should I correct her fingering?

[nyiregyhazi]

"For beginners these principles would be useless without the necessary experiences for the principles to make any coherent sense.
There is nothing wrong with placing a thumb on C#.  Legato is not possible if the speed is fast."  

So your idea of teaching a beginner is to leave them with fingering that only works at fast tempos (and which requires the shortest finger of all to go the furthest into the keys- leaving the long fingers right at the innermost ends of the keys)? Sorry, but this is just plain silly now. There is nothing wrong with it for EXPERIENCED pianists who understand their point of departure. To give that to a player doing the arpeggio for the first time would be nothing short of gross professional negligence. I let students do that fingering once and only once- as it's usually what they come to. Then I show them how much easier it is for the thumb to go on white notes and how the hand fits the layout of the keyboard without strain. Then they are able to play legato and without uncomfortable accents- usually pretty much instantly.


"Accents are due to insufficient auditory processing and/or technical issues."

Or awkward movement of the (high in mass) thumb, to get it onto black keys.



"Arpeggio practice without musical context is not sufficient reason to practice playing them."

Fine, we'll refer to a piece with a slow, legato C sharp minor arpeggio. In a context that demands no accent on the C sharps for musical reasons. I'll leave a young, inexperienced student to use their thumb on C sharps, shall I? The musical results are compromised, absolutely without fail. I've seen this more times than I can recall. Putting the thumb on the white key makes the movement easier. Exceptions are for advanced players- not inexperienced ones who's teachers say "just do whatever seems right" instead of actually teaching them anything.

"Reading fingering is a simply skill because it is a direct associative one; you see a number, you know the associated finger, you depress the indicated key with that finger.  By contrast, learning how to finger is an entirely separate skill that requires incredible amounts of effort which include reading chunks of notes and various technical considerations.  "

Indeed. You need to teach both aspects. Students who ignore fingerings are usually very inconsistent about what fingers they take. You cannot repeat things if the fingering changes every time. Inexperienced players need to know what fingers they are going to be using. Left to find their own, they almost invariably find a new one with each playing- and often get hopelessly lost as a result.


"Wrong - each behavior is independent meaning that both behaviors are present."

Not true. For the same passage, to find a new behaviour you must resist the old habit upon every execution that could contribute to the new one (but which will fail to do so, if the old habit plays any part in it-  and being a "habit" it certainly tends to do so). That's why habits are hard to break. You can only start to find a new one by making a willful effort to stop the old habit kicking in. They are not independent at all. That's why it's better to do things properly in the first place and why the "do something badly but then try to improve it" approach is absolutely beyond reproach. It's amazing how hard it is to get the new rendition even once, when working with a student who has learned something poorly (particularly as those who are in the position are usually very lazy readers- and attentive reading is exactly what is needed to form a better habit rather than repeat the old one yet again). It's easier to start with it.

"This rationale is not justified.  Again, no one becomes desensitized through hearing their own crappy playing unless they only listen to themselves.  And the only time they can listen to themselves is when they play.  Auditory and kinesthetic processing issues.  If they listened to other music, and if they record their playing, such musical issues would be very apparent."

Desensitized to the sound of their own playing- not music in general. If you use a crap fingerings that puts the thumb in the most awkward places, the thumb will sound heavily, unless you have the very greatest technical skills. Even in the most comfortable places, most students play with overly heavy thumbs. Put it in the worst place of all, and the student will soon give up on a light thumb- but it's just so hard to achieve. Soon enough, they don't even hear it anymore. It starts to sound normal to them.

[nyiregyhazi]

Can I ask you to upload a video of some C sharp minor arpeggios- played slowly and legato with the thumb on C sharps and then played fast as you describe? I'm interested to know whether you're an advanced player who can do such things easily (and wrongly assuming that average students can too), or whether you're simply forgiving of thumb accents and holes in legato. I've seen student after student do these. I cannot overstate how audible the results were. I could tell which note their thumbs are landing on if I was blindfolded.

[keyboardclass]

Can I ask you to upload a video of some C sharp minor arpeggios- played slowly and legato with the thumb on C sharps and then played fast as you describe? I'm interested to know whether you're an advanced player who can do such things easily (and wrongly assuming that average students can too), or whether you're simply forgiving of thumb accents and holes in legato. I've seen student after student do these. I cannot overstate how audible the results were. I could tell which note their thumbs are landing on if I was blindfolded.

There's no neccessity for a thumping thumb - the ear will sort that out for you.  If your pupils have a problem it's because you present them with a mechanical solution rather than musical (aural) one. 

And besides 'No one will notice the inequality of sound in a very fast scale, as long as the notes are played in equal time' - Chopin  (Eigeldinger pg 37).

[mcdiddy1]

"If your pupils have a problem it's because you present them with a mechanical solution rather than musical (aural) one. "

I really agree with that. There is nothing inherently evil about placing a thumb on a Black key like C# unless the result is not what is musically desired. Maybe the piece requires the C# to be articulated clearly ( Moonlight Sonata Mov. 3 comes to mind). In that case a thumb would be essential to play the piece correctly. If a student is creating unmusical accents in the music ( which any finger could easily do) if is up to the student/teacher to be aware of it and come up with the technical solution. I tell students to use the tip of their thumb, bend it inward or maybe graze the key. You show me a student with unmusical accents, I will show you a student who has not been taught to listen.

[pianisten1989]

And besides 'No one will notice the inequality of sound in a very fast scale, as long as the notes are played in equal time' - Chopin  (Eigeldinger pg 37).

I've tried to find your quotes, but I really can't. I'm starting to think that you're making things up...

