Stuck in Technique-Land -- How to get out?

[Bob]

More practice... That would work.

I seem to be stuck working only on technique.  There's no end to it, so there's always something else to work on.  It fits nicely in the schedule -- I know how long it takes to do a certain routine and I know what effect that will have on my hands for the rest of the day and the next morning.  And I don't want to lose the technique I've developed.  Don't use it, and it will fade. 

But I'm not working on any pieces!   

[go12_3]

Bob,  have you a piece you would like to learn?  An Etude by Chopin are very good for keeping up with technique.  Even some Bach from the WTC  Books 1 and 2, have many wonderful prelude and fugues to keep your technique up.  I only work on technique about 30 minutes , from Monday through Fridays.  The Hanon to warm up and Czerny for sightreading mostly.
The pieces I am working on are more important for me to learn though.  I feel that technique is in any piece you learn, it depends upon what you want out of it. 

best wishes,

go12_3

[Bob]

I may have found my answer...

You don't need unlimited technique.  You only need what the piece requires.  If there aren't pieces written that need that much technique -- they only need so much, a finite amount -- then you don't need any more.

And there are pieces that need a very specialized technique, just for that piece.  But I'm thinking in general.

And it's good to already have the technique required for the piece, unless you change the goal to using the piece to acquire technique. 

And I'd like more technique, but I'd always like more technique.  I still don't have enough though, in terms of things like scale speed though.  I think there are certain standard levels of technique.

[rc]

We can polish technique forever, and there's no limit to the new ideas to practice!

What motivates me more than anything is a performance opportunity.  To me that's the real point of it all - music is made to be heard!  After a while, learning pieces but not performing them for somebody felt pointless.  Practicing technique without applying it to art gets pointless...  Technique serves music, music serves people.

[jgallag]

Technique is not some routine of exercises that we do day to day. Those are exercises, albeit we classify them as "technical" exercises. Technique is, and always has been, the movements we make to achieve the desired sound. Ergo, you are practicing technique any time you play a piece with an attentive ear to improve the quality of your sound. Technical exercises can be useful for focusing on certain aspects of technique, but there is nothing (except an actual piece, and even then not all aspects of technique are normally present in a single work) that will improve your "overall technique". You may disagree, but for every passage you play with your fingerwork (normally addressed by the majority of technical exercises), I can find one where the fingers do nothing except transfer the power of the forearm and/or upper arm to the keyboard. Hanon and many technical exercises do not examine this branch of technique at all, the operation of the arms. Nor do they describe how to distribute the weight of the body in regards to position on the keyboard.

Now, when I say this, I mean that the focus of the exercise is not on the arms, not does the preface usefully describe what to do (Hanon says nothing, as far as I can remember), not that we don't have to or instinctively use the arms during this exercise, but we don't give them the conscious attention they need to develop properly.

So, I guess I'm saying that you will always be in technique-land. This is not a bad thing, if you start thinking of technique as simply the motion aspect of playing. What you are looking for is the point at which you no longer have to consciously examine technique, which may or may not happen (hasn't yet for me, far from it).

[ted]

Bob, you say that if you do not use a technique it will fade. I have not found this to be the case and I do not think it should happen. Although it has taken me a long time to acquire fluency in certain movements, perhaps a very long time with some figures, I find that having once done it, it stays with me. Even if I have not played much, five minutes is usually enough to recall the "trick", if that is the right word.

I wonder if you are needlessly grinding away instead of enjoying your music. There is a difference between enjoyable, productive work and pointless, habitual grind. I work very hard at my music but there's no way I'd do it if I didn't enjoy every minute of it.

[Bob]

Things like octaves.  I haven't been doing those as much and they've faded a bit.  I'm still using my hands in daily life (probably lifting a few too many weights for piano fingers) and that influences those octaves. 

I haven't been doing my finger technique and that has really suffered.  But it is still there waiting to be revived.  I don't think it's going to improve much if I'm not using it.  Things for me don't tend to improve unless I really focus on them.

It can be a grind, but in the long run it pays off nicely with solid technique.  Sometimes a little off in terms of the goal, but I can't argue with the results.  But more of a grind lately, yes.

I have been daydreaming about practicing music again. Either a difficult piece or something easy-medium so I can finish the thing.

