should I correct her fingering?

[keyboardclass]

I'm following up from what happens if you willfully seek to stop at that point. It causes muscular repression in the action.

So you say.  Willfully??  No will involved to not do something.  The will is in the depressing and only travels as far as that.  No will, no movement.  A bunt in baseball does not involve  a willful act not to hit a home run!  But lets not tangle with that old chestnut here.

[pianisten1989]

So what, should she correct her fingering or not? :S

[nyiregyhazi]

So you say.  Willfully??  No will involved to not do something.  The will is in the depressing and only travels as far as that.  No will, no movement.  A bunt in baseball does not involve  a willful act not to hit a home run!  But lets not tangle with that old chestnut here.

That which is moving continues to do so unless prevented. Inefficient movement is often caused by thinking "STOP!". Particularly in loud playing, the willfully instigated stop is a dangerous thing. It's continuation that involves not doing anything. Thinking of stopping adds an act of braking.

A better comparison in baseball would be to think of stopping straight after you hit the ball. The bat doesn't stop itself. Muscular repression would be required- screwing the whole thing up.

[keyboardclass]

A better comparison in baseball would be to think of stopping straight after you hit the ball. The bat doesn't stop itself. Muscular repression would be required- screwing the whole thing up.

Err..., that's how you bunt.

[nyiregyhazi]

Err..., that's how you bunt.

If that the case bunting involves a willful act of repression. The ball isn't going to stop that bat. Try bunting your thumb in op. 25 no. 12 and see if you get a big sound.

I just watched some videos of bunting. The bat carried on straight through. There wasn't a trace of repression- but merely a smaller positive input.

[keyboardclass]

If that the case bunting involves a willful act of repression. The ball isn't going to stop that bat. Try bunting your thumb in op. 25 no. 12 and see if you get a big sound.

I just watched some videos of bunting. The bat carried on straight through.

Well, I don't know what bunting you're referring to.  Here's what I mean:

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, I don't know what bunting you're referring to.  Here's what I mean:

Expert village? Yeah, they have some real "experts". That film doesn't show a single bunt happening. Watch some real ones. They play a small positive action through the ball. I didn't see any where they did a prod and then instantly stopped dead.

[keyboardclass]

Good vid.  Actually he doesn't do a 'positive action through the ball'.  As this lady says you actually give, and I think that's something you say can't be done in such a limited contact time (though obviously much depends on the distance you wish to bunt):
https://www.monkeysee.com/play/1326-softball-how-to-bunt

My guess is you've never played baseball, but still you have a specialist opinion?  Typical.

[mcdiddy1]

Since a number of recent lessons, I have realized just how much my thumbs had held me back before. Virtually every student I see has a problem of "falling" into the thumb in scales, rather than supporting themeless well. It's something that you can get away with early on. However, at advanced levels, it completely kills the possibility of a fast controlled scale. The classic lazy and sluggish thumb is exposed.

Well, what you call lazy I call ignorant in the sense they simply do not have the knowledge of using the thumb. You are talking about the thumb under/thumb over technique right. Where instead of the thumb passing under the hand and receiving the weight of the arm to transfer to the second part of the scale, you are talking about the playing using the thumb as an independent finger and moving the hand over quickly.

It is as good point but if you were to give this information to beginners who are not going to use for years to come and forget you even mentioned it then why teach it. I have mentioned it to my students but frankly there really has not been a time it was critically necessary. Not all of them are play Chopin etudes or Liszt so there learn technique they need then and there. I would not go and blame teachers for not teaching this information because it would not be retained or necessary. Now for a pianist on your level, it should be a crime not to teach you this especially with your repertoire.

I'm not self taught. I spent years with a variety of teachers. I played the Rachmaninoff 2nd with orchestra over 10 years ago, but I still have countless things that I am learning about technique.

That is shocking and terribly sad. The variety of teachers could not identify problems with your technique and let you play a Rachmaninoff concerto. I can understand your negative view towards teachers. I just think one of them should have been able to identify your weakness and correct it. I make it a habit to look at the students hands, look for collapsed fingertips, raised thumbs, tension and I often make a student stop looking at the music and observe themselves playing. I would not want to bad mouth your teachers because I am sure there are fine players and pedagogues but are you sure none of them said nothing about it ?

Not unless you are indeed going to teach EVERYTHING by demonstration- which you had argued against and which I am opposed to as well. Just because it starts as sight-reading does not change the fact you have nothing to listen to- except YOURSELF playing the piece. So what guides the process if KNOWLEDGE- not merely listening. It's the cross-referencing.

Yes knowledge guides the process but what kind of knowledge is the key. You may know it is in the key of a minor, and know how to move the keys, and what a quarter note is but if you can hear the piece in your head before you play it, you already have an advantage. If you are looking at a piece with no musical knowedge (aural model in your head) then you are already lost before you have played. If you do not know what the difference between major and minor tonalities and recognize them you will be in trouble. I sight read all the time and I improvise with students all the time and use it judging music competitions all the time. I don't need to have played to know how it sounds because Western music are patterns repeated over and over again. Once you have seen one f scale/arrpeggioarrpeggio you have seen them all. That knowledge comes from listening to it while I was practicing, not by watching someone play a F scale over and over.

Sure, these things all need to be trained. You don't write off those who can't do it as bad listeners or say "listen more". You train them.

You will never hear me call them bad listeners or they should say listen more. My point is you recognize the importance of these concepts and they have to be trained. There for listening is critical in music lesson. That is my ultimate point. While you argue it is over emphasized, I argue it is de-emphasized at least in music pedagogy. There are plenty of people who play by ear but very few being taught and that is a mistake. I cannot and will not blame the students ( unless the refuse but haven't observed that) but I do blame a stigma teachers have against ear training. They have not been taught so they feel it should not be learned. I think that is a mistake.

"So if you pick up a book instilled piano technique, read all the words from beginning to end you will be able to pick up a Chopin etude and play it perfectly. Not going to happen."

Why such a silly strawman argument? I did not faintly imply that. How many times have I repeated the role IN A BALANCED WHOLE? So why make reference to such a silly situation that involves only a single element? The fact that one particular element is not comprehensive in isolation (which I have argued AGAINST not for!) does not justify throwing out that element and ignoring it. It's totally false logic. You might as well suggest there's no point in soldiers eating, because food won't save you from a gunshot on a battle field anyway.  

I said:
You need a musical concept as a goal for a technical result. You gain musical concepts through listening to other music not by listening to someone explain technique."

then you said:
Considering we can have both (not merely one or the other) are you so sure the "not" applies? Those who have no technique have their musical concepts spoiled by what they hear themselves doing.

My point is Musical concepts comes from listening
Musical concepts comes from technique???  does not make sense. You teach someone what tempo changes are by explaining in words how your first finger comes up followed by the second finger.

No you give them an aural modal by singing it for them, playing it for them on the instrument, and having a recording of it. We both agree both are important. There have been statements where you say technique shapes musicality but i argue it is the reverse. Yes your technique can hurt it in the long run but if you start off on equal footing (well a bit more emphasis on the technical the beginning ) the student will be better off. We are talking about beginners right ? Not advanced pianist.

Yes, technique can be explained but you need a musical concept in your mind first and result for assessment afterwards.

I honestly disagree entirely- not everything works that way 100% of the time. Some of the greatest improvements to my musical results have come from entirely physical concepts, in the last couple of years. Once I grew accustomed to them, I was able to exploit them for musical reasons. They permit my existing musical intention to be realized. The change in my ability to voice chords in dramatic. My musical thinking is the same as it was before, however. Well, if anything, it's been expanded BECAUSE of the wider technical ability giving me a chance to exaggerate more. The above statement simply does not represent the limits of all possibility.

The key word is greatest improvements to your musical results have come from entirely physical concept. However if we are talking about teaching beginning students it should not be technique all the time. You should not prescribed what benefit on you and think this is what every pianist learning should know. If they played Rachmaninoff piano concerto had went through years of uncorrected technical issues then they should have learned it.

Can you acknowledge there are some technically well-taught kids who would improve enormously by engaging in a variety of music listening experiences?
'

How many times must I repeat that I referring to a WHOLE? I'm not throwing out one isolated element and saying "use only this isolated element instead". I'm saying that listening alone is a poor means of teaching rubato- when not complemented with explanation.

Well yea of course you need both listening and verbal descriptions. Look at what I asked you though:Try explaining rubato in technical terms without playing an example."

You said : I often do. I find it very useful.

So am I to understand you teach rubato without ever playing a note ? And they get it? Really? If you teach rubato without playing, then it is not the balanced whole you were talking about. My original point is you cannot teach musical concepts (rubato is a musical concept) in simply technical terms. You agree with me inadvertently. Rubato is best learned through listening and some explanation =we both agree. Rubato cannot be learned by technical terms without the listening skills=this is what Im saying.

But think about this: you could learn rubato without verbal instruction ( although I would not recommend that). You could play an example and say try it like this and the student imitates you. It does not work the other way to say play this note slower , then speed up when you get to this note, and move your finger faster into the key when you get here. ( That way does not work at all!)

"The musical concept in the mind is more important and the technique just supports it. Where have we heard this before?"

It can also go in reverse. I teach them the feel of movement and they feel the musical result. It's not ONLY music first and technique next. Think of string bowing again. The physical act of bowing determines a good part of the musical results.  It's a two way street- not a one way one. Everything is interrelated. Why does playing a string or wind instrument help piano playing? Because the PHYSICAL ACT of bowing or breathing trains the internal musical thinking. We should really remember this more in piano playing- rather than insist it must always be the other way around 100% of the time.

Very good point. This is an excellent way to teach beginners how to bow is to feel the technique of the bow hand going across the strings before they actually play a note of music. This a good point that works better with string technique because there is so much that has to go on just for student to achieve a good tone and I really do not want to even dwell in to that. But even there I argue the musical concept is in the mind of the teacher and the teacher has in mind what sound the student should produce. So the teacher leads the student to producing that sound. The teacher could easily model a good sound and then lead them through it. You are right, you can lead with either one as long as good technique is emphasized in the beginning ( I bet you liked that lol).

That being said I personally feel it is much better teaching to play for the students, ( I am talkin about violin now), assuming students have their posture, bow hand and left hand set up which is quite a hassle, describe who to draw the bow across the string, and then attempt to do it and assess the results. But that is personal opinion you could , ( sometimes I do ) actively lead their bow across the string first so they can experience success so that is the first they feel. So point well taken.

It doesn't matter whether it's intentional or comes across as judgmental. Students are often their own harshest critic. The more knowledge the student acquires about how they wish to sound, the more they will judge themselves. If they don't learn the means, they will become frustrated- no matter how good the teacher's intentions. I know at least two rather good pianists who quit music college due to such frustration. Even if the teacher is nice- if they don't show you how to be capable of progressing in RESULTS as well as intentions, there will be immense frustration. Arguably, the more successfully the teacher conveys musical principles, the more frustration will be caused- unless they can show HOW to realise them.

Given you track record of having been taught by teachers who let you play with physical faults I cannot say I have the great belief you have had the  greatest of teaching. Teaching students to find the good in their own playing does not have to be viewed as being nice but objective and keeping things in perspective. The pianist you mention quitting based on frustration is failure on the teachers part. To quit learning more about music and the piano based on some unattainable view of perfection created by the teacher is a tragedy. So they may not be the next Liszt, but does that mean there playing is worthless and they should never be graduate and enjoy being a musician?  The power teachers have on student should not be underestimated because if they had an inspiring teacher who they felt connected to personally , challenged them, made them in to a better musician, not just a pianist, they would have felt too much to lose.

My piano teacher went to Julliard, had eagle ears to my playing and would be able to spot out notes in very complex passages. It was very inspiring, but she never let me play down from my abilities. One time she stopped be dead cold in my playing of sonata and sent me away because she knew I could play better. I was upset but I worked harder than ever and am a much better pianist, musician and teacher because of it. She always treated me like a really person and not like a commodity. She was very objective. She may love you as a person ,but if your rhythm is wrong, the rhythm is wrong. You fix it and you move on.

