teaching studies ( early-intermediate student)

[andigone]

any information about  teaching burgmullers 25 easy and progressive studies op.100? i'm writing an essay about incorporate any of the pieces into my teaching programme-indicate also the graded level of the pieces-i think the collection is a good choice cause there are no octave fingerings,the widest range(interval)is the seventh,and the pieces could also be used as recital pieces.

[bernhard]

As the title says, they are “progressive”. They start at grade 1 (no. 1 - La candeur, no. 2 - Arabesque) and they increase in difficulty up to grade 5 (no. 24 - L’hirondelle, no. 25 - La chevarelesque).

I usually use them as stepping stones: preparation for more advanced pieces a student may want to learn but has not yet developed the necessary technique / musicality to tackle just as yet. As you said they work well as pieces on their own right, and to me this is an advantage over other pedagogical material like Schmidt, Czerny, or Beyer.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you want to know.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[andigone]

Bernhard thank you for your reply!
actually it was your reply that i wanted.
i only teach the piano for two years and a half and the most advanced student i have is about grade five.as you see i dont have the experience neither the knowledge to analyse this subject so easy.
it would be very usefull for me to read any articles on music on-journals about what's the importance of  teaching studies for the early-intermediate level.
and also whats their "position" in the teaching programme..you said" I usually use them as stepping stones: preparation for more advanced pieces a student may want to learn but has not yet developed the necessary technique / musicality to tackle just as yet."i agree with you and i like the way you use them.
the technique that could developed in each of the pieces i understand it( if i can use this word,sorry for my english.) but  for example what advanced pieces for the repertoire of grade 4 could you use to develope  the technique of no.15"ballade"(wrist staccato for the R.H. chords)?
well i have to choose 6-8 pieces each of graded level depending of what i use the material for.e.g.study material,technical,sight reading material,performance.do you have any suggestions?your opinion counts a lot.
my best regards
andigone

[bernhard]

You are welcome

the technique that could developed in each of the pieces i understand it( if i can use this word,sorry for my english.) but  for example what advanced pieces for the repertoire of grade 4 could you use to develop the technique of no.15"ballade"(wrist staccato for the R.H. chords)?

“Ballade” is itself grade 3/4, so if the student can play it, s/he certainly is above grade 4 pieces of similar difficulty, but maybe I did not understand your question. Anyway. I would use ballade as one of a number of stepping stones leading to advanced pieces that have similar technical patterns. In the case of “Ballade” the real difficulty to be mastered is not simply the right hand staccato (most people can do that) but the combination of staccato on the right hand and legato on the left (most people cannot do that). This is a pattern common in many very advanced pieces (e.g. the Waldstein sonata). A beginner who wants to play the Waldstein (And believe me there is no shortage of deluded people in this world) could be pacified by being given this study instead.

Now the problem with your question is that there are literally thousands of pieces that have the particular difficulty of this study, so you should do it the other way around (after all there are only 25 studies): Given an advanced piece, which of the 25 studies may help me? And of course, it is well possible that none will.

well i have to choose 6-8 pieces each of graded level depending of what i use the material for.e.g.study material,technical,sight reading material,performance.do you have any suggestions?your opinion counts a lot.

I am not sure my opinion may help you much here because I work in exactly the opposite way of what you are describing (correct me if I misunderstood you). What you are saying (if I understood it correctly) is that you have divided piano playing into a series of skills (nothing wrong with that) and you want suggestions for specific pieces that may help acquire that skill, e.g., which piece would be good for sight-reading? Which piece would be good for a specific technical problem? And so on.

But I do exactly the opposite. I start from a piece (no matter how difficult – I completely disregard grades) and ask: Which skills are necessary to play this piece? And then I work on the skills as necessary for that piece. Therefore, if you ask me about a piece, I can help you work out the skills. But I don’t really know where to begin with the opposite approach. There is just far too much repertory.

So it seems to me that you are asking about which pieces would be good for certain skills. You are turning it all upside down! Or I am turning it all upside down!

I am not sure I am helping you much. Please ask more specific questions.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[andigone]

"to be or not to be?"
"which skills would be good for certain pieces"
or "which  pieces would be good for certain skills"?
oh boy it's sound almost the same! Desperate for some advice for the pieces i've choose:no 7 "le courant limpide" ; no 2 "l'arabesque" ; no 15 "ballade" ; no 4 "la petite union" ; no 24 "l'hirondelle" and no 9 "la hasse".
i want to write about the skills required or developed by the piece.
where should i start from?what is your approach to the above pieces?
my best regards
andigone  

[bernhard]

Ok.

