Lack of warming up or lack of slow practise?

[nodb]

I learn a piece from the beginning "immediately in the right tempo".
I do this by practising in very, very short segments.

Some days I lost clarity, accuracy, eveness, neatness,..

Is that because my hands are not warm enough? (lack of warming-up exercises?)
Or do you think you must always do slow practise and return to it?

How do you think?

[ramseytheii]

I really think this whole idea, which is very popular on this forum, of learning brand-new music in the tempo at which you will perform is way overrated, and way impractical, and not thought through properly.

It is one of those things that sounds so appealing and simple, like a flat tax or gold standard, that really does much more harm than good.

The argument tends to be that if you play something slowly, you are going to learn motions that you can't use when playing fast.  But that doesn't work on many levels: you can also learn poor motions from trying to play complicated music fast; you can learn poor motions because you aren't advanced enough to physically interpret a certain passage; you can learn poor motions because you are playing with a lot of tension trying to play immediately at speed.

Also, you can learn good motions playing slowly, a fact which tends to be lost on those promoting this method.  They seem to think that all slow practice should happen only after you know everything you are going to do.

Next, this kind of practicing is murder on the listening aspect.  All practicing is not physical.  Your ear is the most important part.  In order for this kind of practice to work, as you said, you have to practice very short sections - I think bernhard used to recommend even two beats at a time.  That is simply outrageous from the point of view of musical continuity, musical line, and general musical thinking.

Sometimes music is so complicated in its layering, that you have to play it slowly at first, to listen.  You have to get a feeling for a whole variety of touches, that if everything is zipping by, you can't do.

Finally, this kind of practicing is in the end irrelevant to the final product.  You will never, and I can say that with ultimate confidence, you will never ever perform a piece, let's say a year after you begin it, in the tempo which you started - even if you say you are starting at performance tempo.

We cannot even fathom the complexity that goes into settling into a personal tempo for a piece.  The tempo you take depends on so many factors: how the sections relate to each other, whether or not there are explicit tempo changes; what character you want to represent; the amount of clarity you are trying to achieve; the rhythmic character.  To suggest that all of this is in place perfectly in your mind before you have even felt the piece is frankly laughable.  You have to grow into the tempo for a piece, by considering the whole piece, not by playing little bits and pieces and trying to scotch tape them together.

I need an aspirin.

Walter Ramsey

[nodb]

I appreciate your great ideas. Thank you a lot!

I don't expect always a reaction, because for some are my questions evident or stupid.
But...
What about "returning" to slow practise? A must?

[birba]

I think Ramseytheii put it brilliantly in a nutshell.  I had no idea there existed such a method of study.  When you're learning to speak, do you start speaking normally in short spurts?  When you're learning to shoot a bow and arrow, do you immediately draw the bow as if you had been doing it for years?  If you're a singer and learning a new role, do you sing in voice up to speed?!  Of course not.  All the muscles and tendons and whatever else in your arms hands and body you use to play, have to learn the coordination at a slower speed.  Maybe my starting speed is slower than yours and faster than another's, but it's still a "learning" speed.  And even after a piece is up to speed, you will probably have to return to the learning speed, to fix up fast passage work, to study the memory, to loosen tightened up muscles, etc.  Michelangeli almost ALWAYS practised slow.  Not slow, automaton practising, but slow motion practising.  All the intentions, colors and articulations in slow motion.  A friend of mine heard him working on the last movement of the funeral march sonata.  Extremely slow, but with all the different nuances of ppp to FF.  If it was good enough for him, it's alright for me.
My teacher, who was a student of Emil von Sauer and Breithaupt, said for every time you play it fast, practise it 100 times slow.  Impossible, of course, but you get the idea.

[interpolatingmadman]

I agree with Birba.  I cannot imagine successfully tackling a demanding new score at tempo, even in short sections.  For instance, I just started rehearsals for Strauss' "Elektra" today, and the piano-vocal score of this work is incredibly difficult to play.  Even though I had already learned the score a few years ago for another production, I *still* had to take it apart and start at very slow tempi to get the piece back within my muscle-memory and instant recall.  

Another example: I recently learned the Bach Italian Concerto, and there is no way I could have learned the 3rd movement by playing it up-to-speed from the beginning.  Perhaps there is someone out there who CAN do that, but I cannot.  That would have been a massive exercise in frustration for me.    

However, to answer the OP's original question, which was:

"Is that because my hands are not warm enough? (lack of warming-up exercises?)"

