Why Hands Separate?

[doctor_ivory]

I know that most instructors (mine included) recommend that their students learn a piece hands separate (HS) and then hands together (HT).  I am just wondering why, because I have found that doing this has no appreciable benefit.  I find that after learning HS, trying to play HT is almost as difficult as it would have been had I just learned HT in the first place.  I know this because I always try to sight-read a piece initially before learning it.  I have further found that learning the score HT in the first place usually allows you to play the score HS.

Recently I have taken to just learning pieces HT and only resorted to practising HS when I need to clean a passage up, memorize the piece, or just work out some tricky aspect of a particular passage. Personally, I find this method far more rewarding musically and it seems to save time.

Obviously everyone learns slightly different but, seriously, what is the appeal of learning HS?  Can someone please help me understand. 

[gyzzzmo]

Some students tend to play the left hand sloppier than the right. Hence playing it seperate sometimes, so theyre forced to concentrate on it.

[sheena]

It's useful when you work at speed. The speed of hands separate play will always be faster than hands togehter. The best way to increase the speed of HT is to increase the top speed of HS.

You can work on technical problems HS without having to think about the coordination beetween the two hands. The muscle memory is mostly established during hands together practise so if you make lots of mistakes HT they can be hard to erase once incoroprated in the muscle memory.

In counterpoint music I find it essential since you get a much better understanding of how each voice goes and it makes the coordination problem easier to master if you first know HS really well.

Of cource, if there are no technical problems whatsoever, most of the time you could skip HS and go straight to HT.

[rmbarbosa]

In order to achieve a good technique, HS is mandatory. You may concentrate in what each hand is doing and how she is doing. You may ear the tone, wich is very important. You may search the musical expression of each phrase, etc...
Nevertheless, there are some exceptions. But they are very few.

[stevebob]

I agree with sheena and rmbarbosa.

One of the most important things I got from C.C. Chang's Fundamentals of Piano Practice was a better understanding of the benefits of HS practice, the mechanics of how and why it works, and how to maximize its effectiveness through "parallel sets" at high speed.

Because any number of amateur pianists do try to bypass HS learning altogether, I think this is an important point to make and to emphasize.  Some people believe HS shouldn't be necessary once one is beyond the rudiments of piano study and even that it reflects a regressive, inefficient or immature approach.  In my opinion and in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

[doctor_ivory]

I think some people are misunderstanding me.  My question is why is it necessary to learn a piece hands separate; that is to say, you have decided you want to learn a Beethoven Bagatelle for instance, so you learn the RH and LH separately first and only then do you start practising HS. 
Now, obviously, if you are trying to overcome some specific technical challenge, isolate a voice, or trying to memorize a score, then HS is indispensable.  By why should it be needed when first learning a piece?

[nanabush]

Well obviously some parts of pieces are sight readable hands together...

"if you are trying to overcome some specific technical challenge, isolate a voice, or trying to memorize a score, then HS is indispensable" ....

That pretty much sums up why you'd want to start a piece hands separately.

I'm just starting the Prelude and the Gigue from the Bach G minor English Suite.   I don't think I'd be doing myself a favor learning either of those hands together (even though there isn't a technical hurdle in either of these).  In the Gigue especially, I would not be giving close care to the left hand fingering and would probably end up having lots of awkward jumps and a huge lack of legato.

That's one of many examples why I'd personally not jump into a piece hands together; but, if I were to take something like an easier Chopin Prelude for example, then that would be a case where I'd be very comfortable learning hands together at the start.


It really depends on the piece, but there's no universal YES or NO whether you should learn pieces hands separately.

Another example would be the Fantasie Impromptu; some n00bs try starting that piece hands together with a bad understanding of poly-rhythms.  If they were to try each hand on their own, and understand with a metronome the pacing for each hand, and where they'd be playing at the same time, then they just might not say "holy sh!t" at measure 1.

I don't know, some people I know say "what's the point in learning the piece twice, when you can do it once hands together"... that kind of hints they want to get the piece over with, and think just doing it once will get them through it. 

Those people need to consider that learning it "just once" will probably take about as long as "having to do the piece twice", if not longer.  Getting through it with only the right hand lets you focus just on that... why would you add the left hand when you haven't seen what the right hand is throwing at you.

that example is purely hypothetical... and again, I'm not saying you need to play Jingle Bells hands separately  ; but, in the long run, if you figure all of the basics out and not just start sight reading super sloppy hands together, then the end product will probably sound much better.


