Why should younger people play slow pieces and be criticised for playing fast pi

[opus10no2]

You are completely wrong, sadly.

Raw Speed is physical, coordination is mental.

Speed is a mental barrier? Don't make me laugh.


If this was true, Alfred Brendel could play a 1 minute 10/4 with his mind control powers.


The proof is in the proverbial pudding, my foe, let us set up a duel, to prove who's theory is correct.

[danny elfboy]

You haven't answered my question
You know that "come on" "don't make my laugh" and so on are just pathetic replies from someone who has no arguments right?

Raw speed is physical .... why ....

Come on. If you have made this speed thing your own life motto you should at least show that you have known how to argument this philosophy of yours
How do you argument that speed is physical?
Anatomically, physiological?
The proof is not in the pudding since listening you play fast pieces say nothing about whether you're doing it physically or not. We should wait 10-15 years till you have accumulated so much tension that you'll be unable to write with a pencil let alone play the piano ... but since there's no proof (because listening to recordings DOESN'T SAY A DAMN about whether speed is physical or mental) the only proof is empirical knowledge

If you came up with the idea that speed is physical you must have started from certain premises ... anatomical premises. Let's share those with us. Again: explain to us why speed in piano playing is physical and a kind of athleticism. Telling me I'm wrong is not an argument and you have provided no argument at all

[opus10no2]

I said it in the other topic...every movement we make is made by muscular contractions.
The brain controls the coordination, but is limited by the raw physical ability of the mechanism.

[danny elfboy]

I said it in the other topic...every movement we make is made by muscular contractions.
The brain controls the coordination, but is limited by the raw physical ability of the mechanism.

Not at all
You can't condition a muscle to speed in playing because nothing a muscle does can increase speed.

Even if one ignored anatomical and physiological fact it's a very logical concept

If you're constantly contracted then you don't need any conditioning at all, just contract the muscles and keep playing with the muscle contracted. This is the maximum contraction you can obtain: infinite contraction

Since you can't contract one set of muscles as another set if contracted the only way you can vary the contraction levels is by contracting and releasing.
This is very logical. Either you're always contracted and hence can just contract before playing and maintain the contraction for the duration of the piece ... which is a piece of cake or either you must variate movements by adding pauses (release) among the contractions

The only way you can conditiong your muscles at this point is by contracting and releasing in the shortest amount of time. This is mostly controlled by the brain and required no muscle strength or hypertrophy. That's all. You can't do anything else with your muscles
Either you co-contract them and hence limit your movements
Either you keep them contracted, hence having found the maximum level of contraction possible ...
or either you contract and release them; the only limitation being the amount of time it requires to you to release a muscle after it has been contracted ... which is not something controlled by the myofibrils of muscles but by the signals of your brains

There's nothing else really. Whatever other concept of muscle usage in playing you'll explain  will just be sci-fi and I'm willing to scan all the best book in anatomy and physiology in order to have you finally grasp and accept it

[opus10no2]

What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Think about a 100m sprinter, or any other athlete, do they not need to developed their muscles to perform their feats of speed, is it all mind control?

Fingers are much smaller than legs, but the same principle applies.

[danny elfboy]

What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Think about a 100m sprinter, or any other athlete, do they not need to developed their muscles to perform their feats of speed, is it all mind control?

Fingers are much smaller than legs, but the same principle applies.

That's why athleticism is so different from piano playing
A small muscle doesn't become bigger by contraction but by "injury"
What make a muscle bigger is microlacerations of the tissue caused by a stimulus the muscles was not able to bear
It's the most basic form of adaptation.
You do something your muscles are not able to do and you micro-damage the fibers
At night the injured fibers of the muscle will be repaired through a release of nitric oxide by the muscle cells which will either stimulate the increasing amount of myofibrils or the lenght of the fibers. Only that this time the muscle will be not only healed but also made in the conditioning of not being injuried anymore but that stimulus. That's why muscle growth depends on finding new stimulus greater than the previous one, otherwise muscle growth stops.

The most basic movement at the piano (pushing the keys ... which is actually a falling on the keys) require less than 2 ounces of weight. Speed playing hence the skill of releasing a contracted muscle as quicky as possible is too a non physical demanding task
That's not so for a runner.
The stimulus of running and weight bearing of the upper body is enough to micro-injury the muscle and cause a growth-adaptation

There's nothing at the piano that can do this. Neither the fast release not the 2 ounces of depressing weight can or will ever cause a muscle growth adaptation by injurying-stimulus
That's because as I said even a starvation cast away can play a fast piece at the piano
The amount of muscle any 2 years old has is enough to depress the keys and release the contracted muscles. Of course to improve the amount of time required to release a muscle one need conditioning and practice ... but as I said it's a mental one

The moment you'll show me that the difference between a muscle that can release as quickly as possible (hence contract, but it's just semantics) and a muscle that as not been conditioned to fast releasing its contraction is a PHYSICAL one hence empirical observable with magnetic resonances and spectroscopy and muscular fibers and cellulars analysis ... I will agree with you. Till that moment I rest by the universal physiological concept that fast release depends on fast signals to the receptors and no on physical changes of the muscle structure

[opus10no2]

There is no difference to the motion of the legs of a runner.