[nyiregyhazi]

"If your pupils have a problem it's because you present them with a mechanical solution rather than musical (aural) one. "

I really agree with that. There is nothing inherently evil about placing a thumb on a Black key like C# unless the result is not what is musically desired. Maybe the piece requires the C# to be articulated clearly ( Moonlight Sonata Mov. 3 comes to mind). In that case a thumb would be essential to play the piece correctly. If a student is creating unmusical accents in the music ( which any finger could easily do) if is up to the student/teacher to be aware of it and come up with the technical solution. I tell students to use the tip of their thumb, bend it inward or maybe graze the key. You show me a student with unmusical accents, I will show you a student who has not been taught to listen.

Of course you'd take thumbs on black notes in a broken chord arpeggiation. I'm not talking about some ridiculous rule that says 'never' put thumbs on black keys. I'm talking about passing the thumb in a standard C sharp minor arpeggio. There, it makes legato almost impossible. You can do all the listening you like. Only an extremely advanced pianist will have a hope of achieving legato and tonal control, using such a fingering. This is why we teach them better fingerings as a foundation- rather than assume that whatever a student chances on is probably the best fingering to allow. A foundation is not a life-long restriction. It's a point of departure.

Have you actually tried giving this fingering to students? I've lost count of how many times I've heard it. Students who play C major arpeggios marvellously will try the same fingering for C sharp minor and have hopeless lack of control. It's not about their listening- otherwise C major would be an equal problem. It's about it being an inherently very difficult and awkward fingering- that does not fit the natural characteristics of the hand to the layout of the keys. 

I challenge anyone here to record themself using that fingering for a C sharp minor arpeggio at various speeds with true legato sound and no pedal (if you need pedal to do it, the fingering is not versatile enough to have as a baseline). I often make such departures myself- but almost only when the pedal is in use. You can't start with something that depends on pedal.

[keyboardclass]

You can do all the listening you like. Only an extremely advanced pianist will have a hope of achieving legato and tonal control, using such a fingering.

Then you're teaching them wrong.

[keyboardclass]

I've tried to find your quotes, but I really can't. I'm starting to think that you're making things up...

https://spot.colorado.edu/~korevaar/Chopin%20talk.htm

[pianisten1989]

https://spot.colorado.edu/~korevaar/Chopin%20talk.htm

yeah, that seems like reliable source...

And seriously, do you actually believe that you only need to see everything in a "musical" way to conquer all technical obstacles? I'm sorry, but how come you play like you do? And how come you aren't a famous teacher, who teaches students to play Liszt b-minor sonata when they're 5? Since it's only a matter of musical listening, that can't possibly be a problem...!

[keyboardclass]

yeah, that seems like reliable source...

I would think so considering their page nos agree with mine!

[mcdiddy1]

"I challenge anyone here to record themself using that fingering for a C sharp minor arpeggio at various speeds with true legato sound and no pedal (if you need pedal to do it, the fingering is not versatile enough to have as a baseline). I often make such departures myself- but almost only when the pedal is in use. You can't start with something that depends on pedal."

The only reason I do not make a video ( besides me not being tech savy enough to do it) is because if I wanted to is it does not necessarly prove the point about teaching fingerings.I could play C# arpeggio and not make it sound accent because of my technical skills,experience and large finger span. It would not be easy or ideal and require some technical adjustments with the way I use my fingers, and forearm but not impossible. It would very hard for a beginner to negoiate their body that way. Nobody disagrees with you this is not the optimal way for students to learn this arpeggio.

 I agree with your point it should not be given to a beginner because it is simple more work than necessary . My point is students need to learn how to use aspects of the music and the resulting musical effects to make good fingering choices. If the foundation of teaching includes never use thumbs on the black key in a C sharp minor arpeggio that is a bit vague and at best a bit short sited.Is the music slow or fast, accents or not accents?  I agree you do not want to treat beginning students like advanced players but at the same time you do not want to contradict yourself later on.

I prefer guidelines rather than restrictions. I have unique hands compared to my students so what may be easy for me may not be easy for someone eles.

Ultimatly we agree more than we disagree. I agree we should teach students fingering that achieves a good musical result. I disagree where you say playing C sharp minor arpeggio with the thumb is impossible (more challenging and requires technical modifications like thumbs over the hand etc).

I also disagree that giving a fingering is a foundation to making good musical choices. The student that plays a fingering just because of what their teacher says is one that will not learn how to think or make their own choices.

When I suggest a new fingering I prefacite by saying "because it is easier or so we do not get accents there, or to play it faster".  The knowledge does comes from the experience of playing the piano and knowing what end musical result of the piece needs to be.

Many of my advanced students choose a fingering I do not agree with, so I have them do it my way and do it their way and then the decision is up to them which one they choose. Most of them choose it my way but sometimes they choose thiers because it is easier for them.

 I would want to empower students to make a choice for themselves, see the logic of an alternative, and more importantly know there are alternative choices.

Have you actually tried giving this fingering to students?

I would if I say accents on the C#. If I didn't i would demonstrate how their playing and suggest either all the technical adjustments of their body to get rid of accents or simple change the fingerings to 2 1 2 5.

The goal being the fingering is chosen my the student based on MUSICAL considerations, then technical challenges, and hopefully they will learn something about piano technique in the process. An even better goal is they would recognize unnecessary accents in their own playing in the future and have some solutions to fix it.  

This to me leads to a better foundation of choosing fingerings rather than saying:

Do not use your thumbs in a C# arpeggio. Write in fingerings. Student complies.
Student thinks silently ( why the heck not?)  

[pianisten1989]

I would think so considering their page nos agree with mine!

Omg, you so got my point!! I meant, how can you possibly take a website like that seriously? Ah, whatever... You will probably come up with some really worthless answer. That kind of seems to be your thing.

[keyboardclass]

Omg, you so got my point!! I meant, how can you possibly take a website like that seriously? Ah, whatever... You will probably come up with some really worthless answer. That kind of seems to be your thing.

Website!?  It's a presentation to an MTNA National Convention!  Sheesh.