My long posts always turn into rant-form and at points probably don't come out very clearly 

[stevebob]

I think some people are misunderstanding me.  My question is why is it necessary to learn a piece hands separate; that is to say, you have decided you want to learn a Beethoven Bagatelle for instance, so you learn the RH and LH separately first and only then do you start practising HS. 
Now, obviously, if you are trying to overcome some specific technical challenge, isolate a voice, or trying to memorize a score, then HS is indispensable.  By why should it be needed when first learning a piece?

I didn't misunderstand you at all, and I didn't sense that the posters with whom I agreed did either.  I think that first learning a piece is all about overcoming technical challenges, and that's the whole point.

In a nutshell, acquiring the technique—i.e., learning the motions—to play challenging pieces (or passages within pieces) is accomplished most efficiently and effectively by HS study because the brain isn't burdened with coordination of both hands simultaneously.  All brainpower is dedicated to what just one hand is doing, and focus and concentration are immensely greater.

For pieces or passages that don't contain technical challenges, I wouldn't predict any benefit from HS learning (and it might even be a waste of time).

[doctor_ivory]

I agree with what most people have said so far and thanks for the input. It does seem an unnecessary step to learn simple pieces like Jingle Bells HS when you clearly don't have to, but as concerns learning more difficult pieces, there are still three things that puzzle me . .

First, stevebob said that by learning a piece "all brainpower is dedicated to what just one hand is doing, and focus and concentration are immensely greater." And intuitively this seems like it should be true and just common sense right?  But my experience seems to contradict this.  I find I have to focus and concentrate much harder learning a piece HT than HS. 

Second, what about sight-reading.  Surely learning a piece HT first is a excellent way to improve your sight-reading.  Is it not?  Of course when you learn HS you are still sight-reading, but sight-reading both hands at once is not the same beast as sight-reading one hand at a time.

Here I want to interject another interesting point Stevebob made that is relevant: for difficult pieces, HS practice allows you to incorporate proper arm motion and various other technical elements into your playing much more easily.  This is a bonus to be sure, but I find that when I do this, and have ingrained all the HS procedural memory (i.e. muscle memory), my sight-reading becomes a sort of pseudo-sight reading.  In that I am looking at the score but I am not really internalising the notes.  Does this happen to anyone else when they learn HS first?

Third, what about enjoyment.  I find I get substantially more satisfaction from learning a piece HT, simply because learning HS doesn't usually sound very musical, especially when the piece is of a more homophonic nature.  Surely this added musical satisfaction can only aid concentration right?

What are other people's thoughts?

[m19834]

Ultimately, the reason for learning hands separately is that piano playing is not just a matter of being capable of eventually playing HT, but rather the ability to have both hands acting individually, with each having complete control, in coordinated "symphony" with the other.  And, I say "hands" representing fingers, arms, etc..  Coordinating hands is a matter of knowing precisely what each hand's job is, and then a series of decisions being formed and made in order to straighten out and make clear, programmed mental commands.  Most people's actions between hands (including muscular issues) are acting in sympathy with each other, rather than coordinated symphony.  

Did you know that each of an octopus's arms can act individually?  Think about the difference in percision an eight-armed animal has when each arm is capable of "thinking for itself" and acting in coordinated symphony with all the others, rather than acting only in sympathy.  I've also been learning that even singers must learn how to have different aspects of the vocal instrument acting individually, but together, rather than simply in sympathy with each other.  A singer must learn to have separate control over the jaw vs. the tongue, for example -- they must act independently and then in coordination with each other.  The soft palate must also be acting individually, and then the supportive muscles which control the breath.  Ultimately, amazing singing, and I mean not just good but out-of-this-world-singing, can only come from this kind of control (whether innate or learned).  I think it's the same with piano playing.

However, there are actually certain aspects and challenges of putting HT after figuring them out HS that don't necessarily show themselves when learning something HS.  For example, in Schumann's Theme and Variations on the name ABEGG, there are places that the performer must utilize differing types of memories for each hand separately while playing HT, that weren't necessarily obvious when playing HS.  Of course, in HS prax a person can be sure to learn a passage using various types of memories, but the individual doesn't always know what's going to be needed, exactly, until putting HT and finding out.  In any event, whether it's the extremely first step or not is kind of besides the point if one would prefer ultimately to understand it that way no matter what.  Whatever is the least waste of time is probably the best way to go.