First why did you choose these pieces?

Now I will describe to you my own approach. How I would use one of them, and you can try to apply this to the others.

By the way, before some people complain, this is just the approach I use, other approaches may be equally effective (Do I really believe this? Not really, after all, if I believed this I would not using this approach would I? But let us be sensitive to others and not imply that they are doing something that is not as good).

1.      I very rarely will tell a student that he needs to learn a study by Burgmuller. Why not? Because there is a vast amount of incredible piano literature out there and frankly, Burgmuller is not one of them. In fact I very rarely tell a student which piece to learn: I expect them to tell me which piece they want to learn. The reason for that is very simple. Learning a new piece is hard and requires a lot of motivation. Playing a piece one does not care for is a non starter. However sometimes the student will come with a piece selection that is clearly inappropriate for his/her technical level. In such a case, I will try to find a piece that will bridge the gap between his/her technical reality and the technical requirements of the piece.

Let me make a quick digression here. Why do some students want to learn some pieces? It is important to find out. Maybe it is the impression the piece caused on them. They hear a sad piece and want to elicit the same reaction on their families/friends. They have not yet understood that there is no guarantee that what they felt will be shared by others. In any case, if this is the case, it is easy to find similar pieces of a “doable” level of difficulty. Now let us say that it is some texture that attracted them, for instance a flowing, arpeggiated texture (like for instance in Chopin’s Op. 25 no. 1, or Schubert’s impromptu in Gb). Again there are many simpler pieces with a similar texture. So it is important to ascertain what is it that the student wants. S/he may be happy to take the alternative. The only limit to this approach is your familiarity with the piano repertory. The more pieces you know, the more latitude you will have.

2. However let us say that the student is fixated in one piece and no other will do. If s/he cannot play it for lack of technique/musicality, and if their desire of learning it is strong enough, they will be prepared to do preliminary work. That is when the likes of Burgmuller come in. So I will now describe to you a specific case.

I was approached (about six months ago) by a retired lady, who always wanted to play the piano, She had played the violin in her youth, and could (sort of) read music in the G clef. But that had been some 50 years ago. Now that she was retired she had decided to try for the piano which had always been her love (but her parents could not afford one). There was one problem though: She had mild arthritis (and she was hoping that the piano might help her there too). And she was crazy about Schubert, in particular Schubert Impromptus.

Since I enjoy a challenge, I told her I would teach her on one condition: she must take my intensive course which involves daily 45 minute lessons (eventually this grew to daily 2 hour lessons). But now, after starting from scratch and six months lessons she can play her Schubert Impromptu and is starting on her next one. How was this accomplished?

3.      Schubert wrote 8 impromptus (which by the way she knew thoroughly since she listened to them all the time – so part of the work [aural memory] was already done), the most approachable of them being op. 142 no. 2 in Ab. (I would say it is around grade 7/8 ). As luck would have it it was one of her favourites. If you look at the score, it has two well defined parts: a slow, chordal Sarabande, and a middle section trio that is arpeggiated. The piece closes by repeating the first part.

The main difficulties of this piece are:

a.      Reading the music. The first part is in Ab major, the trio is in Db major. With all these flats, plus the eventual accidentals, this could be expected to be a major stumbling block for a complete beginner.
b.      The first part is in four voices, rather than chord blocks. So the chords must be voiced accordingly. I was not sure how much she would be able to do in this area due to her arthritis.
c.      The trio had not only a lot of arpeggios (again I was concerned about the arthritis) as the melody had to be accented throughout.
d.      Moreover the left hand on the second part has an important counter melody that must be brought out.

4.      So how to go about it? First I told her to whenever she listened to the CD to follow the score. That was all  the work she was allowed to do on the piece itself. No playing it at the piano for the moment. I also provided her with a score where the voices had been split in four staves so that she could see how simple the structure of the music actually was (while if you look at the original score it is a bit terrifying).

5.      Next I tackled what I surmised would be the most difficult part for her: the arpeggiated section. I wanted to concentrate on two areas: the movement to get a nicely flowing arpeggio and the ability to accent certain notes of the arpeggio to bring up the melody. And of course one of the pieces that was within her grasp and that would allow her to master these aspects was Burgmuller’s no. 7 (Courante limpide). So we started to work on it.