Are you saying that with a 'perfect technique' at the piano, the pianist with the fastest speed octaves in a rapid short succession of 10 per second, for around 1 second or a bit more, could carry on this action indefinetly?

Are you saying that if a very fast pianist - with your supposed 'perfect technique' - can start op10no1 or 2 at maximum possible speed, they would finish while playing at the exact same tempo, with no decrease in speed due to some fatigue?

If you are saying this, then you are insane.

[danny elfboy]

There is no difference to the motion of the legs of a runner

There is ... if nothing for the weight bearing task of the legs
But you wouldn't know anyway since you have showed to have no knowledge of anatomy and physiology

Are you saying that with a 'perfect technique' at the piano, the pianist with the fastest speed octaves in a rapid short succession of 10 per second, for around 1 second or a bit more, could carry on this action indefinetly?

Exactly
You should understand that yourself
Endurance in athleticism depends on how much your muscular glycogen, lactate and eventually body fat lasts. Since the calories consumed at the piano are almost irrelevant this is not an issue

Since rapid contractions mean rapid release the muscle automatically renew itself
There's nothing "natural" in accumulating fatigue
When bigger muscles and bigger task are concerned it is a matter of muscular strength and of substrate availability.
None of these is an issue at the piano
Rapid contraction and rapid release don't allow fatigue to accumulate (and I suggest you to read what fatigue is and not just as you have done so far repeating cultural rumors and myths)

Are you saying that if a very fast pianist - with your supposed 'perfect technique' - can start op10no1 or 2 at maximum possible speed, they would finish while playing at the exact same tempo, with no decrease in speed due to some fatigue?

Yes. Edith Grosz Lateiner consciously cultivate for example the best technique possible. She could play Rachmaninov at very fast speed and with power for hour endlessly and she felt not fatigue but renewed after it

You should stop laughing at things you can't do or understand
You're the classical person that would have called insane anyone claiming the earth was not flat. You're too egocentric. Just because you're totally unable to do something or understan it (also because of lack of knowledge) it doesn't others can't and it's impossible

Start seriously getting educated about anatomical and physiologically principles and it will click in your head and you'll feel stupid for clinging all the time to your clearly uneducated opinion ... when learning about things we don't know is just "free"

If you are saying this, then you are insane.

it's not me that are insane it's just that you are a very bad pianist, maybe you should have tried with the violin instead since you weren't sure what instrument was eight for you on the first place. I don't want just to gratitiously insult you but anyone who can't play fast pieces without accumulating fatigue is a bad pianist, someone that should start from scratch and that if don't will get irreversibly injuried in a matter of years

[opus10no2]

I know you're wrong, but I won't argue any longer.

I would just like to ask you, who do you think has the best piano technique you have ever heard or seen?

Who is the fastest pianist you have ever heard or seen?

And what is the fastest time it is possible for a human to play pieces like Chopin's op10no1 and no2?

[pianistimo]

pollini?  but, i don't think he puts much 'work' into it.  it's mostly brain-speed because he's minimized and minimized and minimized the efforts down to 'barebones.'  what i mean is that his speed comes from 'letting go' and relaxing.  the more you relax - the faster the neural connection from brain to fingers.

i can practice for 7 hours straight when i am practiced.  the only thing that hurts is my back.

i haven't done this type of practice for a year or two. and even then, would do it only once in a while (like on a holiday) - because i haven't got that kind of time anymore.  but, what's amazing is that it's like a 'wall' that you break through and it makes you feel invincible.  my last teacher improved on the help i got from my college prof - by minimizing movements even more.  when i started out with high wrists - he sort of made a joke of it.  because things you do with your wrists (as you already know - probably) don't make sound from the piano.

usually i am more concerned about my car being towed after midnight than the janitor who's listening to rock or my hands/fingers.

ps i think everyone on here excepting a few are really amateurs - so we can't really call the 'kettle black.'  but, you know - it's funny because i used to think the same way - that i must really be in shape to play piano.  it's more like - you need lots of oxygen to keep you mind sharp.  when i cycle - it helps my piano playing because my brain is keener and allows my muscles/tendons/ligaments to work together smoothly and efficiently.

you know when you cycle- you 'breakthrough' at an hour or half hour and you use the second part of your lungs - allowing you to take in more air.  this breakthrough happens with piano - too - when you all of a sudden realize that you don't need to put as much effort into the individual notes as the velocity is working FOR you.

