the secret of technique according to Thalberge

[phil39]

has anybody read the book, 'The Pianist's Talent', by Harold Taylor, based on the teachings of Thalberge?
i was wondering if anybody found it genuinely helpful to their performance levels and technique.  If the book is to be believed, then Thalberge's principles are the whole secret of top virtuoso playing!  Too good to be true surely?  Personally i feel i've reached a brick wall in my playing, forever stuck on not quite being able to get round a Chopin etude at anything more than half or 3-quarter speed with any degree of fluency.
So i'm thinking of giving it a try. It talks about your whole body posture, the correct relationship of all the parts, muscles being in the correct balance of tension and relaxation the time etc.  Even the way most of us sit down at the piano or place our hands on the keyboard is wrong apparently!
Does this book make sense to anybody??

[pita bread]

Sounds like Sandor.

[thalberg]

Never seen that one.  Otto Ortmann, Sandor, Fink, Schultz are all in my collection.  Not that one.  Must check it out.

[richy321]

I had not heard of this book either.  It does sound intriguing so I ordered a copy.  By the way, the name is Thiberge, not Thalberge or Thalberg -- an entirely different person from the contemporary of Liszt.

[dmc]

I've been reading it for the last few days.  Its actually a very small paperback (only 90 pages).  The principles certainly make sense.  He talks about things that the great pianists have in common.  In a nutshell, the biggest thing is that they know how to position themselves at the keyboard in such a way (physically & mentally) that maximizes their relaxation with the muscle groups that are most in opposition to playing.  Consequentially this means that they expend less effort in their playing.  He then goes on to break down and explain the details.  Of course to apply at the keyboard will take work because we have to unlearn the bad habits we've acquired over time.

Taylor studied with Thilberge and points out that he arrived at almost identical conclusions to that of Matthias Alexander.  But because Thilberge was blind, it was from a different perspective.  If you're familiar with the Alexander method, this is very similar.

[dmc]

I forgot to add one thing.  Apparently Thilberge & Alexander never met nor knew of each other's work.  Yet both came to the same conclusions as to the most effective ways from different angles to maximize results.

[m]

  In a nutshell, the biggest thing is that they know how to position themselves at the keyboard in such a way (physically & mentally) that maximizes their relaxation with the muscle groups that are most in opposition to playing.  Consequentially this means that they expend less effort in their playing. 

Indeed, it is one of the very important aspects of piano playing, which only very experienced pianists/teachers can put into the words.

I never read this book and am wondering if the author ever answered the question about how all of that is actually connected to real music--i.e. the most important issue, which neither Alexander, Taubman, Leimer, etc. were able to answer in more or less intelligable terms. 

If there is no answer to this question why to bother, then?

[ramseytheii]

Indeed, it is one of the very important aspects of piano playing, which only very experienced pianists/teachers can put into the words.

I never read this book and am wondering if the author ever answered the question about how all of that is actually connected to real music--i.e. the most important issue, which neither Alexander, Taubman, Leimer, etc. were able to answer in more or less intelligable terms. 

If there is no answer to this question why to bother, then?

Just for the record, as far as I know, I don't think Alexander ever tried to apply his practice to musical ends.  His realm was the theatre, and he was involved in the general body-fitness movement in the end of the Victorian era.

Walter Ramsey

[m]

Just for the record, as far as I know, I don't think Alexander ever tried to apply his practice to musical ends.  His realm was the theatre, and he was involved in the general body-fitness movement in the end of the Victorian era.

I am perfectly aware of it. I was referring rather to that "trend of followers" trying to apply his method to piano.

[richy321]

I've been reading and pondering this little book for a couple of days.  My first reaction is that it is extremely well written and insightful.  Second, it is not a "how to" book; it is more holistic and conceptual, which is fine with me.  I would summarize the basic ideas as follows:

1.  Inborn capacity for coordination is what defines great talent.

2.  Even without great talent, one's capacity for coordination can be improved by optimized posture and a conscious understanding of the principles of coordination.