Even Dorothy DeLay has a very structured system and taught the same way. She loved her kids but if you're bowing was sloppy, she engages your mind and forces you to come up with a solution. It does not mean you are failure and you will never be anything. It just means in this moment this needs to be fixed so you do it, nothing personal, just the facts.

Rather that give you some teachers are great quotes, I will just say the best teachers focus on bring out the success in all their students. Great teachers will focus on making a pianist strength even stronger and make the weakness even weaker. Those pianist that left these teachers I can are not going to be listing their piano teacher as one of the great influences on their life and hopefully will not walk away from music altogether.

We are all made differently with special talents and abilities. Not everyone can or should be a concert pianist. I would be rather be a music teacher that inspires hundreds of kids in different directions to have a place for art in their lives than be a teacher who causes musicians to quit because of some unrealistic goal.

This video is a great example of the importance of listening

[nyiregyhazi]

Good vid.  Actually he doesn't do a 'positive action through the ball'.  As this lady says you actually give, and I think that's something you say can't be done in such a limited contact time (though obviously much depends on the distance you wish to bunt):
https://www.monkeysee.com/play/1326-softball-how-to-bunt

My guess is you've never played baseball, but still you have a specialist opinion?  Typical.

I've played plenty of cricket. To control a forward defensive, you apply a small positive stroke THROUGH the ball. You don't either prod the bat with desire to slam on the brakes as soon as you reach the ball, or hold it stationary to begin with.

What the hell do you mean in claiming he doesn't do a positive action through the ball? He visibly moves the bat THROUGH contact and it CONTINUES to move. So what kind of bizarre magic do you think is causing that? "Give" is the result of exclusively applying a positive- rather than adding any muscular repression or braking post-contact. If your idea of give is simply to either to hold a bat stationary or to prod it with desire to stop instantly upon contact, I wouldn't advise you to become a games teacher. "Give" is the result of avoiding contraction of contrary muscles- which is why it's so important to play through even light taps. What they call "soft hands" in cricket does not refer to a limply getting the bat in the way of ball. It's a positive action.

[mcdiddy1]

I've played plenty of cricket. To control a forward defensive, you apply a small positive stroke THROUGH the ball. You don't either prod the bat with desire to slam on the brakes as soon as you reach the ball, or hold it stationary to begin with.

What the hell do you mean in claiming he doesn't do a positive action through the ball? He visibly moves the bat THROUGH contact and it CONTINUES to move. So what kind of bizarre magic do you think is causing that? "Give" is the result of exclusively applying a positive- rather than adding any muscular repression or braking post-contact. If your idea of give is simply to either to hold a bat stationary or to prod it with desire to stop instantly upon contact, I wouldn't advise you to become a games teacher. "Give" is the result of avoiding contraction of contrary muscles- which is why it's so important to play through even light taps. What they call "soft hands" in cricket does not refer to a limply getting the bat in the way of ball. It's a positive action.

That is important concept in other sports like baseball, football,golf. Some people call it the follow though. Very useful for getting big tones out of the piano.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well, what you call lazy I call ignorant in the sense they simply do not have the knowledge of using the thumb. You are talking about the thumb under/thumb over technique right. Where instead of the thumb passing under the hand and receiving the weight of the arm to transfer to the second part of the scale, you are talking about the playing using the thumb as an independent finger and moving the hand over quickly."

I say "lazy" in the sense of being too flaccid and inactive. Indeed that's down to knowing though, I'm not suggesting a "lazy" attitude. I'm not talking about thumb under/over. I've been aware of such things for many years. Developing vastly more activity in the movement of my thumbs is what I'm talking about- which applies equally to either movement. Without that, thumb over/under scarcely mattered. It was sluggish either way.


" Not all of them are play Chopin etudes or Liszt so there learn technique they need then and there. I would not go and blame teachers for not teaching this information because it would not be retained or necessary. Now for a pianist on your level, it should be a crime not to teach you this especially with your repertoire."

I don't regard the fundamentals in scales and arpeggios for beginners as being greatly different at all from the basics that go into Chopin Studies. In my opinion, the best teaching should instil the right principles early on. Way too many students scrape by

"You gain musical concepts through listening to other music not by listening to someone explain technique."

Again you say it's X 'not' Y. Again I'd say, why not both? Really, why?


"No you give them an aural modal by singing it for them, playing it for them on the instrument, and having a recording of it."

What happens later, if this is not coupled with explanation? It can't all be demonstration alone. Otherwise it's just copying, with nothing to instil personality or understanding or transferable skill.

"There have been statements where you say technique shapes musicality but i argue it is the reverse."

So I do. I argue that it goes BOTH ways. Again you speak as if it's X OR Y and as if there were no possibility of anything more than one. Why would believing one necessitate blanket denial of the other?

"Can you acknowledge there are some technically well-taught kids who would improve enormously by engaging in a variety of music listening experiences?"

I never came close to denying it. Of course the above is true.

"So am I to understand you teach rubato without ever playing a note ? And they get it? Really? If you teach rubato without playing, then it is not the balanced whole you were talking about. My original point is you cannot teach musical concepts (rubato is a musical concept) in simply technical terms."

Again this ridiculous polarisation- as if giving a detailed explanation requires banning of demonstration? I never argued such a thing. Why ask that when I've made it clear I'm talking about a balanced product? However, the more experienced the student, the less they should depend upon copying and the more they should be given explanation over demonstration. What I argued against is simply offering something to copy WITHOUT explaining the principles. The more demonstrations are coupled with proper explanation of the concept that leads to them, the less the demonstration itself should be required later on.



"It does not work the other way to say play this note slower , then speed up when you get to this note, and move your finger faster into the key when you get here. ( That way does not work at all!)"

That would simply be a very poor way to explain it. I'd explain rubato with reference to such principles as width of intervals, which notes clash with the harmony and all kinds of other things. To say only "make that one longer" or "make that one shorter" is not something I'd even classify as an "explanation" of rubato. It would provide even less worth than only demonstrating something to copy.

"But even there I argue the musical concept is in the mind of the teacher and the teacher has in mind what sound the student should produce. So the teacher leads the student to producing that sound."

Indeed- generally by physical means AND musical ones. However, teachers will regularly suggest a new bowing without rationalising. This technical change alone can change musical results and intentions.Take an identical passage and give two totally different bowings- one with tiny slurs and one with a long bow. The physical act will shape the musical results as much as the intentions. If they're totally odds with each other, having to bow a specific way will also rapidly serve to change any prior intentions that are made impossible to realise. It's a two way street- not an X or y situation. I'd go as far to say it's impossible to make it only go one way alone.

"The pianist you mention quitting based on frustration is failure on the teachers part. To quit learning more about music and the piano based on some unattainable view of perfection created by the teacher is a tragedy. So they may not be the next Liszt, but does that mean there playing is worthless and they should never be graduate and enjoy being a musician?"

You totally misread the situation. In (at least) one of these cases the teacher was very positive. The student was disappointed due to her OWN high standards- she played very well indeed and very accurately. The results were far from unmusical. However, her control over sound could certainly have been better. I don't think she had the means to go that stage further towards what she actually wanted, and I'm sure the primary issues were technical- causing her frustration about the musical results.  

I'm not saying there's never a place for that kind of thinking. But with the above attitude, I'd have been written off as someone who should just try to "enjoy" music rather than someone who should expect to do very well. My technique was absolutely shocking in younger years. So, should teachers have stopped talking about musical issues that I could comprehend but had no means to realise? I'd have vastly have preferred to have had more teachers who spent a lot more time on the pure physical issues that held me back- rather than be treated with kid gloves as someone who's not very good but who should try to enjoy playing. Personally (although I'm not saying this goes for all) I'd have felt MORE worthless to be treated as untalented and deeply patronised to have teachers lowering standards. My biggest problems were just in the means of attaining the possibility of high standards.

[keyboardclass]

"Give" is the result of avoiding contraction of contrary muscles- which is why it's so important to play through even light taps.

You can't 'play through' and 'give' at the same time.  If something has 'give in it' it means it resists pressure with a less than equal force.  You're applying a greater force.  There would be plenty, if not most, of occasions when with your 'follow through' the ball would go too far.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can't 'play through' and 'give' at the same time.  If something has 'give in it' it means it resists pressure with a less than equal force.  You're implying a greater force.

If you'd played any serious cricket you'd understand. "Give" is the result of avoiding tensions or muscular contractions while applying a positive action- not of inertly keeping something in a stationary position. You most certainly can have both. A cricketer does not achieve give by holding a flaccid and stationary bat in the way of the ball.

Here's a great example of a forward defensive:

The bat responds very slightly upon impact. However, you can see how the motion of moving forwards with the bat, hands and whole body is still very much in continuation. There's just a tiny blip in an ongoing movement, as the ball's momentum is transferred in opposition to the bat. A player who intends to stop in he instant of contacting the ball will not have "give" in the movement. This is what the uncoordinated kids do- causing a real jolt upon impact. When you contact the ball the good technique is to play INTO and THROUGH contact. If you're already thinking about trying to make the bat stop quick (or holding it still), there's a good chance you'll feel some serious vibrations upon contact.

[keyboardclass]

I don't know how it is that suddenly we're on to cricket.  Here's my edit re: BASEBALL - There would be plenty, if not most, of occasions when with your 'follow through' the ball would go too far.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't know how it is that suddenly we're on to cricket.  Here's my edit re: BASEBALL - There would be plenty, if not most, of occasions when with your 'follow through' the ball would go too far.

If that woman believes a flaccid and still bat is good technique, she ought to watch what the professional did. The kid looked totally stiff and uncoordinated when he demonstrated a bunt. If you're static, you need to brace in anticaption. Otherwise the ball would push the bat back and likely run on through (especially with a major league pitcher). A small positive prevents the need for bracing stiffly.

Obviously you've never played golf. It's the shortest putts of all where the follow though is most important. Those who stifle the follow through are those who either overshoot the hole or stop before even contacting the ball. If a putt goes too far, the answer is to reduce the positive input. Not to throw in an additional negative act of muscular repression. It's the classic error in various sports. Uncoordinated people add extra acts of muscular repression to deal with excess. Coordinated sportsmen reduce the extent of the input- keeping it simple.

[keyboardclass]

If that woman believes a flaccid and still bat is good technique, she ought to watch what the professional did. The kid looked totally stiff and uncoordinated when he demonstrated a bunt. If you're static, you need to brace in anticaption. Otherwise the ball would push the bat back

Exactly, in a bunt you want the ball to push the bat back otherwise the ball will travel too far.  Your knowledge on baseball coaches is impressive! 

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly, in a bunt you want the ball to push the bat back otherwise the ball will travel too far.  Your knowledge on baseball coaches is impressive!  

Well, if bunting were carried out with a still bat that has some give, it would have not have the similarity on piano technique you attributed to it. That's nothing like the start-stop action you advised for the thumb. The erratic nature of a putt with a repressed follow-through would be a better analogy.

[keyboardclass]

Well, if bunting were carried out with a still bat that has some give, it would have not have the similarity on piano technique you attributed to it.

Now you come to that conclusion!? (which I obviously disagree with) 

[thalbergmad]

To control a forward defensive, you apply a small positive stroke THROUGH the ball.

Agreed, unless you are Chris Tavare.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

The point to take home is that there are sports moves which do not involve a follow through.  From a piano technique standpoint these are worth investigating.

[nyiregyhazi]

The point to take home is that there are sports moves which do not involve a follow through.  From a piano technique standpoint these are worth investigating.

If they are based around keeping the bat stationary, they really aren't very interesting. Or at least, the perpetual silence produced by analagous stillness of a finger at a piano key is not very interesting. Reference to the nature of give in a stationary bat is simply not relevant. The only give you can have while sounding a piano key is the type of give that occurs during an act of movement.

Even a good screw shot in snooker involves a notable follow-through. To chip at the ball and stop quick is the classic amateur error.

[nyiregyhazi]

Agreed, unless you are Chris Tavare.