[opus10no2]

No, Pollini's Chopin etudes are painfully slow on many cases.

[pianistimo]

just post something soon.  i practiced about 5 hours today all because of you.  can't say that it isn't good - but really - i have housework and children.  i did, however, go to the grocery store- so they'll have lunch tommorrow.

[opus10no2]

You don't have to...jesus never wins, he died on a cross then came back, and then randomly went away because he was a chicken, a KENTUCKY FRIED one at that, and that's disgusting.

[ramseytheii]

I know you're wrong, but I won't argue any longer.

I would just like to ask you, who do you think has the best piano technique you have ever heard or seen?

Who is the fastest pianist you have ever heard or seen?

And what is the fastest time it is possible for a human to play pieces like Chopin's op10no1 and no2?

Looks like opus12 met his match.  When he starts asking other people what they think, you know he's lost!

Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

I just want a good laugh...

[pianowelsh]

you just want a good spank for your rudeness! but there we go.

[ahinton]

you just want a good spank for your rudeness! but there we go.

You just don't want to get into that kind of territory, methinks(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You don't have to...jesus never wins, he died on a cross then came back, and then randomly went away because he was a chicken, a KENTUCKY FRIED one at that, and that's disgusting.

Which part of the Bible or any other published chronicle of the events of Christ's life refers to "randomly", "chickens" and "KENTUCKY FRIED"? Just curious. I didn't even realise that Jesus Christ had ever visited Kentucky. One leanrs something new every day - albeit not that...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

Which part of the Bible or any other published chronicle of the events of Christ's life refers to "randomly", "chickens" and "KENTUCKY FRIED"? Just curious. I didn't even realise that Jesus Christ had ever visited Kentucky. One leanrs something new every day - albeit not that...

Best,

Alistair

When J.C. visits Kentucky, he tends to ride in on a grilled cheese sandwich or as a grease stain on a box of french fries.  If it hasn't happened already, you just wait - he's on his way!

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

When J.C. visits Kentucky, he tends to ride in on a grilled cheese sandwich or as a grease stain on a box of french fries.  If it hasn't happened already, you just wait - he's on his way!

Walter Ramsey

I won't waste time asking you for evidence of this; I'll merely point out that it does not even begin to answer my question (not that I had addressed it to you in the first place...)

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

No, Pollini's Chopin etudes are painfully slow on many cases.

Cziffra was 1/100 of the pianist that Mei Ting is.

[pianowelsh]

I wanted noted that it wasnt a Christian that Hijacked this post with religious comments. Enough said!

I dont think its helpfull to make comparisions of artists.. you cant compare a monet with a Degas..they are both stunning works of art but they have different qualities of beauty.  The question is why should younger people play slow pieces. Well they should because they need to develop artistry AS WELL as technique. regarding part 2 of the question 'and be criticised for playing fast pieces' well they shouldnt be?!!? they should play fast stuff too. One shouldnt be pushed at the expense of the other - that would be luncacy in teaching terms. A well balanced student should have a virtuoso turn BUT should be able to bridle that virtuosity when something other is called for. BALANCE in the repertoire studied by young wanabe pianists is what is required..because it must be realised that about 3% of wanabe's ever actually make it even to college level.. If all you have at that point is technical ability - you'll get bored and frustrated by it and statistically this is the point most comitted students give up piano.  If you develop in a rounded fashion you will atleast be able to give yourself pleasure in the quality and range of pieces that you can play..

You know I was just pondering this with all this insane discussion about technique. But I went through a training at an international level conservatory and I dont remember having more than 3 lessons on technique in  the whole time I was there.. we discussed music, beauty of sound, interpretation etc.. technique was a given...taken for granted.

[opus10no2]

Going on the knowledge that my mechanical ability WILL decline when I reach a certain age, the proposition was that up until then I should concentrate more on fast and physically demanding repertoire.

I have, somewhere, heard people being criticized for doing programmes that are too 'hardcore'.

I see nothing wrong with a program of all etudes, what's wrong with that?

[mephisto]

Who has been criticized? I have only seen them be labeled as brave. These pianist includes Berezovsky, Libetta, Aimard and Pollini + maybe some more.

[danny elfboy]

Going on the knowledge that my mechanical ability WILL decline when I reach a certain age, the proposition was that up until then I should concentrate more on fast and physically demanding repertoire.

