Kapell quote - Have your say.

[counterpoint]

Allegro con brio, Presto, Vivace.

My Italian may be a little fuzzy, but I understand they all mean 'as fast as possible'.

It seems to me, that you are a quite funny comedian 

Yes: forte, sforzato, marcato, piu forte, fortissimo all mean "as loud as possible" 

[danny elfboy]

Allegro con brio, Presto, Vivace.

My Italian may be a little fuzzy, but I understand they all mean 'as fast as possible'.

Only "presto" may be considered "as fast as possible"
Anyway ... you're a very strange guy

You keep making these posts asking questions knowing already the answer just so you can question the replies. Why you need other people approval?
I don't think you'll ever find anyone telling how great and talented you are ...
I'm sorry, so you should go on with your unmusical fast pieces and not worry about what other people think

To focus so much on speed or even on speed as the quintessential of technique is as *** ridicolous as a course on medicine focusing on just the blood, on a runner focusing on just the feet or book focusing just on its cover or a movie focusing just on SFX effects

It's so moronically absurd to be unconceivable.
Music in more than this and it's crazy to believe to have anything to do with music as long as one focuses on one of the less meaningul aspect of music

Speed is nothing but a mean, a mean of expression ... IT IS INCIDENTAL ... and quite irrelevant.

Slow music is as expressively demanding, meaningful, stunning and beautiful as any piece of fast music. Actually as for myself I do prefer a lot slower tempos ... I prefer the feelings of a largo or andate espressivo

Kapell is spot on. This focus on showing-off one's technique creating on obsession for one of the least important and most incidental aspect of music is idiotic indeed

I can see your point about putting speed out of context and showing it off as something separate from a musical interpretation

But I'm afraid such showing-off of technique would not appeal many and would not look interesting except for you and other few people. Let's be frank: I've seen no one being fascinated by your rendition of the "ocean etude" ... no one interested in your "raw technique" and painful lack of musicality, control, phrasing, dynamic, expression and interpretation

Also showing-off speed is short lived
Music is varied and interesting but as far as "technique out of context" goes I can clearly understand that when you've seen it once you've seen it all.
Seems like a good way to "waste" what you call the best years of your life

Besides I don't believe that speed is the quintessential of technique
Flawless and good-looking coordinaton is the quintessential of technique
If someone can play unbelievable fast using all the awkward and strainful motions I'm not impressed at all and I believe that applies to many others.
Good coordination and especially the kind of coordination that look beautifully effortless and natural is the real quintessential of technique ... not speed

[iumonito]

Allegro con brio, Presto, Vivace.

My Italian may be a little fuzzy, but I understand they all mean 'as fast as possible'.

Your Italian is very very fuzzy.  None of those is "as fast as possible."  Look for this combination of letters: il pił presto possibile.  Please note "prestissimo" is not as fast as "il  pił presto possibile."

Ciao.

[mephisto]

Slow music is as expressively demanding, meaningful, stunning and beautiful as any piece of fast music. Actually as for myself I do prefer a lot slower tempos ... I prefer the feelings of a largo or andate espressivo

Tell me about a slow piece wich has as much rythmic drive and intensity as the 3rd mvt of Ornstein's 8th sonata?

Personally I love both slow and fast music, as I amd sure everybody else does, even opus10no2.

[danny elfboy]

Tell me about a slow piece wich has as much rythmic drive and intensity as the 3rd mvt of Ornstein's 8th sonata?

This is not the point
It's like me telling you "I prefer blue to green" and you replying to me "tell me about a blue that has so much green as green itself" 

[mephisto]

No it is not. There are qualities found in fast music that cannot be found in slow music. As well as qualities found in slow music that cannot be found in fast music. Easy as that.

[danny elfboy]

No it is not.

Yes it is
I wasn't talking about rhythmic intensity
I was talking about peculiar and exclusive characteristics of slow pieces that I enjoy more than the exclusive and peculiar characteristic of very fast pieces.
So what's the point in pointing how certain characteristics peculiar of fast pieces are not found on slow pieces. Can't see the point ...

[mephisto]

Do you agree about the 2nd sentence found in my last post?

[danny elfboy]

No it is not. There are qualities found in fast music that cannot be found in slow music. As well as qualities found in slow music that cannot be found in fast music. Easy as that.

Yes ... so what the point?
I agreed with that but wondered what the point was since I didn't say that fast music doesn't have exclusive characteristics ... I said I prefer the exclusive characteristics of slower music
Now ... preferring .. doesn't mean I despise the opposite

[mephisto]

Maybe I missunderstood you(your way of writing is very confusing), but what i wrote in the 2nd sentence was basicly what I belived you didn't mean. Now that I know that you can appreciate both of them I wont bother continuing this little digression anymore.