I would say that the answer is "No," that is NOT the reason for lost clairty, accuracy, evenness, etc.  To the contrary, I think it's simply because you don't know the notes!     Another personal example with my "Elektra" rehearsals that started today:  At times, the score is so dense and complicated that the only way to get through it accurately is to know in advance where the musical line is headed: how the harmonies are about to change, how those polyrhythms are about to resolve or grow more complicated, where the singers' lines are headed. . . and there is simply no way to know those things by cracking open the new score and playing it at-tempo and hoping for the best.

Besides, the arguments from the "no slow practice" faction don't actually sound very convincing, do they??  I mean, I wonder what my musical director at the opera house would say if I said some day, "I just don't believe in slow, below-tempo practice, so I won't be doing any."  Hmm. . .

[sashaco]

As Walter Ramsey said, laughable.  It completely excludes your ears from the learning process.  In my experience, if I rush moving to a faster tempo, realize that I can't hear well enough at that speed yet and then go back, the result is very disappointing.  Once you become too accustomed to a quicker tempo, your ears become bored at a slower tempo, and the useful practice you could have done is much harder to achieve.  It is far more satisfying only to raise the tempo when the piece somehow demands it of you.  To start at what you imagine your final tempo will be?  Goofy!

By the way, I used to teach tennis and squash.  I would love to have someone who advocates this method come out for a tennis lesson.  I'll cheerfully whack a few 110mph serves at them and see how quickly they blossom into players.

With hilarity, Sasha

[rmbarbosa]

There is a thing named "to walk". And another one named "to run". If I walk, my mouvements are quite diferent of those when I run.
So, if I play slow and try to increment gradually the speed, it is quite possible I go to a "speed wall". Because the mouvements are diferent.
I think we must try to play with the real speed of a piece and, after, play slower. This is not a "modern" idea.Malwine Brée, a pupil of Theodor Leschetizky and his assistant (<>1880!) said: "take up one measure, two measures, or at most a phrase, analyze it harmonically and determine the fingering and pedalling. Observe, however, that rapid passages must be tried rapidly, because fingering and pedalling might be suitable in slow tempo and not in fast. Determine them, therefore, in the given tempo, only then returning to the slow study of the piece.
See, also, Mr. C. Chang.
Rui

[ted]

I have found fast playing of small sections very useful, but only for lengthy passages of a repeated, difficult movement which has already been learned. I find it to work like magic there. As a general learning process ? No, as with several posters here, slow playing works better for me. It also has a curious application in improvisation where "microsleeps" in rapid playing in one hand coincide with melody or phrase in the other, producing the aural illusion of continuous movement in both hands, greatly increasing rhythmic interest and preventing tension as well. I dare say this latter fortuitous discovery has no connection at all with what Chang and those others were talking about though.  

[lostinidlewonder]

In practice we should study our pieces both at tempo and also slowed down. Parts that can be played at tempo should be done so, if it is easy enough for us to do it then do it, don't waste your time playing it slowly if you do not need it. However we know the parts which cause us to hesitate with our fingering/notes and when we practice it is the fingering and correct notes that we are at first most interested in and which cannot be wrong.

Most people have inefficient movements in their hands while playing slow or fast so it doesn't matter which speed they play it, what is important is that we pinpoint the cause of the problem and solve it. Approaching this slowly is usually the best but more developed pianists can practice everything at a faster tempo and still appreciate the change. When you play more technically challenging pieces however we have a natural tendency for playing with tension as our conscious observation and muscular response will have challenges which do not allow the music to flow as it should when it's mastered. Thus a slower tempo is the only solution to be able to practice passages with efficient technique.

The problem with playing slowly is that we may be allowed to do small inefficiencies and get away with it (thus knowing what is good technique is essential and being able to discern the small difference between right and wrong), another problem is also that playing slowly may cause us to lose what we are listening to. It can be more challenging to hear the music you are playing when you play at slow tempo, thus it is important to re-enforce that you know what part of the phrase you are practicing and the context of all the notes.

Controlled pausing is also a handy tool to use when practicing pieces at tempo, you may pause as long as you want intermittently or at end or phrases, movement groups (when the hands have to move position) or whatever drill interests and works for you. From these pauses you may gather your thoughts and measure where your hands must move before doing so, when you are ready you move immediately as if there where no pause. Repeating these controlled pauses then removing them can act as a catalyst to our muscular memory.