Which is a flawed proposition
Physically demanding is a misnomer as already me and others have explained to you
Even fast movements tax very little the muscles and their resistance/fatigue (availability of energy substrate) Speed is demanding for your neurological system not for your muscle
You're not a bodybuilder, you're not an athlete, piano playing is not cardio and it doesn't make your muscle bigger or cause hyperthrophy at all
As others have already told you for as many examples you can bring of pianists with a bad coordination and alignment whose technique worsened with age there are pianists whose technique never declined because of their technique

[opus10no2]

Please name some names then...

And mephisto...I suppose you're right, but I was considering if it were taken to the extreme, and 90% of a pianist's performing repertoire were etudes or similarly fast and demanding pieces.

[ramseytheii]

Please name some names then...

In the face of actual information, opus12 demands that his opponent in argument reverts to subjectivity.

Walter Ramsey

[chromatickler]

That's why athleticism is so different from piano playing
A small muscle doesn't become bigger by contraction but by "injury"
What make a muscle bigger is microlacerations of the tissue caused by a stimulus the muscles was not able to bear
It's the most basic form of adaptation.
You do something your muscles are not able to do and you micro-damage the fibers
At night the injured fibers of the muscle will be repaired through a release of nitric oxide by the muscle cells which will either stimulate the increasing amount of myofibrils or the lenght of the fibers. Only that this time the muscle will be not only healed but also made in the conditioning of not being injuried anymore but that stimulus. That's why muscle growth depends on finding new stimulus greater than the previous one, otherwise muscle growth stops.

The most basic movement at the piano (pushing the keys ... which is actually a falling on the keys) require less than 2 ounces of weight. Speed playing hence the skill of releasing a contracted muscle as quicky as possible is too a non physical demanding task
That's not so for a runner.
The stimulus of running and weight bearing of the upper body is enough to micro-injury the muscle and cause a growth-adaptation

There's nothing at the piano that can do this. Neither the fast release not the 2 ounces of depressing weight can or will ever cause a muscle growth adaptation by injurying-stimulus
That's because as I said even a starvation cast away can play a fast piece at the piano
The amount of muscle any 2 years old has is enough to depress the keys and release the contracted muscles. Of course to improve the amount of time required to release a muscle one need conditioning and practice ... but as I said it's a mental one

The moment you'll show me that the difference between a muscle that can release as quickly as possible (hence contract, but it's just semantics) and a muscle that as not been conditioned to fast releasing its contraction is a PHYSICAL one hence empirical observable with magnetic resonances and spectroscopy and muscular fibers and cellulars analysis ... I will agree with you. Till that moment I rest by the universal physiological concept that fast release depends on fast signals to the receptors and no on physical changes of the muscle structure

congratulations for completely refuting your own argument.

you yourself stated correctly that the athletism and hence speed of the runner is developed by muslce injury and subsequent healing-growth of thre injuried muscle.

the reason you gave for it being dissimilar to piano playing is that the amount of depressing/counteracting weight (which causes this injury) is DIFFERENT. not that it exists for one and doesnt for the other, but just that they are DIFFERENT. this is where i wondered if you actually have the mental capacity to even get involved in this argument.

in case you don't understand yourself, the ONLY WAY your argument would work is if pushing down a piano key requires exactly ZERO ounces of weight. If it requires anything more than ZERO, then the comparison with the runner is absolutely valid in every respect.

now, i know of no newtonian force/energy equation that DO NOT FEATURE (counteracting or otherwise) weight as a component. If you disagree with this, you will be saying that lifting 5 tones X cms Y times per second and depressing 2grams X cms Y times per second can be done with any and every set of muscle found on any living organism.

so take your pick, you will either have 8 year olds laughing their heads off, or 2 year olds.

and considering that you agree out-of-the-gate that muscle building IS EXACTLY HOW athletes increase their speed, i hence find the truly innate hilarity in your 'argument' to be the assumption that: just because you cannot build a particular muscle BY playing the piano, you cannot build this particular muscle, period.

but that's almost a footnote compared to the raw idiocy of DA REZT OF YO sheet.

[liszt-essence]

congratulations for completely refuting your own argument.

you yourself stated correctly that the athletism and hence speed of the runner is developed by muslce injury and subsequent healing-growth of thre injuried muscle.

the reason you gave for it being dissimilar to piano playing is that the amount of depressing/counteracting weight (which causes this injury) is DIFFERENT. not that it exists for one and doesnt for the other, but just that they are DIFFERENT. this is where i wondered if you actually have the mental capacity to even get involved in this argument.

in case you don't understand yourself, the ONLY WAY your argument would work is if pushing down a piano key requires exactly ZERO ounces of weight. If it requires anything more than ZERO, then the comparison with the runner is absolutely valid in every respect.

now, i know of no newtonian force/energy equation that DO NOT FEATURE (counteracting or otherwise) weight as a component. If you disagree with this, you will be saying that lifting 5 tones X cms Y times per second and depressing 2grams X cms Y times per second can be done with any and every set of muscle found on any living organism.

so take your pick, you will either have 8 year olds laughing their heads off, or 2 year olds.

and considering that you agree out-of-the-gate that muscle building IS EXACTLY HOW athletes increase their speed, i hence find the truly innate hilarity in your 'argument' to be the assumption that: just because you cannot build a particular muscle BY playing the piano, you cannot build this particular muscle, period.

but that's almost a footnote compared to the raw idiocy of DA REZT OF YO sheet.