3.  Coordination is virtually defined as a habitual "expansion" action of the body, as opposed to a "contraction" tendancy.  This is the key concept of the Thiberge method and without an understanding of it, the book will not make any sense.  Expansion is said to represent an actual lengthening of the body from the thighs to the fingertip when playing a note.  This supposedly happens by all the intervening joints spreading apart, however slightly, which is made possible by the absence of opposing muscular contractions.

Obviously, the third item is the crucial and most questionable element as I've presented them.  I may have overstated the equation of expansion with coordination, but certainly the impression given is that expansion is the sine qua non of coordination.  It is possible that this is the same state as described by others as "relaxation" (not a good term) or "taut" (e.g., Seymour Bernstein).  At any rate, it is unclear to me how it is achieved, so don't ask me.

The OP asked how the principles could be applied.  The main problem with the book is that it is clearly impossible for a reader to apply the principles by him/herself.  Thiberge himself, who was blind, could teach only by touching his students as they played, or having them touch him.  Even if he were sighted this would have been true because the subtle actions he describes are largely invisible.  Interestingly, this is how Taubman/Golandsky/Lister-Sink teachers do their assessment and modeling.  In this connection, it occurs to me that the Taylor book is entirely consistent with those schools, so if you want to apply the Thiberge principles, you might seek out teachers from those apostolic lines, unless Harold Taylor himself has founded such a line.

Rich Y
 

[gosch1]

Just for the record, as far as I know, I don't think Alexander ever tried to apply his practice to musical ends.  His realm was the theatre, and he was involved in the general body-fitness movement in the end of the Victorian era.

Walter Ramsey

F.M. Alexander might have attempted to 'apply' his practice to some specific fields (like the theatre or the British Army.. as far as I know).
But his technique is just that: It is NOT specific to any kind of activity, but it makes sense with ANY activity, be it piano playing, running, swimming, dishwashing etc.
...as he emphasizes in all of his books.

Unfortunately, this sounds 'too good to be true' and also is against our usual thinking in terms of 'specific solutions for specific problems'.
But water is good for a lot of things too, and it is true nevertheless.

As for the written (or spoken) teaching of the Alexander technique or of piano playing, I think it can never be fully relayed other than by (physical!) experience, with the help of a good teacher or with one's own perseverance and openminded (physical) experiments.

But Harold Taylor's book, as others similar to it, can in fact give good hints as to what we're looking for.

[gosch1]

..

[ramseytheii]

F.M. Alexander might have attempted to 'apply' his practice to some specific fields (like the theatre or the British Army.. as far as I know).
But his technique is just that: It is NOT specific to any kind of activity, but it makes sense with ANY activity, be it piano playing, running, swimming, dishwashing etc.
...as he emphasizes in all of his books.

Unfortunately, this sounds 'too good to be true' and also is against our usual thinking in terms of 'specific solutions for specific problems'.
But water is good for a lot of things too, and it is true nevertheless.

As for the written (or spoken) teaching of the Alexander technique or of piano playing, I think it can never be fully relayed other than by (physical!) experience, with the help of a good teacher or with one's own perseverance and openminded (physical) experiments.

But Harold Taylor's book, as others similar to it, can in fact give good hints as to what we're looking for.

I agree with practically everything you say, except that I don't think it is too good to be true.  One should be wary what one expects to get from such systems as Alexander's.  I think he was quite forthright about what one could expect: a more efficient use of the body, inspired by the effortless way in which toddlers move.  Of course this would be a general aid to all physical endeavors, like playing the piano, but in the end such a technique won't be the life or death of anyone.  Remember, he never promised that!

I think people who study these various physical liberating techniques, like this and Feldenkrais (I studied both), are throughout the process very often struck with "revelatory" moments.  That's one reason why I always endorse these things, because they are mentally inspiring as well as phyiscally liberating.  However, that can lead people to extremes: they have a revelatory moment about using the body, and they think, "This then, is the answer."  Next thing you know, all these "brand new" piano methods pop up, each of them having "the answer," (but all different, just like in religion), but really just emphasizing one small point of many points.