[pianisten1989]

Website!?  It's a presentation to an MTNA National Convention!  Sheesh.

I once found a website "Presented by some fancy name" that said that Mozart's name actually was Walter, and that he was born on a boad in the english canal. He didn't start playing until he was 14, and his instrument was the harp. When he was 68, he drowned in the same river.
"It said so on the internet, therefore it's true!" I'm probably going to quote wikipedia in all our conversations.

[keyboardclass]

I once found a website "Presented by some fancy name" that said that Mozart's name actually was Walter, and that he was born on a boad in the english canal. He didn't start playing until he was 14, and his instrument was the harp. When he was 68, he drowned in the same river.
"It said so on the internet, therefore it's true!" I'm probably going to quote wikipedia in all our conversations.

Well, maybe when you have as extensive a recording catalogue then you can throw some stones: https://www.davidkorevaar.com/albums.shtml

[nyiregyhazi]

Then you're teaching them wrong.

No, I'm teaching them exactly right- but showing what a colossal correlation exists between fingering selection and the musical results. Telling a struggling child that they ears are at fault (when their fingering is not suitable and they clearly know no better) is simply abominable teaching. To blame a child's hearing for failure to control sharp minor with thumbs on C sharps would be staggeringly bad teaching. Only once an efficient technique has been understood is it time to ask whether their listening might be at fault.

&list=UL

While your ears are evidently at fault for the failure to give the left hand its due importance in this duet, your technique is responsible for the holes that occur repeatedly in your 2nd finger.

[nyiregyhazi]

The only reason I do not make a video ( besides me not being tech savy enough to do it) is because if I wanted to is it does not necessarly prove the point about teaching fingerings.I could play C# arpeggio and not make it sound accent because of my technical skills,experience and large finger span. It would not be easy or ideal and require some technical adjustments with the way I use my fingers, and forearm but not impossible.

Sure, that's very much what I'm saying. However, even advanced pianists will have a hard time doing a really good legato- which illustrates just how hard it is for kids. I can do thumbs on C sharp with a decent enough leggiero, but there's no way I can get a molto legato sound at high speeds.


"If the foundation of teaching includes never use thumbs on the black key in a C sharp minor arpeggio that is a bit vague and at best a bit short sited.Is the music slow or fast, accents or not accents?  I agree you do not want to treat beginning students like advanced players but at the same time you do not want to contradict yourself later on."

I never present it as "never use the thumb on black keys". I just illustrate how much better the hand fits the position in first inversion and how much easier is to go between positions when the thumb is on white keys.  


"I also disagree that giving a fingering is a foundation to making good musical choices. The student that plays a fingering just because of what their teacher says is one that will not learn how to think or make their own choices. "

That's exactly what I'm saying. You also have to illustrate the principles that lead to it. I'm simply bemused by the poster who thinks the alternative is that students should be left to figure things out for themselves. It's not restricted to merely dogmatic insistence for its own sake or merely a "the student will probably figure out something good".  There's a hell of a lot of middle ground- but frankly the latter is far worse. At least the former provides a foundation to depart from. The latter just isn't even teaching.

[mcdiddy1]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You also have to illustrate the principles that lead to it. I'm simply bemused by the poster who thinks students should be left to figure things out for themselves. It's not restricted to merely dogmatic insistence for its own sake or merely a "the student will probably figure out something good".  There's a hell of a lot of middle ground.

True, there is a way to allow the student to "figure it out". It is the way I described earlier where the student plays it both ways and makes a choice between the two. Of course age level and maturity level should be taken into consideration.

[pianisten1989]

Well, maybe when you have as extensive a recording catalogue then you can throw some stones: https://www.davidkorevaar.com/albums.shtml

So a guy who hasn't recorded a single Chopin cd is somehow good enough to be an expert?
And as I said: The guy you're quoting didn't even live when Chopin lived. So to say that he knows how Chopin played is almost as ignorant as your youtube-channel. I mean, if you're actually teaching (God forbid!) I cannot express how sad I am for your students. YOU CAN'T EVEN TO A FREAKING TRILL SLIGHTLY WELL EXECUTED!!

And then to have the guts to say that it's the student's fault if he isn't capable to play a legato with your ***'d up fingering! You're probably that kind of teacher who do nothing but ruining music for you kids.

Btw, he's quoting from the exact same book that I have. The only thing is, that his quotes doesn't seem to exist. But since it's written on the internet...

[keyboardclass]

As for the post above, I'll do as my mum's always advised - take it from whence it came.

Telling a struggling child that they ears are at fault (when their fingering is not suitable and they clearly know no better) is simply abominable teaching.

Ears!?  No, listening.

[nyiregyhazi]

True, there is a way to allow the student to "figure it out". It is the way I described earlier where the student plays it both ways and makes a choice between the two. Of course age level and maturity level should be taken into consideration.

Absolutely. There's a big difference between showing them how different things feel and simply assuming that whatever they might come out with unaided will generally be for the best.

[nyiregyhazi]

As for the post above, I'll do as my mum's always advised - take it from whence it came.Ears!?  No, listening.

Fine. Telling a student who is using a poor fingering that their listening is at fault (rather than dealing with the fundamentals) is absolutely abominable teaching. It points towards inherent failure in their abilities and concentration- when what they really need is to be given a fingering that provides them with a hope in hell of an adequate execution. It's like beating an untrained puppy for taking a dump on a carpet.

It's amazing how many problems in "listening" instantly go away when a student has an effective fingering to start with. Only if a problem remains in spite of everything else being in place, is it time to blame the student's listening. All too often, "listening" is the first port of call for lazy teachers who simply don't know how to convey what a student (who listens perfectly well) needs to learn. Listening does not solve problems unless a feedback loop is already in place. It's how you NOTICE problems. Without a solution, all you end up with is awareness of a problem. To dwell on the listening without providing the solution is absolutely awful teaching. It's like seeing a doctor and being told you're ill and that you should make an effort to get better and then asked to leave. To raise a student's awarness of problems without helping them to solve them is simply to create a student who feels thoroughly incapable and frustrated.

