The Art of Piano Playing - Neuhaus

[drone]

What do people here think of the book by Heinrich Neuhaus called "The Art of Piano Playing"? Have students who have read the book found the advice useful in their playing?

[opus10no2]

Essential book for pianists.

The primary thing I learnt from reading it, though, as a self-taught pianist, was that I had came to many of the same conclusions as he had on my own.

[rc]

My favorite book on piano playing.  Loaded with great ideas, readable, a little disorganized...  But good stuff through and through.

[phil39]

fascinating book, but i think you get the most out of it if you are already an advanced pianist (student or pro) and you will have already experienced some of the things he talks about for yourself.  it can hone your approach but if you used it as sort of 'training manual'/bible type thing it wold be rather like learning to ski from a book 

[rc]

fascinating book, but i think you get the most out of it if you are already an advanced pianist (student or pro) and you will have already experienced some of the things he talks about for yourself.  it can hone your approach but if you used it as sort of 'training manual'/bible type thing it wold be rather like learning to ski from a book 

I agree, but that could be said of any book.  The only value of an idea is in it's application.  Students of any level should read good books on their art, especially if they don't already know the concepts.

[danny elfboy]

What do people here think of the book by Heinrich Neuhaus called "The Art of Piano Playing"? Have students who have read the book found the advice useful in their playing?

This and "On Piano Playing" by Abby Whiteside are the best books on piano playing.
A must!

[ted]

Yes, I found that one and Matthay's "The Visible and Invisible in Pianoforte Technique" in a local second-hand bookshop.

I obtained much benefit from reading both but found Matthay's more directly useful in musical areas other than classical - jazz, ragtime, improvisation and so on - which areas probably didn't exist for these people. Neuhaus writes with much more calculatedly arcane, intellectual overtone, at times to the point of appearing elitist, although always entertainingly, while Matthay's mostly prosaic exposition concerns itself with the nuts and bolts of movement.

Both are excellent background material for experienced people who can already play well but I don't think either could be used as an instruction manual.

[mephisto]

This and "On Piano Playing" by Abby Whiteside are the best books on piano playing.
A must!

Certain former qualified members have said that while Abby's book is good it just takes the hole weight thing a bit to far. Just use the search function.

[danny elfboy]

Certain former qualified members have said that while Abby's book is good it just takes the hole weight thing a bit to far. Just use the search function.

Thanks.
Okay I have read the thread where they are criticizing Whiteside approach.

Let me just point out that many people misunderstand the concept of weight.
See the recent post in Student Corner about weight and holding a key down.
Whiteside besides is not an easy read and it's easy to misunderstand.

Anyway finger development doesn't make such sense to me since there's nothing to develop in the finger nor in the small muscles controlling them.
Whiteside points out a very important thing: piano is a percussive instrument and can be played only with a gravitational force of pressure.
Even "pushing" is just a matter of weight trasmittion.
So there must be "weight" someone that push the key down otherwise there would be no sound. Such weight can't come from the fingers because they're unadequate as a pushing down gravity force. The weight hence can only come from the rest of the body.

This makes particularly sense if we understand that the bones and muscles of the arms and those that goes from the elbows to the sternum are all arch shaped.
An arch is self supporting structure which directs the weight of the keystone 50/50 to the pillars. This indeed proves there's a concrete weight trasmitton between the torso, the forearm and the fingers and it's only thanks to the weight of the rest of the body transferred to the pillar and increasing the pressure that fingers can play the piano.

Fingers are pillars or practically dead appendix.
They are the pillars of neuromuscular impulses and pillars of the weight of the upper body.
In a way they do nothing. They just allow others body part to do their work.

It's like a too small barrier that doesn't prevent the river from flooding the city.
The small barrier didn't flood the city, the river did ... the barrier was just a mean allowing it to happen.

When they say "enough finger-school was already being taught so there was no need to discuss it" I don't understand whay they are referring too.
Whiteside didn't discuss finger-school because nothing about it is sound or correct.

We play with our fingers just like a marathon runner runs with his feet.

The gist of it is that while the fingers can move (lifting) in playing  the weight-pressure required to produce sound can't absolutely come from the fingers.
That being said I still don't believe in lifting fingers. I believe in stead that the loose wrist and the whole hand should lift while the contracted fingers depress a certain amount of note per muscle impulse, before resetting occurs.

