Technique question

[gregh87]

I'm just coming off learning all of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto, and I'd like to get started on Ravel's Ondine, but I can't play the opening right hand chords well at all.  Some passages, like this one, the beginning of Chopin's "Thirds" Etude in G# minor, and passages with 2 note trills, often keep me from playing the piece.

Can you practice this kind of passage until it's in good shape?  In my experience, you either have the technique to play these or you don't (I don't).  I'll try to play the opening thirds in the Chopin Prelude and get frustrated when I can't play them up to tempo and quit.  I guess I need to do lots of technical drills before I can play pieces with those kinds of treacherous passages.

[walking_encyclopedia]

I know what you mean, I recently started that etude. However, I plan on pursuing it for perhaps years before completely mastering it, rather than playing the first three bars a few times, tossing the score in the corner, and telling myself it's too hard.

Technique development takes time. Dont work yourself to death with 'technical drills' when all you need to do is practice the piece itself. If you have the patience, you'll eventually master it. If you don't keep at it, you won't.

[nortti]

It took me a very long time (months) before I could play the opening of Ondine the way I wanted on anything else than a very good piano. The opening, however, is nowhere near the toughest parts of the piece (in terms of difficulty).

[franzliszt2]

The problem in the opening of ondine and chopin double thirds etude stc...is the voicing of the chords. You want the top line to speak. Practice the top line forte, and legato, the bottom line piano and staccato

[kevink]

With respect to Walking Encyclopedia....

You need lots of technical work.  Don't waste your time on the etude or on the first few bars of Ondine when you can learn the motion much faster by practicing trills in all fingers, chromatic and diatonic scales in thirds and trills in thirds on all degrees of the scale, and tremolos. 

You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm, and also move from one finger to the next using as little "finger" as possible and as much "arm" as possible; two different motions, that share the load to varying degrees in playing trills of any kind.  What is more, you have to learn to do this between any two fingers, and back again.  There's probably more involved than I can think of to tell you.  It's a lot, when you get down to all the component motions of the agregate "trill in thirds" motion.

If you try to solve technical problems as they present themselves in the music, without any outside technique work, you will not progress quickly.  I know from experience that this approach does not work for many of us who have technique challenges, and I think it has done a great deal of harm in being applied as a widespread pedagogical attitude.  What is more, it flies in the face of centuries of piano pedagogy wisdom.  Chopin, Liszt, Czerny, the Levinnes.... the list goes on and on, for those piano teachers of yesterday who advised technical study apart from the repertoire.  More recently: Boris Berman, Yoheved Kaplinsky, John Perry, John O'Conor, etc, etc etc.   These are the people whose students can play Ondine, and the Thirds Etude of Chopin, and all kinds of other things.  And none of these teachers subscribe to the "technique through the repertoire" philosophy.

So.  If you want to play pieces that have technique issues like trills in thirds.... first study the motions that pianists use when they successfully execute trills in thirds (bear in mind there may be more than one possible technique for this motion), then figure out how to learn how to do the same motion(s), then practice that motion a lot until it becomes second nature--ie, do scales in thirds, trills in thirds, trills between all fingers, etc etc etc.  That is how to learn to play with technical fluency.

[gruffalo]

to get started on the Ondine opening, play just the main C# major chord and leave out the single notes, but playing it in the right rhythm. then after a while, add the A in but keepingthe feel of that rhythm and not emphasising too much on the A. it gets hard once the left hand comes in, so leave the left hand out for while. it may not get up to speed quick, but it gives you a starting point. the rest just comes with time and you will figure out how to do it with the left hand eventually.

[gregh87]

With respect to Walking Encyclopedia....

You need lots of technical work.  Don't waste your time on the etude or on the first few bars of Ondine when you can learn the motion much faster by practicing trills in all fingers, chromatic and diatonic scales in thirds and trills in thirds on all degrees of the scale, and tremolos. 

You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm, and also move from one finger to the next using as little "finger" as possible and as much "arm" as possible; two different motions, that share the load to varying degrees in playing trills of any kind.  What is more, you have to learn to do this between any two fingers, and back again.  There's probably more involved than I can think of to tell you.  It's a lot, when you get down to all the component motions of the agregate "trill in thirds" motion.