[mcdiddy1]

Maybe listening is the not the right word. The best word I think is the idea of musical recognition.

I agree with keyboardclass about the importance of listening but I feel  it is probably missing a step. You need to have a good model of how the piece should sound and then compare it to how you sound by listening to what you are playing. I think we are just making the assumption the student already knows how the piece goes. When the student hears how the piece should sounds and compares it to his own playing the student may recognize there is a change to be made and will change it technical or by fingering.

I think what  nyiregyhazi is saying if the student does not have the experience to to try different fingerings the student may continue to engrain a habit of using the fingering. If that happens under a teachers watch this could be constituted as lazy teaching.

Ultimately I feel listening and experience in fingering are not either or but really just steps in the learning process. The student needs to introduced to how the piece sounds first to avoid unmusical sounds by listening. Then after the piece has been taught (hopefully with the right fingering) and the student chooses a fingering that is not  match was demonstrated then the teacher should show them both options. That way the students experiences a poor and a good choice in fingering and recognizes the importance of music to achieve the musical, aural, and technical result.

So who is right? I feel both listening and fingering are important but you it is better to start with listening and also physical observation. Music being an aural art though I feel listening is a more important first step because students need to experience right before they have a chance to learn wrong or not useful.

[nyiregyhazi]

So who is right? I feel both listening and fingering are important but you it is better to start with listening and also physical observation. Music being an aural art though I feel listening is a more important first step because students need to experience right before they have a chance to learn wrong or not useful.

I agree to an extent- but what does the student hear most? Their own executions, during practise. If they use an inherently bad fingering, the results of that poor fingering will go into the formation of their internal musical habits. The harder it is to achieve musical results from a fingering, the more likely it is that it will program the musical instincts in a negative way.

What comes before- listening or execution? It's always execution. Otherwise there's nothing to be listening to. People often talk as if listening is what causes sounds. That's actually a complete reversal of the real cause and effect. How you move the key causes the sound. You can only listen to what sound has already created via your movement (in the first steps- obviously later on you can train yourself to anticipate the sound, but this is when you ALREADY have a feedback loop). It's best to find ways of ensuring that the very first thing you hear is as close to a musical product as possible. Otherwise your intentions will progressively be shaped by negatives in what you are used to hearing- and which you might eventually become totally deaf too (unless you have a damn sure means of fixing them up). Listening is NEVER the actual fix. It's only the means of identifying flaws- meaning you can then go and make adjustments.

When a student is taught well, I sincerely believe that you could get them to advanced level without even speaking of listening. You could simply show them issues of movement and explain what they are looking for ie. note x is strong and note y is weak. If they fail to achieve what you asked for, you could show them how to do it and demonstrate the difference- and their ear will soon start to perceive the difference. Does saying "listen" have any real value? I'd say it has scarcely more than zero (except in a few extreme cases). Or is it better to simply show them things and let them listen to the results. I favour the latter. To say "listen to yourself" is often tantamount to saying "do it better". If they've done it badly, they'll hear exactly the same thing they have got used to hearing themself do. Unless you catch them at the start, faults will no longer be heard. The best teaching should inspire listening to constantly occur of its own accord- by fixing technical issues the instant they crop up. It should automatically be developing association between sounds and movements- rather than constantly blaming the student's listening for bad habits that result from things the teacher should have identified early on.

[mcdiddy1]

I have heard that music is both an art and a science. What you are describing is more the science part. Yes, there is a technical way of producing sounding through specific actions of the motions, but how do you teach artistry without listening to examples and non examples?

If you want students who are only focused on execution, then you have nothing more than keyboard typist who press buttons the same way you would on a computer.

I hope you do not think that all music comes down to is pressing the right keys at the right time.
 If so you are missing out on developing deep connections with music and teaching students because you will overlook the artisry of side of music.

Fingering is not an internal musical habit, it is technical behavior that is learned by the body. We can easily learn the right ones or the wrong ones. I change fingerings in my music all the time very easily. It can be easily learned, changed or adopted. Someone who has difficult with it is someone who does not practice consistently enough.

You can only listen to what sound has already created via your movement (in the first steps- obviously later on you can train yourself to anticipate the sound, but this is when you ALREADY have a feedback loop). It's best to find ways of ensuring that the very first thing you hear is as close to a musical product as possible.

Notice how you said you only listen to the sound and then you said anticipate the sound and then you said the very first thing you hear is as close to a musical product.

Thats the point. You need to have the sound in your mind BEFORE you execute. How do you get the sound in your head? You listen to it right?

How you move the key causes the sound. You can only listen to what sound has already created via your movement
When a student is taught well, I sincerely believe that you could get them to advanced level without even speaking of listening.

Of course moving the key creates the sound and technical element of playing the piano is paramount. But the key is the difference between sound and music. Music is essentially organized sound. You may press keys on a piano and that produces sound but we are talking about creating music right? Music involves harmony, rhythm, style, articulation, tone with the hopes of representing emotions and communcating of ideas. Music involves sound but it is not simply just that. Everything music involves requires a form of listening as you yourself agree to.
 
How do you teach a student with talking or listening? Are they going to read you mind? So a deaf person would be able to learn to play the piano just by imitating a teachers movement, regardless of the musical results? What if this person was not doing it right? How would the teacher get in his/her mind and correct their movements. If they are not listening to what they are playing why play music at all and why not just get a robot to play it? Is this really the BEST way to teach someone?

Again if you think all teachers are good for are imitation you are just going to get students who cannot solve musical problems on their own and a world where every pianist sounds exactly like the teacher with no change at all. Sounds kind of boring to me to take the artistry out of music.