If you can play small sections at tempo but have difficulties moving to the next part then you must study the movement groups, that is when your hands have to move to a new position. Simply work on the parts which connect the movement. Some people always start at the beginning of one phrase then connect it to another, it is too slow and wastes time. Practicing as close as you can to your difficulties, but not too close as to make hearing the musical context of what you play obscured.

[timothy42b]

As Walter Ramsey said, laughable. 

Not laughable, but also not the only tool in the kit. 

I would hardly call it popular.  The topic is occasionally raised, often derided, and out yelled about ten to one by the slow practice crowd, who take it as a moral precept that slow is the only way to pay your dues such that some day you'll be rewarded with righteousness, salvation, and possibly skill.  If I seem harsh, it is for two reasons.  The slow crowd misses the very real advantages of fast play in those circumstances where it works, and the slow crowd defends its dogma with an unreasoning fervor I find annoying.  There is a real element of magic in this defense - if you play it slowly long enough you will deserve results, and you will be rewarded.  In fact we see many people who play slowly for years, and only learn to play slowly better. 

Would you ever risk playing hands separate?  Same issue.   

Personally I have found some pieces that I can only learn slowly, and some in which I can only progress by doing short segments very fast.  I need both tools in my kit.  But that's because I don't have all the skills learned yet.  The people who advocate slow practice the most strongly generally have learned the technique they need, and are working on the piece.  If you need to advance your technique to finish the piece, you generally can't do it slowly. 

I would love to have someone who advocates this method come out for a tennis lesson.  I'll cheerfully whack a few 110mph serves at them and see how quickly they blossom into players.

I tell you what.  I'll return your 110 mph serve for a winner, and will risk a substantial side bet on the test.  I only have one condition:  you must toss your ball in slow motion. 

Can't do it? 

Same thing with piano.  You can't learn to play fast without going fast.  Sooner or later you have to speed up, and when you do you find much of the slow practice was wasted. 

[ramseytheii]

There is a thing named "to walk". And another one named "to run". If I walk, my mouvements are quite diferent of those when I run.

This is exactly what I am talking about.  Proponents of "playing fast immediately" always assume that the movements are inherently different in slow and fast playing.  But it just isn't true.  You can just as easily learn poor, inefficient, wasted movements in fast playing as you can in slow.  All that matters is if you understand the technical principles involved.  If you do, it doesn't matter what speed you play at.  It also doesn't matter, in general, what fingering you use.

So, if I play slow and try to increment gradually the speed, it is quite possible I go to a "speed wall". Because the mouvements are diferent.

I disagree.  Playing the piano requires a repertoire of movements which is frankly limited.  They are combined in infinite ways, but there are only a few technical principles you need to know in order to move around the keyboard.

Also, nobody said anything about gradually incrementing speed.  Playing slow is often necessary for physical, aural and mental comprehension.  But I notice that is never mentioned in the "fast immediately" school - they only talk about movement, movement, movement.

I think we must try to play with the real speed of a piece and, after, play slower. This is not a "modern" idea.Malwine Brée, a pupil of Theodor Leschetizky and his assistant (<>1880!) said: "take up one measure, two measures, or at most a phrase, analyze it harmonically and determine the fingering and pedalling. Observe, however, that rapid passages must be tried rapidly, because fingering and pedalling might be suitable in slow tempo and not in fast. Determine them, therefore, in the given tempo, only then returning to the slow study of the piece.
See, also, Mr. C. Chang.
Rui

I have "modern" ideas on fingering, which renders a lot of fingering analysis unnecessary.  In this, I follow the school of a pupil of Theodor Leschetizky, Artur Schnabel, who applied fingering based on the musical phrase, not the relation to motion in fast or slow tempi.

Also, "real speed" further confirms my thesis that this approach is unmusically based.  Tempi can evolve so much while we learn a piece, and I don't mean in metronome clicks.  Tempo is about the relation of phrases to each other, and the relation of groups of phrases to each other, and the relation of sets of groups to other sets of groups.  It is a tight-rope balancing act.

Starting out a piece at what you think is the real tempo, and I guarantee you will eventually prove yourself wrong, is also bad because you don't know how the piece is going to breathe.  It is much better to start a piece trying to figure out how is it put together - how does it progress/develop - what is the relation between this part and that part - in short, what is the balance of all the elements.  This can be done at any tempo - and you should be able to do it both fast and slow.