First of all, I don't know a lot on this subject, haven't done any research so I won't say what is what.

Now let's take a look at your arguement.

I understand where you're coming from; however I'm not sure if you are correct.

Doesn't the relativity of the weight matter? Isn't their a crucial point involved where the muscle gets damaged, but before that point, does not?

Is gravity in this case, not the primal mover? "Dropping' your fingers on the keys, and hold in respect the fact that Danny mentioned a zero-effort point, where you arms hang supported by your torso. So if you were to take a correct position at the piano, you would have this effect?

Other than that, correct technique will mean lightness of the wrists, fingers and elbows, and adequate use of gravity, so even if there was any weight moving by muscles involved, would not the bigger muscle groups carry this load.

Which would mean that your upper arms and shoulders will move your underarms into the correct position at the piano, so that you can let gravitiy take over and drop your hands and fingers on the key?

[nicco]

Off topic: Thanks to comme for bringing some controversy to this forum Lately ive really enjoyed reading everyones opinions and explanations.

On topic: Comparing a 100 meter sprinter to a pianist can be argumented both for and against, there are similarities and differences. People should not always think in absolutes.

[marco_from_brazil]

congratulations for completely refuting your own argument.

you yourself stated correctly that the athletism and hence speed of the runner is developed by muslce injury and subsequent healing-growth of thre injuried muscle.

the reason you gave for it being dissimilar to piano playing is that the amount of depressing/counteracting weight (which causes this injury) is DIFFERENT. not that it exists for one and doesnt for the other, but just that they are DIFFERENT. this is where i wondered if you actually have the mental capacity to even get involved in this argument.

in case you don't understand yourself, the ONLY WAY your argument would work is if pushing down a piano key requires exactly ZERO ounces of weight. If it requires anything more than ZERO, then the comparison with the runner is absolutely valid in every respect.

now, i know of no newtonian force/energy equation that DO NOT FEATURE (counteracting or otherwise) weight as a component. If you disagree with this, you will be saying that lifting 5 tones X cms Y times per second and depressing 2grams X cms Y times per second can be done with any and every set of muscle found on any living organism.

so take your pick, you will either have 8 year olds laughing their heads off, or 2 year olds.

and considering that you agree out-of-the-gate that muscle building IS EXACTLY HOW athletes increase their speed, i hence find the truly innate hilarity in your 'argument' to be the assumption that: just because you cannot build a particular muscle BY playing the piano, you cannot build this particular muscle, period.

but that's almost a footnote compared to the raw idiocy of DA REZT OF YO sheet.

I also think you are wrong, specifically in a subtle aspect of the comparison between the athlete and the pianist.

The athlete increases his speed by toughening his muscles so he can push harder and harder with his feet to the ground at the right vector to give him the impulse forward. Now to  compare that with speed of playing notes at the piano isn't accurate.

A real comparison would be that, even being possible to gain "finger strength" ( fingers have the weakest muscles in the body, I guess that would probably make them heavier and sluggish ), we could only say that that "athletic" pianist could just push harder ( higher key drop velocity ) down on the keys, i.e. bang real loud on the keys.

Remember, weight equals mass times acceleration. At the piano you got gravity working for you and it's all the acceleration you need, at the track course, it's against you, and you really need to provide all the acceleration you can with your really tough muscles to win something.

On a lighter and more looney note, just being an amazing athlete wouldn't make you a faster tap dancer either. :-)

[mad_max2024]

in case you don't understand yourself, the ONLY WAY your argument would work is if pushing down a piano key requires exactly ZERO ounces of weight. If it requires anything more than ZERO, then the comparison with the runner is absolutely valid in every respect.

No...
If the effort is beyond the muscle's capabilities and ends up tearing up some of the fibers, they will regrow and the muscle will get stronger
If the effort can be easily managed by the muscle without structural damage, the muscle will remain the same
Even if it's not "zero ounces" of weight

[pianowelsh]

There isnt sufficient weight in a piano key to build finger muscles like arnold schwarzeneggers biceps! there is no weight in them - its something like .075g is industry standard (i forget the exact figure). If muscle is developed it is most definately of the fast twitch variety and is related to the stamina built over continuous repetitions rather than the weight actually lifted. If it wasnt the case how on earth do you imagine a pianist could practice 10hrs a day daily - they'd be wrecked by the end of a week - tops!!