Plus I can watch people play the Liszt Piano Concerto all I want but I will not be able to play it unless I slow it down and do all sorts of practice techniques to learn it.

You could simply show them issues of movement and explain what they are looking for ie. note x is strong and note y is weak. If they fail to achieve what you asked for, you could show them how to do it and demonstrate the difference- and their ear will soon start to perceive the difference. Does saying "listen" have any real value? I'd say it has scarcely more than zero (except in a few extreme cases). Or is it better to simply show them things and let them listen to the results. I favour the latter. .

Have you actually taught this way? How is a note strong or weak? Do you mean right or wrong? So ear training and improvisation should just fall to the wayside?

You say listen has no real value but you want to teach them to recognize what is wrong by listening to difference of note x and note y. If you teach them to do it in every lesson then is it not important for the students to listen.

 Accourding to your argument  students need to LISTEN to  the difference between two notes, so their ear can HEAR the difference, so they can LISTEN to the results. You really are not disagreeing with me and these are your own words. Based on the number of times you mention hearing and listening I think it is used more than  "scarcely more than zero".

To say "listen to yourself" is often tantamount to saying "do it better". If they've done it badly, they'll hear exactly the same thing they have got used to hearing themself do. Unless you catch them at the start, faults will no longer be heard. The best teaching should inspire listening to constantly occur of its own accord- by fixing technical issues the instant they crop up. It should automatically be developing association between sounds and movements- rather than constantly blaming the student's listening for bad habits that result from things the teacher should have identified early on.

Nobody said to just say "listen to yourself". Of course verbal instruction does absoltly nothing. I teach by examples and non examples and is order for them to hear the difference the student must learn to listen not just hear what I am playing.

Our craft is an aural craft so unfortunatly we can seperate our ear. You are right again when you say "The best teaching should inspire listening to constantly occur of its own accord". 

There are different kind of errors. There can be technical errors and there can be musical errors. Some errors go away by technical solutions, changing a finger, adding an arm motion. But some are fixed by listening to your teacher, playing in a classical style, playing a specific rhythm. It should not be about blaming students but teaching students what to listen for. You can hear a symphony play but a music teacher may teach you to listen for the exposition, development and recapitulation. Maybe your students would want to become composers or create music. The certainly would not learn it just by imitation of a teacher but understanding about music.

Know for a personal question. When you learned how to speak and write, did you learn by someone puting you in a closet with a dictionary? Did you not learn by hearing examples, trial and error  or was it simply by watching someone's mouth move?

Most people learned ( probably not deaf people) by imitating a sound the heard, learning how to make the movements with their mouth and tongue, and were corrected by their parent or teacher. They continue to use it with others and gradually create more complex words and eventually learn to read and write and articulate their own thoughts. That is how people BEST learn music also. We hear, we experience it, recognize pattern, learn to read it then write it and eventually create our own thoughts.

So we listen, we learn to move the keys, we learn write and wrong, read music , hopefully write music, and then we get to a level where we can be more expressive and make our own music. You follow my thoughts or do you disagree?

[keyboardclass]

I agree with keyboardclass about the importance of listening but I feel  it is probably missing a step. You need to have a good model of how the piece should sound and then compare it to how you sound by listening to what you are playing.

Agreed.  Scales hands together is a good example.  If you spot the 'misses' for them and sing them as 'kerplonk', they'll start to hear them.  Once they're listen for 'kerplonks' they don't happen.  No science, no mechanics.   

[nyiregyhazi]

Agreed.  Scales hands together is a good example.  If you spot the 'misses' for them and sing them as 'kerplonk', they'll start to hear them.  Once they're listen for 'kerplonks' they don't happen.  No science, no mechanics.  

That is simply not true. Am I to understand that your very choppy slow-motion execution of op. 10 no. 1 is that way because your listening skills are too poor to perceive the various kerplonks and half-sounded notes?

This pathetically lazy approach to teaching just perpetuates the nonsense that students who fail to attain eveness are sloppy listeners. It simply points a finger at a transparently obvious problem and fails to do the slightest thing to help with it. It leaves a totally negative message and heaps the blame on the student, if they fail to manage to correct it in spite of a lack of guidance. Bad teachers point to the kerplonks. Good teachers deals with the reason WHY kerplonks are occurring and ensure there's no reason why they would be happening in the first place. It's amazing how quickly "bad listeners" become good listeners- when you deal with their most severe technical impediments instead of accusing them of poor listening skills.

Even the best listening in the world only exposes a problem. It does not give a solution. Those who magically get a solution simply by listening have already have a spectacularly developed feedback loop. It's the teachers job to create such a loop- not to blame students for not possessing it. Whatever you say above, it's clear from your videos that you are not among those who can simply think and do. You're just repeating a load of tired old cliches that have about as much place in a modern rational world as claims about witchcraft. There is no sign of such remarkable mind over matter magic in your own playing.

[keyboardclass]

students who fail to attain eveness are sloppy listeners.

Got it in one!  Though some may yet to be shown what to listen to.

[mcdiddy1]

Agreed.  Scales hands together is a good example.  If you spot the 'misses' for them and sing them as 'kerplonk', they'll start to hear them.  Once they're listen for 'kerplonks' they don't happen.  No science, no mechanics.   

Yes that could be a tool in a music teachers hand box assuming they know what a major scale sounds like and the fingering. It seems most students get mixed up by the fingerings more than anything.

This pathetically lazy approach to teaching just perpetuates the nonsense that students who fail to attain eveness are sloppy listeners. It simply points a finger at a transparently obvious problem and fails to do the slightest thing to help with it. It leaves a totally negative message and heaps the blame on the student, if they fail to manage to correct it in spite of a lack of guidance. Bad teachers point to the kerplonks. Good teachers deals with the reason WHY kerplonks are occurring and ensure there's no reason why they would be happening in the first place. It's amazing how quickly "bad listeners" become good listeners- when you deal with their most severe technical impediments instead of accusing them of poor listening skills.

