problematic techniques?

[jabbz]

Hello, just some research into techniques that people find difficult/have difficulty with.
Thanks,
Jabbz.

[danny elfboy]

Hello, just some research into techniques that people find difficult/have difficulty with.
Thanks,
Jabbz.

To me personally out of fast arpeggios, trills, fioritura, repeated notes, octaves, tremolos and the more problematic technique is legato thirds.

[invictious]

For me personally
it's rapid scales, and arpeggios.
Practice, anybody?

[ramseytheii]

It may benefit you to read Bernhard's replies in this thread:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,12502.0.html

He says among other things,


"I am sorry to disapoint you guys, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

You see, technique is a way of doing things.  You are not listing techniques, you are listing things to do for which you require specific techniques.

A scale or arpeggio is not a technique. It is a musical figuration. The way you do a scale or arpeggio is the technique. Unfortunately there is not a single way to do these things, it depends on the musical context. A scale in a Bach fugue will require a "technique" (a way of doing it) very different from a scale in a Liszt study.

Then there are "techniques" that may be completely inapropriate in one context and perfect for other contexts (e.g., Baroque fingering where a long finger goes over a sorter finger can be used to great effect in certain passages - of all periods - where normal passing of the thumb would generate very awkward movements).

Even "jumps" are not technique. The way you achieve the jump is the technique."


And also,

"
According to Gyorgy Sandor there are only five techniques in piano playing:

1.      Free fall
2.      Five fingers
3.      Rotation
4.      Sttacatto
5.      Thrust

Read Fink’s book and the number increases to 32:

1.      Arm extension with pronation
2.      Pendulum swing
3.      Arm rotation
4.      forearm push stroke
5.      lateral motion
6.      finger stroke
7.      hand scoop
8.      pulling fingers
9.      unfolding fingers
10.      arm cycling
11.      pulling arm legato
12.      pushing arm strokes
13.      gravity drops
14.      finger stretching
15.      forearm bounce
16.      forearm skip
17.      forearm rebounds
18.      hand bounce
19.      scoop chords
20.      thumb adduction, flexion and lateral movement
21.      overlapping legato
22.      unfolding finger
23.      sidesaddle walking
24.      joggle movement
25.      forearm finger groupings
26.      finger length adaptations
27.      Lateral extension
28.      Walking rebounds
29.      Fake legato
30.      Hand releases
31.      Hand finger staccato
32.      Finger releases

Then Alfred Cortot lists the following:

1.   Evenness
2.   Independence
3.   Mobility of fingers
4.   Passing under the thumb
5.   Scales and arpeggios
6.   Double notes
7.   Poliphonic playing
8.   Extensions
9.   Technique of wrists
10.   Execution of chords

As you can see, each author summarises the information in their own way, and none of them is truly talking about “technique” (= a way of doing things). In fact, some of them (e.g. Cortot when he talks about passing under the thumb – as a technique, which it is but a completely inappropriate one in 99.9% of piano passages) send you completely in the wrong direction."


Walter Ramsey

[opus10no2]

In general - Double notes and demanding use of the outer fingers are the most troublesome figurations to execute, even for professional pianists.

[kevink]

It may benefit you to read Bernhard's replies in this thread:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,12502.0.html

He says among other things,


"I am sorry to disapoint you guys, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

You see, technique is a way of doing things.  You are not listing techniques, you are listing things to do for which you require specific techniques.

A scale or arpeggio is not a technique. It is a musical figuration. The way you do a scale or arpeggio is the technique. Unfortunately there is not a single way to do these things, it depends on the musical context. A scale in a Bach fugue will require a "technique" (a way of doing it) very different from a scale in a Liszt study.

Then there are "techniques" that may be completely inapropriate in one context and perfect for other contexts (e.g., Baroque fingering where a long finger goes over a sorter finger can be used to great effect in certain passages - of all periods - where normal passing of the thumb would generate very awkward movements).

Even "jumps" are not technique. The way you achieve the jump is the technique."