6.      Besides the purely technical aspects of no. 7, I also wanted to teach her a way to work on a piece, a way to practise it. So we started by learning and practising the G major scale and its arpeggio (see this thread for some of the ways I teach/work on scales: https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1079372061).

You see, most beginners will look at the key signature of a piece and try to remember to play the notated Fs as F#. They often forget though, and keep forgetting to sharp the F. My approach is to think in terms of the scale: there is no F in G major. Whenever an F is notated in the score, it is actually a black key; the F#. Practising scales then becomes related to the piece one is learning and the goal is not only finger dexterity in playing the scale, but immersing oneself in the “key” of the piece.

This was extremely important, as a principle, since once we got to the Impromptu, we would be dealing with loads of flats in the key signature, and the usual “beginner’s” approach would be a major stumbling block. We also analysed the harmonic structure of the piece to see how the piece modulated from G major to D major (as most tonal music does), and we practised the D major scale and arpeggio for good measure too. So theory and analysis went hand in hand with the playing of the study.

7.      The next step (you see, we had not yet played the study, just the scales and arpeggios) was to do something I call “outlining”. I gave her a score where the whole study had been rewritten with all the triplets in the RH removed. So the study became just the crochets (the “skeleton of the piece – so to speak). This is what she learned, starting with the first part (bars 1- 8 ), hands separate. As you know the left hand in the first part is very easy: G – D repeated for the eight bars. However, I wanted her to produce a specific sound. Not just repeat the notes, but make them “ring”. They should like a deep bell toiling in the distance. So you see, all along and from the very first, movement and touch were aimed at musicality. We spent many sessions working on different movements/touches that would be comfortable (remember the arthritis) and yet that would convey the appropriate sound. The bass, although simple is extremely important for this piece to be effective.

8.      Next the right hand. The melody is there, and is played throughout with the thumb, which is a pretty strong finger, so the matter of bringing up the melody is not too difficult (it would be more difficult with, say, fingers 4-5). But the control is difficult especially for a beginner. So first we dealt with memorising the melody, and then we worked on the sound itself. Almost as important technically was to keep the hand neither stretched nor contracted, but to displace it along the keyboard so that rather than looking for the melody notes with the thumb, she was using the upper arm to displace her hand accurately over the keyboard. In other words: the arm had to place her thumb in the correct keys. She had to resist the temptation to move her fingers around. I always tell students to imagine their arms have been amputated below the elbow and they are playing with a prosthetic (they never forget that one, he he!), so they must move the artificial forearm and hand with their real arm.


9.      Now all the above was done not in sequence, but more or less at the same time during the course of a lesson. We would talk about the theory and analyse the music; we would then practise a scale (HS), then we would do the RH of the outline; then the LH, then go back to a scale; then back to the outline and while she was playing I would be commenting on the analysis, and so on and so forth. After a couple of weeks she was thoroughly familiarised with the piece from a number of different angles. So we were working on a multiplicity of memorisations from the first lesson – students rarely realise this; but the teacher should always have a master plan that includes everything.

10.      We then moved on to hands together (still on the first part). Now she had to cope with the co-ordination of both hands (only move to HT once all technical problems in HS have been mastered). Everything falls apart at this stage, and inexperienced students usually despair at this point. So it was important for her to understand that hands together is 37 times more difficult than hands separate, and also to understand that you cannot simply “join hands”, but a specific approach is necessary. So she was not only learning about the piece, but also learning ways to deal with specific problems that she could then go on and use on other pieces. Once she could play hands together, the problem now was balancing the voices: making the right hand sing, but also keep the bell-like tone in the bass. Figuring out all the ways you can use to do that (e.g., playing one hand soft one loud, then reversing; playing the LH a fraction of a second ahead of the RH so that the bass note can be loud but this does not overpower the melody in the RH since the RH is played on the decay of the LH, making one hand detached – or even staccato – and holding the other, and fine tuning the degree of detachment/legato in either hand until you get the desired sound). So as you can see, a lot of investigation. Then once we struck the exact co-ordinates in terms of technique to obtain the desired sound, repetition and more repetition.

(continues in the next post)

[bernhard]

(continued from the previous post)

11.      Now that we had got the outline sorted out, we moved on to put the triplets back. But besides technique, we had accomplished something very important: Now the melody and bass were firmly embedded in her aural memory. You see, if you can hear in your mind what you want to play, the fingers/forearms/arms/etc. will all conspire to produce the sound you had in mind. But most beginners do not have any sound in mind at all. They approach the piano and get the sound from what they are playing (which is of course all wrong) and once that inappropriate aural image is in place, it is very difficult to dislodge, and of course the student’s playing will follow it. And since this is all unconscious behaviour it is baffling for the student to understand why his playing sucks.