I think that astounding sightreaders who are not just able to get through notes at tempo but who actually convey musical meaning at sight, are those individuals who have this kind of control over each hand separately, and who can make split-second decisions without stopping the flow of the music. While there may be individuals in the world who can get through notes at tempo, there are much fewer who can really make polished music while doing it.  And, if it can't be done at sight and instantaneously, in my opinion it needs to be taken apart then and put back together.

[fleetfingers]

I agree with doctor_ivory that playing HT from the start is better in most cases - for me, anyway. I just learned Bach Invention 13 in less than a week, and I never separated the hands. I found it very fulfilling to play with my hands together from the start.
If, however, I were to assign this piece to one of my students, I would instinctively ask them to learn it RH first, then LH. Why is that?

I also agree that if you want to improve your sightreading, hands should be played together.

[lostinidlewonder]

You should be predominantly learning a piece with both hands to maintain an efficient learning rate, however we can't always apply this generalization to beginners which constitutes the greatest population of pianists in this world. Beginners are still trying to find out general procedure at the piano, mental focus, coordination etc. Things like syncopation for instance should only ever be studied hands together because they depend on two hands to make sense, but beginners should not be too interested in these things they should be learning things which where both hands are dependent on one another but can be practiced separately without confusion.

Hands separate for the beginner is a vital tool for understanding how we coordinate two hands to work together. This is not to say that a teacher shouldn't make a beginner play hands together straight away however we may have to change the score to allow this. It is not so much a matter of playing hands together exactly what is written in the score, a beginner needs simplification of the score which sets them up to learn the piece as written later on. For instance I may get them to play a held chord instead of a broken one in the LH while the RH plays the melody line. Then later on break the LH up (in stages if necessary for the individual), but the positioning of the hand and fingerings which where simplified at the start will act as a catalyst to break apart the segment without too much conscious focus on 1) the notes and 2) the fingering. Then the beginner can focus their attention on the coordination of binding the two hands together. There are literally thousands of simplification combinations you can use formed for the individual.

In essence we can always do hands together if we know how to simplify the score to do so and thus it is a combination of HT and HS working together, we have simplified one hand which is a HS effort but putting it together with the other hand binding it with a HT effort, then we can slowly remove the simplifications. For me this is a tool I use all the time when teaching beginners and it accelerates their learning speed many times. It is however a very difficult technique to teach a teacher let alone students simplification to the sheet music to allow future complications to be learnt without disturbing the fingering and technique (or understanding how to mutate a simplification into a more complex form). This technique of simplification may be applied to all levels of piano study but it is most important for the beginner.

HS is obviously a different feel to playing HT and most beginners (even intermediates) will feel like when they paste HS together it feels like they are doing 2 isolated things at once, this is where they are not applying knowledge of HS to connect achieving HT. It is a matter of logically understanding which fingerings come together or apart, observing pattern in both hands, the connection between the two hands, observing the timing, etc, it is too vast of an issue to fully explain on a forum post but this is where a good teacher can help you tremendously to understand how to connect HS to HT (unfortunately many piano teachers are in the same boat as some who think simply do HS and then HT will follow automatically). Each person needs a particular focus to binds the hands separate into a single moving system that is dependent of one another.

Some people merely think that learning HS will automatically cause HT to follow soon after. If they do this with zero thought as in how they are connected and hope that an automated connection occurs then they may set themselves up for inefficient learning.

[fleetfingers]

lostinidlewonder -

I am new here and have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

You have some great insights on teaching piano and can articulate very well the reasonings behind your methods. I usually know what to do with my students to get results, but I can't always explain why it works - I just know that it does. I am already learning a lot from you and other great teachers on this forum. Thanks.

[stevebob]

HS ain't just for beginners, and continued emphasis on its role in elementary instruction reinforces the misconception that it's the "baby way" of learning.  Some people seem to think that not "needing" to learn HS confers bragging rights about their level of advancement (in the way that others apparently imagine that not "needing" more than a few hours sleep is a badge of superiority because it makes them more like Einstein, I suppose).

Anyone who doesn't understand what HS offers the proficient pianist in specific situations (and the reasons therefor) really should read Chang's book.  Even if he is misguided about plenty else, his analysis of the effectiveness of HS practice of technically difficult pieces (or passages of pieces) is spot on.