Thal

Are you absolutely sure of that? Couldn't find any films on youtube of him batting, but appearances can be deceptive. That which looks appears stationary can still be dependent upon a tiny positive movement through contact- even if it's refined to the point of only being obvious in slow-motion. I can't imagine a world class cricketer who'd actually rely either on tightening the muscles to stabilise a totally stationary bat or the complete unpredictability of a loosely held stationary bat. It's so much easier simply to be moving- even if it may be slight.

[mcdiddy1]

I say "lazy" in the sense of being too flaccid and inactive. Indeed that's down to knowing though, I'm not suggesting a "lazy" attitude. I'm not talking about thumb under/over. I've been aware of such things for many years. Developing vastly more activity in the movement of my thumbs is what I'm talking about- which applies equally to either movement. Without that, thumb over/under scarcely mattered. It was sluggish either way.



By too flaccid and inactive, do you mean relaxed and ready to play at anytime. What is the difference (visual or physically) between a thumb that relaxed and ready to play and a thumb that is not  doing anything?It seems very subjective to say this person thumb is either or. One would argue the muscles that hold up the thumb requires too much tension in the hand. I assume your looking for the balance between too flacid and tense but how do you prove it. In my opinion some challenges of the thumb can be solved through actions of the wrist and the arm. I am interested in this too flacid motion you are talking about.

I don't regard the fundamentals in scales and arpeggios for beginners as being greatly different at all from the basics that go into Chopin Studies. In my opinion, the best teaching should instil the right principles early on. Way too many students scrape by

The fundentals of scales are important to playing advance literature on the piano but there is a world of difference between Chopin and Liszt. There are skips ,leaps, octave play , and streachs galore that will make any person with a good foundation plenty to work on. Hence the word etude - meaning study with the intent of mastering a particular difficulty. If your fundamentals are weak then yes the hill will go from difficult to impossible.

"You gain musical concepts through listening to other music not by listening to someone explain technique."Again you say it's X 'not' Y. Again I'd say, why not both? Really, why?

Ok. The I mean you BEST gain musical concepts through listening to other music and by explaining technique not just by explaining technique. It should be both. There are many things student learn by observation a teacher play a musical example such as keeping a steady pulse, dynamics, correct notes, and expressivness as the same time.

"No you give them an aural modal by singing it for them, playing it for them on the instrument, and having a recording of it."

What happens later, if this is not coupled with explanation? It can't all be demonstration alone. Otherwise it's just copying, with nothing to instil personality or understanding or transferable skill.

Your missinterprating what I am saying. i am just listing examples of how musical concepts are effectively taught. Of course I am not going to have the student enter the room, start playing stuff on a cd play, play the cd and say go ahead. (Remeber you argued doing something like that earlier when you said you are not sure if a teacher should even have to say anything , but just show the motions and the techniques) The point is the importance of aural concepts which you argued against.
Of course when students are taught, as I have said numerous of times, they are taught what to listen for , what right and wrong is, I just am not going to type that up because that should go without saying.

There have been statements where you say technique shapes musicality but i argue it is the reverse."

So I do. I argue that it goes BOTH ways. Again you speak as if it's X OR Y and as if there were no possibility of anything more than one. Why would believing one necessitate blanket denial of the other?

Well in TEACHING, the music concept is always in mind. I do not have a blanket denial of something if it is not true. When a student bangs on a piano, that is because they like the result of loud sounds coming. They already had a concept in mind. How do you teach someone to do something without have a sound concept in your brain already right?

The only way is if someone pushed you against the piano and you accedently played some keys. Then you could say the motion of the body preceded the sound being produced.

But teaching does not work that way. When we have students, "experiment"with motions on the keyboard, we know what result is going to happen before it happens. So does the kid.

You may think think. Well , what about when a student discovers you have different levels of dynamics produced by the key depression when they are without the teacher. Well the student  already has a sound concept in mind but the music result may be different than what the student was expecting but the concept was still in the mind.

Do you see the logic? Unless it is done by accident (which is not really teaching) very motion we make toward an instrument has a musical intention in our mind. You are right is possible to accidently play a key and result in sounds, but what is the benefit? It there is no goal in the practice then what would be the point of practicing technique?

"Can you acknowledge there are some technically well-taught kids who would improve enormously by engaging in a variety of music listening experiences?"

I never came close to denying it. Of course the above is true.

This is essentially the heart of point. Musical listening is critical to students musical development. Technique should be a bridge, not a hinderance toward music growth and learning. Never has or will be one or the other but musicanship should be the starting and the ending goal.

"So am I to understand you teach rubato without ever playing a note ? And they get it? Really? If you teach rubato without playing, then it is not the balanced whole you were talking about. My original point is you cannot teach musical concepts (rubato is a musical concept) in simply technical terms."

Again this ridiculous polarisation- as if giving a detailed explanation requires banning of demonstration? I never argued such a thing. Why ask that when I've made it clear I'm talking about a balanced product? However, the more experienced the student, the less they should depend upon copying and the more they should be given explanation over demonstration. What I argued against is simply offering something to copy WITHOUT explaining the principles. The more demonstrations are coupled with proper explanation of the concept that leads to them, the less the demonstration itself should be required later on.

Yes, it is ridiculous to show there are somethings that is learned by seeing something done rather than merely explaining it. Rote learning is the most common and effective way younger students learn. Yes, more mature students need more explaintion rather than demonstration. But that balance depends on what you teach. If your teaching rubato, or explaining phrasing, and musical direction , you would want to lean heavily but not totally on musical demonstration. Thats why I wanted to know how you explain rubato and such without the demonstration as you said you often do and your statement you can learn these by showing the technique of the action alone. Without sound to prove the result I do not see that happening but would be interested in being proven wrong.

"But even there I argue the musical concept is in the mind of the teacher and the teacher has in mind what sound the student should produce. So the teacher leads the student to producing that sound."

Indeed- generally by physical means AND musical ones. However, teachers will regularly suggest a new bowing without rationalising

Oh, teachers rationalize , they just maybe not say it verbally to the student(which they should). They did not suggest to change the bowing without the musical result of a longer phrase in mind. Even if they were confused about what the result would be and had the student try it two different ways, the point is the teacher had a musical concept in mind that the resulting action did not execute. Teachers do not suggest just to see what happens. Even if they do not know what they are doing, they still notice there is a problem so there is some goal even if it is misguided.

You totally misread the situation. In (at least) one of these cases the teacher was very positive. The student was disappointed due to her OWN high standards- she played very well indeed and very accurately. The results were far from unmusical. However, her control over sound could certainly have been better. I don't think she had the means to go that stage further towards what she actually wanted, and I'm sure the primary issues were technical- causing her frustration about the musical results.

Well standards and expectations have to come from somewhere. Playing accurately and musically is  something we are always working wards. This student has a perception that anything less than perfection is unacceptable to her and it is the teacher's job to sit her down and put some sense into her. Horowitz makes numerous errors in recording, and Marc Hamelin frequently makes cut for Cds even with live performances. Been unsatisfied with your performance is what makes us human. The idea that concert pianist never make an error is silly and teachers who continue that myth are doing some people a huge disservice. Maybe the sound control she was after would have happened had she completed her degree. I am not going to say more on it because I do not know the specifics of the situation. Maybe the teacher talked to the student and the student did not want to hear it. I just feel the priorities in that situation is all mixed up. Being a concert pianist has more to do with connections, talent, experience, hard-work and luck than playing every note perfectly.
 

'm not saying there's never a place for that kind of thinking. But with the above attitude, I'd have been written off as someone who should just try to "enjoy" music rather than someone who should expect to do very well. My technique was absolutely shocking in younger years. So, should teachers have stopped talking about musical issues that I could comprehend but had no means to realise? I'd have vastly have preferred to have had more teachers who spent a lot more time on the pure physical issues that held me back- rather than be treated with kid gloves as someone who's not very good but who should try to enjoy playing. Personally (although I'm not saying this goes for all) I'd have felt MORE worthless to be treated as untalented and deeply patronised to have teachers lowering standards. My biggest problems were just in the means of attaining the possibility of high standards.

I completely agree with your point. My attitude toward teaching is finding the balance between high expectations and from "perfection" ( which is completely subjective to apply to musical performance). Teachers who lower their expectations because you should just enjoy music are just as bad as the one who think perfection is the only goal worth reaching. It is unfortunate you had teachers who did not have high expectation for you and made your technique suffer. They may have just been ignorant of such things because they never achieved your level themselves. That is expecially why I will stop what ever I am teaching to say, feet or fingers ( to remind students or collapsed fingers or floating feet) because you never know what level of achievement students will go on to achieve. I had the complete opposite training as you.

I was obsessed with the technical elements of how to play things correctly. One teacher -when I was 15 or so - offered me a job to teach along side him and another teacher felt my mom was wasting her money trying to teach me and should let me continue on your own. i would read piano technique books for fun and after about 2 years was playing Rhapsody in Blue and Clair de Lune on my own. What I lacked was teachers who would give me historical knowledge and musical insight just because I had very strong technique.

 My point is when you have gone so far in one direction you start to find the importance of the skills you were not taught. I suffered from technical emphasis because I would play things fast, just because I could, without regard for who the composer was and what the intent was and made me lose many regional competitions. I wish I had a teacher who could sit me down and explain these concepts to me.

I really believe that it is up to the teacher to be flexible and give what the student need at the moment. Some students need more technique and some need more musicianship but neither should be ignored

[keyboardclass]

I am interested in this too flacid motion you are talking about.

Me too and in the nature of bunting re: piano technique.

[nyiregyhazi]

"By too flaccid and inactive, do you mean relaxed and ready to play at anytime."

I'm talking about when it moves the key.

"Well in TEACHING, the music concept is always in mind. I do not have a blanket denial of something if it is not true. When a student bangs on a piano, that is because they like the result of loud sounds coming. They already had a concept in mind. How do you teach someone to do something without have a sound concept in your brain already right?"

Actually, I think loud playing is perhaps the most important place of all to develop musicality through sound technique as well as vice versa. Loud thumps involve bad technique. A student has to understand the concept for movement before thinking of striving to be very loud. It MUST come in that order for there to be any realistic hope of doing it well. If they start with the wrong movement, it will only get them accustomed to unmusical sounds more and more. Again, it's a two-way street. Telling the worst pounders to lighten up rarely results in something much better. They need to feel a style of technique that can be done with a feeling of total confidence and positivity. Otherwise, you often end up with a pianist who goes from brutality to weakness or neutrality.


"But teaching does not work that way. When we have students, "experiment"with motions on the keyboard, we know what result is going to happen before it happens. So does the kid. "

And what about movements they have never done? They neither know what will happen from them, nor do they have access to them. Anyone can understand the concept of voicing inner notes within a chord. However, few pianists can do so to the level of Horowitz because they have no experience of it. It's the technique that is lacking to voice at will to such a level- even among most concert pianists.

"Do you see the logic? Unless it is done by accident (which is not really teaching) very motion we make toward an instrument has a musical intention in our mind."

The problem is that a musical intention can lead to a bad technique. There's no better example than the thumping sounds of an enthusiastic kid playing their first loud piece. They have to learn the style of movement first, if they are to do a healthy FF. Good FFF often involves learning qualities of movement in mere mf. That's nothing to do with the musical intention. However, it can train physical issues that must be in place before FFF can be done healthily. Sometimes parts of the musical intentions can be the most harmful thing of all- if you don't put them on the backseat in just the right way.

"You are right is possible to accidently play a key and result in sounds, but what is the benefit? It there is no goal in the practice then what would be the point of practicing technique?"

There's no accident when I show a student a new quality of movement and guide their motions, in preparation for the musical issues.

"This is essentially the heart of point. Musical listening is critical to students musical development. Technique should be a bridge, not a hinderance toward music growth and learning. Never has or will be one or the other but musicanship should be the starting and the ending goal."