On one hand, we have to be welcoming and open to revelation.  On the other hand, we have to accept that maybe a revelation is just a correction of a bad habit, rather than a brand new thought.

Walter Ramsey

[gosch1]

On one hand, we have to be welcoming and open to revelation.  On the other hand, we have to accept that maybe a revelation is just a correction of a bad habit, rather than a brand new thought.

Walter Ramsey

..I totally agree! Very good point, and everything else you said.
I guess my point is the seemingly impossible one-and-all explanation or one-and-all method
to write/speak about piano playing.
But on the other hand, my journey through piano- and Alexander-technique would have been a lot harder without these many books and teaching endeavours.
More 'specific' teachings can shed light on some important aspect, Alexander technique -for me- stands out as the 'big unifying' force of it all, mentally as well as physically.

[leahcim]

ANY activity, be it piano playing, running, swimming, dishwashing etc.
...as he emphasizes in all of his books.

Unfortunately, this sounds 'too good to be true' and also is against our usual thinking in terms of 'specific solutions for specific problems'.

No, it just sounds like it isn't completely true.

I'm sure I can learn to relax at the piano and play, let's say an alberti bass in C  C-E-G-E and so on. Let's say, using Alex or not, I'm comfortable and injury free. Great.

But, hang on, when I listen to the music instead of "listening" to my body. Oops, dynamically and rhythmically it's pants. So how does Alex say to diagnose that? It doesn't? Oh. So how does it say to fix it? It doesn't? Oh. So perhaps then we begin to understand what someone might be trying to say when they say it isn't applied to piano playing.

When I try to correct the dynamics, perhaps that great loud sound I got when relaxed isn't appropriate, and I tense up  trying to play quietly or vice-versa, hours of playing CDEFGABC as gently and slowly as possible goes out the window because I want forte and I tense up trying to get it.

At the same time I add those dynamics, loud sounds make me bed into the keys because I'm incorrectly pressing down get that sound. That's something that I didn't feel the need to do when I just played arbitrary notes without caring about the musical result. So, because of that I'm probably late playing the next note or I speed up some notes perhaps because 345 fingers move more together - in other words, trying to add dynamics incorrectly means my rhythm becomes completely sloppy too. Now I'm stuck, what does alex say? 'Relax, wash the dishes" ?

Now, of course, you're going to say 'but you can use this technique to discover a way to play loudly and softly and so on in the same way that you found a way of comfortably playing arbitrary notes' - but, as someone said, it isn't what he applied it to.

To me, this discovery and knowledge that it appears you need in order to apply Alex yourself to making your playing musical, is precisely the problem that it was supposed to solve in the first place when people recommend it to folk who are having technical difficulties [or injuries and so on] Isn't it?

After all, if our playing isn't musical, it's a simple fact that ultimately your movements at the piano will have to change...it might be a mental process to achieve that change, but no amount thinking will make the piano sing unless you touch it too.

But, although it's an attractive thought that dance / yoga / Alex will help, they don't address the ultimate problems, which will be musical, even with a knackered arm I know there's no point finding a way of playing that doesn't hurt unless it also permits musical playing too. Indeed, it's far more likely imo that someone is going to injure themselves or have other technical problems when trying to alter their performance to play (more) musically [or to play a specific set of notes, i.e music] than when not and thus they probably already know how to play without injury in a completely arbitrary and pointless way, like typing or dishwashing or sitting. If we can do that without pain, job done. There's no great purpose in typing musically after all.

I'm sure there are exceptions though. And bad habits. But as someone said, if it's just removing a bad habit, is it really saying anything that justifies calling it a technique? I don't call moving my leg, in a way that it can move, a michael technique, it's just the way my leg can move [and everyone else's too]

Surely it'd be better to have that mythical person who can teach you to play musically and without straining your onions?