[danny elfboy]

Maybe I missunderstood you(your way of writing is very confusing)

Uhmm
This is what I said

Actually as for myself I do prefer a lot slower tempos ... I prefer the feelings of a largo or andate espressivo


Doesn't sound very confusing. Preferring something doesn't mean you hate its opposite
I prefer mountains over sea, yeah I still love the sea and walking on the beach and the scent of iodine and the blue of the ocean

[mephisto]

I was mostly refering to the sentence before that.

[opus10no2]

Speed is nothing but a mean, a mean of expression ... IT IS INCIDENTAL ... and quite irrelevant.

I disagree....evidently, and this is the key issue here.

[ramseytheii]

I disagree....evidently, and this is the key issue here.

Why is anyone still arguing with this one-trick pony?  You're only doing opus12 damage: the more you argue, the more he actually believes what he is saying, and then just becomes fossilized, and repetitive, saying the same thing over and over again. 

This reminds me of those cartoons popping up in "The Onion" where they are so extreme, you can't realy tell if they are a parody, or if the cartoonist actually believes it.  Here are a few:
https://www.theonion.com/content/node/56018
https://www.theonion.com/content/node/54925
https://www.theonion.com/content/node/54073

Walter Ramsey

[m]

Why is anyone still arguing with this one-trick pony?  You're only doing opus12 damage: the more you argue, the more he actually believes what he is saying, and then just becomes fossilized, and repetitive, saying the same thing over and over again. 

In fact, I stopped arguing with him not only following advice in my signature, but also, the nature of Op.10/2 statements regarding technique/speed/music is so absurd, irrational, clueless, ignorant, and ridiculous that I just think he cannot be serious. To me his repetative "insights" here look more like a little boy, constantly pulling the hair of the girl he likes.

But that's only my theory. I very well might be wrong here.

[opus10no2]

I very well might be wrong here.

True.

[iumonito]

In fact, I stopped arguing with him not only following advice in my signature, but also, the nature of Op.10/2 statements regarding technique/speed/music is so absurd, irrational, clueless, ignorant, and ridiculous that I just think he cannot be serious. To me his repetative "insights" here look more like a little boy, constantly pulling the hair of the girl he likes.

But that's only my theory. I very well might be wrong here.

Marik, I wholly agree with you (first paragraph, just in case someone is so foolish to mistake my meaning).

[danny elfboy]

I disagree....evidently, and this is the key issue here.

I don't think you disagree.
You do understand that speed is incidental like special effects are to the plot of a movie otherwise you would have never said anything about "playing for two different purposes".

Clearly you need to make the conscious effort to take speed out of the context to focus on it as a non incidental aspect of music because you do recognize its incidentality.
As I said I don't totally disagree with you: who am I to say that you can't focus on both the whole piece and just an incidental aspect of its structure like its speed?

What I disagree with is that such purpose "speed" would appeal to no one but you.
Let's say you make both videos for both purposes: first you make a video of you playing the piece as musical and emotional as possible then you just make a video to show how fast you can go. I believe the first video will be me enojoyable and appreciated than the second one.

Also I think you're misguided in your opinion about the quinsettential of technique.
The quintessential of technique is good looking and effortless coordination.
If you want to focus on the purpose of technique showing-off you can't ignore this fact.
One thing is looking an unbelievable fast technique which is also beutifully coordinated and effortless and a different thing is looking at unbelievable fast speed technique obtained through "ugly" and awkward hysterical motions and physical strain.

It's like with dancing/ballet. I can see the appeal of a dancer moving as fast as he/she can over an unbelievable fast music ... but only as long as the dancing motions remains fluid, effortless and well coordinated and in other words beautiful to look at.

I kind of understand your point of view and goal; what I am saying is that you're very far from it and need to work an awful lot before ever coming close to a mildly interesting concretization of your fascination with speed and as long as you focus so much on the technique alone ignoring the "coreographic" aspects you will get farther from it than closer.

Talking about athletes. Even athletes do their best to not only show their athleticism and make records out of their performance but to make the performances themselves beautiful to look at. Think about diving, gynmastic, skiing, figure skating and many others where it is not just a matter of "what you do" but "how you do it" ... how natural and beautiful your coordination and motions look not just what they allow you to do.

Beside I've already explained to you why piano and athleticism don't mix.
An 65 pounds 10 year girl with thin and very skinny arms (to the point you wonder if she has any muscle at all) and small hands can play a virtuoso piece with as much control and power as anyone else (and I have seen this first hand)
Althought she is incredibly unfit and unconditioned for any form of sport and athleticism she can play with power and speed.