Sure, just like scoring goals is the goal in football. When a player passes the ball backwards it might not immediately look like a sensible step. But it may actually be far more useful than the play who simply kicks the ball in the direction of the goal 100% of the time. Similarly, to concentrate on a quality of the movement SOME of the time does not mean you've forgotten what your goal is. Some of the most useful things involve taking a step back from the most obvious part of the goal, in order to get there quicker. A lot of what I did over the years I regard as having been analagous to focusing so hard on the obvious intention, I was equivalent to the player who simply kicks the ball towards the opponents goal from the halfway line- rather than who sets up a position from which to easily score.

"Yes, it is ridiculous to show there are somethings that is learned by seeing something done rather" than merely explaining it."

No, it was ridiculous that you argued against such an irrelevant strawman, when I have constantly repeated that doing x does not mean banning y. Explaining rubato does not mean banning demonstration- and I have no idea why you are arguing based on that assumption.


"Rote learning is the most common and effective way younger students learn. Yes, more mature students need more explaintion rather than demonstration."

Why not explain in the first place too? Again, doing X does not mean having to ban Y. Then they might not need to have a two-note slur demonstrated as being strong-weak. They ought to know that anyway- especially if you have shown the corresponding movement to produce such articulation. They won't know it from mere rote-learning- unless the principle is conveyed.


"Oh, teachers rationalize , they just maybe not say it verbally to the student(which they should). They did not suggest to change the bowing without the musical result of a longer phrase in mind."

Indeed. The teacher did the musical thinking- and then the student executed the results from purely physical instructions about bowing. So physical means led to more musical results- which will shape the students musical thinking. It proves that the purest physical issues CAN shape musical results.

"Well standards and expectations have to come from somewhere. Playing accurately and musically is  something we are always working wards. This student has a perception that anything less than perfection is unacceptable to her and it is the teacher's job to sit her down and put some sense into her."

Implying that she ought to accept she's not talented enough to do as she aspires to and aim lower? Who says she expects perfection? The problem is when the INTENTION is not matched by the MEANS. There is nothing more frustrating. Even the most positive instruction about the music leaves nothing but a feeling of incapability- unless the teacher understands WHY the means is not there and HOW the student can set about achieving what they are already attempting to do.



"The idea that concert pianist never make an error is silly and teachers who continue that myth are doing some people a huge disservice."

I was talking about musical control- not wrong notes.


 
"I completely agree with your point. My attitude toward teaching is finding the balance between high expectations and from "perfection" ( which is completely subjective to apply to musical performance). Teachers who lower their expectations because you should just enjoy music are just as bad as the one who think perfection is the only goal worth reaching. It is unfortunate you had teachers who did not have high expectation for you and made your technique suffer."

I was talking largely about my school days- in which I was an especially late developer. Later I had teachers who had high expectations. I never learned a means to meet the expectations however, and basically found myself at a plateau. I'm not talking about any strict or negative teaching. However, I simply had no means to execute what I was being asked to strive for musically. I did not possess the control over sound to do so. The more I learned musically, the more frustrated I became- especially as much of the stuff I was being asked to do I knew full well already, but could not do achieve it.

[mcdiddy1]

I'm talking about when it moves the key.

Ok. So your talking about at the moment the thumb enters the key, the thumb is flaccid and inactive? Well the thumb should be relaxed and no longer push down more than necessary or it is a wasted energy. The moment it moves the key, the thumb should be relaxed, not flaccid and drop down but it should be ready to lift out for the next note. My philosophy on the thumb is faults with the thumb tend to be students not understanding how to use their arms as a stabilizing lever that floats about the key and incorrectly use the arm or forearm to play a note rather than moving the thumb independently. What do you think about that?

Actually, I think loud playing is perhaps the most important place of all to develop musicality through sound technique as well as vice versa. Loud thumps involve bad technique. A student has to understand the concept for movement before thinking of striving to be very loud. It MUST come in that order for there to be any realistic hope of doing it well. If they start with the wrong movement, it will only get them accustomed to unmusical sounds more and more. Again, it's a two-way street. Telling the worst pounders to lighten up rarely results in something much better. They need to feel a style of technique that can be done with a feeling of total confidence and positivity. Otherwise, you often end up with a pianist who goes from brutality to weakness or neutrality.

I have a interestingly different view of philosophy because I feel the most important aspect of developing musicality through sound is the ability to play soft.

Playing soft requires so much control and discipline. Toddlers can get on the keyboard and pound and make noise with ease but getting soft tones on the piano takes concentrated practice.
I had a student in a competition and pointed out he missed points because he did not play the accents written in the music. In this case "loud thumps" was what the composer required in the music. Why didn't he do it? I am sure he never heard the piece before and the teacher never played so no aural modal and thus the music is incomplete. Loud thumps involving bad technique is a very blanket statement. Play some Prokofiev and sudden loud thumps is exactly what is required.
You are right telling pounders to lighten up is kind of silly. You will not be with them every where they go so they need a way to know when to "pound" and when not to pound. They have need an example to figure out when to do it and when not to do it. Pounding is a technique but you have to teach them to use it when Beethoven writes sfz and not to play Chopins Berceuse with that technique.  You have to teach them what Berceuse means, Chopin's philosophy of Bel canto, dynamics etc. You would do this through playing and by explaining this.

And what about movements they have never done? They neither know what will happen from them, nor do they have access to them. Anyone can understand the concept of voicing inner notes within a chord. However, few pianists can do so to the level of Horowitz because they have no experience of it. It's the technique that is lacking to voice at will to such a level- even among most concert pianists.

You are right. They will not know what they have not done before. But the teacher does so the sound concept being first thing that is needed still applies. It will not be in the student's mind until the teacher says, we need to hear more of the G in that chord.

If the student canot hear that in the mind the teacher would play examples and non examples of it. The kid would not think of voicing the chord unless there was a musical reason or concept to do aim for in the first place.

 You cannot do what you do not know. Try and do it. It is impossible.

Music is an experience that takes place in the mind. The video I put in one of post talks about that in more detail but your brain is stimulated by music. If a deaf person plays the piano, I argue, they are playing sounds, and executing piano technique, but they do not understand what music is because sadly they cannot experience it.

The problem is that a musical intention can lead to a bad technique.

This is so true. However under a watchful and knowledgeable teacher musical intent can be created and the student can be guided towards it using good technique. It does not mean the musical intention was not there or that it is a bad thing. The means of getting there needs to be correct. No argument there.

"You are right is possible to accidently play a key and result in sounds, but what is the benefit? It there is no goal in the practice then what would be the point of practicing technique?"

There's no accident when I show a student a new quality of movement and guide their motions, in preparation for the musical issues.

You got my point. Teaching is no accident. You knew what the musical issues where so you used the technique to guide you there. You realize many of your arguments where the complete opposite right?


Sure, just like scoring goals is the goal in football. When a player passes the ball backwards it might not immediately look like a sensible step. But it may actually be far more useful than the play who simply kicks the ball in the direction of the goal 100% of the time. Similarly, to concentrate on a quality of the movement SOME of the time does not mean you've forgotten what your goal is. Some of the most useful things involve taking a step back from the most obvious part of the goal, in order to get there quicker. A lot of what I did over the years I regard as having been analogous to focusing so hard on the obvious intention, I was equivalent to the player who simply kicks the ball towards the opponents goal from the halfway line- rather than who sets up a position from which to easily score.


I love this analogy!. Why all the sports references though? No, argument there, it is just my point was you need a goal in the first place! Having the goal is not a bad thing, it is the getting there that is tricky because there are many wrong paths. One of the wrong path is focusing on musicality with no technique or technique with no musicality. The first is worse than the other but technique with no musicality is still a fault. My point is you can (sticking with the football analogy) up and down the field all you want (technique) but you better have a good goal like winning the game (achieving excellent musicianship) and good coach (teacher) to guide through that process.

Yes, it is ridiculous to show there are somethings that is learned by seeing something done rather" than merely explaining it."

No, it was ridiculous that you argued against such an irrelevant strawman, when I have constantly repeated that doing x does not mean banning y. Explaining rubato does not mean banning demonstration- and I have no idea why you are arguing based on that assumption.

I do not think you read what wrote very carefully. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS EITHER MUSICALITY OR TECHNIQUE. Sorry for the caps just trying to make it obvious. It should be assumed based on what I said musicality and technique should go hand and hand. I am just not going to put it in every sentence. The sentence you used was taken out of context. i am not arguing either or but rather the possibility of one (musicality) which if you remeber you said earlier "has almost zero place in a lesson" and you could teach " just by showing the movements" .

 No where in my statements have I ever said the following:The only way to learn rubato is by demonstrating and never explaining it. Explaining it is wrong and students will not get it. Just play it for them and they will instantly understand how to play it

"Rote learning is the most common and effective way younger students learn. Yes, more mature students need more explanation rather than demonstration."

Why not explain in the first place too? Again, doing X does not mean having to ban Y. Then they might not need to have a two-note slur demonstrated as being strong-weak. They ought to know that anyway- especially if you have shown the corresponding movement to produce such articulation. They won't know it from mere rote-learning- unless the principle is conveyed.

How many younger students do you teach? I mean 5 to 8 year-olds.

I think there is a miscommunication about which students. In this sentence , I said younger students. if I were to say to a younger student they principles of a two note slur being strong or weak and show them the corrosponding movement of articulation , after they wipe the drool from their face they would start telling about something infinitely more interesting about how their classmates dropped chocolate milk on their pants or something random like that. It depends on who you are talking about.

Explaining to an adult like me is worlds apart from a younger student so they need to be taught in a different way.

I think if you experienced teaching a child this young and explained your concepts of technique you would find a very frustrating experience. They say you really do not know something until you can teach it to a young child.

 If you talk over their heads, you will not have the kid as a student anymore.

"Oh, teachers rationalize , they just maybe not say it verbally to the student(which they should). They did not suggest to change the bowing without the musical result of a longer phrase in mind."

Indeed. The teacher did the musical thinking- and then the student executed the results from purely physical instructions about bowing. So physical means led to more musical results- which will shape the students musical thinking. It proves that the purest physical issues CAN shape musical results

I think this went over your head. The argument was what comes first the technique or the music concept. You seem to skip the fact the musical concept was formed by the teacher first(as it should be) and that resulted into the technique being learned and musical results.
Of course physical technique leads into musical results. But were does the technique come from?

Implying that she ought to accept she's not talented enough to do as she aspires to and aim lower? Who says she expects perfection? The problem is when the INTENTION is not matched by the MEANS. There is nothing more frustrating. Even the most positive instruction about the music leaves nothing but a feeling of incapability- unless the teacher understands WHY the means is not there and HOW the student can set about achieving what they are already attempting to do.

Who says not being a concert pianist is aiming lower? The number of famous pianist most people can name are  never more than 10 and usually less than 5. You can make just as big an impact in other fields of music.

 Quitting piano lessons based on frustrating feelings at the present moment is definitely not going to get her closer towards her goal.

 If someone is constantly uplifting you and guiding you toward your way why would you quit?

Even if the teacher was positive there were some completive influences that drove her intention or unintentionally to give up her dream anyway. So is that the best way?

I do not think being a positive teacher would help a student like that but an objective one would. That teacher would list all the things she is good at and if she missed the mark on things like musical control than she has her whole life and experiences to reach it. Just because you do not make it in your twenties does not mean you cannot be amazing in your 30's or 40's.

It is more about having high standards and realistic expectations and if it is not the teacher's job to guide her towards that than whose job is it?

 When you describe the why and how part of showing her, that is my point about being objective. You sit down and have a conversation and say: you need to work on this, despite you being really good at all this. So we are going to do x,y,z to get better at that. That is being objective about it. Nothing to do with positive or nice but it does have an encouraging part that is important.

Much better than saying, where is your musical control? Without it you will never be a concert pianist. You do really good at playing your dynamics and note accuracy but maybe you should try being something besides a concert pianist.

You can be positive and objective and it does not have to be mutually exclusive.

I was talking about musical control- not wrong notes.

Well which part of musical control do you mean? Do you mean dynamics or interpretation?

Interpretation is subjective and is developed through experience and knowledge.

Dynamics can vary on the instrument, acoustics of the room etc so that is no reason to beat yourself up on.

Do you mean the technique of playing the instrument? If you have technique to play the notes accurately, and I am assuming she is a very advance player, she should be able to handle herself on stage.