[opus10no2]

Let us get a fact straight here -

GRAVITY is a SLOW-ASS MOTHERMUNCHER!

Hold up your hand with your fingers, and let your fingers drop.

Then hold up your hand and rapidly use your finger muscles to do the same motion.

Unless you are physically sub-human, the latter should be faster.


Does everyone not also understand that every finger has 4 muscles working for it?!

The flexor, for pressing, and the extensor for lifting, and also the much weaker subsets involved in horizontal movement(these are intensively used in Chopin's 10/1 etude).

Comparing the pianist's fingers to the legs of an athlete is spot on.

The conditions are different - the muscles the fingers use are much smaller, and the weight depressed is much less - but these are facts that work together.

An interesting theory would be to lie back, and hold your legs up off the ground, then rapidly move them down a small amount, and then up a small amount, just like fingers trilling, but with no resistance but GRAVITY.

Even if gravity didn't exist, there would be some fatigue after a while, but it does - and the muscles that lift the legs will become extremely fatigued by their task after a while of moving like a fast trill.

The extensor muscles which lift the fingers are very small, and they have to do a similar task - and the flexors have to do the opposite task of coming down and actually pressing the key, which to these small muscles is quite a task after a short while.

Playing a piece which demands rapid repetitive finger movements will inevitably fatigue the fingers to a degree, depending on the ability of the pianist, and the speed at which hes playing.

Increase DOES happen, because when fatigued, when you still play, the mechanism is pushed beyond it's natural comfort zone and inevitably tears fibers.
They regrow and eventually after a while there will be noticably less fatigue and more speed.
This process continues as long as the pianist keeps pushing the fingers to work like this...progressively faster and longer.

[opus10no2]

There isnt sufficient weight in a piano key to build finger muscles like arnold schwarzeneggers biceps! there is no weight in them - its something like .075g is industry standard (i forget the exact figure). If muscle is developed it is most definately of the fast twitch variety and is related to the stamina built over continuous repetitions rather than the weight actually lifted. If it wasnt the case how on earth do you imagine a pianist could practice 10hrs a day daily - they'd be wrecked by the end of a week - tops!!

Of course, the weight pressed , and the weight of the finger being lifted, are very small - but they ARE relevant due to the small size of the muscles involved.

[pianowelsh]

You know Schumann though much as you do before he criplled his hand! Most piano teaching has moved on from that place and it has been observed that by using the larger muscles of the arm one can actually spare the fingers alot of unnecessary expended effort which increases power, clarity and stamina in passage playing. Fingers are not the complete picture op10/2.

[opus10no2]

Of course, I understand the role of the whole body in piano technique, but the fingers are THE most important element.

Schumann evidently went about things the wrong way, nobody is talking about finger 'strength' but finger SPEED.

[pianowelsh]

Schumann came from a far more thoroughly researched position than yu currently stand in so Id be insuring your fingers about now if I were you.
TO GET BACK TO WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT: young people should play slow pieces because its good for them, they shouldnt be criticised for playing fast pieces because they are also good for them. Students should learn as much material as they physically can thats how they become rounded. ENOUGH - im done!

[marco_from_brazil]

as am I. sheesh...

a myriad of points have been made, let's hope people who read can get something out of it.

young people should play whatever the hell they want, by the way.

[danny elfboy]

Forgot to say that it applies to all kind of body movements
When we condition our muscles we train them to respond quickler to "release" imputs
A weak muscle that must bear weight would also become bigger before being conditioned
This clearly never applies to the piano where the 1.7 ounces of resistance are not enough to cause any kind of hypertrophy

A stupid example could be this
Let's say you have to prepare a dinner quickly
This task will require lot of movements like opening the fridge, buttering a pan, pouring oil over the veggies, cutting carrots, switching on the oven and so on

The instictive response to thinking "faster" is trying "harder"
This is a pretty natural pattern. As soon as we think we must go faster we tense our muscles almost as if we thought that tensed muscle promote more supports
Movements become jerky as we actually go slower

If we instead don't think "faster" but "coordinate" our movements will be smaller, more precise and without we trying to make them faster they will twice as fast as the "fast thinking" movements
Try it the next time you're in the kitchen preparing a big dinner
Think "fast" and you'll tense, think "coordinated" and "relaxed" and the soft movemens will be very fast without thinking about speed itself
This applies to basically all movements from jumping (where though the muscles are damaged and get bigger) chinning ups to writing and yes even speaking and singing (read about Feldenkrais)

[opus10no2]

Explain why, playing at the top end of my piano, with less resistance - I can play faster.