My teacher used to tell me, if you can't play it slow, you can't play it fast.  Do those who propose to learn things "at tempo" (even though I believe that is impossible because you don't know the final tempo until you know the whole piece) believe that a fast piece can never be played slowly?

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

 

I tell you what.  I'll return your 110 mph serve for a winner, and will risk a substantial side bet on the test.  I only have one condition:  you must toss your ball in slow motion. 

Can't do it? 

Same thing with piano.  You can't learn to play fast without going fast.  Sooner or later you have to speed up, and when you do you find much of the slow practice was wasted. 

Can you toss a ball in slow motion?  Apparently not.  But those who learn to serve, learn without a ball, and they practice with the racket alone, in slow motion. 

The same with golf, they practice their stroke without a ball, and in slow motion.

Ultimately practice must be based in the essence of the activity.  In music, it must be musical.  Those who propose practicing a piece "at tempo" (which I believe to be impossible because our conception of tempo changes as we study a piece more and more, even if it ends up in a similar metronome click) rarely if ever mention this.  They talk about motions, about how you will never learn to move fast by moving slow, about how you will play differently one way than the other, etc.

But what about musical comprehension?  It is strange to assume that motion alone provides the key to musical comprehension.  Thick contrapuntal textures are hardly ever based on physical prowess; strange, fast moving-harmonies must be heard in all their colors to speak; a combination of specific touches moving quickly by has to be fully understood and felt.

Ultimately we must practice musically.  We can't play slow in order to build up speed, click by click, and we can't play fast assuming that we can put together a piece literally arm or hand or finger movement by movement.  Comprehension is what matters.

Walter Ramsey

[jcabraham]

I really think this whole idea, which is very popular on this forum, of learning brand-new music in the tempo at which you will perform is way overrated, and way impractical, and not thought through properly.

It is one of those things that sounds so appealing and simple, like a flat tax or gold standard, that really does much more harm than good.

Wow, I've rarely heard the slow practice argument better stated.

[timothy42b]

Wow, I've rarely heard the slow practice argument better stated.

"Does more harm than good" is not an argument, merely an unsupported assertion.

We can't play slow in order to build up speed, click by click, and we can't play fast assuming that we can put together a piece literally arm or hand or finger movement by movement.

I agree with this.  Slow practice is harmful to the extent it is linked with the incremental speedup process.  In most people's mind this linkage is inextricable.  But if you separate the two, no problem.  I think both sides of this argument are guilty of not distinguishing between the two ideas. 

Slow practice, good.  Fast practice, good.  Incremental speedup, bad bad bad. 

[sashaco]

Timothy,
This is an irrelevant, but amusing irony.  The toss on a tennis serve is precisely that- slow motion. The ball must be gently lifted into a precise position to render it as motionless as possible when struck.  The hardest fault to correct is the quick toss.  I offer this merely to amuse, not to refute your argument, which I cheerfully admit, makes some sense.  Sasha

[jcabraham]

"Does more harm than good" is not an argument, merely an unsupported assertion.

I thought his whoe post was the argument, but I did not want to quote the entire thing. BTW, your post is (also), almost in its entirety, unsupported assertions, strictly speaking.

[timothy42b]

  The toss on a tennis serve is precisely that- slow motion.

Ah...........while irrelevant as you suggest, I don't agree. 

I'm trying to speak precisely here, perhaps too precisely.

The arm motion is slow, but not slow motion.  (It is ballistic not steered.  IMO.  )  I would agree that an observer would say the arm part of the toss is moving slowly.

The toss is not slow.  The toss is at full speed - at whatever velocity is necessary to rise to the desired height.  I can prove that, whether mathematically or through video.  You just can't do it any other way.  And you can't learn it any other way.  You have to throw it hard enough to get it high enough. 

(Tennis teachers continue to advise throwing it barely high enough, and continue to allege that all the pros throw it too high.  That makes a great deal of sense but convinces few of the top players.) 