[Bob]

I played through some actual music today.  Surprise, surprise.  It's nice to play through some actual music, but... I really noticed that my hands feel a bit creaky lately and if I'm not doing my technical routine, these pieces weren't doing much for my technique at all.  I think that's the main concern. 

These were easy pieces and I was just sight-reading.  I felt like the time was wasted a bit -- The technical routine would have packed so much more in, given me a physical and somewhat mental workout (I'm thinking through some chords and things for part of it, so that does give the mind a workout, drilling things). 

I just can't get my mind around it.  Even if I played these pieces today top-notch/polished performance, they wouldn't have pushed my technique much.

Maybe I need to learn to read better.

If I take a difficult piece, one that will push my technique, it would probably be difficult to read too.  Or I would have to engrain the piece into my hands.  That's a least of a month of "practicing" (whatever it is, drilling a piece into the hands)... at least a month of drilling it in before I might start pushing technique.  And then it's a situation where the body has to adjust -- strain it a bit, allow it to heal, reset the form and ease things... and I have more technique.  At that point, I've got the piece drilled into my hands, so I'm not reading the music anymore.  If I start to push the technique, I'm not working on the musical/expressive side anymore, it's more like I'm bastardizing the piece by just working on technique.  Or if I focus on the musical side... maybe that's it, maybe I'm working on pieces that are too difficult, too far outside my technique.  Because that's where the problem tends to be.  I get bogged down on the piece (maybe a general flaw of bogging down in general, perfecting everything... then notice more minute details and working to perfect those...).  But I would end up taking a piece of music, getting to a point where my technique is pushed, and end up not being able to play the piece well (because I don't have the technique), and end up... I think I was just repeating the piece or push the tempo.  Then end up with a half-ass performance of it.  Which I didn't like of course.  When I would start to focus on technique, my teachers would get upset.  But if I didn't have the raw technique, I could never play the piece.  I'm wondering now if the piece was too far outside what I could develop for technique in the time I would be working on the piece.  I never did much work on voicing or articulation or dynamics... because I couldn't play the notes fast enough.  And that's where things ended.  Teachers upset that I dared to mention technical things a lot.  Me, not happy with the performance of a piece and wondering what was up with my technique.  Then I descended into this years-long search/exploration of technique.  Which I've I think I've explored enough to know what's what.  I haven't mastered everything, but I know how to develop more technique.  There's no end to technique though and it's easy to let my routine go and just keep doing it without focusing on pushing things or having goals. 

I think I've captured something here.  My hands feel so creaky today, but I'm tired.  I think my mind was hinting at the idea that these piece weren't going to give me much more for technique, not the raw speed type of technique.  They could be useful for things like voicing and articulation, no problem in just getting fingers to the notes fast enough.  And they're pieces that could be worked up fairly quickly. 

And maybe there's something to the idea of banging out a more raw-technique-challenging piece.  Drill it in for a month or so, then push it for speed for a time... which would probably be... may a week or so of careful pushing, followed by another week or so of recovery (heal, reset form, ease).  That would be... mabye two months sitting on a piece.  Although once it's drilled in, that piece could be used, just played through... maybe even with plain, raw repetitions... just to push technique.  Add a variety of pieces and that's a different version of a technical routine -- tech routine with literature. 

I suppose that's how the edge is too.  It would just be shifting the focus of what I'm doing now. 


Ah... Another idea that popped into my mind was to do some easier lit work along with a lighter version of my technical routine.  That's another way to go.  Or maybe... some kind of blend... Add a challenging tech piece and delete that part from the routine, replace that tech-focused part of my routine with an actual piece of music. 

And... If learning itself is sloppy.... Then literature learning might be sloppy too.  Time consuming and not quite the straight path that technique can be.  But it IS the goal too, the point of improving technique. 

Which all makes me wonder if maybe my previous teachers had a point when they assigned challenging pieces.  It's just not very satisfying to not develop the technique required to actually finish the piece, or come up to an acceptable level of performance on a piece -- at least notes and rhythms at a tempo close to a performance tempo.

[jgallag]

Bob, it's as if you didn't read what I wrote at all. Music is what we make, technique is how we do it. Ergo, if you are making music, you must be using technique.