12.      To put the triplets back in place, we went back to HS again, and worked only on the first triplet. We played it as a chord to start with. Than rather than moving the fingers, we made the arm move the hand and the hand move the fingers. It is an elliptical movement, and I will not bother trying to explain this in writing. It is easy to demonstrate and writing about it just creates a lot of unnecessary confusion for people reading this, who do not know what I am talking about. Once that movement was mastered, we went on to play the first 5 triplets in sequence since they form a loop (the first triplet is the same as the fifth).

13.      The way we worked on these first five triplets was also very important. We did several things: First we played them as chords. But there are two ways of making up the chords, one which will make you progress fast, the other which will actually hinder your progress:

First way (intuitive way, will hinder your progress):

[BGD] [BGD] [CAD] [AFD] [BGD]

Second way (correct way, will accelerate your progress):

B [GDB] [GDC] [ADA] [FDB] [GDB*] (B* from the next triplet)

Do you understand this difference and why it will make an immense difference to organise the chords one way or the other?

So you see, I am not just using this study to teach technique, but to teach different ways of learning as well. This principle of chord organisation is so important that it may make the difference between mastering a piece quickly and never mastering it at all. People who do everything right (either because they are geniuses at learning, or because they had excellent teachers who knew this stuff) go on to amass huge repertories in little time. Other people can hardly manage two or three pieces a year. Why? The answer is right here on this chord comparison. It is this sort of thinking that will allow fast learning.

After learning the chords, we then broke the chords by using arm movement rather than finger reaching (again easy to demonstrate, impossible to write about coherently).

Then we kept alternating playing the outline (to remind ourselves what the melodic outline was like) and playing the triplets so that the melody would stand out.

Finally both hands were put together again.

14. Getting the triplets to sound even was also a problem. This was tackled by rhythm variations. Some people do not like them, but work they do! My approach towards this sort of variation is that they are unnecessary if you can play well without them. But if you are stuck  - as this lady was – with uneven notes, then you must do something about it. Just repeating the passage over and over again wrongly is not going to solve the problem.

It is the same with separate hands. If you can play something straightaway perfectly with hands together, don’t bother with separate hands. But if you have not mastered the technique of each hand separately, going straight to hands together is a big, big mistake.

Again on the subject of evenness, it is important to point out to the student that in order to have an even sound you must do an uneven movement. We should not really tell a student “play even” since playing with even movements will result in an uneven sound. We should say “play so that it sounds even”

15.      So we proceeded like that for the whole of the first part. Not only we developed the technique to play triplets evenly, bringing up the melody, as we learned much about scales, arpeggios, chords, music theory, and most important we learned about a variety of methods to tackle a certain kind of musical passage.

16.      The second part of this study needed a different approach. It is actually far more difficult than the first part. After working on the outline (which by the way was only the LH since the right hand only provides the accompaniment), we went on to use repeated note groups ti learn the second part (you can read a description of this practice method in this thread: https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=perf;action=display;num=1079553524)

17.      As you can see from all the above, I used Burgmuller’s “Courante limpid” for a variety of purposes:

a.      To learn and practise the scales and arpeggios of G major and D major.
b.      To learn different approaches to learning these scales and arpeggios.
c.      To learn about music theory (key signatures, triplets,  three voice writing in two scores, chords, broken chords and chord progressions, musical notation).
d.      To learn technique (movements, touch,  fingering, and how they related to sound produced).
e.      To learn different practice procedures and how they may or may not apply to a passage (hands, separate, hands together, rhythm variation, repeated note groups, outlining, working in small chunks, etc.)
f.      To serve as a learning device/stepping stone for a much more advanced piece (Schubert’s impromptu op, 142 no. 2 – second part) which requires a similar technique and will benefit from a similar approach. By using Burgmuller, I was able to point out an obvious fact that many times escpes the unexperienced: most advanced music is not really more difficult: it is simply more complex. Complex is not the same as complicated. Something is complex because it is made up of a large number of simple things. If you learn how to tackle one simple thing (which Burgmuller will teach you to do), tackling a complex thing is simply a matter of tackling each simple component in turn and joining them. Once you had this exhilarating learning experience, you will be empowered to tackle whatever complex music comes your way. You are still left with the task of breaking down the complex task into its simpler components (not that easy – you can go very wrong), and in finding out simpler repertory examples. But as I said before, your only limitations will be your experience with different musical patterns and your knowledge of repertory.