[sashaco]

Timothy,
Not "slow motion" in the sense that it is not slower than in actual play?  Sure. Of course the ball must actually leave your hand.  But nobody's advocating playing slowly in a concert anyway.  As Ramsey pointed out, you need to be able to make an accurate slow swing to make a quick one. 
It is entirely absurd, as you say, when teachers make assertions that the best in a field commonly do something "wrong."  I've  observed this in several areas and it never fails to amuse.
By the way, unless you can really play, most genuine tennis players could probably serve an untossed ball-  a ball that does not rise above the height of their hand (your definition of slo-mo)- that you would struggle to return.  It would require an extremely odd-looking motion, but could be easily done.
"Ah..... " is entirely unneccessary, and meant to be offensive.  Why bother with it? You're making nice points without that sort of thing.  Ciao, sasha

[timothy42b]

As Ramsey pointed out, you need to be able to make an accurate slow swing to make a quick one.

He may have pointed it out, that doesn't make it true.  But that's really not the assertion, is it?  The claim is that practicing the slow swing will give you the ability to make a quick one.  That is not my experience relative to piano.  When I speed up, I hit a point where I fall apart.  That is the point where I have to learn something that the slow practice did not teach. 

 

It is entirely absurd, as you say, when teachers make assertions that the best in a field commonly do something "wrong."  I've  observed this in several areas and it never fails to amuse.

In the old days, tennis coaches used to advise throwing the ball high to give you more time to hit it.  In more modern days, tennis coaches say to throw it barely high enough, so that it is stopped or moving slowly when you hit it, allowing more room for error.  Yet many of the greats (Lendl, for example) continued doing it the "wrong" way.  What should happen is that we think about the disconnect and try to resolve it, there's clearly an opportunity being lost here.  But as you suggest, the "experts" are often pretty sure they have a lock on ultimate truth.  Sometimes they're right, sometimes not. 

By the way, unless you can really play, most genuine tennis players could probably serve an untossed ball-  a ball that does not rise above the height of their hand (your definition of slo-mo)- that you would struggle to return.

 

Certainly.  I worked on that myself years back when I used to play.  I could serve very nearly as fast out of my hand as with a toss.  (I theorized that not tossing would remove a source of inconsistency.)  Of course neither of my serves were good enough to beat anybody! 

[sashaco]

We should probably avoid turning this into a tennis site, but I'm always fascinated by the overlaps and lacunae between different areas of learning. 
The high toss is really neccessary for many top players, who take a very deep knee bend that both requires more time to accomplish and launches them far higher than the ordinary player would be capable of going, both for reasons of strength and coordination. (Monster sentence.)  Lendl was an extreme case, without even an exceptional knee bend or shoulder rotation.  An excellent reminder that technique ought always be in the service of results, rather than the absurd moral obligation many make it.   When most players use a high toss, the result is a loss of fluidity, since they have no useful (or continuous) preparation to make as the ball is in the air, and they set themselves a difficult problem in timing.  They will not be solving that problem with the thousands of hours Ivan used to devote to practice.
What I find, and this is why I'm persuaded by Walter, is that even when the movements I have learned at a slow speed fail to serve at a quicker one, the gains in listening FAR outweigh the lost time in relearning more compact movements. Each time I do relearn, I believe (yes, I can't prove it) that I become a little better at forseeing blocks of the kind you describe in future pieces.

Timothy, I am finding much of what you  say very persuasive IF we regard the music as a technical problem to be surmounted.  I am not nearly as experienced a pianist as I'm sure you are, but again and again I find that when I STOP thinking about a difficult bar or passage as a technical problem and try to hear the music, the technical problems resolve themselves.  (There's one darn bar in the Chopin Barcarolle for which this has not been true at all, but even there I have hopes that when I have a fuller understanding of the tempo in the previous bar good things will happen.)

Timothy, I apologize for snapping at you about your "Ah.."  I'm disappointed by the many folks on the site who treat discussion as an opportunity for scoring cheap rhetorical points, and even more by those who indulge in trash talking and name-calling I'm sure they would be too timid to try in person.  You are not at all playing either of those games, and I was over sensitive.

Cheers, Sasha 

[timothy42b]

What I find, and this is why I'm persuaded by Walter, is that even when the movements I have learned at a slow speed fail to serve at a quicker one, the gains in listening FAR outweigh the lost time in relearning more compact movements.


Cheers, Sasha 

I will admit to sometimes becoming overly aggressive on this topic, and it's due largely to some vituperation over on one of the trombone forums. 

I don't believe fast practice is the only way to work.  In theory you could learn the whole piece at tempo two notes at a time, then three, etc.  And of course I've tried it, but not been very successful. 

Nor have I been successful starting very slowly and speeding up.  It's taken a combination of both. 