Ouch...thats harsh. You make the assumption he would never solve a technical problem. If someone's thumb is not crossing over when playing hands together I think it is safe to say the teachers on the forum would  correct it.

If you have ever played violin or any string instrument, in order to play it you have to able to learning a process called audiation. It basicllly meanings hearing the note you will play in your head. If you ever watch a symphony rehersal the conductor will often sing a passage to the instrumentalist. Singing is a very fast effective way to communicate musically. Every conductor I have played under has done this. Imagine the conductor going to the tuba explaining which valves to use and telling the violins which strings to play.

My point is if the student already have the technique to do something, (like the student he is talking about) a solution could be to sing the passage, point out the issues, and the student can address it. Of course you would not do this to someone who is stepping the instrument for the first time. Teaching audiation is pretty commonly established tool for teaching and I would venture to say you have taught this way, have been taught this way, and even your teachers have been taught this way.

Honestly anything can be considered lazy teaching if it is taking to far. If i decided all I am going to do is show videos of people  playing the piano and say "go ahead , learn it.", then that would be pretty lazy teaching. Just singing something and hoping something gets better and never addressing it technically is lazy just as demonstrating and not explaining.

This forum is supposed to place to exchange ideas and to develop our knowledge about the subject we teach, right? Ripping someone else playing or other peoples students based on comments in a forum is not fair and unproductive. I think there is more benefit from keeping an open mind, offering constructive criticism and learning new strategies for teaching rather name-calling.

[slane]

She's taken to playing the bass clef with her elbow now ... should I correct that?

[keyboardclass]

She's taken to playing the bass clef with her elbow now ... should I correct that?

Not as long as she's still playing the treble with her nose.

[mcdiddy1]

She's taken to playing the bass clef with her elbow now ... should I correct that?

No, you should not correct this.  You must not destroy her creative spirt. If you think about it, it is much more effecient to play with her....

On second thought ...I think you should correct it....

[nyiregyhazi]

Honestly anything can be considered lazy teaching if it is taking to far. If i decided all I am going to do is show videos of people  playing the piano and say "go ahead , learn it.", then that would be pretty lazy teaching. Just singing something and hoping something gets better and never addressing it technically is lazy just as demonstrating and not explaining.

I responded to a point that was indeed taken too far- as presented. If he does differently in real life, he should think more carefully before presenting advice in a woefully incomplete form. All that was described was pointing to a problem and expecting students to be up to dealing with it. Whether he works this way or not, what was described is lazy and incompetent teaching. I sincerely hope he does not work this way.

Incidentally, at earlier levels sheer will power can give a reasonable (if far from profound) musical musical shape, despite technical problems. Once a student is playing advanced repertoire, the limits of willpower are exposed. If they didn't learn the right means early on, they simply hit a brick wall and find themselves incapable of controlling difficult passages musically. At early levels, you can "get away" with technical problems if you have strong enough intentions. Sadly, no such thing happens later down the line. As soon as that student is attempting a Chopin study, the problems will come to the forefront.

A typical example is poor thumb technique. In early days a heavy drop onto the thumb is common. The specific musical problem might be solved by pointing out an accent occurred. But that will typically leave a very tentative thumb action that does nothing to deal with the underlying problem. When they go faster, the heaviness will come straight back, if they did not learn how to use the thumb efficiently. A few years down the line, if you're asking that student to execute a rapid pianissimo scale that is executed legato without pedal, and without bumps or holes, you can forget it. And if you've trained that student to be self-critical, it's only going to make their frustration at inability to do what they intend to a good deal worse. I've seen countless pianists at music college level who have this typical problem. There are few pianists "who don't need" any technical help with the deficiencies that cause them musical problems. To omit it is to leave them believing they are just too untalented to do better. To merely point at problems without offering a genuine life-line is just bad teaching- whether done in the early stages (where you can get away with it), or in the later stages (where the student has already hit a plateau, due to physical issues).

[nyiregyhazi]

"If you want students who are only focused on execution, then you have nothing more than keyboard typist who press buttons the same way you would on a computer.

I hope you do not think that all music comes down to is pressing the right keys at the right time.
 If so you are missing out on developing deep connections with music and teaching students because you will overlook the artisry of side of music."

You really misunderstand my point. I'm not taking one absurd polarisation and suggesting another. I'm talking about how much more goes into the balanced whole than the idea that you just "listen" and then find the means. Above all, I am pointing out that developed "listening" skills are the result of balanced training- rather than anywhere near as much about the actual listening as people think. A student who suffers a very heavy thumb (ie. virtually all students, to begin with) will get the experience of hearing a heavy thumb over and over. If you don't deal with the use of the thumb itself, it's soon too late to blame their listening. If you don't train them to avoid the cause of the accent, they will become accustomed to it, simply through hearing the results of the technical problem in all of their playing. It becomes too late to have a go at their listening- unless you provided the basic tools that permit them to grow accustomed to hearing themself doing better musical executions.
  
"Thats the point. You need to have the sound in your mind BEFORE you execute. How do you get the sound in your head? You listen to it right?"

Listen to what? Your teacher's demonstration? Elsewhere you argued against total dependency on that (absolutely rightly- that really wasn't what I was arguing for at all). You just said you have it BEFORE. So how could "listening" play a role before you even made a sound? It's not about the listening. The listening is the means of assessment. If you have a sound image in your mind, you have something to compare the results to AFTER you attempted it. Also, the means of correction is not directly part of listening. You have to think note x was too loud, or not enough legato etc- based on comparison to what you want. Then you have to think HOW can I correct that? That's not from listening. Listening only told you that it's needed for you to make a correction. The adjustment comes from knowledge, technique and experience. To say listening will fix problems is just absurd- unless you already developed the overall package well enough for instincts to cover the rest.