Stage fright is a big problem with performers but that could be improved my experience. There are many aspects of musical control that could easily be alleviated by experience and knowledge.

Wrong notes do not come from not knowing the music. It comes from the difficult of executing many different coordinations at the same time under pressure.

All the above pianist could play it in their sleep but they were human like all of us, and we should not be led to believe recordings were precisly how they wanted the music to sound.

Glen Gould rerecorded his Cds 20 years later because he was not satisfied with his interpretation and he was already considered one of the greatest pianist. I am just saying the teacher should provide some perspective so this idea of leaving because you do not play exactly how you want seems really silly.

I was talking largely about my school days- in which I was an especially late developer. Later I had teachers who had high expectations. I never learned a means to meet the expectations however, and basically found myself at a plateau. I'm not talking about any strict or negative teaching. However, I simply had no means to execute what I was being asked to strive for musically. I did not possess the control over sound to do so. The more I learned musically, the more frustrated I became- especially as much of the stuff I was being asked to do I knew full well already, but could not do achieve it.

You needed a better teacher. Lol Why did the teacher not explain how to do it? If that teacher asked you to do something and you left that room still not knowing how to do it or atleast work towards it , that is not good teaching. However if your expeditions were based on a recording you heard, recordings are a lie and the results of heavy productions. And using your sports analogy earlier, you needed a teacher to explain that you need to take some steps back to achieve that far away goal and explain the process they went to  achieve it.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well the thumb should be relaxed and no longer push down more than necessary or it is a wasted energy. The moment it moves the key, the thumb should be relaxed, not flaccid and drop down but it should be ready to lift out for the next note. My philosophy on the thumb is faults with the thumb tend to be students not understanding how to use their arms as a stabilizing lever that floats about the key and incorrectly use the arm or forearm to play a note rather than moving the thumb independently. What do you think about that?"

I agree that the arm should not play the note. However, what I discovered is that if the thumb finishes completely extended (with the arm being free to respond- rather than bearing down at any time) there's not need for any follow-up of relaxation. It just starts and finishes in full comfort anyway. This has made more difference to rapid scales than I could possibly describe. Rather than repressing thumb movement, I'm completely finishing the extension of the thumb.

"I had a student in a competition and pointed out he missed points because he did not play the accents written in the music. In this case "loud thumps" was what the composer required in the music. Why didn't he do it? I am sure he never heard the piece before and the teacher never played so no aural modal and thus the music is incomplete. Loud thumps involving bad technique is a very blanket statement. Play some Prokofiev and sudden loud thumps is exactly what is required."

At times. However, the student who goes all out into their first fortissimos may only have the possibility of loud thumps. I believe good technique should come first. The more enthusiastic the students musical intentions with loud sounds, the less likely they are to learn good technique.


"You are right. They will not know what they have not done before. But the teacher does so the sound concept being first thing that is needed still applies. It will not be in the student's mind until the teacher says, we need to hear more of the G in that chord. "

Sure. And then? Well,  the real difficulty begins. It's not hard to be aware of inner voices. Few pianists ever reach the stage where they can voice them effortlessly- not merely as a countermelody but as the primary point of focus that will carry to even an uneducated listener. Musically, there's nothing inherently harder about voicing inner parts than upper ones. Once you know which notes form the melody it's down to a physical difficulty and it can only be solved with either luck or suitable physical work to train the sensation required to execute the results.


"You cannot do what you do not know. Try and do it. It is impossible. "

Exactly. That's why simply pointing out that a melody is in the middle is worthless. If the student already knows where the melody is, looking directly at the end goal itself is totally futile. Like in football, you have to take a step back and think how you can end up in a position where you can realistically be capable of fulfilling the goal. In voicing, you have to train the technique before you can have a hope in hell of an attainable shot at the final goal.

"If a deaf person plays the piano, I argue, they are playing sounds, and executing piano technique, but they do not understand what music is because sadly they cannot experience it."

Obviously. Again, you're pointing out what happens if you throw out a variable entirely. A deaf person has no hearing and hence develops no feedback about the correlation between movement and sound. A person with hearing certainly can.


"You got my point. Teaching is no accident. You knew what the musical issues where so you used the technique to guide you there. You realize many of your arguments where the complete opposite right?"

No. The TEACHER, thinks of the musical results of course. My point is that the  STUDENT need not understand every step musically to begin with or necessarily understand how a physical procedure leads to the end goal. Obviously it would be different if the teacher had no idea. When I get students to practise the first movement of the moonlight sonata, I only need spend less than a minute illustrating the concept of the triplets being far softer than the melody. Sadly, this never leads to any notable difference. If I concentrate on getting them to play the triplets staccato and the melody legato (and on very specific physical issues while doing so) this takes far longer than that initial minute and might seem totally contrary to the musical goal. However, it never fails to make a huge difference to the musical result when they go back to playing normally. They learn the FEEL of two different voices. But I train that by an entirely separate process to that in which I explain the dynamics. It's not hard to understand two different levels of sound. However, it's very hard to execute- without specific exercises to train the means by feel. The training exercise might appear totally unmusical. However, if you bear with it the results certainly are not.

"The sentence you used was taken out of context. i am not arguing either or but rather the possibility of one (musicality) which if you remeber you said earlier "has almost zero place in a lesson" and you could teach " just by showing the movements" ."

Please reference those. I have repeated countless times now that I only ever said that SAYING to listen is basically worthless. Also, I said you CAN inspire musical learning via movement. I did not say you should always work this way and use nothing else. I am just saying this approach should not be written off as either impossible or useless. The moonlight sonata example above is the epitome of this. I need not even explain why I get them to do the staccato exercise. As soon as I ask them to play the triplets softer and distinguish the melody, they DISCOVER what effect the exercise had on what they can do. That discovery is down to a purely physically oriented exercise. Without the exercise, they never get anywhere from the musical explanation (or from demonstration). The physical part is about so much more than curved fingers etc. When you can feel separate voices as different entities physically, the voicing is inherently easier.




"I think there is a miscommunication about which students. In this sentence , I said younger students. if I were to say to a younger student they principles of a two note slur being strong or weak and show them the corrosponding movement of articulation , after they wipe the drool from their face they would start telling about something infinitely more interesting about how their classmates dropped chocolate milk on their pants or something random like that. It depends on who you are talking about."

Of course, you wouldn't phrase it that way. But that doesn't mean they cannot start learning usefully about such things, rather than copying. Slurs in particular, are almost impossible to convey without a physical demonstration that is referenced to strong-weak.

"I think this went over your head. The argument was what comes first the technique or the music concept. You seem to skip the fact the musical concept was formed by the teacher first(as it should be) and that resulted into the technique being learned and musical results.
Of course physical technique leads into musical results. But were does the technique come from?"

But that goes without saying. Why would a teacher do ANYTHING that was not conceived to contribute to a long term musical goal? The point is that a student can learn better MUSICAL thinking from PHYSICAL instructions. The teacher need not explain every aspect of it. You continue to speak as if this is just a ludicrous idea but various examples have proven otherwise- especially the bowing ones. In a balanced whole, it's among many productive ways to teach musicality- and one certainly that does not exclude anything else. The standard idea I dispute is that the musical goal ALWAYS comes first and the movement ALWAYS follows. I think that's very small-minded thinking. The opposite often applies too. A lot of the time, the teacher can look after the complexity of the path- and begin with the nuts and bolts.

"Who says not being a concert pianist is aiming lower? The number of famous pianist most people can name are  never more than 10 and usually less than 5. You can make just as big an impact in other fields of music."

I didn't say such a thing. I said that if your means do not permit you to even begin to transmit musical intentions, frustration will ensue. And the more you develop musically (without being able to realise it) the more frustrated you will become unless you are taught means to progress at a piano (rather than in your head). The above is entirely beside the point.


"Quitting piano lessons based on frustrating feelings at the present moment is definitely not going to get her closer towards her goal."

Neither is being told about musical issues you are supposed to strive for, then going to practise only to discover you have no means to realise those issues.



"Even if the teacher was positive there were some completive influences that drove her intention or unintentionally to give up her dream anyway."

Yes, not having been given any means to develop.  



"When you describe the why and how part of showing her, that is my point about being objective. You sit down and have a conversation and say: you need to work on this, despite you being really good at all this. So we are going to do x,y,z to get better at that."

Sure, how many teachers explain the basic physical nuts and bolts? I was given all kinds of classic practise techniques. None of them helped me a bit. Recently, a number of lessons that were almost exclusively on physical issues have completely transformed my ability to produce the sounds I had already intended to. Now those practice techniques work. Many teachers just don't teach the basic fundamental movements.


"Well which part of musical control do you mean?"

The control that permits realisation of intention. Developing that is the only way to both to be self-satisfied and to have a reasonable chance of also impressing others. Without it you simply cannot show your real level of musicality. The intention is basically lost in white noise.


"Do you mean the technique of playing the instrument? If you have technique to play the notes accurately"


? As I said, I'm talking about the technique to control sound.

" And using your sports analogy earlier, you needed a teacher to explain that you need to take some steps back to achieve that far away goal and explain the process they went to  achieve it."

Exactly- to step back from the immediate musical goals and develop better physical movements- in order to be able to realise the musical goals. At the time, all I really did was play and listen. The whole thing was about that. I didn't have the slightest clue what my body was doing. I'd just try anything to get closer to the sound I intended.

[mcdiddy1]

I agree that the arm should not play the note. However, what I discovered is that if the thumb finishes completely extended (with the arm being free to respond- rather than bearing down at any time) there's not need for any follow-up of relaxation. It just starts and finishes in full comfort anyway. This has made more difference to rapid scales than I could possibly describe. Rather than repressing thumb movement, I'm completely finishing the extension of the thumb.

Got it. I do that naturally. I was reading about how the base joint of the thumb in near the wrist and needs to be relaxed in order to allow a free extension. It is definetly something I will keep and eye out for in my students.

At times. However, the student who goes all out into their first fortissimos may only have the possibility of loud thumps. I believe good technique should come first. The more enthusiastic the students musical intentions with loud sounds, the less likely they are to learn good technique.

found a interesting quote from article we can both agree on

interestingly, the more musical the player the more difficult listening can be, because the
inner musical world has correspondingly more depth and clarity. Even good teaching,
stressing the importance of listening to the inner voice and of pitching notes mentally in
advance of playing them, is misleading if the student is not finally helped towards real control
of the sound.
It is not necessary to be a top, world-class artist before you can hear sound coming out of your
instrument, and shape it musically and expressively; but I am certain the puzzling truth is that
few of us actually play like this. A musician must be like a sculptor of sound, deliberately and
physically shaping a describable quality of sound in a particular fashion, nuance by nuance.  Simon Fischer


Sure. And then? Well,  the real difficulty begins. It's not hard to be aware of inner voices.

It is hard if you have never been taught how to listen to it. Never met a student who listened to a piano piece and says " Wow its cool how that pianist voiced that chord" without the teacher bringing it up. You are right , it is not hard to do but it won't be done until it is noticed first. Then yes you teach the technique but it must be identified first. I say it is not hard to voice them effortlessly but it is not done because the person does not listen for it.

That's why simply pointing out that a melody is in the middle is worthless. If the student already knows where the melody is, looking directly at the end goal itself is totally futile.

That is a big, big if. You are talking as a mature pianist. I am talking about a kid in middle school , identifying a counter melody. I promise you, it will not happen. I am not saying these students are uncapable but honestly they have not matured to even listen for things like that yet. If you are an older pianist, why is futile to know where the melody is. How would you bring it out if you don't know where the melody goes. Good teaching is part teaching the student to teach themselves. If you combine teaching students to identify countermelodies and the techniques to bring it out, you will have a student who is able to do it.
But teaching them to do it is incomplete if they do not know the when to do it. All the good technique goes to wayside. When you are teaching you have to do it sequencially so students can follow the steps as home. Teaching technique without the listening is coming up with the solution before identifying the problem. You would not want to spoon fed the students the answer but allow them to come up with solutions to problems they have in their own practice.