But I want to key in on what you said about listening.  I've recently read the Gieseking book, and he makes the point repeatedly that pianists fail to learn to listen, and that one of the major tasks of a teacher should be to teach listening.  I have to agree with you, I cannot listen carefully at speed.  And that means I don't have the feedback loop to really adjust the technique with precision.  I want to be able to listen faster, and assume that I'll get there someday, but right now I have to slow way down to hear.  So I use the slow practice to hear, and speed work in small chunks to work on a technique or coordination issue I'm having trouble with.

With brass playing, learning to listen is an underappreciated element of producing good tone.  You need a clear mental concept of the desired output, you need to hear what you're doing, and then you need to somehow adjust.    Problem is, getting that mental concept in your brain interferes with hearing what comes out of your bell.  I speculate that the biggest difference between the prodigy and the rest of us is they learn to hear themselves faster. 

One of my big objections to the dogmatic mantra "slow is always better" is that it depends on magical thinking, and I consider that, philosophically, extremely dangerous.  That doesn't mean it won't sometimes work - it just means it offends me personally.  So I apologize for occasionally making the case too strongly. 

A tennis story:  I used to play after work (night shift at a hospital) with a colleague.  He was much more skilled, I was much more fit, we always had fun.  It always amused me that he stood way back for my first serve, moved way up for my second.  He'd been well trained, he knew that was correct strategy.  He never realized I served exactly the same both times!  If you serve such that 75% go in, you'll double fault 1/16, and don't need to learn two serves.  I never told him, he might have changed his tactics. 

[sashaco]

I think it very likely that the chief element in the make-up of a prodigy is  listening, both to their own play, and to others'.  Like exceptional athletes, they somehow "get" what matters quicker, and it's this that accelerates them more than greater "ability."  (Or is that merely what all "ability is?)

I'm not conviced by the "magical thinking" argument.  A teacher once told me she could feel me "counting like mad" during a long quiet chord.  "Just listen to the chord," she said, "and it will tell you when to move on."  I tried it, and, like magic, it worked.  Of course I had acquired listening skills I was unaware of, and  the decay of the chord was familiar to me from many hundreds of others, so that the moment to move was "rationally" arrived at.  That rational process, though, was too intricate to articulate.  I think much of music works like this.  Think of the physical complexity of a "good" tone on a brass instrument (about which, of course, you know far mor than I).  The mathematics of the sound waves in the air alone would require a good chunk of pencil work to be expressed, let alone the contact between lip and metal, vibration of the bell and so forth.  It's actually remarkable that our minds, armed with a fairly simple listening device, can distinguish between various instruments so easily, let alone between good and bad tone.  Have you read about the sonar operators who could identify copper in a ship's hull?  I don't believe they have yet determined what in the tone-package allowed them to do this.  That doesn't mean I think it's magic, the answer could be found if enough time is devoted to it.  Think of how easily we can understand a Scot, or a Malawian , speaking English.  Every word they say is very different from our version of the word but we are able to judge the distances between their vowels and consonants and recognize equivalent differentiation in our own.  "Like" magic, but of course not magic.  (I believe, and I have lived in places where most people believe in magic, that this is how "real" magic itself works, rather than the other way around, although I've encountered evidence against this thesis.)  Processes may be inaccessible without being magical.  Isn't this the "somehow" you italicize?
I recognize the holier-than-thou moral attatchment to slow practice  lampooned above, but that's simply a human failing.  That sort of self-centeredness can detract from music in a thousand ways- it is not exclusive to slow practice.  I certainly can't imagine that it gives any impetus to Walter in making his argument.

On a lighter note ( and one I know a hell of a lot more about)  real competitive tennis players respond instantly to their opponents' play (e.g. two identical serves).  Weak players and weak competitors are caught up in their own problems (why am I not hitting the ball like I was yesterday) instead of focusing on what their opponent does, and how to take advantage of it.  The problem with two identical serves with a 75% chance of success is that in tennis all points are not equal.  In squash you count points up to 11, and when you have 11 you win- all points count the same.  In tennis, because of deuce scoring, some points are crucial, and some matter not at all.  If I'm serving at 40-0, I'm not too worried about  the outcome of that point.  On a crucial point, say 30-40 serving, it is wise to have a bigger serve with a lower chance of success, as long as you have a back-up with a 98% chance.  I'm not even taking into account the myriad mental factors at work on both sides of the net, although the most obvious is that a player faced with identical serves will become extremely comfortable with the return.  I could spin the ramifications out for pages, and never cover them all, but there are 17 year-olds who somehow grasp them and internalize them even though they can't express them.  OOps, getting serious again.