Before you know what you want, what you hear yourself doing is what programs your expectations. That's why students with big technical problems may have no way of listening to the faults. They've heard themselves do them too many times. A habitual fault can spoil (what is called) the "listening". Correction at source would have allowed the student to grow used to hearing an altogether better execution- developing their internal musicality rather than spoiling it. It's easy to forget how much of the inner intention is built up from YOURSELF- rather than from what you hear others do. A technical problem can be absolutely disastrous to the inner musicality.

"Again if you think all teachers are good for are imitation you are just going to get students who cannot solve musical problems on their own and a world where every pianist sounds exactly like the teacher with no change at all. Sounds kind of boring to me to take the artistry out of music."

So what's left then? Explanation of the concept- both musically and in movement. That's an equally important part, along with the listening to others playing. You need explanations of how to move in order to achieve control and you need explanations of the intent that you will cross-reference your listening to. A conductor may regularly sing to a musician as a demonstration. But he would equally expect to have a musician grasp an intellectual explanation of a phrase. There's nothing to compare listening to but the concept, in those cases. Also, conductors regularly choose bowings- rather than say "find me a bowing to give this type of sound". It's a technical issue, given to provide a musical result. Arguably, choice of fingering is often analagous to bowing decisions. A good fingering often takes you half-way towards the musical execution- whereas a bad one takes you a hell of a way from it.

Without either a concept of how to execute a phrase, or something to listen to and copy, what's left? What are you comparing your listening to?

"Have you actually taught this way? How is a note strong or weak? Do you mean right or wrong? So ear training and improvisation should just fall to the wayside?"

More important or less important. Where did I say ear training should fall to the wayside. I pointed out how futile it is to tell students that their ears are at fault when they have not been adequately trained in other areas. Good "listening" is the product of many areas. It's the natural consequence of all round teaching. Good teachers don't ask for better listening, they INSPIRE it to occur. I never argued against listening. I pointed out that in a balanced whole, it would be theoretically possible never to even mention it, yet have the student doing so very well indeed. I'm not saying that's my model of how to teach- I'm illustrating how interdependent "listening" is on just about every other aspect of teaching.

"If you teach them to do it in every lesson then is it not important for the students to listen."

Exactly. What could be more natural than listening? When teachers spend too much time simply telling their students to listen (rather than creating circumstances in which it will occur), it smacks
to me of inability to teach a rounded whole. They just blame the student's listening- when it's actually the result of the student having an inadequate feedback loop for even the most acute listening to help. You cannot listen for things you do not have a mental grasp of.

"You really are not disagreeing with me and these are your own words. Based on the number of times you mention hearing and listening I think it is used more than  "scarcely more than zero"."

I had not suggested that. I said TELLING students to listen has scarcely more than zero value. It amounts to looking at the symptoms, not the root of the metaphorical illness. It's as good as a doctor telling a patient they're ill and sending them off to cure themself.

"Our craft is an aural craft so unfortunatly we can seperate our ear. You are right again when you say "The best teaching should inspire listening to constantly occur of its own accord".  "

This is my primary point. I think you misunderstood what I was meaning by a lot of the other things.

"Know for a personal question. When you learned how to speak and write, did you learn by someone puting you in a closet with a dictionary? Did you not learn by hearing examples, trial and error  or was it simply by watching someone's mouth move? "

A lot of technical problems would best be compared to a lisp. Listening is futile. Such cases are solved with training from an expert- not in "listening" to pronunciation but in the means.

[keyboardclass]

Jeez, anyone prepared to wade through all that?

[thalbergmad]

Not me.

I would complete at least 4 Hanon exercises in the same time.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

I would complete at least 4 Hanon exercises in the same time.

Shucks, I hope that's not the only alternative.  Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea!

[mcdiddy1]

At early levels, you can "get away" with technical problems if you have strong enough intentions. Sadly, no such thing happens later down the line. As soon as that student is attempting a Chopin study, the problems will come to the forefront.

 A few years down the line, if you're asking that student to execute a rapid pianissimo scale that is executed legato without pedal, and without bumps or holes, you can forget it. And if you've trained that student to be self-critical, it's only going to make their frustration at inability to do what they intend to a good deal worse.

The student you describe "gets away with technical problems" is someone who is poorly taught. It doesn't matter how good your student has been taught , when they attempt a Chopin study there going to have problems It is an etude so its difficult for a reason.

My students are taught about relaxation of the hand, thumb hanging down from the first lesson. I cannot speak for other teachers but yes if you do not teach technique your student will have problems in anything you play particuallry an etude. I agree with your statement about balanced teaching musicality and technique but from your statement you concentrate a great deal on the technique.

I have never seen a student who can "execute a rapid pianissimo scale that is executed legato without pedal, and without bumps or holes" who has not done it before. THe student needs to be taught that specific technique, it cannot be acquired while your learning Mary had a little Lamb.

Self- critical is such a negative word. I would never want to a student to be overly critical of their playing. I would want to be objective, assess their playing, come up with solutions, learn from other sources. The only way to do that is by listening to something, thier playing or someone eles playing. Sorry thats the only way to do it. They should be taught to listen for what is good about their playing and what needs improvement on.If you feel teaching students to acknowledge there are problems in their own playing will make them critical I cannot help but thing somewhere down the line there was bad music teacher who put you througt that. Good teachers do not focus on just the negatives but should praise the improvements.

I'm talking about how much more goes into the balanced whole than the idea that you just "listen" and then find the means. Above all, I am pointing out that developed "listening" skills are the result of balanced training- rather than anywhere near as much about the actual listening as people think.