If you try to solve technical problems as they present themselves in the music, without any outside technique work, you will not progress quickly.  I know from experience that this approach does not work for many of us who have technique challenges, and I think it has done a great deal of harm in being applied as a widespread pedagogical attitude.  What is more, it flies in the face of centuries of piano pedagogy wisdom.  Chopin, Liszt, Czerny, the Levinnes.... the list goes on and on, for those piano teachers of yesterday who advised technical study apart from the repertoire.  More recently: Boris Berman, Yoheved Kaplinsky, John Perry, John O'Conor, etc, etc etc.   These are the people whose students can play Ondine, and the Thirds Etude of Chopin, and all kinds of other things.  And none of these teachers subscribe to the "technique through the repertoire" philosophy.

So.  If you want to play pieces that have technique issues like trills in thirds.... first study the motions that pianists use when they successfully execute trills in thirds (bear in mind there may be more than one possible technique for this motion), then figure out how to learn how to do the same motion(s), then practice that motion a lot until it becomes second nature--ie, do scales in thirds, trills in thirds, trills between all fingers, etc etc etc.  That is how to learn to play with technical fluency.

Did you learn these drills from your teacher?  My teacher has mostly gone with the "technique through repertoire" philosophy.  The time he spent teaching me technical drills though and some of the motions, though, was much more productive.  Maybe I'll ask him to focus on that more next year.

[gregh87]

Also, what books do you recommend for these kinds of technical drills?  I'm in college and I don't think I'll be taking lessons this summer.

[walking_encyclopedia]

With respect to Walking Encyclopedia....

You need lots of technical work.  Don't waste your time on the etude or on the first few bars of Ondine when you can learn the motion much faster by practicing trills in all fingers, chromatic and diatonic scales in thirds and trills in thirds on all degrees of the scale, and tremolos. 

You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm, and also move from one finger to the next using as little "finger" as possible and as much "arm" as possible; two different motions, that share the load to varying degrees in playing trills of any kind.  What is more, you have to learn to do this between any two fingers, and back again.  There's probably more involved than I can think of to tell you.  It's a lot, when you get down to all the component motions of the agregate "trill in thirds" motion.

If you try to solve technical problems as they present themselves in the music, without any outside technique work, you will not progress quickly.  I know from experience that this approach does not work for many of us who have technique challenges, and I think it has done a great deal of harm in being applied as a widespread pedagogical attitude.  What is more, it flies in the face of centuries of piano pedagogy wisdom.  Chopin, Liszt, Czerny, the Levinnes.... the list goes on and on, for those piano teachers of yesterday who advised technical study apart from the repertoire.  More recently: Boris Berman, Yoheved Kaplinsky, John Perry, John O'Conor, etc, etc etc.   These are the people whose students can play Ondine, and the Thirds Etude of Chopin, and all kinds of other things.  And none of these teachers subscribe to the "technique through the repertoire" philosophy.

So.  If you want to play pieces that have technique issues like trills in thirds.... first study the motions that pianists use when they successfully execute trills in thirds (bear in mind there may be more than one possible technique for this motion), then figure out how to learn how to do the same motion(s), then practice that motion a lot until it becomes second nature--ie, do scales in thirds, trills in thirds, trills between all fingers, etc etc etc.  That is how to learn to play with technical fluency.

If it works for you to spend hours in the practice room trilling yourself into a repetitive motion injury, go for it. however, outside the basic scales and arpeggios, I never found much reward in practicing endless drills.

gregh87, I dont think you need to drop this etude, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to learn some slightly less difficult chopin etudes, or etudes by scriabin, rachmaninoff, schumann, debussy or something that is musically rewarding. Also, I would be neglect to add that the music of bach is second to none in terms of developing finger independance, which would help you a lot for those trills.

Good luck.

[kevink]

If it works for you to spend hours in the practice room trilling yourself into a repetitive motion injury, go for it. however, outside the basic scales and arpeggios, I never found much reward in practicing endless drills.