Probably very self centered of me to write at such length.  Cheers, Sasha

[timothy42b]

I could spin the ramifications out for pages, and never cover them all, but there are 17 year-olds who somehow grasp them and internalize them even though they can't express them. 

And the difference is real time.  My unhurried analysis of my and my opponent's abilities are why I evolved these tactics.  On the amateur level you don't have to hit a winner.  If you get it back to your opponent he WILL screw up.  My opponent could have also done an unhurried analysis of my serve and come back the next week with the correct response.

What neither he nor I were good at is coming up with the strategy in real time, when it counts.  That's the other thing that separates the great athletes and musicians from the unwashed masses, the speed of unconscious analysis. 

[sashaco]

Timothy, I'm a bit confused - I thought you were objecting to the concept of unconscious analysis, that you regarded it as a form of "magical thinking."  If I got that wrong I wrote a rather silly post, probably silly anyway.

Walter, I'm wondering what you think, since my impression is that you see slow practice as enabling conscious analysis more than the magical sort.  Am I reading poorly again?

Sasha

[slow_concert_pianist]

There have been numerous superficial agressive comments against my recording in the auditions section. Though these are almost exclusively an attack on the performer/recording rather than the performance per se, some may debate (correctly) that lack of slow practice has had an effect.

As the performer/practician has to account for, execute and visualise the music, intent and technical requirement of a work/score. Many performers here have demonstrated a good observance of the detail, and though I have heard no evidence of "higher technique", the standard of overal technical ability is generally high. Comprehending the music and composers intent has generally been poor.

I believe this is the result of slow practice and benchmarking to a particularly performer's standard. Most here, it seems to me, try to replicate their favoured performer rather than trying to connect with the composer through interpretation. To do this I suggest a dual approach in practice. Slow practice is the only way (in my opinion) to overcome technical hurdles. Fast practice is the only way to "feel" where the project sits as a blueprint. As technical development improves the blueprint will evolve and come clearer. It is that "stepped" approach of fast then slow practice that will lead you to a finished product that is exclusively yours and not some "poor copy".

And if Perfect Pitch and the other sychophants have anything to add, you only reinforce your own arrogance. For if I am not "better than you" you must be saying you are "better than me" unless you consider my performance standard so superior (but nowhere near concert standard - oxymoron?) in comparison to your own. Of course, if that were the case why would you comment at all unless out of general maliciousness and spite?

[pianisten1989]

There have been numerous superficial agressive comments against my recording in the auditions section. Though these are almost exclusively an attack on the performer/recording rather than the performance per se, some may debate (correctly) that lack of slow practice has had an effect.

As the performer/practician has to account for, execute and visualise the music, intent and technical requirement of a work/score. Many performers here have demonstrated a good observance of the detail, and though I have heard no evidence of "higher technique", the standard of overal technical ability is generally high. Comprehending the music and composers intent has generally been poor.

I believe this is the result of slow practice and benchmarking to a particularly performer's standard. Most here, it seems to me, try to replicate their favoured performer rather than trying to connect with the composer through interpretation. To do this I suggest a dual approach in practice. Slow practice is the only way (in my opinion) to overcome technical hurdles. Fast practice is the only way to "feel" where the project sits as a blueprint. As technical development improves the blueprint will evolve and come clearer. It is that "stepped" approach of fast then slow practice that will lead you to a finished product that is exclusively yours and not some "poor copy".

And if Perfect Pitch and the other sychophants have anything to add, you only reinforce your own arrogance. For if I am not "better than you" you must be saying you are "better than me" unless you consider my performance standard so superior (but nowhere near concert standard - oxymoron?) in comparison to your own. Of course, if that were the case why would you comment at all unless out of general maliciousness and spite?

and what's your point? That you have an original interpretation, while the rest of us just copy whatever we hear?

[prongated]

And if Perfect Pitch and the other sychophants have anything to add, you only reinforce your own arrogance. For if I am not "better than you" you must be saying you are "better than me" unless you consider my performance standard so superior (but nowhere near concert standard - oxymoron?) in comparison to your own. Of course, if that were the case why would you comment at all unless out of general maliciousness and spite?

What, Perfect Pitch is arrogant because he's better than you at the piano and makes further comments? What does that make YOU, who seems to think your approach is by far superior to everybody else's? Stop trolling the forum with gibberish comments and recordings, put your head together, and go practise the piano! It's for your own good!

