daily technique practice

[general disarray]

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say here and I am not very clear about how I am supposed to apply your suggestion to my practice today 

No need to be sorry. 

It's a metaphor:  "."  (Less is more.)

[m19834]

"." 

hmmmm ... interesting point.  Very difficult to argue with.

I am just wondering though, if you or if anybody else around here has ever thought of it in this way before ?   ":":"   My gut tells me that just shouldn't be ignored in this discussion and I am a little dismayed that with all of the professed professionalism and experienced musicians around here, it appears to have been entirely overlooked  .  Personally, I practice two of those every half-of-a-blink, and within a day that really adds up (let me know if you would like some efficient practice strategies and tips on tension-free eyelash velocity, I will gladly give you just the tip of the iceberg ).  I would never dream of spending a day without it and I know it affects me in more ways than I can count on all of my hands, feets, and all of the hands and feets of those microscopic critters that live on our eyebrows, put together.

[rc]

Sometimes I get lazy and go a day without blinking 

[mike_lang]

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say here and I am not very clear about how I am supposed to apply your suggestion to my practice today 

That is the notation for a deleted post, I believe.

[general disarray]

That is the notation for a deleted post, I believe.

Thank God you stepped in here with the clarification.

Never before has so much been written about so little, to wit: "."  K must think I do market research for Maybelline.   

[m19834]

Thank God you stepped in here with the clarification.

Never before has so much been written about so little, to wit: "."  K must think I do market research for Maybelline.   

*bats eyelashes*

[m19834]

Sometimes I get lazy and go a day without blinking 

rc, that is really not good at all  .  I am a bit disappointed in you  .  If you are really going to be serious about this :  ":":"  please go spend some quality time blinking or you can just kiss your dreams goodbye.

[general disarray]

**.**

Honestly, Karli.  You're impossible. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Well, in the same way it is 'dangerous' to say something's useful...

This reverse logic to what I said "It is dangerous to say something is completely useless without having applied it to the various situations." doesn't make sense in my mind. It is certainly dangerous to say something is useful without knowing its application, but if you know its application then it is not dangerous at all.

[rc]

rc, that is really not good at all  .  I am a bit disappointed in you  .  If you are really going to be serious about this :  ":":"  please go spend some quality time blinking or you can just kiss your dreams goodbye.

<- (the agony of not blinking)

You're right! I've gotta shape up or ship out!  In my defense, the next day I usually blink longer to make up for it.  Longer and longer blinks, until after blinking ALL day I have one loooong 6-8 hour blink.

**.**

I see the general hasn't been blinking either

<- (HS)

[m19834]

<- (the agony of not blinking)

You're right! I've gotta shape up or ship out!  In my defense, the next day I usually blink longer to make up for it.

Oh my goodness, this is worse than I had thought.  That is not music to my ears at all !!  The most important thing is to blink at least for a little bit -- but efficiently -- everyday.  Consistency is really the key here and everything in the world, even your best friends are going to try to come in the way of your goals.  Set goals, stick to your schedule (that's the hard part). 

Longer and longer blinks, until after blinking ALL day(...)

Well, let's address this right away.  Firstly, if by "longer and longer" blinks you mean slower and slower, then I hope you realize that there is a big difference between blinking slowly vs. in slow motion.  It must be in slow motion and not just "slowly."  Do you understand the difference ?  You must exaggerate your blinking in slow motion, similar to a runner running in slow motion would do. 


Now, this :

I have one loooong 6-8 hour blink.

3-4 hours of one long (slow-motion) blink is plenty of time.  Do not be wasting your hours with overdoing the slow blink.

<- (HS)

Very nice  .

[rc]

Oh my goodness, this is worse than I had thought.  That is not music to my ears at all !!  The most important thing is to blink at least for a little bit -- but efficiently -- everyday.  Consistency is really the key here and everything in the world, even your best friends are going to try to come in the way of your goals.  Set goals, stick to your schedule (that's the hard part). 

If they get in my way then they must not be that good of friends, and I will have to crush them like anyone else.

Well, let's address this right away.  Firstly, if by "longer and longer" blinks you mean slower and slower, then I hope you realize that there is a big difference between blinking slowly vs. in slow motion.  It must be in slow motion and not just "slowly."  Do you understand the difference ?  You must exaggerate your blinking in slow motion, similar to a runner running in slow motion would do. 

I don't know.  I can't see anything at all when I'm blinking.  Might have to find an instructor.

Now, this :
3-4 hours of one long (slow-motion) blink is plenty of time.  Do not be wasting your hours with overdoing the slow blink.

Now I'm confused, because I'd heard that it's better to work the blink muscles this way - lifting them high and then shutting them solidly.

I've been exploring a different idea lately - eyebrow improv.  I have better control over the right brow, and can get it completely vertical.

Very nice  .

Showoff

[popdog]

Discussion between Bernhard and Marik are some of the best on this board.  Particular because they often disagree.  I'm interested in Bernhard's response to Marik's last post in this thread. 

[m19834]

.

[fnork]

Second, I am strongly against of the idea itself of "strong fingers" and many times emphasised it here--this idea, as well as idea of "finger workout" is just against of any notion or physics of technique.

Marik, I believe that you've mentioned in other threads that Gavrilov was told by his teacher to find a heavy action piano for practicing (I think you mentioned it in relation that he was "fighting" with Islamey for years) - isn't that a idea of "finger workout" too? Was Gavrilovs teacher wrong?