You yourself started this thread: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2526.0.html Did you read the advice bernhard posted? If so, did you apply it? His ideas in there are not "simply repetition", which is what you say you are doing whenever you practice an actual piece of music. They're strategic ways to help acquire technique and encourage mindfulness in practice. Or maybe you have the piece to the point where you can play it, and are now looking to make a more satisfying performance out of it? But this is not the impression you give.

Perhaps your hands are creaky because in actual music, they rarely do the same thing at the same time. Exercises, at least the ones I've seen, are absolutely useless for developing an interdependent playing mechanism that can easily handle the complex coordination required in playing the piano. You need to practice music to get good at playing music. Technical exercises are a means to playing actual music, they should never be done in isolation. If you spend an hour on technique, you must spend at least two on actual repertoire. We do not play Hanon for an audience.

Please listen: You will never get to the point, or if you do, it will not be soon, where you can simply sit down and sight read whatever you want because you have an all-encompassing technique. Why bother? None of the great pianists play all music with equal finesse. I get to wondering why you are studying piano at all. I would think it would be because you love music, but then we hear about how you do not practice music, you practice technique. And according to what you say, this technique never gets applied to music. It simply gets practiced and practiced, going days without playing something real, without experiencing the whole point of practicing those technical exercises.

I just don't understand.

[iroveashe]

I don't understand either. What technique? Technique is just the means to produce music; if there is no music, there is no technique. It's like practicing your calligraphy every night writing the full alphabet, you're not learning nor improving your writing, just putting down symbols on a piece of paper.

[Bob]

Physical technique.  Being able to play scale, arpeggios, octaves, etc.  Being able to move the fingers fast enough.  Loud, soft.  Fast, slow.  Being able to handle full chords.  Repeated notes.  That sort of thing.

[Bob]

I don't know if Bernhard ever address what to do when you just can't move your fingers fast enough to play a piece, with the music I mean.  Or how to develop physical technique.  It seemed like there was something missing -- Yes, you plan anything out on paper. 

[iroveashe]

Physical technique.  Being able to play scale, arpeggios, octaves, etc.  Being able to move the fingers fast enough.  Loud, soft.  Fast, slow.  Being able to handle full chords.  Repeated notes.  That sort of thing.

And what exactly is the point of all that if it's not to make music? "Being able to move the fingers fast enough" Fast enough for what? The 'physical' technique is not separated from musicality, take this Glenn Gould quote for example:

"What it all comes down to is that one does not play the piano with one’s fingers; one plays the piano with one’s mind. If you have a clear image of what you want to do, there’s no reason it should ever need reinforcement. If you don’t, all the fine Czerny studies and Hanon exercises in the world aren’t going to help you."

I don't know if Bernhard ever address what to do when you just can't move your fingers fast enough to play a piece, with the music I mean.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2076.msg17157.html#msg17157

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,3371.msg30141.html#msg30141

[Bob]

I separate out physical techniqe.  If I don't focus on it, it tends not to improve.

Bernhard didn't cut it for me for technique.  It's not just a matter of thinking a certain way or doing large movements, practicine in 15 minute chunks.  That's not what I was looking for.

[iroveashe]

I'll ask again because it's still not clear to me: what is the point of technique without a musical goal? And how is it any useful separating physical technique? And how would you know if your technique is improving or not, how do you measure it if it's not «which one produces the most appropriate sound for this particular piece or phrase»? I think what you call technique is simply scales, arpeggios and octaves, and that's just exercises based on common patterns. Your initial question was how to get out of technique-land, jgallag has given you some great advice, but as he said, it's as if you didn't read his posts, so are you sure you want to get out?

[Bob]

Build up technique now, so I can play the music later.  Something like... work on octaves now so when that piece with tricky octaves comes up in the future, I'll be able to play it.  Because during the time I would have available for that octave piece, there wouldn't be enought time to develop more octave technique. 

[iroveashe]

Build up technique now, so I can play the music later.  Something like... work on octaves now so when that piece with tricky octaves comes up in the future, I'll be able to play it.  Because during the time I would have available for that octave piece, there wouldn't be enought time to develop more octave technique. 