[jinfiesto]

Hmmm, I may be a special case, but I never warm up. I play scales in the keys of the pieces I'm playing, but not at the beginning of my practice session or any such thing.

Also, I very rarely play my music at speed. In fact, I mostly use the piano as a tool to help me memorize the notes, and to solve technical issues that aren't second nature. The rest of my work gets done in my head. I find this method to be much more efficient than sitting at the instrument mindlessly playing the same thing over and over again.

To me, the key to effective practice is mindful practice. At some point, I think you lose that by just sitting in front of the instrument and playing notes. To me, practice must include analysis, and what I call "sound imaging".

[timothy42b]

Timothy, I'm a bit confused - I thought you were objecting to the concept of unconscious analysis, that you regarded it as a form of "magical thinking."  Sasha

Oh.  No, I explained poorly.

Certainly much of technique is not obvious or conscious, and we can make progress by some kind of unconscious analysis or intuition.  Sometimes keeping the end result as a goal can get you there even though you can't consciously figure how.  Inner Game of Tennis doesn't always work, and doesn't ever work for some people, but can be a route at times. 

But what I mean by magical thinking is something very different.  It is the belief that we influence the world in some non cause-and-effect way.  Basically, superstition.  We improve through slow practice not because there are some quantifiable, analyzable advantages, but because we have done the "right thing," stored up karma, and now are owed results.  Pay your dues.  Is there an easier way?  Horrors! No, gotta pay your dues.  Fred did it that way and he succeeded, so you will too.  Etc. 

[brogers70]

Trying to learn at tempo never works for me, even in small chunks. I start HS at a fairly slow tempo and learn the notes. Then jump to a much faster tempo and see where things break down. Then work on the motions that are causing trouble. Then when HS is OK even a bit faster than the final tempo I start hands together. Very slow a few times, then jump to final tempo and pay attention to where things fall apart or feel uncomfortable. What I don't do is try to ramp the tempo up gradually. For whatever reason that just increases the tension to the point that nothing works. It easier to jump around practicing at very different tempi than to increment. And you can stay interested because you think about different things at the diffrent tempi. At high speeds the fun is in how your body feels playing at high speed. At slow tempi you can really pay attention to all the voices. So I agree with whoever said that fast practice and slow practice were both good but that incremental speeding up was bad.

[perfect_pitch]

There have been numerous superficial agressive comments against my recording in the auditions section. Though these are almost exclusively an attack on the performer/recording rather than the performance per se, some may debate (correctly) that lack of slow practice has had an effect.

No... Technically they were attacks against the performer simply because:

1) He does not seem to take on any advice on how to improve his future recordings and develop better practice habits
2) Usually the performances are of a fairly sh*t quality with little (or in some cases) no control over what the performer is playing and lacks, dynamics, timing, rhythm and any capability to HEAR THESE INADEQUACIES!

Some may debate that lack of slow practice has had an effect??? Then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND PRACTICE SLOWER AND STEADIER!!!

Many performers here have demonstrated... /// ... Comprehending the music and composers intent has generally been poor.

Well... it was higher - until you came along.

To do this I suggest a dual approach in practice. Slow practice is the only way (in my opinion) to overcome technical hurdles. Fast practice is the only way to "feel" where the project sits as a blueprint. As technical development improves the blueprint will evolve and come clearer. It is that "stepped" approach of fast then slow practice that will lead you to a finished product that is exclusively yours and not some "poor copy".

You suggest it... but you sure as hell don't do it. And I'd like to add - we forum members aren't a bunch of barrel monkeys who try and copy our favourite pianists mate... you're stepping on a lot of toes here, without the ability to defend it.

And if Perfect Pitch and the other sychophants have anything to add, you only reinforce your own arrogance. For if I am not "better than you" you must be saying you are "better than me"

Well we take better care in uploading a more rounder performance that has a higher emotional AND technical quality - plus we listen to the wise words that many are generous to give so that we may improve our pianistic ability.

unless you consider my performance standard so superior (but nowhere near concert standard - oxymoron?) in comparison to your own.

AAAAAHHHHH HAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAAAAA.....

Oh wait... you were being serious?!? Let me laugh even harder...

Of course, if that were the case...

BELIEVE ME... It isn't the case!!! And in saying that...

CASE CLOSED!!!