"If a deaf person plays the piano, I argue, they are playing sounds, and executing piano technique, but they do not understand what music is because sadly they cannot experience it."

Obviously. Again, you're pointing out what happens if you throw out a variable entirely. A deaf person has no hearing and hence develops no feedback about the correlation between movement and sound. A person with hearing certainly can.

I used this example to show people need a concept of what music is in order to create it. I use examples like that because in order to show the importance of a variable you need to look at the results when it is not there.

No. The TEACHER, thinks of the musical results of course. My point is that the  STUDENT need not understand every step musically to begin with or necessarily understand how a physical procedure leads to the end goal. Obviously it would be different if the teacher had no idea. When I get students to practise the first movement of the moonlight sonata, I only need spend less than a minute illustrating the concept of the triplets being far softer than the melody. Sadly, this never leads to any notable difference. If I concentrate on getting them to play the triplets staccato and the melody legato (and on very specific physical issues while doing so) this takes far longer than that initial minute and might seem totally contrary to the musical goal. However, it never fails to make a huge difference to the musical result when they go back to playing normally. They learn the FEEL of two different voices. But I train that by an entirely separate process to that in which I explain the dynamics. It's not hard to understand two different levels of sound. However, it's very hard to execute- without specific exercises to train the means by feel. The training exercise might appear totally unmusical. However, if you bear with it the results certainly are not.

Your right this is a great technique for teaching students technique. I do things like that all the time. Doing the opposite technique can make the technique you are aiming for suddenly possible.

My whole point was there need to be a sound concept be someone in order to play it.

Of course if the student walked in and you asked the student to sight read something, chances are especially if they are inexperienced they will not have a clear notion of how the piece goes. But there will be some vauge notion of sound in their mind. They expect what comes out to be the sound of the piano. They may know the intervals , melody harmony, or rhythm, but if it started sounding like a violin they would be startled.

My point of the importance of listening is by strenghting their tonal concept before they play they can get an idea of the tempo, rhythm, notes, directions, phrasing, articulation before you say word explaining. Of course you can point  out somethings to them but they will sight-read it much better having been given the preview. Then you may suggest the great practice techniques you mentions after they had some success with it.

In regard to the Moonlight Sonata, everyone has heard the piece including the student so your right the whole aural concept would not be important in this situation, because they have it already! What if they didn't?

Of course, you wouldn't phrase it that way. But that doesn't mean they cannot start learning usefully about such things, rather than copying. Slurs in particular, are almost impossible to convey without a physical demonstration that is referenced to strong-weak.

I wish it was that easy. Assuming they are well behaved children ,then yes ,you could learn thing through verbal descriptions first. Unfortunatly, it is rarely the case and kids want to do something and they want to do it now.It is much easier said than done to teach roudy boys about the importance of slurs.

What is strong weak reference to slurs? Slurs is an articulation that indicates a connection between two sounds and has nothing to with meter or dynamics.

Tell Beethoven about the strong -weak rule because he sure does not follow that.

 I think it is bad idea to teach things that could be controdicted in the not too distant future. This may work in some elementary literature but it does not carry through as you keep going.

 Slurs are also sometimes used as phrase marking( I dont think they should but editors do it) . Not every phrase is going to start strong. I am not trying to be so picky about itm but when you get the smart alec kid that says" I though you said slurs start strong", they will look at you like you do not know what your talking about.

But that goes without saying. Why would a teacher do ANYTHING that was not conceived to contribute to a long term musical goal? The point is that a student can learn better MUSICAL thinking from PHYSICAL instructions. The teacher need not explain every aspect of it. You continue to speak as if this is just a ludicrous idea but various examples have proven otherwise- especially the bowing ones. In a balanced whole, it's among many productive ways to teach musicality- and one certainly that does not exclude anything else. The standard idea I dispute is that the musical goal ALWAYS comes first and the movement ALWAYS follows. I think that's very small-minded thinking. The opposite often applies too. A lot of the time, the teacher can look after the complexity of the path- and begin with the nuts and bolts.

Students can gain musical results from physical instructions. What you excellently described in your Moonlight sonata explanation is a practice technique toward a musical result. If you want students to think musically, you have to allow them to experience music. Listening to Chopin will help you understand his style and approach better than anyone could ever explain to you.

Let me give you an example of when it is a bad idea to do a practice tool first

I was teaching Moonlight Sonata, and she had heard it before and never played it so I proceded to teaching her. When it came to showing her the right hand. I taught the opening chords, blocked first, then had her double strike it to help her remeber the shape her hand was in to play the chords. This is what I do all the time. I break pieces down into various strategies I know will help me learn faster.

When it came time for her to play, she struggled because she had never played a piece with so many sharps before and was struggling to remeber so all the piano physical piano practice technique. It would have benefited her more to have an opportunity to simply read the notes before teaching her and probably confusing her with practice technique.

I reminded me of a story, where one of my piano teachers was an assistant for a Dorathy De Lay, who was a renoun teacher of violin technique and hundreds of students. She would have short lessons where the student would play for her and she would say ok well, it is a g# in measure 4 and play a little higher in the B section and that would be the lesson. The point is as much as we want to get extreamly technical and wrapped up in the technique of things, everything comes down to the fundamentals of notes and rhythms in the long run. I had made the mistake of getting wrapped up in the technique and not starting from the bottom up and building the simple fundamentals of just learning the notes.

I didn't say such a thing. I said that if your means do not permit you to even begin to transmit musical intentions, frustration will ensue. And the more you develop musically (without being able to realise it) the more frustrated you will become unless you are taught means to progress at a piano (rather than in your head). The above is entirely beside the point.

Got it. So basicly if your technique is faulty and prevents you from expression your musical intentions, you will get frustrated right? Completely agree and understand that. Luckily I am part of the camp that believes technique can be fixed. Although I have never experienced carpal tunnel syndrome, so I have no idea what these kind of limitations are like.

Neither is being told about musical issues you are supposed to strive for, then going to practise only to discover you have no means to realise those issues.

You are right. it seems like you are implying her teachers did not teacher her technique. If that is so then quiting does seem a lot more logical. If she is not getting that balance then she should get a better teacher.

Sure, how many teachers explain the basic physical nuts and bolts? I was given all kinds of classic practise techniques. None of them helped me a bit. Recently, a number of lessons that were almost exclusively on physical issues have completely transformed my ability to produce the sounds I had already intended to. Now those practice techniques work. Many teachers just don't teach the basic fundamental movements.

Good teachers do. I definetly got them and then some. I had one when I read this book The Perfect Wrong Note by William Westney. It is a wonderful book that really altered how I viewed practice. It describes practice techniques many teachers simply do not talk about and I feel it would greatly help their students too.

"Well which part of musical control do you mean?"

The control that permits realisation of intention. Developing that is the only way to both to be self-satisfied and to have a reasonable chance of also impressing others. Without it you simply cannot show your real level of musicality. The intention is basically lost in white noise.

So basicily , technique. There are many aspects people try to control: tempo, dynamics, interpretation, etc. Now I get what you mean. Yes, not having technique is going to prevent you from the sound you want.

As I said, I'm talking about the technique to control sound.

Well unless you are a superhero, you cannot control sounds only the instrument that produces sound. So you are saying there was not enough piano technique in her music lessons.

Exactly- to step back from the immediate musical goals and develop better physical movements- in order to be able to realise the musical goals. At the time, all I really did was play and listen. The whole thing was about that. I didn't have the slightest clue what my body was doing. I'd just try anything to get closer to the sound I intended

And this is why I have a job.
I think you would like this quote from a violin teacher
If you want to change the way you play, you have to change the way you think about your playing. One of the chief jobs of the teacher is not only to present and implement helpful ideas, but also to weed out the unhelpful ideas that are getting in the way. The problem is that many of these may be buried so deeply that, although they continue to exert an influence, they are forever hidden and forgotten whatever the good intentions of the teacher or the student.

[keyboardclass]

However, what I discovered is that if the thumb finishes completely extended (with the arm being free to respond- rather than bearing down at any time) there's not need for any follow-up of relaxation. It just starts and finishes in full comfort anyway. This has made more difference to rapid scales than I could possibly describe. Rather than repressing thumb movement, I'm completely finishing the extension of the thumb.

Really?

Figure 4 – Thumb Extension to Flexion (right hand)

[nyiregyhazi]

Really?

Figure 4 – Thumb Extension to Flexion (right hand)

? Who says an extended thumb is necessarily a thumb is pulled back so that it just out directly to the side? I'm referring to a thumb that is straightened out into extension- not one that is in the far more specific position in your photo.

[keyboardclass]

If you're talking about interphalangeal extension that's a lateral movement of no use in key depression.

[nyiregyhazi]

"found a interesting quote from article we can both agree on"

Yes, it's a very sound description.
Sure. And then? Well,  the real difficulty begins. It's not hard to be aware of inner voices.


"That is a big, big if. You are talking as a mature pianist. I am talking about a kid in middle school , identifying a counter melody. I promise you, it will not happen."

Sure, the ability to understand them is an important thing to develop. But it remains that it's far easier to convey that a melody is to be brought out than to do it. The technical challenge is far greater. I've taught the Brahm op. 118 no. 2 various times. It's not hard to show the student that the middle is the more important part. However it's very hard to make it come through. Musically there's a big challenge to shape the line, but first challenge is simply to have the ability to make the inner part the source of attention. Without that you can't even start to scratch the surface of trying to make a musical line. I've encountered plenty of very advanced players who, in my opinion, simply do not have the means to voice to bring such things out- despite knowing where the most important line is. The physical means of voicing technique is something that is usually taught very poorly.

"If you are an older pianist, why is futile to know where the melody is. How would you bring it out if you don't know where the melody goes. Good teaching is part teaching the student to teach themselves. If you combine teaching students to identify countermelodies and the techniques to bring it out, you will have a student who is able to do it."

I'm thinking more of melodies than countermelodies, even. There's no shortage of concert pianists around who cannot even put an average listener's upon the primary line of all, should it be in the inner parts. You have to know the piece to have a clue where it is. I don't believe they are ignorant to what the melody is. Conductor/pianists are as generally as crap at this as anyone (although Pletnev is one of few living players who can do it well). Does a conductor not recognise a melody? I think they simply don't know how to make it heard as an artist like Horowitz did. The means is absent.


"A Teaching technique without the listening is coming up with the solution before identifying the problem."

Why would you leave it out? I'd even ask HOW you could leave it out? However, aspects of the preparation are often scarcely about more than the most basic listening. In the moonlight sonata exercise, you don't need to play the accompaniment quiet. You just need to avoid putting weight on it by playing it staccato. As long as you do so, it will be easier to go straight into the musical product. The listening challenge starts after you train your hand to distinguish between that which carries weight and that which carries almost none. Only then is there any real hope of executing intentions. Sadly few students are aware of how to practise voicing technique and simply endure the frustration of being told what to attempt and then left to "have a go". There's nothing more technically demanding than musical voicing- but ironically it's the most neglected part of the whole of piano technique.

"In regard to the Moonlight Sonata, everyone has heard the piece including the student so your right the whole aural concept would not be important in this situation, because they have it already! What if they didn't?"

It's not hard to grasp intellectually. It's certainly hard to put together the whole line musically. But before that even becomes an issue that can be considered, few students can even voice five over the thumb properly in the open octave. This is where the stumbling block exists that must be overcome physically. I'll demonstrate the final sound for them to hear and I'll explain how one voice is PPP and the other more like mp. Whether they've heard it or not, this is a short few minutes of explanation and demonstration. The musical idea is really pretty simple. Getting them to play the right hand with two hands often gets them acquainted with the desired sound pretty well. The HOW (when doing both parts with the right hand) could take an entire lesson or more.

"What is strong weak reference to slurs? Slurs is an articulation that indicates a connection between two sounds and has nothing to with meter or dynamics."

Not nothing. I'm not any academic type but I believe this is referenced in many old treatises. For one thing, it emulates the natural results of string bowings. I often refer to it as a 95% rule- rather than a rule though.
 