[prongated]

...hmmm I do find this book very interesting. Musically and technically. The legacy of the many fine pianists and teachers he (if I may) amassed are really special.

I'm not too sure about his principles on weight, though. As much as the whole mass/velocity/(?) concept is interesting, I do find some of his students' playing bashy. Yes, I do find Richter's sound in some recordings bordering on harsh. Just. And I know of his students whose pupils play with quite harsh sound.

...still, doesn't negate the fact that Neuhaus's (again, if I may) teaching continues until today for good reasons. His students turn into wonderful musicians who have so much to give to this world - either through performance or teaching or both.

...wonder if the book is more, as, or not as useful as learning with a pupil of Neuhaus's...

The gist of it is that while the fingers can move (lifting) in playing the weight-pressure required to produce sound can't absolutely come from the fingers.
That being said I still don't believe in lifting fingers. I believe in stead that the loose wrist and the whole hand should lift while the contracted fingers depress a certain amount of note per muscle impulse, before resetting occurs.

...I've always learned from teachers who either have no opinion on this or believe in the so-called "finger-school" ways...but in the past years, I have come to realise the importance of relaxation etc. etc. in playing.

Slowly I do withdraw from the 'finger-school' ways and attempt to do something similar to the method mentioned above. Bliss. No more painful practise sessions. And my teacher keeps saying "Your fingers are getting better and stronger. Those finger exercises must be paying off!" [actually, in some instances, I didn't do any for 2 weeks! ]

[danny elfboy]

Slowly I do withdraw from the 'finger-school' ways and attempt to do something similar to the method mentioned above. Bliss. No more painful practise sessions. And my teacher keeps saying "Your fingers are getting better and stronger. Those finger exercises must be paying off!" [actually, in some instances, I didn't do any for 2 weeks! ]

Hehe
I've heard this before many times as people said they wanted to try this approach after I explained this to them. And like you they saw improvement, removed all pain and strain and their teachers were like "See? Those Duvernoys may be tedious ... but they're useful"

I'm just disturbed that we're contributing to this incredbly absurd and dangerous myth by letting teachers believe we haven't figures out better techniques on our own and our coordination is the result of their finger-centered approach.

[m]

There are a few points, where one has to be very careful with following advices from Neuhaus (or any other) book, which in many cases can be confusing and do not represents what he meant and is open to interpretations. Although I know it second hand, my sources are very reliable and include my dear teacher Lev Naumov with whom I spent quite a few years and who was Neuhaus assistant for many years, Harrik Neuhaus (Neuhaus seniour's grandson, with whom we were friends), and my dear friend Alexander Slobodianic, who was Neuhaus student. Definitely, all of them knew Neuhaus "method" as nobody else.
I have already posted here on the topic, but will do again.

1) This book is translated. Neuhaus was incredibly sharp man, excellent orator, with beautiful language command. Most of that gets lost in translation. Besides, some expressions which used in English version do not have much sense in Russian at all. "Finger muscles" is one of examples.
2) The whole situation of "writing a book" puts the famous teachers into quite a curious situation, when the goal of the process becomes writing to show how "profound" they are, giving some universal recipes which would 'change the whole world forever'. Such inavatible artistic self-narcissism is very understandable--they were great artists, but the fact is--it does not work.   
In this situation the authors mostly left helpless, as they desperately trying to get out of situation, which is absolutely contrary to what they are used to on daily basis (i.e. work with real people in real situation).
3) Neuhaus was used to working with advanced students, only. He had no slightest idea how to work with kids, i.e. how to ACTUALLY build foundation for technique. He did not really know or understand how to lead the student from the very first steps to the most advanced pianism; and often was giving some kind of abstract advises or hypothetical ideas, once again, without any correlation with 'real life', hoping that "somehow it will work".

Don't forget, if you are a student in Moscow conservatory, where he worked, it means you KNOW how to play piano, and you are already an accomplished pianist.

4) Being taken out of context, lots of things were actually not what he meant. One had to attend his lessons, know his personality, etc. to understand the REAL meaning of his words.

5) Music, piano playing, teaching, are all such illusive things and there are so many different ways of achieving the same goal that it leads to an interesting phenomenon, where the person thinks one thing, writes another, and then does something completely different.


Best, M