18.      After she mastered Courante limpide, we worked on Gurlitt’s “Berceuse” (op. 224) again with similar technical and musical problems as the trio in the Schubert’s impromptu. We used a similar approach, but it took a fraction of the time since most of the steps were now well known. Finally, to deal with the first part of the impromptu I used Chopin’s prelude no. 7, and Schumann’s “Ein Choral” (from Album for the young). It took about four months to do all this preliminary work.

19.      To actually learn the impromptu took less than a month. She has now memorised and performed it many times for friends and family. Interestingly enough her arthritis has alleviated somehow. As a bonus she also has 4 beautiful pieces (“Courante Limpide”, “Prelude no. 7””ein choral” and “berceuse”) in her repertory. Moreover she has learned all the 24 major and minor scales and arpeggios (if you learn the scales present in each of this pieces they will cover all of them) plus a lot of theory and harmony.

20.      So as you can see, rather than teach isolated subjects in a certain order, I teach in an integrated way everything that concerns a certain piece. Then of course we try a different piece. If you follow this approach, syllabus and grades are not that important (this lady, after six months is playing right across grades from grade 3 to grade 7 – but all the pieces are musically superior and can be performed with pride). It is very important not to teach in a logical way – logic is a great way to organise knowledge you already have, but it is a terrible way to acquire knowledge - but in a pragmatical way. But to talk about this will require another book.

I hope this has helped.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

And by the way, this is not all she has learned in these six months! This is just the stuff realted to the Impromptu!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rlefebvr]

Hey Bernie, can you take a day off replying.
All of this reading is cutting into my piano playing.

[rlefebvr]

Sorry to bud in,

"First way (intuitive way, will hinder your progress):

[BGD] [BGD] [CAD] [AFD] [BGD]

Second way (correct way, will accelerate your progress):

B [GDB] [GDC] [ADA] [FDB] [GDB*] (B* from the next triplet)

Do you understand this difference and why it will make an immense difference to organise the chords one way or the other?  "

I don't understand where the difference lies or it's importance.

[BET23]

bernhard... you are a genius...

i always read what you have to say... and i hope i can follow the path that you lay out for your students myself... it can get some much done...

[bernhard]

Sorry to bud in,

"First way (intuitive way, will hinder your progress):

[BGD] [BGD] [CAD] [AFD] [BGD]

Second way (correct way, will accelerate your progress):

B [GDB] [GDC] [ADA] [FDB] [GDB*] (B* from the next triplet)

Do you understand this difference and why it will make an immense difference to organise the chords one way or the other?  "

I don't understand where the difference lies or it's importance.

Have you seen the score?

Try it both ways.

You will realise that the second way is  a very natural movement that fits the hand very well and is acquired in a few seconds. It will deliver a smooth and even passage with no effort at all. But it is not what an inexperienced beginner would do, since it cuts accross barlines, and does not follow the notated triplet grouping. So chances are, that if you do not have someone knowledgeable to point this out to you, and break the triplets in this way, which will allow you to practise with maximum efficiency, you will end up doing the first way (as you yourself said, you cannot see the difference)

The first way is the way an inexperenced beginner will try (since s/he cannot see the difference). It follows the bar lines and the notated triplet grouping. This way will require a major feat of motor co-ordination and thouroughly confuse the motor centres, since you have to alternate high and low notes (the other way you have a sequence of descending notes, instead of a sequence of high-low-high). Breaking down the passage this way will result in an awkward and clumsy technique from the start with lots of hesitations. This will get ingrained in your hand memory and you will not be able to play this evenly and at speed ever. It will also take a long time of practice just to get it played.

Now, one can read this and argue forever. But a much better way is to try both ways and see which works better.

It is tiny things like this that make the whole difference. A teacher who knows this stuff (and I must say that not all teachers know this), can take years away from a (willing) student's practice time.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Hey Bernie, can you take a day off replying.
All of this reading is cutting into my piano playing.

[bernhard]

bernhard... you are a genius...

[rlefebvr]

Have you seen the score?

Try it both ways.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I must apologize.
I did not have the score with me and was just trying to makes sense of it on the piano. I should have checked first.