"I am not trying to be so picky about itm but when you get the smart alec kid that says" I though you said slurs start strong", they will look at you like you do not know what your talking about."

I distinguish between phrase marks and slurs when explaining two note slurs. I never say anything to suggest a new phrase mark suggests an accent. Generally I say it suggests the absolute opposite of an accent. Two note slurs are more specific though. Also, "strong-weak" is always explained as relative between the two sounds rather than absolute. Arguably is more about phrasing off than starting inherently strong.
 

"Students can gain musical results from physical instructions. What you excellently described in your Moonlight sonata explanation is a practice technique toward a musical result."

Exactly. This is all I'm saying- that the right physical training can serve to develop musicality as much as musicality can help to develop technique. I make no argument against anything else. I learned most of my musicality from listening to recordings. Fortunately I had a teacher who was very good at explaining WHY to do certain things- so I also learned to analyse why performers do things- rather than merely to copy the surface. I'm not arguing against of any the things you seem to think I am.

I sense we actually agree on almost everything. Is it just the stigma about suggesting that pure physically trained issues can develop musicality that puts you off (implying no exclusion of any other factors)? I don't believe the level of stigma attached to it is either necessary or beneficial. It sounds to me like you exploit these issues as much as I do. However, the stigma attached to the principle means that many people lose sight of the pragmatic reality of how much technique is involved in musical execution. It's only one part of a balanced whole- but it's a very notable part indeed. The very finest teachers are clearly exploiting this- while often flatly denying the worth in such principles! I think it would be greatly beneficial to teaching in general if such issues were acknowledged. While the best teachers do these things anyway, the stigma about the concept does nothing to make lesser teachers go deeper into the nature of what is needed to put musical intentions into practise with any success. It suggests that it's fine not to worry about technique, if they focus enough on the music- perpetuating the problem

[mcdiddy1]

m thinking more of melodies than countermelodies, even. There's no shortage of concert pianists around who cannot even put an average listener's upon the primary line of all, should it be in the inner parts. You have to know the piece to have a clue where it is. I don't believe they are ignorant to what the melody is. Conductor/pianists are as generally as crap at this as anyone (although Pletnev is one of few living players who can do it well). Does a conductor not recognize a melody? I think they simply don't know how to make it heard as an artist like Horowitz did. The means is absent.

I cannon comment on how well concert pianist bring out counter lines - due to so many factors involved. The most basic factor is different pianist have different interpretations of what is important and what is. Other factors such as the quality of recording equipment, the nature of piano ( some registers are brighter in particular) instruments, and considerations of the acoustics of the room. That being said bringing out the melody is easily taught  and easily done when you know where and what to listen for.

Most of the technical aspects you brought up, I agree with the approach. I think I have beat home my point about the importance of getting to the point where you would need this technique to applied first before you can do specific things to achieve it.

I'm not any academic type but I believe this is referenced in many old treatises. For one thing, it emulates the natural results of string bowings. I often refer to it as a 95% rule- rather than a rule though.

I cannot say I have it this description of slurs because most of them naturally fall in a natural strong- weak inflection. I am just point out the pit fall of confusing students when you mix up elements of meter with articuation.

I distinguish between phrase marks and slurs when explaining two note slurs. I never say anything to suggest a new phrase mark suggests an accent. Generally I say it suggests the absolute opposite of an accent. Two note slurs are more specific though. Also, "strong-weak" is always explained as relative between the two sounds rather than absolute. Arguably is more about phrasing off than starting inherently strong.
 
Another reason for student to listen to their piece before they play or learn it. It would be helpul to know where a slur and phrase is, where the melody is, and places of tension and release. It is great you distinguish between phrase marks and slurs. The problem is editors often don't and can become confusing for a student who is not familiar with the piece.  Another problem is slur can be over a series of notes that is not necessarily a phrase  but indicates legato so it right to say slurs  longer than 2 notes is a phrase. It seems really logical to experienced pianist but it can be a source of confusion for the younger ones and for good reason because the terms are used interchangeably.

"Students can gain musical results from physical instructions. What you excellently described in your Moonlight sonata explanation is a practice technique toward a musical result."

Exactly. This is all I'm saying- that the right physical training can serve to develop musicality as much as musicality can help to develop technique. I make no argument against anything else. I learned most of my musicality from listening to recordings. Fortunately I had a teacher who was very good at explaining WHY to do certain things- so I also learned to analyse why performers do things- rather than merely to copy the surface. I'm not arguing against of any the things you seem to think I am.

I agree I think we do agree on a lot of things. Our biggest difference has to do with our experiences in our musical development and our pedagogical experience.

In my case I have students from 5 to adults in their 40's so my perceptive towards teaching is very a wide range and I quickly learned the differences between teaching small kids, middle school, teenagers, and adults. There is only so much technique you can teach a young student that is 5 because there are developing their bodies and have different cognitive capacities.

I do not disagree with your approach but mostly who it is used for. When you teach older students, unless they have lived in a bubble their entire life, they have already been exposed to music and come in with more technical needs than a 5 year old would.

 I think it is so much easier teaching older students and I have learned so much about teaching in general from dealing with elementary. I really feel that elementary people are the strongest and arguably the most important teacher because this is where their love of music stems from and to your point where faults in technique can be eradicated. I urge you to teach elementary kids because I learned a great deal from that and it definitely made me a stronger teacher in general.

[nyiregyhazi]

"That being said bringing out the melody is easily taught  and easily done when you know where and what to listen for."

Is it? To the level of Horowitz? Many pianists are bad enough at projecting upper parts- nevermind what happens when the melodic line is elsewhere. How many pianists can really choose which note stands out to ANY listener as carrying the melody (rather than to listeners that already know what the melody sounds like)? Is it supposedly a "musical" decision when countless concert artists who voice upper melodies with total clarity fail to project a melody line anywhere near as well if it's in the middle of other notes? Have they really never been told that the melody does not only occur at the top of a texture? Or do they simply not have the ability to make inner melodies cut through as clearly as those in an orchestra would be expected to? I frequently sense incapability- rather than inadequate musicianship.


"There is only so much technique you can teach a young student that is 5 because there are developing their bodies and have different cognitive capacities."

Agreed. However, I'm interested in trying to find the simplest ways of preparing for the things that are needed to achieve advanced pianism. I've found that the extending thumb is extremely useful for even the earliest levels- but especially once scales are started. A properly active thumb is part of any advanced technique, but I think it's also one of the most important basics to start instilling from day one. It's what causes the holes in 99% of students scales- whether they're hugely obvious ones or the slighter ones that make the difference between reasonable comfort and extreme ease. I think there are physical principles and exercises that can be started on in the very first lesson, that can help to start training the actions that are needed to avoid such holes. Also, I think that a fully extended and supportive thumb (when keeping a key down) is possibly the single easiest position in which to train the feeling for what's it's like to have a truly relaxed arm- without collapse of the hand being any kind of danger.



 I think it is so much easier teaching older students and I have learned so much about teaching in general from dealing with elementary. I really feel that elementary people are the strongest and arguably the most important teacher because this is where their love of music stems from and to your point where faults in technique can be eradicated. I urge you to teach elementary kids because I learned a great deal from that and it definitely made me a stronger teacher in general.


I don't teach extremely young kids, but I have students from seven upwards.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you're talking about interphalangeal extension that's a lateral movement of no use in key depression.

That depends entirely on how your thumb is aligned to begin with. I often have my thumb aligned at about 45 degrees from vertical- giving plenty of room to use the straightening action as the exclusive source of input. You can get an extremely deep cantabile sound from this- with remarkably little expenditure of energy. However, I also regularly combine straightening actions with the movement that opens the thumb away from the palm. This has led to considerable improvement of that action (and adds vastly more sound to situations that require extreme power).

Also, practising an extreme slide down the key has been a very useful exercise for achieving release of muscles in the forearm. You don't have to slide in the end product, but feeling the results of doing so has proved to be a valuable learning exercise. I've seen it make a remarkably quick difference with students. It rapidly takes all the stiffness out a thumb (particularly one that is used to brace for impact after a fall/arm pressure instead of simply moving). It's a big aid to freeing up the thumb enough to play repeated octaves without tiredness. I never understood how Liszt's 6th rhapsody could even be done until recently. However, this freed something up that makes it possible for the thumb to keep moving the keys with comfort (rather than brace in a position to apply arm pressure- leading to inevitable seizure).

[mcdiddy1]

"That being said bringing out the melody is easily taught  and easily done when you know where and what to listen for."

Is it? To the level of Horowitz? Many pianists are bad enough at projecting upper parts- nevermind what happens when the melodic line is elsewhere. How many pianists can really choose which note stands out to ANY listener as carrying the melody (rather than to listeners that already know what the melody sounds like)? Is it supposedly a "musical" decision when countless concert artists who voice upper melodies with total clarity fail to project a melody line anywhere near as well if it's in the middle of other notes? Have they really never been told that the melody does not only occur at the top of a texture? Or do they simply not have the ability to make inner melodies cut through as clearly as those in an orchestra would be expected to? I frequently sense incapability- rather than inadequate musicianship.

I think it is too subjective to say what concert pianist can or cannot do. With people of such gifted ability and with the guidance of great teachers I am sure they can voice what ever melody they choose. Not every pianist will sound like Horowitz because they are not him and maybe have different view over how they choose to interprate a piece. I have tried out many differnt pianos and many insturments have darker registers in different sections of the keyboard. Being how performers play on different instruments at different stages and different audio equiptment, it is not fair to say they are incapable of doing it.

But all of that is just personal opinon. I wouldn't be comfortable like many people on youtube judging people who put their hears on their stage while sitting on my butt on a couch.

"There is only so much technique you can teach a young student that is 5 because there are developing their bodies and have different cognitive capacities."

Agreed. However, I'm interested in trying to find the simplest ways of preparing for the things that are needed to achieve advanced pianism. I've found that the extending thumb is extremely useful for even the earliest levels- but especially once scales are started. A properly active thumb is part of any advanced technique, but I think it's also one of the most important basics to start instilling from day one. It's what causes the holes in 99% of students scales- whether they're hugely obvious ones or the slighter ones that make the difference between reasonable comfort and extreme ease. I think there are physical principles and exercises that can be started on in the very first lesson, that can help to start training the actions that are needed to avoid such holes. Also, I think that a fully extended and supportive thumb (when keeping a key down) is possibly the single easiest position in which to train the feeling for what's it's like to have a truly relaxed arm- without collapse of the hand being any kind of danger.

99% student's scales? Really. I would be interested to see what you think of my students playing scales. I wonder what the difference this one percent of student sound like. You have and videos of this technique you describe?




[/quote] I don't teach extremely young kids, but I have students from seven upwards.

[/quote]

Ahh...lucky. The youngest I taught was 3. Not the most fun in my opinion. I prefer teaching older kids.

[keyboardclass]

That depends entirely on how your thumb is aligned to begin with. I often have my thumb aligned at about 45 degrees from vertical- giving plenty of room to use the straightening action as the exclusive source of input.

The mind boggles.  I'd need a pic.  Why do you never supply illustrations?

[nyiregyhazi]

The mind boggles.  I'd need a pic.  Why do you never supply illustrations?

Picture a side on view of the keyboard. The thumb will be at an angle half way between horizontally along the key and vertical- ie 45 degrees.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I think it is too subjective to say what concert pianist can or cannot do. With people of such gifted ability and with the guidance of great teachers I am sure they can voice what ever melody they choose. Not every pianist will sound like Horowitz because they are not him and maybe have different view over how they choose to interprate a piece."

Well, you could call it "interpretation" to play so an uneducated listener will not have their attention drawn towards a melody that is in the middle. However, I don't think the idea that middle parts are never given the prominence that upper ones are is a very good "interpretation". What conductor always keeps the attention on the top? Whether it's a musical or technical issue, any performer should be able to make the ear of any listener be drawn to any note (rather than merely those of listeners with acute hearing). I don't believe that many have that ability. Horowitz did- but shouldn't everyone? I don't think it has a thing to do with sounding "like" Horowitz but rather of having the "same ability as" Horowitz. Pianists develop their own hearing but forget that listeners do not automatically hear as they do. It's a chicken or egg situation, but I really don't think most modern concert players have the level of voicing skill that they ought to.