[m]

Marik, I believe that you've mentioned in other threads that Gavrilov was told by his teacher to find a heavy action piano for practicing (I think you mentioned it in relation that he was "fighting" with Islamey for years) - isn't that a idea of "finger workout" too? Was Gavrilovs teacher wrong?

 
I don't remember even ones Gavrilov's teacher (who BTW, happened to be my teacher, too) to be wrong.
No, it has nothing to do with "finger workout". It is rather getting used to "feel of touch". 

Best, M

[m19834]

grrrr... I just wrote a whole epic post that got disappeared  .

*ANYWAY*

The jist of my last attempt was that I apologize for having taken this thread in the direction of such things as blinking.  I know it seems off-topic, but it may as well be what we are talking about because this discussion about exercises or not, while I do see *a* value in it to some extent, is almost as silly as talking about blinking and eyebrow improv anymore.

I just don't get it.  Are people actually wanting a "pat" answer ?  And, even if that were found, would everybody truly listen and obey ?  Some people will still love exercises and play them, and some of those people will get better while others don't.  Then, there will still be people who hate exercises and avoid them, and out of those people, some people will get better and some won't.  Aside from that, each individual ends up needing to figure out what their own personal "way" to touch the instrument is.  Of course, there are guidelines, but no matter what a person is playing, finding one's technique is more about principles of playing rather than just what the person happens to be playing.  Whatever we are playing, the time spent has as much to do with self-exploration as it has to do with instrumental exploration, however, self-exploration is generally a much bigger beast anyway.

I understand that these discussions are perhaps important to people.  And, I respect both Marik and Bernhard, but what are people hoping to become clear on ?  Whether to do exercises or not ?  If pianism stays at that question forever, we aren't going to be getting anywhere as a culture.  There's just got to be something more about playing the instrument.

[m]

but what are people hoping to become clear on ?  Whether to do exercises or not ?  If pianism stays at that question forever, we aren't going to be getting anywhere as a culture.  There's just got to be something more about playing the instrument.

Indeed!
Since Bernhard does not seem to be in rush to chime in and "debunk me", I'd say, from this standpoint the answer to the question about "whether to do excercises and etudes or not" would be pretty easy--if you have the question itself the first place, then there is a good chance that you'd better play those.

Someone might object: "But Richter or Rubinstein did not do it and still were Greatest Pianists"!!!
On that I would say: "Well, they did not raise that question, to start with"

Best, M

[m19834]

Indeed!
Since Bernhard does not seem to be in rush to chime in and "debunk me", I'd say, from this standpoint the answer to the question about "whether to do excercises and etudes or not" would be pretty easy--if you have the question itself the first place, then there is a good chance that you'd better play those.

Someone might object: "But Richter or Rubinstein did not do it and still were Greatest Pianists"!!!
On that I would say: "Well, they did not raise that question, to start with"

Best, M

Well, yes, those people did not raise the question to start with, that is very true.  From my perspective, it just seems that there is more than what a person is playing, it is more how.  And, I realize that has been said before, and by you.  My own experience is that I didn't just magically learn some of the basic mechanics that have made a huge difference for me from just sitting down and doing exercises (and I didn't learn it from just sitting down and playing repertoire, either).  I mean, I did learn from them, but as far as I knew, it was similar to just playing a piece of music in the respect that I was not aware enough to know what I supposed to be learning from them nor getting out of them, and I did not know how to apply them to my repertoire -- and in my repertoire, I didn't really know what I was supposed to be truly aiming for either. 

What I find interesting about your thoughts, Marik, is that you do present clear ideas on how to use them for more than just moving one's fingers around.  You present that there is a need for repetitive and simple patterns so that an individual can concentrate on other matters than the sheer physical feat.  But, without a knowledge beyond thinking of a set of exercises as a set of exercises, without a knowledge on what a person is supposed to be gaining from the experience, it seems to me a waste of time. 

On the grounds though that somebody should only play what they love, as Bernhard suggests, that does not handle the idea that some people actually love playing exercises.  As an interesting side note, I have recently started including more exercises in what I play for my students whom need to pick out a new piece, I just don't tell them it's an exercise and instead I tell them (the little ones) that this is a magic piece where they get to make their own title for it  .  When I play for them a few selections of pieces and they choose an exercise because they like it, well, there's something to think about.

In any respect, I suppose I would personally rather see the principles behind what both of you are suggesting.  It should be something we love because time is precious.  Agreed.  It should be some pattern that allows a person to concentrate on particular aspects of playing without too many written things to be thinking about.  Agreed.  It should be musical.  Agreed. 

From my perspective, I would like to be a master.  Are exercises really the key ?  Is repertoire, for that matter, really the key ?  There is just something more than that, it seems.  There have been plenty of people whom have dutifully played their exercises and have not become masters, and even more disturbing, they have become injured because important information about *how* to play was missing for them and/or they were actually told to play a certain way that has caused injury.  For that matter, there are plenty of people whom have played only repertoire, and they have not become masters, either.  I am not against exercises nor am I arguing for them.  I just don't see any particular thing that is more magical than another about playing pieces vs. exercises, and eventually, I think people and their technique and musicality will hopefully transcend all of that anyway, even they will seemingly transcend the instrument itself.

[opus10no2]

What I wonder, with all this concern about approaching and equalling the skills of the greatest technicians, is whether or not anyone gives thought to actually surpassing them.

Like olympians, are pianists technically improving with time?

The most signifigant advance seems to be the higher percentages of people with great skill...like they say, the state-of-the-art becomes common in the following generation.

Speaking for myself, I'd see myself as a failure if I only equal the greatest facilites of the current generation.