Now that I have the piece in front of me it makes perfect sense.
Playing triplets is the one thing I can learn with ease so I have never bothered learning them as chords first, however the pieces I play are not at the same level either, so this may come in handy one day.

Thanks for the feedback.

[bernhard]

You are welcome.

[andigone]

thank you very much for your reply and your precious time!
i don't know if i admire  more the way you teach or  your kindness to share your knowledge.
you really have a passion for teaching and your students should be very proud to have such a talented teacher.
my best regards
andigone

[bernhard]

You are welcome.

[green]

what is 'eliptical' movement?

[bernhard]

what is 'eliptical' movement?

Is that an English question? If so "eliptical" means following the shape of an elipsis, and an elipsis is like a flattened circle.

If your question is about the movement itself, then consider the inside of the wrist. Imagine a point on the top of the wrist. As you move your hand and leave the wrist free to accomodate the movements (that is, do not "brace" the wrist) that point should describe an elipsis. People sometimes describe it as a circle, or "circular" movement, but it is not really a circle, it is  an ellipsis.

I am not sure if that was clear. It is easy to show, almost impossible to describe in writing.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[green]

then consider the inside of the wrist. Imagine a point on the top of the wrist. As you move your hand and leave the wrist free to accomodate the movements (that is, do not "brace" the wrist) that point should describe an elipsis. People sometimes describe it as a circle, or "circular" movement, but it is not really a circle, it is  an ellipsis.

Move your hand how? Circular motions? Up and down? Side to side? Not sure how to imagine the inside of my wrist, u mean the shape...sorry not clear. And what is this movement for?

[bernhard]

Move your hand how? Circular motions? Up and down? Side to side? Not sure how to imagine the inside of my wrist, u mean the shape...sorry not clear. And what is this movement for?

Yes, writing about this is difficult, and yet so easy to show! You already know all I am talking about, it is really a matter of language.

So, put your right hand on the keyboard, so that your fingers 2 and 3 are in between the F# and G#, and the thumb and little finger are resting on the white keys.

Now to your left (thumb side) is the “inside” of the arm. To your right (little finger side) is the “outside” of the arm. There are two bones in the forearm: the ulna (on the outside – little finger side) and the radius (on the inside – thumb side). The point where these two forearm bones meet the hand, they enlarge, and you can actually see them as protuberances (they are technically called “styloid processes) – the ulna protuberance is particularly evident. I suggest you get a book of anatomy and look at how these several bones are organised. (The hand is divided into carpus – with eight bones, the metacarpus – with five bones, and the phalanxes with fourteen bones – The carpus and metacarpus form the hand itself, while the phalanxes are the fingers, each with three bones with the exception of the thumb which has only two bones  - the third ones being in the hand)

Now, get a pen and draw a little dot on the styloid process of the radius (the protuberance of the bone on the inside – thumb side of the forearm). This is probably what most people call (erroneously) the wrist. Actually the wrist is the carpus, it is inside the hand and is formed of eight bones.

Anyway. With you right hand hand still in the keyboard with fingers 2 and 3 between F# and G# and the thumb and little finger are resting on the white keys, use your upper arm to rotate your forearm in such a way that the dot you made with the pen is seen to make an elliptical movement – keep the fingers relaxed but glued to the keys. The joint between the bones of the hand and forearm (erroneously referred as the wrist) should be kept completely free to accommodate this elliptical movement. It is a vertical ellipsis at the moment.

Now you can play the RH Db major arpeggio (1st inversion) in bar 50 of Schubert’s op. 142 no. 2 in two ways.

The first one is to keep your hand and arm as quiet as possible and move your fingers up and down to press the keys (you will need a good hand span and your hand will remain stretched throughout). By the way the notes are F – Ab – Db – F and back, in case you do not have a score at hand. This is the wrong way. It will give the worng sound, it will be unconfrotabls, and if done for hours on end will cause pain and injury.

The second way (correct) is to use your upper arm to move your hand in such a way as to position the fingers in the proper keys. This is the elliptical movement I described two paragraphs above. This is easy, does not cause pain or fatigue (since there is no need to stretch the hand), and the movement is continuous and smooth resulting in the appropriate sound to be produced.

By the way this is also the movement required to play Chopin Etude Op 25 no.1

I hope I made it a bit more clear.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[andigone]

elliptical movement.
rotary movement.
is it the same?

[bernhard]

elliptical movement.
rotary movement.
is it the same?