Aside from the physiological reasons I have already listed to you there are tons of counterevidence to the belief that playing piano is comparable to athleticism; just look around you or go in any conservatory.

[danny elfboy]

If appreciation of athleticism is an immature phase, why was the 6th Rocky movie so popular?

Piano playing and boxing are as different as day and night.
Appreciation of athleticism depends not only on athleticism but also on its coreographic aspects (which you keep ignoring)
Appeciation of athleticism is not an immature phase but in piano playing is easier to appreciate the rendition of the music and the beautiful coordination rather than a non-existing athleticism.
You would never put a skinny unconditioned and unfit person in the role of Rocky, and yet you can play virtuoso with power and unbelievable speed being skinny, weak, unfit and unconditioned. You yourself don't look particularly athletic and people wouldn't like non-athletic bodies talking about athleticism anyway 

[opus10no2]

I am beautiful.

[danny elfboy]

I am beautiful.

You're skinny 

[ail]

I mostly agree with Danny in his posts. I just don't agree with his statement that athletes try to make it look good. Not the runners, at least. The examples you gave are sports where an artistic mark is given as well as a technical one, so those are biased examples. Also, in football, for example, although the public likes to see a good game with techincal flair and all, most fans will prefer that their teams wins playing badly than that it looses with an awe-inspiring performance.

I also think that we weren't at the point of considering that speed viewed as athleticism requires athelete-like pianists. Also, note that for different sports there are very different kinds of body-conditioning, as you would never see a marathon runner doing the 100m nor the opposite. Both have bodies with very different characteristics suited to their own sport, so even a fast-athlete pianist wouldn't need to be a Rocky-like person. His athleticism lies somewhere else, namely his mind and fingers.

Alex

[danny elfboy]

I mostly agree with Danny in his posts. I just don't agree with his statement that athletes try to make it look good. Not the runners, at least. The examples you gave are sports where an artistic mark is given as well as a technical one, so those are biased examples.

They were supposed to be ... that's why I didn't mention runners.
I don't believe pianist can be comparable to athletes but if nothing pianists might be compared to those athletic fields where there's a huge coreographic component rather than other kinds of athleticism.

Speed for the sake of it and that looks awkward and unelegant just don't cut it and won't appeal many. I can see instead the appealing of virtuosic speed for the sake of it if it obtained through good beautiful coordination and elegant smooth effortless motions.

I also think that we weren't at the point of considering that speed viewed as athleticism requires athelete-like pianists. Also, note that for different sports there are very different kinds of body-conditioning, as you would never see a marathon runner doing the 100m nor the opposite. Both have bodies with very different characteristics suited to their own sport, so even a fast-athlete pianist wouldn't need to be a Rocky-like person.

But we must agree on what the term athleticism entails
There's nothing in the finger themselves and the muscles controlling those fingers that resemble the pattern of athleticism. Opus keeps talking about physiological processes like fiber type switching or hypertrophy or muscle stamina which doesn't belong to small muscles like the ones we use to play whose influencing stimulus is ridicolously low (because no matter how power or virtuosism a piece requires ... the kind of force required to lift, push the key down and move from key to key is not even remotely comparable to a set of 6 repetition of a biceps curl with a 0.20 pound dumbbells)

The skinny girl who can play virtuoso pieces is a good example because as if you say each kind of athleticism conditions the body of the athlete to look in a certain way, those girl arms should have been more developed than normal and showed stronger muscles than the rest of the body and it wasn't absolutely the case, her arms was her skinny as the rest of her body. And this make sense since the force stimulus required to play the piano is not remotely enough to cause any real fiber-based muscle conditioning or hypertrophy.

Speed at the piano doesn't depend on muscles strength or conditioning like athleticism requires. Speed at the piano is a product of coordination, reflexes and motor cortex impulses of contraction. Every beginner has all the strength required to play any kind of virtuoso piece what he/she lacks is neuro-conditioning.

Piano playing is more comparable to playing pool/billiard than any kind of athleticism one can think of. And clearly is not comparable to the kind of athleticism opus is referring to

His athleticism lies somewhere else, namely his mind and fingers

I can't agree with this because the fingers of a pianist are not athletically conditioned.
In fact they're not conditioned at all. They don't pass through physical and physiological changes. The difference is just in the coordinative control of the motor cortex impulses that send the signal to move the fingers. The fingers themselves are rather dead appendix which are never actively influenced by playing and practicing.