"I have tried out many differnt pianos and many insturments have darker registers in different sections of the keyboard."

That it's harder on some pianos is no excuse. That only serves to show how technically based the difficulty is. There's no piano where a note played mezzo-forte does not project through notes played ppp (at least, no piano that's not urgently needing a service). It's just that not many pianists have the ability to voice with sufficient contrast. With enough ability, it should be easy to adapt to harder circumstances. A pianist who cannot adapt to realise the intentions on a harder instrument either has faulty listening- or no means to make the needed adaptations.

"99% student's scales? Really. I would be interested to see what you think of my students playing scales. I wonder what the difference this one percent of student sound like. You have and videos of this technique you describe?"

Not yet, but I definitely will upload some demonstrations in the future- to accompany some posts I'm writing about various issues.

[keyboardclass]

Picture a side on view of the keyboard. The thumb will be at an angle half way between horizontally along the key and vertical- ie 45 degrees.

You obviously mean abduction not extension.  Your 45 degree angle must mean a wrist exceedingly high.

[mcdiddy1]

Well, you could call it "interpretation" to play so an uneducated listener will not have their attention drawn towards a melody that is in the middle. However, I don't think the idea that middle parts are never given the prominence that upper ones are is a very good "interpretation". What conductor always keeps the attention on the top? Whether it's a musical or technical issue, any performer should be able to make the ear of any listener be drawn to any note (rather than merely those of listeners with acute hearing). I don't believe that many have that ability. Horowitz did- but shouldn't everyone? I don't think it has a thing to do with sounding "like" Horowitz but rather of having the "same ability as" Horowitz. Pianists develop their own hearing but forget that listeners do not automatically hear as they do. It's a chicken or egg situation, but I really don't think most modern concert players have the level of voicing skill that they ought to.

I am sure concert pianist listen to recordings of themselves play and adjust how they play based on what they hear is missing. I think many of them do not put the same amount of importance on it as maybe you do.

Most people when they listen to themselves on a recording for the first time are shocked by how they really sound. Considering all the other things that must be right in order to meet their standards and others of a successful performance, the sin of not voicing enough is a sin they can live with.

Playing a musical instruments requires the balancing act of so many skills: tone, rhythm, notes accuracy, phrasing, style, and interpretation. This all has to be done while maintaining control of their emotions, stage fright, and intense concentration. They deserve praise for what they do not to be nitpicked for the less strong aspect of their performance.

For someone who is as technique focused as you I am surprised you use Horowitz as an example. Horowitz is a pianist know for an unorthadox piano technique and flat fingers but managed to play with extrordinary tone color.  What you call a strength of technique voicing , many people critisise his playing as too exaggerated and distorted. He was also known for making many errors in live performances despite his excellent tone.

I do not think you will find many pianist who want to emulate his unorthadox technique because they are simply different people. To make what makes him a great pianist is his conviction of his musical interpretation and his rapid finger passage work. I do not think his technique is  good model for aspiring piano students because the technique worked for him, much like Glenn Gould. They had different bodies with different skill sets from other pianist. I read someone where people felt his technique came from having an extremly unusually motor skills. These pianist are exemptions to the rules. I certainly would not want everyone to play exactly like Horowitz but achieve a unique interpretation based on their own background and abilities.

I personally think concert pianist should be equally skilled in all aspects that create a good performance rather than emulating a single performer's style of playing. Nobody does everything perfectly, even Horowitz so why should we hold other pianist to an impossible standard that does not exist?

Not yet, but I definitely will upload some demonstrations in the future- to accompany some posts I'm writing about various issues.

Please do because I think this will bring some validation to what you are saying. If you can show the difference between a thumb that is inactive and one that as all the principlales you talk about it would be easier to accept as truth. I personally do not feel you can look at someone and tell whether their thumb is active or in active, only tense and not tense. I would be love to be proven wrong. A demonstration of a correctly performed scale that you say only 1 percent of pianist do compared to the rest would also help.

[mcdiddy1]

You obviously mean abduction not extension.  Your 45 degree angle must mean a wrist exceedingly high.

That is why a picture would be useful to see what exactly how the forearm and wrist are angled to allow the fingers to contact the keys. There are many possible angles and structures possible that can be good or potentially introduce tension.

The size of the hand is also important to consider. For people with long fingers, holding the thumb at a 45 degree angle may work for them but if you have smaller hands and fingers it could introduce stress to hand holding your hand in the same way.

The evidence of this being a technique that would be work would be in if the student "feels" muscles contracting too much and feels tired after playing for a period of time and if the student can execute challenging music in this way.

I think you need to produce a book.  Nyiregyhazi's Piano Method-complete with explanations and illustrations

[keyboardclass]

For people with long fingers, holding the thumb at a 45 degree angle may work for them but if you have smaller hands and fingers it could introduce stress to hand holding your hand in the same way.

The point is tensing the abductors to keep it in that position is poor technique.  The thumb should be where its physiology places it until you move it.

Nyiregyhazi's Piano Method

Nyiregyhazi's Wacky Way more like.

[mcdiddy1]

The point is tensing the abductors to keep it in that position is poor technique.  The thumb should be where its physiology places it until you move it.
Nyiregyhazi's Wacky Way more like.

Well if you hold your wrist up, and have long fingers then it is possible to be relaxed. I do not think this good technique though because the further your fingers are from the keys, the slower your motions will be and the more effort you will need to make to get strong tones from the piano.

Ouch....Nyiregyhazi's Wacky Way...thats mean. I am willing to have an open mind to anything that can be proven. A theory that is not done in practice is pretty worthless. I suspect you probably have the similar views of piano technique but he may be describing it in a way that does not make sense.

[nyiregyhazi]

You obviously mean abduction not extension.  Your 45 degree angle must mean a wrist exceedingly high.

No I mean extension. Use alternative terms if you wish, but please do not suppose it is more correct to demand anatomical language over very standard language with an universally accepted and obvious meaning. I refer to it as extension because the meaning is so much more immediately obvious than pedantic technical terms. "Extension" as in "extending" the thumb. Hardly ambiguous. If someone referred to holding their arm out, perhaps you'd decide they "mean" whatever pedantic anatomical language can be applied to that?

And no, my wrist is not exceedingly high when I do this- at least not in terms of the angle formed at the wrist. My hand and forearm are totally aligned. If you mean absolute height, why is it of any relevance?

[nyiregyhazi]

The point is tensing the abductors to keep it in that position is poor technique.  The thumb should be where its physiology places it until you move it.

I made it quite clear that I was talking ABOUT moving it.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I am sure concert pianist listen to recordings of themselves play and adjust how they play based on what they hear is missing. I think many of them do not put the same amount of importance on it as maybe you do. "

They do not hear as an impartial listener hears though. They are biased by their knowledge and intentions. Maybe some pianists don't think that inner lines should be put into the foreground for a listener who doesn't already know about them, but I'd say that such pianists ought to analyse more orchestral music and see how often the melody is actually found at the top. The uniformity of the piano means you have to exaggerate vastly more if you are to emulate the 3 dimensional sound of an orchestra.


"Considering all the other things that must be right in order to meet their standards and others of a successful performance, the sin of not voicing enough is a sin they can live with."

Precisely. As I said, the physical difficulty of musical voicing leads them to compromise their musical intentions- shaping not just the results but the very conception, over time. I would not care to listen to any pianist who feels that way.


"For someone who is as technique focused as you I am surprised you use Horowitz as an example. Horowitz is a pianist know for an unorthadox piano technique and flat fingers but managed to play with extrordinary tone color.  What you call a strength of technique voicing , many people critisise his playing as too exaggerated and distorted. He was also known for making many errors in live performances despite his excellent tone."

Errors don't concern me at all. His ability to voice at will is why he is a model for technique. He could do the things he intended to. I don't believe many pianists are capable of doing what they intend- because they did not acquire the level of technique he did. "Technique" as in ability to produce whatever sounds are intended. Anything else is pretty much irrelevant to my mind (apart from safety).

 

"To make what makes him a great pianist is his conviction of his musical interpretation and his rapid finger passage work."

And the means to EXECUTE his interpretation. Neither of the above has any worth unless you can transmit the interpretation into a living form. You only hear as much as can be transmitted through a piano, not necessarily what's in a person's head.

"Nobody does everything perfectly, even Horowitz so why should we hold other pianist to an impossible standard that does not exist?"

So now you're saying it's simply too difficult to voice chords at at will? What I said was that ability to do musical voicing is hugely dependent on technique and that few have mastered that technique. The above suggests you agree with that? I didn't say everyone has to play like Horowitz or they're some kind of a loser. I said that people should acknowledge the sheer difficulty and stop pretending that the hands can easily figure out ways to do everything you can think of. That few pianists can achieve the reality of extreme voicing exposes that to be a total fallacy. When things are perceived as easy to do, it suggests to me that the musical thinking is simply not demanding enough to challenge the technique. That's why so many pianists play well but stop short of personality or greatness. They stop demanding more and stop building and explanding the technique that permits voicing and orchestrations. Few pianists even scratch the surface of how much colour a piano can offer. Volodos is one rare example of a pianist who I regard as being in a position to say the mechanics are "easy"- but few other living pianists have the physical apparatus to bring the real tonal possibilities out of a piano. Most just settle for making the piano sound like a piano.

[mcdiddy1]

No I mean extension. Use alternative terms if you wish, but please do not suppose it is more correct to demand anatomical language over very standard language with an universally accepted and obvious meaning. I refer to it as extension because the meaning is so much more immediately obvious than pedantic technical terms. "Extension" as in "extending" the thumb. Hardly ambiguous. If someone referred to holding their arm out, perhaps you'd decide they "mean" whatever pedantic anatomical language can be applied to that?

And no, my wrist is not exceedingly high when I do this- at least not in terms of the angle formed at the wrist. My hand and forearm are totally aligned. If you mean absolute height, why is it of any relevance?

Well extension is has more things that come with it then just simply moving out. When you say extension it implies there is contractions of muscles to move the part beyond it's natural state of rest. it implies going beyond a limit and of course when you move your body further than the natural motion you introduce tension to the equation. Do you mean a position where the thumb falls away from the center of the hand in a natural relaxed way?

The choice of the word extension is problematic because if you say to a student " extend your thumb and do not reference their muscles or how it should feel most student would automatically force their thumb away from their body with muscles. Forcing the hand naturally produces tension and unmusical tones. Yes you will correct the student and fix the problem but I am not sure extension is the word you really wanted to use. That may describe how the hands looks but it does not describe how the hand should feel and what the point of having it being away from the hand.

[nyiregyhazi]

"When you say extension it implies there is contractions of muscles to move the part beyond it's natural state of rest. it implies going beyond a limit and of course when you move your body further than the natural motion you introduce tension to the equation."

Indeed, "rest" is the last thing I'm talking about. There's no "tension" though- except in the same sense that any other movement is caused by. It's a very easy and low effort movement. In the past a lazy and flaccid thumb left countless other muscles having to brace to stabilise. If you move the key with a slack thumb, the whole arm either must brace (ie. tension all over the place) or fall down along with the thumb- which creates big bobbing movements (not to mention crash landings). A simple action of reaching straight out (starting with a slightly bent thumb) relieves all of those former acts of bracing. It's just a simple movement.

"The choice of the word extension is problematic because if you say to a student " extend your thumb and do not reference their muscles or how it should feel most student would automatically force their thumb away from their body with muscles."

? That's exactly what I WANT them to do (except for the word "force"- there's no forcing or straining whatsoever, but rather a very simple movement). Also, I SHOW them how to do it and monitor. I don't just come out with a few words and send them away to try and figure out. Anyway, wait for the videos and illustration of various exercises. I'm just starting my summer holidays and intend to write up many posts worth of material that I've been building up. I appreciate that it's hard to see exactly what is meant through words alone, so I'll definitely be giving plenty of filmed illustrations of the most specific movements.