I have found tremendous reward from practicing exercises, and I have not gotten hurt from them.  As a late starter, I have not had the benefit of a "naturally" learned technique--I have had to build it from the ground up starting in my late teens.  I should say that I have never practiced exercises in the way many people who hurt themselves do, and though at the moment my technique portion of my practicing takes me around 2-3 hours each day, I haven't hurt myself from drills.  In fact, the only time I experienced repetive motion injury, it was a result of sightreading poorly-written ragtime music for 12 hours/day for four days in a row.  I played too much, with bad technique (I didn't pay attention to technique while I was sightreading), and my tension levels were high because it was a recording project, and I get tense at the prospect of having to play the same poorly written ragtime tune over again because of one or two ugly mistakes in reading. 

So, good points to remember:

-Never play a technical exercise "just because"; by that I mean, always have a specific goal in mind, and be thoughtful about how you approach it;

-Always pay close attention to your motion so that you are minimizing any unnecessary tension;

-If it ever hurts to play, stop.

These are especially important rules to remember when practicing the same sort of motion, like octaves or trills, at length--like Walking Encyclopedia warns, repetitive motion injury is a danger.

I should add that all the pianists I know who have sustained problematic injuries while playing had one thing in common: they didn't stop when it became uncomfortable to play.





EDIT: 

For myself, I make a distinction between different kinds of hurt.  If my wrists ever hurt, I would stop ASAP.  If the inside of my palms hurt, I don't mind it.  If I felt burning or tingling in my arms or fingers, I would get skiddish and lay off.  I should have been more general:  know your body, don't damage yourself.

[nightingale11]

Kevink said: You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm, and also move from one finger to the next using as little "finger" as possible and as much "arm" as possible; two different motions, that share the load to varying degrees in playing trills of any kind.  What is more, you have to learn to do this between any two fingers, and back again.  There's probably more involved than I can think of to tell you.  It's a lot, when you get down to all the component motions of the agregate "trill in thirds" motion

Kevink and others have a look here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,12040.msg133539.html#msg133539

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,17052.msg182714.html#msg182714

and have a look at this DVD( >:(including all forum members!!!):

Acland´s DVD Atlas of Uman Anatomy: DVD 1 - The upper extremity

It seems to me by your other ''theories'' that you do not know how to practice effiecently:

Have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5767.msg56133.html#msg56133
(huge collection of links)

[kevink]

Thanks for the links.

What was wrong about what I said?  I'd appreciate it, and I'm sure the original poster would too, if you'd point out specifics.

[nightingale11]

You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm, and also move from one finger to the next using as little "finger" as possible and as much "arm" as possible

If you want to play pieces that have technique issues like trills in thirds.... first study the motions that pianists use when they successfully execute trills in thirds (bear in mind there may be more than one possible technique for this motion)

The answer is in the posts, but I will say this. The reason why people think you should have a rigid arm and not use rotation is because if you look at how a person plays a piece fast can be quite misleading. Because of the fast speed rotation will not be visible. The rotation will be there but very efficient and small. I suggest you to use rotation to lift the fingers instead lifting the fingers by force like all hanon lovers do(the reason for this in the posts).

I believe that the reason why people waste enormous time on technical excersises is because they do not know how to accquire the technique from the piece(they do not know how to practice). Remember technique is a way of executing a certain motion. Technique is not octaves, scales or arpeggios-- the technique for playing the arpeggiated figurations in Chopin's Etude op.25 no.1(the non-melodic notes should be barely touched) is very different from playing a similar passage from a baroque composer.
hope you get the idea, and spend your time on repetoire instead.

[kevink]

The answer is in the posts, but I will say this. The reason why people think you should have a rigid arm and not use rotation is because if you look at how a person plays a piece fast can be quite misleading. Because of the fast speed rotation will not be visible. The rotation will be there but very efficient and small. I suggest you to use rotation to lift the fingers instead lifting the fingers by force like all hanon lovers do(the reason for this in the posts).

I never said one should not play trills without rotation--in fact I pointed out that it is a combination of rotation and fingers, to varying degrees of both.  If you rotate without any finger force at all, you won't push the key down unless you rotate a tremendous amount.  You need to support the rotational motion with an exertion of the finger.  You can learn to exert the finger by moving the finger alone, without rotation.  I talked about moving from one finger to the next--I guess I should have specifically advised against high finger lifting, to avoid any Hanon quips.