And also,

"
According to Gyorgy Sandor there are only five techniques in piano playing:

1.      Free fall
2.      Five fingers
3.      Rotation
4.      Sttacatto
5.      Thrust

Read Fink’s book and the number increases to 32:

1.      Arm extension with pronation
2.      Pendulum swing
3.      Arm rotation
4.      forearm push stroke
5.      lateral motion
6.      finger stroke
7.      hand scoop
8.      pulling fingers
9.      unfolding fingers
10.      arm cycling
11.      pulling arm legato
12.      pushing arm strokes
13.      gravity drops
14.      finger stretching
15.      forearm bounce
16.      forearm skip
17.      forearm rebounds
18.      hand bounce
19.      scoop chords
20.      thumb adduction, flexion and lateral movement
21.      overlapping legato
22.      unfolding finger
23.      sidesaddle walking
24.      joggle movement
25.      forearm finger groupings
26.      finger length adaptations
27.      Lateral extension
28.      Walking rebounds
29.      Fake legato
30.      Hand releases
31.      Hand finger staccato
32.      Finger releases

Then Alfred Cortot lists the following:

1.   Evenness
2.   Independence
3.   Mobility of fingers
4.   Passing under the thumb
5.   Scales and arpeggios
6.   Double notes
7.   Poliphonic playing
8.   Extensions
9.   Technique of wrists
10.   Execution of chords

As you can see, each author summarises the information in their own way, and none of them is truly talking about “technique” (= a way of doing things). In fact, some of them (e.g. Cortot when he talks about passing under the thumb – as a technique, which it is but a completely inappropriate one in 99.9% of piano passages) send you completely in the wrong direction."


Walter Ramsey

Well, here I go.  Scroll down to read the numerous rebuttals...



I am now of the opinion that Bernhard's philosophy about technique-through-repertory is not always successful.  What is more, it is self-contradictory, in the sense that it acknowledges that one technical path is not suitable to all players, but does not acknowledge that the path of technical drills might be suitable to some (or many). 

This debate as a whole is apparently polarized along the lines of the "RICHTER NEVER PLAYED SCALES!!!!" people vs. the "LEHVINNE PLAYED THE "RUSSIAN TORTURE" OF TECHNIQUE EXERCISES EVERY DAY SINCE HE WAS IN THE WOMB!!!"  people. 

I'm out for what works for me.  In the process of learning what works, what doesn't work, and why for all of the above, I just *might* become a better pianist or a better teacher, or both...

And I have already learned that "technique through the repertoire" is a frustrating, slow, and ineffective way for me to learn. 

So, thanks for the links..... 


My technique issues are all having to do with coordination and muscular strength.  I am working to improve my rapid repeated octaves and my doubled thirds, more than anything else.  I'm also working to improve the playing of staccato scalar material in my last three fingers.

Really when it comes down to it, I'm trying to learn the technique of technique, which is fascinating.  So far, "divide and conquer" is a good mantra.

[nightingale11]

And I have already learned that "technique through the repertoire" is a frustrating, slow, and ineffective way for me to learn. 

funny statement. Your basically saying that you did not do anything wrong and since you always do things the right way(practice correctly e.g) the approach must be bad.

-

[thalberg]

Repeated notes are hardest for me--like in Alborado del Grazioso or Scarbo.  If not for Ravel, I'd have nothing to worry about.

[ramseytheii]

Repeated notes are hardest for me--like in Alborado del Grazioso or Scarbo.  If not for Ravel, I'd have nothing to worry about.

I thought I had something interesting to contribute and now it has half-slipped my mind.  Krystian Zimmerman was recorded in an interview talking about piano music of Ravel, and he either said, Ravel composed for a different type of piano in use at the time, or he composed for a kind of piano that hadn't been invented yet.  Sorry, I can't remember which.  Anyways, his main point was that pianos we have today have to be mechanically altered to play Ravel properly.  So don't worry too much, Zimmerman has already been through it.

Walter Ramsey

[thalberg]

I thought I had something interesting to contribute and now it has half-slipped my mind.  Krystian Zimmerman was recorded in an interview talking about piano music of Ravel, and he either said, Ravel composed for a different type of piano in use at the time, or he composed for a kind of piano that hadn't been invented yet.  Sorry, I can't remember which.  Anyways, his main point was that pianos we have today have to be mechanically altered to play Ravel properly.  So don't worry too much, Zimmerman has already been through it.

Walter Ramsey

Thanks Walter!  That makes me feel better.  And it's true--I've heard piano technicians talk about how they're always altering the repeat action on the G# just for Alborado del Grazioso.

[rc]

stop being such an ignorant and read the posts instead and try it out!

Listen...  I know you love Bernhards posts, I found them extremely helpful myself when I came across them a few years ago.  But not everybody agrees with all of his ideas.  It's not gospel, there are many paths to mastery. 