Some of the Alex [and other techniques] inspired piano videos I've seen have been some arbitrary note playing [or some exercise completely unrelated to piano playing, like a piece of string tied to your hand or a silly walk] followed by some nigh on virtuoso performance. That just leaves this student bewildered, especially when you imagined the idea of the video was to take you, maybe only part way, along some path away from playing arbitrary notes [which I could do fairly well to start with] towards that performance they did. Rather than the 'hey look at me, I learnt piano from this great teacher years ago. Using these exercises? You're kidding, I wanted to play...' No amount of years doing their exercises will achieve that, at least not alone.

If you spend a week on a farm with a bunch of Madonna-wannabees and come away with the ability to sit down without creasing your underwear or getting a bad back, you're probably finished and Alex sounds like he's the man, but I fail to see how it begins to teach music or piano playing, even if it's useful for some.

That said, the average piano method has 2 pictures, the first is a woman bent double with one leg behind her ear tagged 'Mrs Bruer demonstrates an uncomfortable piano posture' and it's completely asinine [Yeah I know someone is going to reply and say 'You'd be surprised how many of my students try to play like that' Sure, and their parents defecate in your bathtub during the lesson too, I know but where's the piano book for the rest of us...]

The second picture is her sitting 'correctly'. That's it. The rest of the book is an explanation of the layout of sheet music and the layout of the keyboard. Supposedly merely sitting in that 'correct' position [and hours of practise] is all that's required in terms of movement, technique or posture.

But hang on, you see igudesmanandjoo dot com and realise that although for a serious, virtuoso performance you might not want to play with your teeth, bits of wood, standing up, fighting off your teacher etc, but the essence of playing the notes and getting a stunning musical result [even if it's for comic effect] isn't strictly about the way you're sitting.

[ertydert]

has anybody read the book, 'The Pianist's Talent', by Harold Taylor, based on the teachings of Thalberge?
i was wondering if anybody found it genuinely helpful to their performance levels and technique.  If the book is to be believed, then Thalberge's principles are the whole secret of top virtuoso playing!  Too good to be true surely?  Personally i feel i've reached a brick wall in my playing, forever stuck on not quite being able to get round a Chopin etude at anything more than half or 3-quarter speed with any degree of fluency.
So i'm thinking of giving it a try. It talks about your whole body posture, the correct relationship of all the parts, muscles being in the correct balance of tension and relaxation the time etc.  Even the way most of us sit down at the piano or place our hands on the keyboard is wrong apparently!
Does this book make sense to anybody??

Hello!
This is my first post in this group, I'm from Sweden so excuse me if I'm making mistakes in the language.
I have read this book (The pianist talent), I have the book "A neccesary pedagogic revolution in musical teaching", by Raymond Thiberge, but haven't been able to read it yet . This book is only
available in French, and I am VERY bad in reading French However, I have had some help from
a fellow "Keystring" in PianoWorld, and also translated some pages in BabelFish, its not that easy
to use. The book make much sense to me, I came to the book trough Peter Feuchtwanger! He tells about Harold Taylor in his writings, I have bought Peter Feuchtwangers DVD and textbook, and also had a lesson by a former pupil to Feuchtwanger! It has helped me tremendous, before I
have studied the following books and DVD's: Dorothy Taubman, Seymour Fink, Barbara Lister-Sink, Seymour Bernstein, Abby Whiteside, Gyorgi Sandor, Alan Fraser, Alan Kogosowski, Leymer-Gieseking, and some more! I have  been working as a  pianoteacher for 35 years, and am now retired! Last year I started to go to Alexander teachers, to cure an impinched shoulder, which would not heal, I am now much better! I don't know if the Alexandertechnique did that, but it has
a part of it, as have Peter Feuchtwangers practisings. In Thiberges book, there is a chapter on Chopin etudes, he explain how he has helped some pianists with the following etudes: Op.10 no.1, no. 2, no. 3, no. 5 Op25. no. 1, no.2, and no. 6. I have until now just translated Op. 10 no.1,
One will not be able to play those, just by reading books, but for me Op. 10 no. 1 has been much improved.
I suggest you concentrate on one etude, for example Op.25 no.1, and change the fingerings, and
use Cortots book, when I did that, the tempo was much better.
Kind Regards,