[timothy42b]

In essence we can always do hands together if we know how to simplify the score to do so and thus it is a combination of HT and HS working together, we have simplified one hand which is a HS effort but putting it together with the other hand binding it with a HT effort, then we can slowly remove the simplifications.

This was a more detailed explanation than we usually see. 

Doesn't all learning require simplification?  After all, if we could just play it, we would.  The fact that we have to learn it means we can't yet play it.  What exactly is learned may vary considerably depending on what challenge is involved. 

Since we can't play it yet, we have to somehow simplify it enough to work on it.  There are many many ways to simplify.  HS is one.  Slow play is another.  Small chunks is another.  Outlining is another. 

Many people get stuck in the trap that slow play is the only simplification method that works, and treat it as the magic answer to all problems.  A few people see HS the same way.  LIW here seems to suggest that the type of simplification should be chosen for the type of challenge being faced, which seems to make a great deal of sense. 

[lostinidlewonder]

lostinidlewonder -

I am new here and have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

You have some great insights on teaching piano and can articulate very well the reasonings behind your methods. I usually know what to do with my students to get results, but I can't always explain why it works - I just know that it does. I am already learning a lot from you and other great teachers on this forum. Thanks.

You are welcome, I often find I also cannot put things into words but by reading how other people express themselves the solution is found or partially at least! When we teach students we do not always have to reveal the steps of our teaching thought process but it helps if we can explain it to ourselves and constantly analyze what we teach consciously, it helps us to not become comfortable in our method and constantly searching for the best path for our individual student.

HS ain't just for beginners, and continued emphasis on its role in elementary instruction reinforces the misconception that it's the "baby way" of learning.

I can speak for myself that I haven't ever said HS is a baby method. However one should attempt HT always first and if it is not possible add simplifications. If we can do HT immediately then doing HS first is not required and simply extra work.

 Some people seem to think that not "needing" to learn HS confers bragging rights about their level of advancement...

It is not a bragging right but it is certainly a display of a more advanced/efficient approach to your musical study. Each person works differently however and in previous post I did mention that simplification to the score exists in all levels of piano study which implies that the use of HS and HT work simultaneously. That might confuse people because they think HS means only one hand, HS in my definition means you may simplify one hand (if simplification is required for both hands then the piece may be too difficult for you) while it plays together with the other. To completely separate the hands (that is only use one hand to practice) is inefficient for the more developed pianist and only usually required for the beginner or early intermediate who struggles to understand the coordination of their hands. It might be ok for a more advanced pianist to do one hand but only for a very brief moment, to labor on a single hand alone will set you up for longer practice time and thus inefficiency.

Anyone who doesn't understand what HS offers the proficient pianist in specific situations (and the reasons therefor) really should read Chang's book.  Even if he is misguided about plenty else, his analysis of the effectiveness of HS practice of technically difficult pieces (or passages of pieces) is spot on.

Personally I see Chang's book as an amateur feather weight against the other professional heavy weight literature on piano that is out there. Can you provide quotes from the book where his suggestion for when to use HS are spot on? I would question whether this is applicable to all levels of piano study or only for those who are still trying to work out the mechanics of learning and playing the piano?

Doesn't all learning require simplification?  After all, if we could just play it, we would.  The fact that we have to learn it means we can't yet play it.  What exactly is learned may vary considerably depending on what challenge is involved.  

This is true, even if I play a piece which I can sight read 100% correct fingering and notes, the expression is always simplified to start with and becomes more refined over time. An example of an advanced simplified expression may be playing in a more square wave volume/tempo change instead of a more gradual sin wave. But this also can be used at lower level of piano study (however beginner pieces should generally not have difficult musical expression that calls for it) but their simplifications are more concerned with technique and notes/fingering not so much expression which more advanced pianists are concerned with, however we may also use expression simplifications to help them understand!

[stevebob]

Asking me for quotations from Chang suggests you haven't read his book.  I'm not sure why you have a negative opinion of his work nonetheless ("feather weight"?).

I'm not interested in providing those quotations, but I'll say this:  Chang was instrumental in helping me along the path of discovering what works best for me (and, equally important, in understanding why, i.e., the physical basis for it).  I have lots of books about piano pedagogy by the familiar and respected names in the field, and I cannot in all honesty give that kind of credit to any of them.