What I'm trying to say is:  don't go around calling people ignorant who disagree with your idol.  It's not the way to do things.  I'm certain Kevin is speaking from experience.

[rc]

Oh, the topic...  yes.

My weakest technique would have to be sightreading, I'm nearly helpless at it.  I keep reading about how useful of a skill it is to the enjoyment of music, and have heard some testaments of how people have improved it...  I'm convinced that I can become an excellent sightreader if I keep at it.

My goal is within a year to turn this weakness into a strength.

[invictious]

Oh, the topic...  yes.

My weakest technique would have to be sightreading, I'm nearly helpless at it.  I keep reading about how useful of a skill it is to the enjoyment of music, and have heard some testaments of how people have improved it...  I'm convinced that I can become an excellent sightreader if I keep at it.

My goal is within a year to turn this weakness into a strength.

If I dare say, sightreading is an ability...
Without the technique required however, sightreading will also mean hopelessness


I daresay too, that I am a born sightreader


I sightread through the whole Rach concerto once, took me 2 hours..

[desordre]

 Dear fellows:
 That's an interesting point. I have a very "philosophical" way to face my technique and its development. I think I'm able to play anything, it's just a matter of when it will happen (of course, I know that some works I'd probably never play, but that is a part of the game).
 So, to be very honest, I don't believe in particular fetiche problems such as scales, arpeggios, and so on. I have a deep respect for the ones who take it seriously, and explore ways after ways to solve it, but to me it sounds like sci-fi. I don't want to play a fast scale by itself: I guess it leads me nowhere. In the other hand, if the piece I choose to play have a fast scale, I develop my technique to play it in that particular environment. And it works. Always did. It's a matter of time/study and metronome marks.
 A fine example would be when I challenged myself with Brahms' first Serious Song. By the time, it was a very straightforward piece to play, with no major problems but one: speed. The first time a could play HT, it was on a disapointing 40 (proving that it was not that straightforward to me...). After 3 or 4 months of study, it was 150, smooth and controlled.
 Of course, sometimes I make a bad choice, and have to quit the piece. Another ones, after some weeks of progression, it stucks (the "speed wall" phenomena, I guess). However, isn't patience a virtue? Furthermore, do you think that you will do your best with a work that you play for the first time? I don't have any problems when I have to wait for the proper time to resume: a month, a year, five. In the meantime, there is a huge amount of repertoire to be explored.
 Above all, the simple fact of being able to play a masterpiece is a gift that I always praise, no matter how easy-difficult it is.
 Excuse me if I went far out...just some thoughts.
 Best wishes!
 

[desordre]

 PS: I must say that this question about exercises versus repertoire never made any sense to me. If I have a particular problem in a piece, I just figure out ways to solve it.
 So, if its solution come through studying the piece, I study it (95% of the time, that's the case to me: just some goals of metronome and time to study).  If I need something else, I invent some exercises. If I know an exercise (such as Czerny, Cramer, etc etc) that could help me, I play it. If I know a passage in another piece that is similar, I study it.
 Sure that if the problem solve itself naturally, after a couple of days, its always better... 
 Best!

[nightingale11]

Listen...  I know you love Bernhards posts, I found them extremely helpful myself when I came across them a few years ago.  But not everybody agrees with all of his ideas.  It's not gospel, there are many paths to mastery. 

What I'm trying to say is:  don't go around calling people ignorant who disagree with your idol.  It's not the way to do things.  I'm certain Kevin is speaking from experience.

I am not calling them(kevink among others) ignorant because i disagree with them. I call them ignorant because they won' take the time to look at the given information(bernhard's posts) and try it out and see if it works. Instead they start having an intellectual discussion about what they believe to be right. Somehow they must have authorative person(that may have completely no idea about the issue-because liszt said so that must be right) to persuade them things. That is just lazy and pathetic.

[rc]

Ok, so now you call him lazy and pathetic as well.

Tell me, how do you know he hasn't read through and tried it?

Methinks you may be the ignorant one today.

[nightingale11]

first, he recieved the links very recently. Second if he had(and hade done it correctly) he would not disagree

[rc]

First, I counted on my fingers and toes - the link in question has been around for 20 months.  That's not very recent.  and Bernhard had been posting for longer still.

Second, that's the disagreement.  But my point is that we ought to respect others opinions.  Calling somebody ignorant, lazy and pathetic is not respectful.  Try actually addressing the issue, in your own words and experience if possible, rather than using empty rhetoric and name calling.

A seperate thread's been created to discuss it: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,25043.0.html