As much logical sense as that could make to you, have you actually proved it? How did you come to the conclusion that if you 'build up' technique now and leave the music for later you'll save more time than if you practice both at the same time? Musicality is the most elaborate part to develop, so why not start working on it as soon as possible?

But anyway, back to your original question, you can try some of the suggestions or you can keep practicing octaves with no meaning or clear goal.

[jgallag]

Obviously, I agree with iroveashe.

Bob, we do care. We understand that you're not the only person who thinks this way, although it is different from the norm. We're trying to help, but you resist each of our attempts. You ask to leave technique land, when the answer you're looking for is that you should keep doing what you're doing. That's not the answer we believe in, nor is it the answer we've seen function in the real world. You have all the evidence that you should need to know that you need to change, but you don't want to. It's hard, the first idea that makes sense to you is that you should train your technique in general and then you'll be fine to play whatever. You believe that if you play a piece to mastery but let it go that your technique will atrophy. That's wrong, though. Each piece is individual, and each requires different technique, even if only slightly so. Each composer has different technique. And part of your responsibility as a performer is to maintain each piece in your repertoire if you want to keep it. Each composer has different technique. Your method is like preparing for a marathon by running on a treadmill that you set to different inclines to simulate running up a hill or down. You don't learn to run on real ground except by doing so. A treadmill will not help you keep steady footing when you go off the road. It will not teach you how to avoid roots or recover when you hit a rock. So it is with music. You cannot practice technique in a sterile environment and expect it to still work properly when you take it to a real piece of music with all its unique musical figures. There's only so much you can do unless you regularly apply your technique to actual music.

I have said all I can. I can't help you unless you want to be helped. I'm sorry.

[go12_3]

Bob, you can still learn technique through the pieces you want to learn.  It will be a step forward for you now.  Pick three, not too complicated pieces, that you CAN handle.  I would suggest a piece by Bach.  His music has full of fine technique and you don't have to play fast either.  I mean that each finger pattern you learn is a part of technique and then in time, you will feel more comfortable in the process of learning.  Technique is only a means to get your fingers to warm up, like 10 minutes a day, and then practice the pieces you chose to learn.  Each piece is like a building block and as you learn, each block will stack up higher and higher(like learning a more difficult piece when you have the skill and ability to play) in time.  I hope that you will keep your interest in learning to play piano effectively yet enjoyable also.

best wishes,

go12_3

[rc]

Another way of looking at technique is more of a mindset.  A problem-solving mindset: what is the most effective way to physically produce the sound/idea I'm after?

The problem-solving mindset that can be applied to abstracted patterns or something found in the music (which I'd say we wind up abstracting while practicing anyhow).

As for spending time practicing exercises, I've found it useful.  Time spent on scales/arpeggios, various patterns, various articulation/dynamic/touch - is time well spent as they can be found all over the repertoire, and used in improv if one is so inclined.  It's satisfying to find large parts of a Mozart sonata fit easily under the fingers because the technical work has already been largely done.

Personally, it depends on my life situation at the time too...  If I'm not performing much, I'd rather spend more time on abstracted technique.  If there's a performance on the horizon, I'll be spending more time on repertoire.

In the end it all starts to look the same:  repertoire or technique - both wind up being music practice.

Something that almost never gets mentioned here that I'm enjoying recently is ear training.  Practicing solfege gives a different perspective on pitch, making the sound in our own body and feeling the difference between the pitches is something you don't quite get just by listening.  As pianists we're prone to neglect pitch - the tuner takes care of that for us!

Tried solfege bob?  It's a nice change from the finger-mindedness we can sometimes get stuck in.  I like the idea of developing the ability to look at a score and being able to accurately hear in my head what it's supposed to sound like, or conversely being able to correctly identify pitch relations by ear.

[Bob]

I had another thought.  Just to save them here.  I need to convince my mind of this anyway, which can be tough to do.

Split my practicing.  One section is for developing more technique.  (although developing may mean 'maintaining' too).  The other section is for working on lit that is within my technique.  The focus wouldn't be on technique all, just preparing the music.  And somewhere in there, things might be balanced between not working on technique that is being maintained by lit.  Or taking an overly challenging piece of lit and using that to develop technique.

And it could be a split with both at once, or work on one for awhile and then the other.