Also, why at other pianos with lighter actions - I can play noticably easier and faster.

Speed isn't physical? That's just stupid.

Why are some fingers faster than others?

And name some names of pianists whom you consider to have the greatest technical ability.

[chromatickler]

A weak muscle that must bear weight would also become bigger before being conditioned
This clearly never applies to the piano where the 1.7 ounces of resistance are not enough to cause any kind of hypertrophy

learn to READ, please:

...and considering that you agree out-of-the-gate that muscle building IS EXACTLY HOW athletes increase their speed, i hence find the truly innate hilarity in your 'argument' to be the assumption that: just because you cannot build a particular muscle BY playing the piano, you cannot build this particular muscle, period...

You want a recap on how your theory contradicts the basic rules of newtonian mechanics as well?

[danny elfboy]

congratulations for completely refuting your own argument.

you yourself stated correctly that the athletism and hence speed of the runner is developed by muslce injury and subsequent healing-growth of thre injuried muscle.

the reason you gave for it being dissimilar to piano playing is that the amount of depressing/counteracting weight (which causes this injury) is DIFFERENT. not that it exists for one and doesnt for the other, but just that they are DIFFERENT. this is where i wondered if you actually have the mental capacity to even get involved in this argument.

in case you don't understand yourself, the ONLY WAY your argument would work is if pushing down a piano key requires exactly ZERO ounces of weight. If it requires anything more than ZERO, then the comparison with the runner is absolutely valid in every respect.

now, i know of no newtonian force/energy equation that DO NOT FEATURE (counteracting or otherwise) weight as a component. If you disagree with this, you will be saying that lifting 5 tones X cms Y times per second and depressing 2grams X cms Y times per second can be done with any and every set of muscle found on any living organism.

so take your pick, you will either have 8 year olds laughing their heads off, or 2 year olds.

and considering that you agree out-of-the-gate that muscle building IS EXACTLY HOW athletes increase their speed, i hence find the truly innate hilarity in your 'argument' to be the assumption that: just because you cannot build a particular muscle BY playing the piano, you cannot build this particular muscle, period.

but that's almost a footnote compared to the raw idiocy of DA REZT OF YO sheet.

I don't really know what the hell you're talking about
Speed doesn't increase with strenght
If you observe a muscle that become faster you will see no physical changes
What I said is that a muscle before being conditioned must be strong enough to bear weight
If we were just legs then we would not build bigger muscles by running faster because there's no long-term physical change in a muscle that has increase its speed
Our legs muscle grow bigger as we run because there am upper body weight to support
What's so hard to understand?
The most fiber-damaging activity is bearing weight. When muscles can bear a certain weight they're damaged by that weight and grow bigger as the micro-injuries are healed

This is independent from speed
Nothing changes in the muscle after you have become able to move faster
And I repeat it take a look at studies implementing spectroscopy and resonances you would understand this
So how is a muscle conditioned to speed, how come a muscle suddently can move faster?
Because it can released quickler.
Speed requires fast contractions, fast contractions require fast release
Working on conditioning a muscle to release faster means controlling the speed at which contractile receptors get impulses
Only that this is neurological not physical, it has to do with nervous connection and the nervous central system not with muscle fibers. Mind you even on pure physical task like weight lifting there's a huge neurological component and it's the reason why the HST training focuses so much on the nervous central system rather than the muscles

Your argument that your muscles would not grow only is a task would require ZERO amount of weight is retarted
your muscles grow when the stimulus is STRONGE than the current weight bearing potential of the muscle fibers themselves. It's absolutely no true that the only way the muscle can't grow is by having no amount of weight/resistance
THE MUSCLE DOESN'T GROW AS WELL IF THE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT/RESISTANCE IS INFERIOR TO THE WEIGHT BEARING POTENTIAL OF THE MUSCLES

The muscles of a 3 years old has already enough weight bearing potential so that depressing the key of a piano IS NOT A STIMULUS strong enough to cause any micro-injury or any growth

You're the one here with not enough mental capability to get involved in this argument, as clearly any presumptuos, arrogant and plain ignorant person who resorts to insults even before resorting to relaxed explanations and argumentation can only be

[danny elfboy]

Explain why, playing at the top end of my piano, with less resistance - I can play faster.

Also, why at other pianos with lighter actions - I can play noticably easier and faster.

Speed isn't physical? That's just stupid.

Why are some fingers faster than others?

And name some names of pianists whom you consider to have the greatest technical ability.