It is possible. What do you think? From my description above does it look like it is the same? I have heard people call this a circular motion, but I do not like the term circular, since it is not a circle.

In fact, when you speed up the movement, the ellipse may get so small as to be undetected by an unexperienced observer. S/he may think the motion is pure finger motion because the finger movement (caused by the elliptical movement produced at the upper arm level) looks bigger than the arm movement.

As I said, these things are very easy to demonstrate, very difficult to write about. If you know what I am talking about, you should recognise it in spite of my poor description. If you don't know what I am talking about, no amount of verbal description can help you, and most likely you will get the complete wrong idea from reading about it.

In any case, I don't really care for terminology. People can call the movement whatever they want, as long as they understand how to move.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[andigone]

poor description?
not at all.what i understand is a fore-arm movement not a finger action.is this correct?

[andigone]

bernhard you said:
"It is very important not to teach in a logical way – logic is a great way to organise knowledge you already have, but it is a terrible way to acquire knowledge - but in a pragmatical way."
i like that.it sounds effective.but how can you acquire knowledge without logic?

[bernhard]

what i understand is a fore-arm movement not a finger action.is this correct?

The movement starts at the top of the upper arm. At the origin the movement is quite small. Then of course, this upper arm movement moves the forearm which moves the hand which moves the fingers. The wrist (and the elbow) must be free to accomodate this movement. The movement will be largest at the wrist area, and so an observer may be foolled into thinking that the wrist is originating the movement. But nothing of this sort is happening. The wrist is just a hinge accomodating and transmitting the movement down.

In fact I am just doing this movement now and trying to think of a good way to describe it. I have my right hand resting lightly on the tips of my fingers on the desk. My hand is turning, pivoting on the third finger (simply because it is the longest. The third finger describes an inverted cone, while the wrist goes up an down following a vertical (more diagonal than vertical actually), elliptic shape. There is little - if any - muscle action at the forearm level. All the effort comes from the upper arm. The forearm moves back and forth, but this movement is again initiated by the upper arm, the forearm is completely passive.

I really do not know what else to say. But try playing the first bars of Chopin op. 25 no.1 . This is the only movement that will allow you to play it without fatigue or tension.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

bernhard you said:
"It is very important not to teach in a logical way – logic is a great way to organise knowledge you already have, but it is a terrible way to acquire knowledge - but in a pragmatical way."
i like that.it sounds effective.but how can you acquire knowledge without logic?

Many years ago, at a time when computers were just starting, and when you had to use old languages like FORTRAN, instead of typing text on a monitor, you had to punch all your program statements in cards, and then put the deck of cards through a card reader and wait for the answer from the computer. Yes, children it was that complicated in those days.

Then monitors were introduced and word processing was invented. IN those ancient days I went to one of the first word processing courses ever. The teachers were knowledgeable, but they had little teaching experience. So they taught their subject in a logical way. They started by spending a whole month teaching us Boolean Algebra and the joy of manipulating zeros and ones. Very logical since at heart all computers can understand is zeros and ones and they will follow Boolean algebra. Not very pragmatical though.

A pragmatical approach starts from urgent problems: problems that make sense to the person trying to solve them. So a pragmatical approach to word processing is to show the student how to open Word, how to have a blank page on screen and how to type. Once s/he can do that well, show them how to save the document. They will appreciate the solution because they have experienced the problem. Then show them how to cut and paste. They will jump for joy. So this way not only learning has direct relevance, as from the very first lesson the student is having results. He may even get interested in Boolean Algebra eventually.

The problem with teaching Boolelan algebra straight away is that Boolean algebra is a solution to a problem that the students cannot fathom.

A similar process occurred in the 60s with the teaching of maths. They decide to make it logical. And what are the logical basis of maths? Set theory! So let us start those kids into set theory straight away. Unfortunately set theory is the solution to a 20 th century problem, a problem that arises quite late in the history of maths. So the student cannot possibly understand why he is learning it. As a consequence the study of maths went downhill. Most students are nowadays mathematical illiterates (thank you, 60s’pedagogues!) the situation is so bad that the British government is now offering to pay a salary to any student willing to take mathematical courses.

The pragmatical way is often the historical way: what mankind had problems with historically, individuals are bound to have problems with personally. So if you want to teach maths pragmatically you start with counting. Arithmetic. And geometry, since historically they were the first things to be developed. And expect to have problems with negative and irrational numbers: these were huge problems historically. Next comes algebra. Calculus should be one of the last things to be taught, even though logically it may seem to be one of the first. You get the idea.