By the way, I'm well beyond "trying to work out the mechanics of learning and playing"; I'm a non-performing middle-aged amateur, but I was taught piano in infancy from my mother (whose own teacher was a pupil of Godowsky ... not that I'm bragging ).  And I think that many of your statements, though made quite matter-of-factly, are instead matters of opinion and, as such, aren't universally applicable.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have read his book, I just did not read such revelations that you pointed out so i kindly ask you to present them for the benefit of the forum.

[stevebob]

I wouldn't automatically expect that what was a "revelation" to me to be equally momentous to you (or anyone else).  Anyway, the specific principles in question have been dissected numerous times in other threads; I think that the forum has already benefited from those discussions.

[lostinidlewonder]

You just seem rather confident that I have not read Chang, secondly you think that we seem to misunderstand the magic of HS which Chang you say has explain "SPOT ON". You fail to provide any shred of evidence of this, so what you say is just merely your own unsubstantiated opinion, the like we get often on forum posts where people who have nothing useful to add merely want to make a lot of noise. If you want to say other people are mistaken then you have to give a good reason as to why, otherwise you may simply say your opinion without the pathetic attempt at trying to pull down posts which have actually have some  thought and experience put behind it. You also fail to point out how simplification of HT is not a tool used in all levels of piano practice. The problem is that I actually apply these things daily with my clients who pay good money for lessons, so what I say is not an opinion but an actual result from years of teaching and built upon literature which makes Chang look like toilet paper.

[stevebob]

You just seem rather confident that I have not read Chang, secondly you think that we seem to misunderstand the magic of HS which Chang you say has explain "SPOT ON". You fail to provide any shred of evidence of this, so what you say is just merely your own unsubstantiated opinion, the like we get often on forum posts where people who have nothing useful to add merely want to make a lot of noise. If you want to say other people are mistaken then you have to give a good reason as to why, otherwise you may simply say your opinion without the pathetic attempt at trying to pull down posts which have actually have some  thought and experience put behind it. You also fail to point out how simplification of HT is not a tool used in all levels of piano practice. The problem is that I actually apply these things daily with my clients who pay good money for lessons, so what I say is not an opinion but an actual result from years of teaching and built upon literature which makes Chang look like toilet paper.

"Pathetic attempt"?  Excuse me?  I recommend you get off that high horse and keep your personal insults and condescending tone to yourself.

Like many teachers, you seem to be a bit too invested in your own dogma.  Stop preaching as though your approach is the only one, stop making statements of personal opinion as though they have universal applicability, and stop making statements that demean those who don't share your approach or your opinion—as you do here:

To completely separate the hands (that is only use one hand to practice) is inefficient for the more developed pianist and only usually required for the beginner or early intermediate who struggles to understand the coordination of their hands. It might be ok for a more advanced pianist to do one hand but only for a very brief moment, to labor on a single hand alone will set you up for longer practice time and thus inefficiency.

Puh-leez.  'Nuff said.

[lostinidlewonder]

You still are failing. And on inspecting your history of posts I see you like arguing with people, thought I would point that out to the rest of the forum.

[stevebob]

You still are failing. And on inspecting your history of posts I see you like arguing with people, thought I would point that out to the rest of the forum.

Opening your mind is a risk you should take.

[lostinidlewonder]

Open my mind to what?

I am sorry if I don't take time to educate you, I prefer to hear you babble about how good HS is without any idea of what you are on about. And reading your critique on my words with just "Puh-leez.  'Nuff said."   that is really a pathetic attempt at a critique. ha!

[stevebob]

Open my mind to what?

I am sorry if I don't take time to educate you, I prefer to hear you babble about how good HS is without any idea of what you are on about. And reading your critique on my words with just "Puh-leez.  'Nuff said."   that is really a pathetic attempt at a critique. ha!

Here are a few things you might be open-minded about:

1. Different people have differing paths to the results they seek.

2. Even if your clients pay you “good money” to be taught what you prescribe, you might actually learn from people’s posts you dismiss as lacking in “thought and experience” and “noise” with “nothing useful to add.”

3. When you accuse somebody else of “lik[ing] arguing with people” even as you bait and inflame with insulting language like “pathetic attempt” and “babble,” it’s a transparent example of pot-kettle-black.