[ail]

I can't agree with this because the fingers of a pianist are not athletically conditioned.
In fact they're not conditioned at all. They don't pass through physical and physiological changes. The difference is just in the coordinative control of the motor cortex impulses that send the signal to move the fingers. The fingers themselves are rather dead appendix which are never actively influenced by playing and practicing.

Ok, I confess my limited knowledge in this field, and I believe you. But at least there must be some kind of getting used to a piano keyboard. This is probably very hard for all of you hardened pianists to remember, but when one starts, the keys still get in the way, you push them and they don't go. I know, I've been there recently. It is perhaps a trick of the mind and fear of using all your strength, but I've also seen this with a friend of mine who is used to Midi keyboards. When he tried my (digital) piano, he thought the keyboard was too hard... and when I had classes some years ago, used as I was to an electric organ, my teacher then said to me that I had 'butter fingers'. Usually, at the conservatory he had to teach kids playing softly, with me it was the opposite. It took me a while to be able to actually make some real sound on a piano.... 

But I agree this must be more a mental process than a physical question, even stressed by my teacher's comment above.

That said, just to answer the original question of the post, I've always favoured feeling over speed so I think Kapell is right on this one.

Alex

[danny elfboy]

Ok, I confess my limited knowledge in this field, and I believe you. But at least there must be some kind of getting used to a piano keyboard. This is probably very hard for all of you hardened pianists to remember, but when one starts, the keys still get in the way, you push them and they don't go. I know, I've been there recently. It is perhaps a trick of the mind and fear of using all your strength, but I've also seen this with a friend of mine who is used to Midi keyboards. When he tried my (digital) piano, he thought the keyboard was too hard... and when I had classes some years ago, used as I was to an electric organ, my teacher then said to me that I had 'butter fingers'.

This is caused by two problems.
The first problem is not using enough weight of the arm.
And when it happens even to advanced pianist it's because they're locking their arms in some hard passage.
The other problem "butter fingers" is a matter of contraction.
You need contraction to play but you need it for a very short amount of time.
Contraction is required only when the fingers get in contact with the keys and a release should follow immediately. As someone said indeed contraction and release are so quick that they almost end up occuring at the exact moment.

Although it is true that there piano with harder action they're still playable without any added strength. Take a toddle and let her hand supported by the weight of the forearm land on a key. You will see even a toddle has enough strength and weight to depress a key.
We're talking less than on ounce here.
Now if you keep your hand relaxed in the middle range and with the left hand raise a totally relaxed but in a natural arched position right index finger and let if fall on the key (you'll notice the motion is very limited and the pivotal is the midcarpal joint) chances are you won't be able to depress the key.
That's a common mistake steaming from the thought that we play with our fingers (which is like suggesting that a runner run with his feet and should practice feet motions in isolation to improve his running) and usually lead long-term to all kind of pain, discomfort and injuries.

But if when you raise your relaxed index finger with the other hand and let it fall on the key you contract the forearm the moment the finger hit the key the finger will definitely play the key.

You need relaxed joints and muscles to make all sort of motions and fast contraction to hit the keys and produce a sound by firming the fingers. Without contraction is like hitting a golf ball with a jelly bean club.

So even the problem of finding, as a beginner or in relation to hard mechanics, hard to depress a key it is not a matter of strenght or muscles but of well timed impulses of release and contraction and weight transmitting

Usually, at the conservatory he had to teach kids playing softly, with me it was the opposite. It took me a while to be able to actually make some real sound on a piano.... 

You were probably trying to use your small muscles or the weight of the fingers themselves to produce a sound instead of well timed contractions and arm weight.
I'm my experience young children are very instinctive at the piano. They kind of instinctively feel they are playing a percussive instrument and they apply a natural percussive technique involving a loose wrist, a lever arm and just the right amount of contract when the fingers impact with the keyboard. When they don't apply this instinctive knowledge they have been either misled by wrong fingers-based technique (especially emulating those around them with such technique) or by being "corrected" by insane teachers trying to have them keep their wrist static, never move the forearm, lift the fingers high or form an unnatural ball-like shape with their hand. The worst of all if when they say "If I put something on the back of your hand it shouldn't slip as you play!" ... there are no words to define this (insane is not enough)

[ail]

Thanks, Danny, for all the info.
In my case, as I said, the problem was being used to an electronic organ keyboard. They are incredibly light to play and indeed, since the weight put on keys never influences the loudness of the sound, I guess they can be played with finger strength only. That is one of the worst things I find on playing electronic organs, even midi keyboards are better.
The positive is that I think the organ can be a good school to learn your chords well.

Alex

[leonidas]

Interesting topic, I still feel there is more to add, but I won't add it quite yet.