I believe that the reason why people waste enormous time on technical excersises is because they do not know how to accquire the technique from the piece(they do not know how to practice). Remember technique is a way of executing a certain motion. Technique is not octaves, scales or arpeggios-- the technique for playing the arpeggiated figurations in Chopin's Etude op.25 no.1(the non-melodic notes should be barely touched) is very different from playing a similar passage from a baroque composer.
hope you get the idea, and spend your time on repetoire instead.

...And I believe the reason people waste enormous amounts of time on technical exercises is because they don't know how to acquire the technique from an exercise.  If you can't acquire a technique from an exercise, how can you acquire it from an piece?

If there is no benefit from learning technique under the broader definition (learning scales, octaves, doubled thirds, etc.), then there logically can be no technical benefit from learning technique from the repertoire.  Think about it: if you need to learn an entirely different technique to play an arpeggio in Chopin vs. an arpeggio in a baroque piece, or even to learn an arpeggio in one Chopin work vs. another, then those who "learn technique from the repertoire" must only be able to play those pieces they have learned.... and when they begin a new piece, they must have to learn the technique for EVERYTHING in that piece from the ground up, all over again.

This doesn't happen, you say?  Then tell me: if learning to play one arpeggio in one style of music, in one piece, in one key, helps you to be able to play another arpeggio in an entirely different style of music, key, etc etc.... then is there really no benefit to be gained by learning all your arpeggios, in all keys, compound/duple meters, staccato, legato, etc? 

If you can learn any technique, then you can learn any technique faster by studying the motions of that technique intensively, which gets you right back to square one: a technical exercise. 

Enough of this debate.  I speak from personal experience.  You are arguing not only with me, but with every great piano pedagog the world has seen (please tell me if you find one that doesn't agree with me).  By the way, the classification for "great piano pedagog" is "someone who can play it all fantastically, and has taught his/her students to do the same."  I'm thinking here of Liszt, Chopin, the Lehvinnes, Neuhaus, Czerny (although I know I'll draw fire for Czerny)....

[nightingale11]

I never said one should not play trills without rotation--in fact I pointed out that it is a combination of rotation and fingers, to varying degrees of both.  If you rotate without any finger force at all, you won't push the key down unless you rotate a tremendous amount.  You need to support the rotational motion with an exertion of the finger.  You can learn to exert the finger by moving the finger alone, without rotation.  I talked about moving from one finger to the next--I guess I should have specifically advised against high finger lifting, to avoid any Hanon quips.

=?

You have to learn to move from one finger to the next without any rotation of the arm

Enough of this debate.  I speak from personal experience.  You are arguing not only with me, but with every great piano pedagog the world has seen (please tell me if you find one that doesn't agree with me).  By the way, the classification for "great piano pedagog" is "someone who can play it all fantastically, and has taught his/her students to do the same."  I'm thinking here of Liszt, Chopin, the Lehvinnes, Neuhaus, Czerny (although I know I'll draw fire for Czerny)....

Bernhard....

[ramseytheii]

...And I believe the reason people waste enormous amounts of time on technical exercises is because they don't know how to acquire the technique from an exercise.  If you can't acquire a technique from an exercise, how can you acquire it from an piece?

If there is no benefit from learning technique under the broader definition (learning scales, octaves, doubled thirds, etc.), then there logically can be no technical benefit from learning technique from the repertoire.  Think about it: if you need to learn an entirely different technique to play an arpeggio in Chopin vs. an arpeggio in a baroque piece, or even to learn an arpeggio in one Chopin work vs. another, then those who "learn technique from the repertoire" must only be able to play those pieces they have learned.... and when they begin a new piece, they must have to learn the technique for EVERYTHING in that piece from the ground up, all over again.

This doesn't happen, you say?  Then tell me: if learning to play one arpeggio in one style of music, in one piece, in one key, helps you to be able to play another arpeggio in an entirely different style of music, key, etc etc.... then is there really no benefit to be gained by learning all your arpeggios, in all keys, compound/duple meters, staccato, legato, etc? 

If you can learn any technique, then you can learn any technique faster by studying the motions of that technique intensively, which gets you right back to square one: a technical exercise. 