I didn't think your statements that I quoted required any elaboration beyond the two words I chose, but I'll explain:  you made bald and unqualified assertions as though they were universal truths.  They are not; they're your opinions based on your experience, and as such no more or less valid than those of other pianists.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yep good one stevebob you really put me in my place, I don't know how I was wrong all these years! I should give up piano now! Why didn't I see the light? AHAHHAH LOL

Here are a few things you might be open-minded about:

1. Different people have differing paths to the results they seek.

If you read my posts on pianostreet you will see that I understand perfectly that everyone works differently and in fact in this thread I have said it, perhaps you are selective reading? I understand also that many people learn the piano in an inefficient way, some like yourself prefer to work in your own way and be oblivious to other peoples more refined approach. It is ok stevebob for people to know more than yourself, if you knew what was best all the time you would live in a pretty boring world.

2. Even if your clients pay you “good money” to be taught what you prescribe, you might actually learn from people’s posts you dismiss as lacking in “thought and experience” and “noise” with “nothing useful to add.”

I am always open to people who disagree with me and I welcome their comments much more than those who agree with me (as they may change ones perspectives a greater deal). I invited you friendly to start with to please debate your point but alas you avoided it and opted to continue to talk your unsupported opinion. Hey you can say your opinion there is no law against it, but why bother then trying to say other people are mistaken if you do not want to present a case for us? You are simply not interested to share your own ideas enough to do so!

3. When you accuse somebody else of “lik[ing] arguing with people” even as you bait and inflame with insulting language like “pathetic attempt” and “babble,” it’s a transparent example of pot-kettle-black.

I am merely highlight a fact not an opinion. If anyone thinks your critique had ANY constructive substance then they really are not interested in a proper musical debate.

I didn't think your statements that I quoted required any elaboration beyond the two words I chose, but I'll explain:  you made bald and unqualified assertions as though they were universal truths.  They are not; they're your opinions based on your experience, and as such no more or less valid than those of other pianists.

Tell me where I used the word universal truth anywhere to express myself in this thread? Of course what I say will not be applied to those who are not open to knowledge as yourself but to those who actually are interested in the study of piano it does help everyone of them. I know this through application of my teaching methods from beginners to concert pianists. As a teacher of music I know many axioms of piano teaching that exists in all levels of piano study, if you do not believe there are any of these universal truths in piano study then that is merely your uneducated opinion.

[stevebob]

Yep good one stevebob you really put me in my place, I don't know how I was wrong all these years! I should give up piano now! Why didn't I see the light? AHAHHAH LOL
If you read my posts on pianostreet you will see that I understand perfectly that everyone works differently and in fact in this thread I have said it, perhaps you are selective reading? I understand also that many people learn the piano in an inefficient way, some like yourself prefer to work in your own way and be oblivious to other peoples more refined approach. It is ok stevebob for people to know more than yourself, if you knew what was best all the time you would live in a pretty boring world.
I am always open to people who disagree with me and I welcome their comments much more than those who agree with me (as they may change ones perspectives a greater deal). I invited you friendly to start with to please debate your point but alas you avoided it and opted to continue to talk your unsupported opinion. Hey you can say your opinion there is no law against it, but why bother then trying to say other people are mistaken if you do not want to present a case for us? You are simply not interested to share your own ideas enough to do so!
I am merely highlight a fact not an opinion. If anyone thinks your critique had ANY constructive substance then they really are not interested in a proper musical debate.
Tell me where I used the word universal truth anywhere to express myself in this thread? Of course what I say will not be applied to those who are not open to knowledge as yourself but to those who actually are interested in the study of piano it does help everyone of them. I know this through application of my teaching methods from beginners to concert pianists. As a teacher of music I know many axioms of piano teaching that exists in all levels of piano study, if you do not believe there are any of these universal truths in piano study then that is merely your uneducated opinion.

Another load of patronizing and insulting bloviation; the accusation of "selective reading" is an ironic example of more pot-kettle-black.  Keep it coming, teeechur.

[lostinidlewonder]

Obviously it is beyond your capability to understand as you post yet another thoughtless response. And I can't say "keep it coming" in your case im afraid.

[stevebob]

Obviously it is beyond your capability to understand as you post yet another thoughtless response. And I can't say "keep it coming" in your case im afraid.

People can decide for themselves what's obvious, what's thoughtless, and what's beyond our respective capabilities to understand.

[lostinidlewonder]

They sure can and will.

[stevebob]

They sure can and will.

Knowing what people will do implies a skill set beyond that of the typical piano teacher.  I'm impressed—unless it's just another opinion stated as fact.   