Wrong argument.
Given different amount of mobility certain fingers can be conditioned to move faster while other fingers will always be more or less conditioned by their less mobility overall (longers tendons, sharing tendons) but the reason is NOT the muscles controlling those fingers
If you could stimulate the proliferation of myofibrils and grow those muscles as much as you can you would not be any bit faster ... just gross
Asking why certain fingers are slower (in independent movements that's it, not in compound movemens involving gravity and the arm) is like asking why we can't rotate our head 180°
It's a physical limitation that may effect final speed but that's independent from speed and still applies at low speed

You can play faster when there's less resistance because of the faster response of the note played and your kinestethic sense responding to it. Not because of strength required to depress the key.
But the point is that even neurological conditioning is PHYSICAL conditioning
As I said this is becoming a semantic game
If your muscles were bigger and stronger YOU COULDN'T be able to play faster where there's more resistance and I even dare you to try

There are physical reasons as to why one develops faster speed at the piano, most of which involved the neurological system and the nervous connection
NONE OF THEM involve the size of the muscle hence the length and amount of fibers and no piano as hard as it can be and no movements at the piano can PROVIDE A STIMULUS STRONG ENOUGH TO EVEN TRIGGER THE GROWTH OF MUSCLES in a 7 years old girl or a starving castaway

[danny elfboy]

Of course, the weight pressed , and the weight of the finger being lifted, are very small - but they ARE relevant due to the small size of the muscles involved.

Wrong. The stimulus is mostly irrelevant even for the smaller muscles. Any sedentary and young human being not being conditioned to sport or exercise has all the muscle strength he/she will never need to carry on these tasks properly.

[tocca]

One thing i wonder about after reading all this (yup, i've read all this  )
First, i tend to believe Danny to some extent but not in all.
For example, if it was all in the brain then how come one is able to play much faster after having limbered up for a while. Even with warm hands, but a bit stiff after a night sleep for example i can't get near the same speed as after some practise.

It might not have anything to do with the muscles, but it's definately not the brain that is slower in this case.

[chromatickler]

This is independent from speed
Nothing changes in the muscle after you have become able to move faster
And I repeat it take a look at studies implementing spectroscopy and resonances you would understand this
So how is a muscle conditioned to speed, how come a muscle suddently can move faster?
Because it can released quickler.
Speed requires fast contractions, fast contractions require fast release
Working on conditioning a muscle to release faster means controlling the speed at which contractile receptors get impulses
Only that this is neurological not physical, it has to do with nervous connection and the nervous central system not with muscle fibers. Mind you even on pure physical task like weight lifting there's a huge neurological component and it's the reason why the HST training focuses so much on the nervous central system rather than the muscles

HERE, LEARN SOME BASIC PHYSICS.

the tickler will educate:

neuro-controled muscle contraction/release maximum speed: close to INFINITY, 1000000 twitchs per second or however fast you want it.

PHYSICAL LIMIT: the FORCE per twitch your muscles must exert in order to accelerate keys of weight x kgs toward keybed at a velocity that enables y number of strikes to fall within a certain time frame (octave scales per sec a good example here).

F = ma

mass is the resistant weight of the keys.
acceleration on this mass determines the time it will take for key to hit keybed/hammer to hit strings.
If the Force exerted per (neuro-controled) twitch is less than ma, the keys will either not depress to the bottom of the keybed, or the acceleration on the keys will be too slow to enable the desired number of strikes to occur within the given time frame.  

hence ONLY by increasing your PHYSICAL LIMIT ie BUILDING STRONGER/BIGGER MUSCLES THAT EXERT MORE FORCE IN TOTAL and hence MORE FORCE PER TWITCH can you increase your maximum speed limit.

any questions?

[opus10no2]

Actually, also, in highly developed mechaniques, the main difference between the average person and the pianist's body is the development of the extensors.

Rarely used in day to day life to any real extent, thee are extremely weak, and are forced to be able to work rapidly in conjunction with the flexors.

The most hilarious element in your argument is the dismissal of the element of endurance.

I have NEVER EVER seen a pianist maintain more than 10 octaves per second over more than a minute or 2.

I HAVE in the very best technicians seen them able to do a speed a bit above this, for a very brief time.

To me, it is logical to assume this is fatigue, like in athleticism...


Can you name a few names of well known pianists who you consider to have the greatest technical abilities?

Name some 70-80 year olds which display the kind of speed posessed by Hamelin at his peak, and Ingolf Wunder at present.

[daniel patschan]

Joyce Hatto - same speed in the Godowskies as Hamelin. Age at the time of recotding: 76. Health condition at the time of recording: Ovarian cancer at end stage. Questions ? 

[pianistimo]

daniel, you're so sweet!  you see there!  age doesn't matter.