Enough of this debate.  I speak from personal experience.  You are arguing not only with me, but with every great piano pedagog the world has seen (please tell me if you find one that doesn't agree with me).  By the way, the classification for "great piano pedagog" is "someone who can play it all fantastically, and has taught his/her students to do the same."  I'm thinking here of Liszt, Chopin, the Lehvinnes, Neuhaus, Czerny (although I know I'll draw fire for Czerny)....

I think this is an eminently logical post.  But is your perception of the argument really correct?  The question is not, do technical exercises such as "learning all your arpeggios, in all keys, compound/duple meters, staccato, legato, etc" benefit your technique or not.  The question is, is it worth it?  And maybe as you indicate, the answer is in the end more personal than not.

As you point out, if someone can improve their technique from repertoire, as they so obviously can do, they can improve their technique from drills and exercises.  But what's the point?  The fact is, practicing one difficulty in one area of the repertoire will help in others - who has not felt after mastering Chopin op.10 no.1 that so many other pieces were so much easier?  Then why not spend all one's time on repertoire?  I don't think anyone can argue that exercises won't make a difference, but it is easy to argue that they are so creatively stultifying that one is much better off getting the work done from creating actual music.

Walter Ramsey

[kevink]

Thank you, Walter.  It seems like this is the first time someone's addressed my statements in a non-dogmatic way.  I appreciate your approach to answering my argument.

I still maintain that the "technique of technique" is to find the component motions of an aggregate motion, master until they become "natural," then combine them back into the aggregate motion.  In short, divide and conquer.  And practicing exercises is the most useful way for me to focus on a specific technique, so that I can make it a natural, automatic part of my playing.

When I tried to learn technique from the music, I ended up reducing the music to technical exercises in order to learn it--think, the Cortot edition of the Chopin etudes.  So in the end, I was practicing exercises anyway. 

I agree that the extent to which learning scales, arpeggios, etc, is helpful depends entirely on the individual.  That would explain why there is a vast discrepancy in the amount of technique drilling undertaken by different great pianists of the past.  But since the overwhelming majority of them did  a pretty extensive amount of technical work in exercise form, I am wondering why there is such a prejudice against exercises floating around this forum. 

It seems like every thread about technique ends up drawing at least one or two hotlinks to Bernhard posts where he rails against exercises.  My repeated posts on this subject are meant to combat the hegemony of the Bernhard School on this forum that advocates a dogmaticly anti-exercise approach to technique building. 

When I say I've tried it that way, I mean that I went through undergraduate college without ever playing a scale or arpeggio or exercise for a teacher, and I played and performed challenging works in all styles, including Chopin etudes.  And now that I am FINALLY working on technique apart from literature, ie dedicated technical exercises and drills in all keys, I am making explosive progress on technique issues that have plagued me for years.

With respect, Bernhard writes very persuasively.  But I must say that Horowitz, Liszt, Chopin, the Lhevinnes, Rachmaninoff, etc  had very persuasive playing.  And none of them were opposed to technical exercises.

[thalberg]

My teacher did the whole "technique through repertoire thing."

Basically it means you have to be really really persistent if you want to learn any hard pieces.  I often spent 6 months with a piece before I could even play certain passages in it up to tempo.   I always got there in the end, but looking back the approach was a ridiculous waste of time and I could have covered way more repertoire if I'd have just had some good instruction.

Not the greatest approach for the student.

[ramseytheii]

My teacher did the whole "technique through repertoire thing."

Basically it means you have to be really really persistent if you want to learn any hard pieces.  I often spent 6 months with a piece before I could even play certain passages in it up to tempo.   I always got there in the end, but looking back the approach was a ridiculous waste of time and I could have covered way more repertoire if I'd have just had some good instruction.

Not the greatest approach for the student.

There's no doubt that the more complicated a passage is, the more basic knowledge is required to pull it off.  But that doesn't mean that technique through repertoire is slow, painful and practically speaking unachievable.  It was perhaps your misfortune in teachers, but a good teacher can observe the root of any problem and go straight for it, even when the student believes the problem rests somewhere else.

This is incidentally an observation I was able to make, of teachers, after studying Alexander technique, where so often a teacher's casual observation could send one into an insecure despair - first, because their observation of your postural problems are way beyond your percetion, and second, because it "just can't be true!" 

Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

The flaw with the 'just playing pieces' is that you have to spend time actually making the difficult passages into technical exercises, and this alone will never result in the best development of mechanique.

[ramseytheii]

The flaw with the 'just playing pieces' is that you have to spend time actually making the difficult passages into technical exercises, and this alone will never result in the best development of mechanique.

I don't think this is a flaw, and I don't think devising exercises takes nearly as much time as you suggest.  Anyways, with a huge body of Chopin's music it's already been done for us by Cortot.

Also, that is not always the way to solve a passage.  Many passages which appear difficult can be easily solved by the student when they are reduced to their musical essences.  I find that a lot of problems arise when people try and play every note equally.  When they take time to learn the strcuture, or if it has to be pointed out to them, playing becomes so much easier, because they aren't trying to play every note the same; the weight is lifted, flexibility is achieved, speed is achieved, balance, all because they studied the music.

I don't deny that technical drills can improve.  However, I feel that conscientious practicing of anything at the keyboard can improve our skills.  That said, why should anyone bother to practice non-music?  We all know, and some of us harp endlessly, on the fact that Liszt played technical drills.  What we tend to leave out is that he converted those into music, not the other way around.

Following his example is to realize that it is not good enough to play endless scales in thirds, sixths, octaves, et cetera, but those have to be converted into an actual creative experience.

Walter Ramsey

[thalberg]

There's no doubt that the more complicated a passage is, the more basic knowledge is required to pull it off.  But that doesn't mean that technique through repertoire is slow, painful and practically speaking unachievable.  It was perhaps your misfortune in teachers, but a good teacher can observe the root of any problem and go straight for it, even when the student believes the problem rests somewhere else.

This is incidentally an observation I was able to make, of teachers, after studying Alexander technique, where so often a teacher's casual observation could send one into an insecure despair - first, because their observation of your postural problems are way beyond your percetion, and second, because it "just can't be true!" 

Walter Ramsey

True....I had to solve almost all technical problems myself.   Would have been faster if I had specific instruction.  Would have saved time.  Alas.

[walking_encyclopedia]

But I must say that Horowitz, Liszt, Chopin, the Lhevinnes, Rachmaninoff, etc  had very persuasive playing.  And none of them were opposed to technical exercises.

Well, I don't think any one is opposed, however, as Walter stated, is it worth it to spend hours in the practice room without making any music.

And for the record, Vladimir Horowitz DID promote the technique via repertoire idea. I read his biography by Glenn Plaskin and he stated that the best way to overcome technical difficulties in music was to practice the music itself (for some reason that seems like a 'duh' statement to me) instead of slaving at exercises outside the page of music you are working on.

So cross Horowitz off your list up there buddy

[dnephi]

Technical exercises are fine for building a solid technique, a la Duchable.  Beyond that, for special problems, like some passages in Brahms, need to be developed into their own exercises.

[ramseytheii]

Technical exercises are fine for building a solid technique, a la Duchable.  Beyond that, for special problems, like some passages in Brahms, need to be developed into their own exercises.

Brahms already did that.  His 51 exercises are designed especially for passages in his music.   Charles Rosen points out how Brahms deliberately wrote in an anti-Lisztian, awkward style for the keyboard, then showed us how to practice those passages in his equally awkward 51 exercises.  If you want some examples perhaps I can dig some up, or hell, maybe you all should!

Walter Ramsey

[kevink]

Well, I don't think any one is opposed, however, as Walter stated, is it worth it to spend hours in the practice room without making any music.

And for the record, Vladimir Horowitz DID promote the technique via repertoire idea. I read his biography by Glenn Plaskin and he stated that the best way to overcome technical difficulties in music was to practice the music itself (for some reason that seems like a 'duh' statement to me) instead of slaving at exercises outside the page of music you are working on.

So cross Horowitz off your list up there buddy

I don't suppose he practiced scales, then, did he....?

[dnephi]

I know about the 88 exercises (hahah... depending on how you count.)

I was making reference to a case.  I might as well have pointed to the Brahms Op. 1 sonata which has some technical problems which are no where else encountered in the literature.