[lostinidlewonder]

You said:

People can decide for themselves what's obvious, what's thoughtless, and what's beyond our respective capabilities to understand.

You did not specify this was in relation to this thread and I merely responded to it as something that people do do in their life already. If people stop this action in their life then often they are living in a world without the freedom that we in Western culture take for granted. It is a hope for all man/womankind that people CAN and WILL question the world they live around. So there is no precognition of magical 6th sense in the workings here as you again try to spew out in one of your rants.

[stevebob]

You said:
You did not specify this was in relation to this thread and I merely responded to it as something that people do do in their life already. If people stop this action in their life then often they are living in a world without the freedom that we in Western culture take for granted. It is a hope for all man/womankind that people CAN and WILL question the world they live around. So there is no precognition of magical 6th sense in the workings here as you again try to spew out in one of your rants.

Vasa inania multum strepunt.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't know what that means, does it have anything to do with HS?

[stevebob]

I don't know what that means, does it have anything to do with HS?

No, but it has something to do with BS.   

[lostinidlewonder]

No, but it has something to do with BS.   

Ah so nothing different coming from you then, at least in this thread.

[geze]

That quote is about "Empty vases and noise" - look it up!

[lostinidlewonder]

Why look up something that is useless?

[youngsincz]

If you don't play hands separate than when you try hands separate it can be very difficult. I would recommend playing hands separate at least a few times before playing hands together.   








 

[tails]

Okay I challenge you. Play Bach's Partita II Cappricio. You WILL be forced to play it HS'ly.
Why? Not just his Partita, most of Bach's songs are bound to make you train hand separately to find the MELODY of the song. As the theme of Bach's songs are mainly contrapuntal, you will have to find the REAL melody, and magnify it more than the accompaniment.

So in other words, HS is pretty much useful for songs that are contrapuntal.

And some other composers put contrapuntal parts in most of their songs too.
Example, Beethoven's Grande Sonate Pathetique, Rondo. There's one part when the LH must be louder/clearer than the RH. If you play HT directly, you might not notice it being on the left hand, you might just go as usual (RH louder than LH).

[lostinidlewonder]

I can sight read all those pieces you mentioned with HT, why? Because I have experienced those movements many times before so they will not be newly learned actions. If you are learning a piece which is new to you with movements that you have little experience with, naturally you will find HT a difficult job. But why should one subject themselves to learning music where HT is so in the unknown that you are forced into doing HS work? You should always be able to do HT, if that requires you to simply the music then do so, but your simplifications must still be able to yield the same feeling when you revert it back to its original state. Of course it is important to choose pieces which allow you to predominantly use HT, if you choose something too difficult then you are just setting yourself up for more work time.

Using one hand in total isolation to the other is fine but it should be only very briefly, it should used only to clarify the hand because of lost fingering/notes or observation of a particular note which interacts with the other hand. But you should always have both hands on the keyboard, you might not require to play exactly everything that the hands ask for but they should be up there, that is what the piece feels like when you are playing it, one hand on there is often even less than 1/2 the picture more like 1/5th the picture!

When I started teaching piano I use to teach RH then LH then put it together. I found they could do RH and LH on their own perfectly, then when we tried to put them together that hurdle was greater than learning the hands on their own! So you end up having to teach RH, then LH then spend about 3x the time again showing them how to put them together. They also get depressed that it is so hard and that SH is so easy. It wastes time imo, get the student to play BH immediately at least then all the work is set out in front of you and you can make decisions from there. Starting with Both hands immediately can require an ability to simplify your score so you can actually manage to play BH immediately, then removing these simplifications to trick your mind into playing the passage is the key, simply stated but a very complicated process which relates strongly to the individuals past piece experience.

[pianoplayjl]

So that one gets to familiarize the notes in each hand before hands together. Basically its like why learn to run when you haven't even learnt to walk yet?

[danhuyle]

Fluency and independence of hands.

[pianoplayjl]

One needs to do at least 2 weeks hands seperate until you can put it hands together. Some pieces have complex hand configurationos that you might have to play hands together e.g. cross hands.

[carmstro64]

I think hands seperate is a necessary skills for building technique while you are learning the piece and really challenging yourself. As well as to form habits which you might miss repeatedly while constantly focusing on one hand. Also, for some people it might aid in learning the song faster.

The only thing i can think why learning with hands together are for sight reading purposes.