How this applies to piano teaching? Logically we should forget about pieces and spend all the time doing technical exercises (ever heard ot this approach?). But it does not work because you are working on technical solutions for which there are no problems yet.

Do you want students to practise scales? Make them a solution for a problem they want to solve. Find a piece full of scales that they are dying to play.

The essence of the pragmatic method is that it recognises a problem and proceeds to solve it. As problem succeeds problem a pattern starts to appear. The logic of it all becomes clear. That is when pedagogues come into the scene and decide to organise the whole enterprise on a logical basis.

But no one learns logically, because the logical order to present the material does not follow the order of the problems to be solved.

So ask yourself what is the problem the student is facing right now. And give him a solution. It does not matter if the solution is partial and will have to be expanded later on.

So you see, the teacher has (or should have) everything organised in his/her mind logically, but to be truly successful he must impart not this logic, but the solution to whatever problem the student may be experiencing at a given moment. And the really clever teacher will create problems so that the student can appreciate the solutions.

Do you want to teach sight reading? Then create a problem for which sight reading is the solution. Do you want to teach chords and harmony? Ask yourself: what problem does that solve? And make sure to make this problem something that is appealing to the student, something that s/he wants to solve. Then give him/her the solution.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[green]

My hand is turning, pivoting on the third finger. The third finger describes an inverted cone, while the wrist goes up an down following a vertical (more diagonal than vertical actually), elliptic shape.

Three things in the description r keeping me unclear, but that certainly is better.

1. Moving from the upper arm, means shoulder to the elbow? Does that include the shoulder? Or the shoulder should remain loose, dangling from the girdle?

2. By an ellipse u mean the wrist, in one rotation, moves more from left-right or right-left, than up and down? Or more up and down than left-right? Is ellipse also the same as 'oval'.

3.Inverted cone like the 3rd finger is the tip, opening out towards the wrist like a megaphone? So the hand also moves, but the initial motion is from the upper arm?

[bernhard]

1. Moving from the upper arm, means shoulder to the elbow? Does that include the shoulder? Or the shoulder should remain loose, dangling from the girdle?

The arm hangs loosely from the shoulder socket. If there is shoulder involvement it is minimal (for this isolated movement, of course – in the course of playing a whole piece, the shoulder will come into action as well specially if you need power) Most of the movement is initiated and controlled by  the deltoid (as far as I can feel it in myself) which is the muscle at the top of the upper arm  

2. By an ellipse u mean the wrist, in one rotation, moves more from left-right or right-left, than up and down? Or more up and down than left-right? Is ellipse also the same as 'oval'.

Yes, ellipse is the same as oval. The movement is a composite of both up and down and (in this case) right left (anti-clockwise). There will be also a forward and backward movement to negotiate the black/white keys.

3.Inverted cone like the 3rd finger is the tip, opening out towards the wrist like a megaphone? So the hand also moves, but the initial motion is from the upper arm?

Exactly. But imagine an “oval” megaphone, and imagine that you polishing the rim of this oval megaphone with your wrist: the top bit of the rim with the top (dorsal side – back of the hand) of your wrist, the down bit of the rim with the ventral (palm side) side of your wrist. Not only the initial motion but the whole of the movement is powered and controlled by the upper arm. The rest of the arm (forearm, wrist, hands, fingers) must act in co-ordination with the upper amr and be free to accommodate and transmit the upper arm movement.

Now, having said al the above, I must also say that to think of this movement  in terms of its minutiae  - as we are doing here – is the wrong approach.

The correct approach is to regard the movement as whole. In fact if you just concentrate on the upper arm you will se that the rest of the playing apparatus will do its job naturally. It is a bit like walking. You just walk from the hips, and the legs, knees calves, feet, toes, all do their job perfectly co-ordinated without you having to think about the minute details of every bit of the walking machine. In fat, a good way to trip and fall over, and make yourself utterly unable to walk is to start thinking in detail what each toe/calf/knee/thigh should be doing as you walk.

And let us not forget that the arm's movement is very important when walking. So as you play, one tends to concentrate on the arms down, but the legs are very very important. And yet they seem to do their bit without us worrying about them at all.

Finally, the best (perhaps the only) way to learn this sort of thing effectively is by imitation. Reading about it is very ineffective (and perhaps will lead nowhere), the only point being that it might call your attention to the existence of these things.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[andigone]

bernhard you have the most motivating teaching method i've ever heard.