changed.

I like this very much, it was somehow extremely helpful and I can't explain how or why!!  It was just a little like magic.  Thanks for posting .

[pianoplayjl]

I learnt there are some scales I need to keep hands separate for 2 weeks even after getting it together because I need to familiarise the notes and co ordination. F sharp minor is the hardest scale of the 24. I'm still troubled right now even after 3 weeks of learning the scale.

JL

[Bob]

I like this very much, it was somehow extremely helpful and I can't explain how or why!!  It was just a little like magic.  Thanks for posting .

Here's where the omlet quote comes from... At least where I first heard it.

The strength holding you back idea... I was thinking of the power of habit for that too.  You *have* to do something every day during practice, just because it's part of the routine.  Habit pushes you to do that, even if it's not quite the best option for practicing.  Plus the 'willingness to destroy your own hard-earned creation' idea... And it's really something to let something go to make space for new things.  You know what you've worked on will start to sour.  There's just not enough time though.  The strength becomes a weakness when it starts keeping you back from exploring/figuring out/perfecting other things.  

I've got something rolling around in my brain about the informal scientific method but I haven't figured out what it is yet.  Something to do with only so many options for figuring something out and working through those.

[m1469]

Woah ... spooky  .


*casts a spell*

*makes Bob's inner head SO itchy and tickley*

[Bob]

*Bob scratches head alla Dr. Finklestein.*

[Bob]

Just thinking it's better to vary things than keep them the same.  Keeps the body/mind guessing and not set/atrophying because it knows what's coming up each day.  I've heard of that for exercise but I'm thinking it's probably true for anything.  Hard to do though.  It's easier to just do the same thing each day.  And it's tougher when you have to keep track of what you did so you can vary it.

[m1469]

That image is something very close to what I imagined you doing to scratch your noggin when I made it so tickly .

Here's a thought that I've been rattling around for a couple of days.  If technical development is considered to be dependent almost solely upon the ability to listen and hear -which, as far as I understand it, is one school of thought- why is there also "talk" (seemingly from the same school of thought) about muscles being too old or at the right age for technical development?  I understand that you could theoretically say that a person could hear in even the finest detail, yet not be capable of developing the technique to match if muscles are too old, etc., but I've never been under the impression that this is what people are talking about when they say somebody is too old to learn and develop. I've never been under the impression that emphasis is being placed on the ear and the ability to hear, in this case, but rather solely on the muscles and dexterity.  Which is it, the ear or the muscles that matter?

[m1469]

Here is something interesting, in my opinion, which I can't claim to know for sure if it applies to only me (though I can't imagine it does!) or if this is actually how many people function, but:

I tend to have this crazy strong pull towards the piano, and part of this pull includes the desire to focus entirely on it.  If I'm not playing it, I'm thinking about it and thinking about playing it, and anxious over when I'll play it again and how much time I'll be able to put into it (I think this is actually something which needs some healing  ).   I think this is probably quite a good thing, in many respects, however, sometimes I become so fastened to it that it's crazy painful to tear myself away.  I have experienced this in various scenarios throughout my life, but very acutely last Thursday when I had to indefinitely stop practicing (meaning for at least 36 hours, but being afraid that life would just sweep me away and I'd never return) due to other priorities, against my will, after having been extremely engrossed in this certain way for some amount of time.  I was literally in tears and heartbroken about it and spent an unfortunate 45 minutes or so just coming to terms with it emotionally, so that I could even focus on the other things which I needed to focus on.  OK, there are issues there   which were at least being partially resolved in the process I underwent during that time   (in fact, I know they were being resolved).  

BUT, my point is, upon getting myself to release it, which had to somehow be this indefinite kind of release and took a great stride, and to truly focus on other projects which truly needed my attention - like teaching - I find it's probably a very important aspect of my growth to have this variation - perhaps along the lines of what Bob talked about above.  In fact, it's not just important for me personally, but even for my piano practice and may help me understand something about my pianoing that I actually wouldn't understand in the same way had I stayed focused, always, on only that.

Sometimes I have a difficult time with transitions, though.  The lesson?  hmmm ... maybe it's a bit absolute in that we probably all need some kind of variety in our lives in order to better understand and enjoy even those things which are our first loves.  But, the practical purpose?  Perhaps I need to be more able to recognize when that balance needs to be struck, and instead of freaking out about it, recognize it as part of the learning process and make smoother, calmer shifts.  It hits my deepest piano issues though, which I guess is the tricky part and I'm guessing not everybody has those.  

Does everybody have those?