I completely agree with this statement. I personally feel the concept of developing the ear is under-appreciated in teaching today. There is a greater emphasis on performance rather than aural understanding of music. Very few kids go into music lessons and learn to improvise, compose, and develop music understanding. Instead their pushed on to the stage to perform recitals to prove they have learned. I say this because none of the students I have taught have ever been taught to do anything by ear. Technique is easy to teach. Its say hold your wrist up, sit up straight , its a C#, and often the good stuff is left to way side. Technique is the front door to musician ship and can not be de-empasized but musicality is a real element often lacking.

Listen to what? Your teacher's demonstration? Elsewhere you argued against total dependency on that (absolutely rightly- that really wasn't what I was arguing for at all). You just said you have it BEFORE. So how could "listening" play a role before you even made a sound? It's not about the listening. The listening is the means of assessment. If you have a sound image in your mind, you have something to compare the results to AFTER you attempted it.

You listen to your teacher's demonstrations. The teacher provides the first sound and the student models it. In order for the student to model it they have to listen to sound. I thought that was clear? Anyways, listening can be a role of assessment and more importantly prevent potential mistakes. The key is the sound image is of your teacher ( a good model) and then your compare it to. A lesson that taught where the student plays something and the teacher assesses is called coaching not teaching. If it was taught to the student already, the teacher should play the correct version , the student Listens , student changes behavior. If the behavior is not changed the teacher may use verbal instructions or a technical excercise to fix the issue.
A lesson that is structure where the student plays around on the piano while the teacher watches and says listen to something is not good teaching, but isn't that obvious?

Also, the means of correction is not directly part of listening. You have to think note x was too loud, or not enough legato etc- based on comparison to what you want. Then you have to think HOW can I correct that? That's not from listening. Listening only told you that it's needed for you to make a correction. The adjustment comes from knowledge, technique and experience. To say listening will fix problems is just absurd- unless you already developed the overall package well enough for instincts to cover the rest.

You said If you think note x was too loud or note enough legato you corrected it "based on comparison to what you want". The comparision comes as a result of LISTENING TO A MODAL . Notice how this listening word keeps coming up again and again. You said the adjustment comes from knowledge and experience. What is one way you get knowledge and experience? Yes you can get it by doing ( which is really important) but you can get it be the big bad L word. This might help
Listening --->knowledge and experience---> identify problem in one's playing-----> fix problem in one's playing( can be done by listening and technical understanding)

Before you know what you want, what you hear yourself doing is what programs your expectations. That's why students with big technical problems may have no way of listening to the faults. They've heard themselves do them too many times. A habitual fault can spoil (what is called) the "listening". Correction at source would have allowed the student to grow used to hearing an altogether better execution- developing their internal musicality rather than spoiling it. It's easy to forget how much of the inner intention is built up from YOURSELF- rather than from what you hear others do. A technical problem can be absolutely disastrous to the inner musicality.

Wait a minute so your saying if a student LISTEN to him or herself play incorrectly, a student would grow to accept faults in their playing. Sounds like listening is really important I can agree to that Sounds like we have a what came first the chicken or egg senerio.
 Which fault came first a technical fault or a lack of listening fault?

If a student is taught by a good teacher, good habits would be in grained from the very beginning and there should be no faults to accept because the teacher would guide them to play with out faults.

If a student is self-taught and they developed bad habits ( seen a lot of that) then yes the student is going to need a teacher of great technical know how more than musicality training. I feel sorry for this student. You are right, student will not be able to achieve their inner musicality.

These are two different students and one should not be mixed up with the other. It does not meaning learning to listen is not a critical first step. I argue if the second student had a good teacher and a model of how the instrument should sound ( by listening ) and why whatever technical fault is unmusical and potentially harmful in the future the student would not have that issue. Listening comes into late to save the day but it does not mean it is not a hero.

 A conductor may regularly sing to a musician as a demonstration. But he would equally expect to have a musician grasp an intellectual explanation of a phrase. There's nothing to compare listening to but the concept, in those cases. Also, conductors regularly choose bowings- rather than say "find me a bowing to give this type of sound". It's a technical issue, given to provide a musical result. Arguably, choice of fingering is often analagous to bowing decisions. A good fingering often takes you half-way towards the musical execution- whereas a bad one takes you a hell of a way from it.

Without either a concept of how to execute a phrase, or something to listen to and copy, what's left? What are you comparing your listening to?

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. You are right that you need the technique but you need the musical concept to be able to choose the technique( fingering, and bowing). You can find many examples of people with a whole much of technique and lack of musicality and the music is left unsatisfying.

You seem to think if you have technical skills you are able to play musically. While this is true, without the musicality you do not know when to use these techniques (trust me I see it all the time) Technical players that can play wonderful runs of scales in Chopin but have issues with rubato, phrasing, knowing when to cresendo. Try explaining rubato in technical terms without playing an example.

 

Good teachers don't ask for better listening, they INSPIRE it to occur.

I argue that good teachers make there students better listeners without their being aware of it through a variety of ways. You right they don't ask for their students to be better listeners, they just make them do it. And now you say you agree that listening should be part of a balanced lesson but early you said "Does saying "listen" have any real value? I'd say it has scarcely more than zero (except in a few extreme cases)".  I hope you starting to come around to fact listening has more than scarcely more than zero amount of value. i would say it should be around 45 to 50 percent because it determines the technique you need.

I had not suggested that. I said TELLING students to listen has scarcely more than zero value. It amounts to looking at the symptoms, not the root of the metaphorical illness. It's as good as a doctor telling a patient they're ill and sending them off to cure themself.

"Our craft is an aural craft so unfortunatly we can seperate our ear. You are right again when you say "The best teaching should inspire listening to constantly occur of its own accord".  "

This is my primary point. I think you misunderstood what I was meaning by a lot of the other things.

A lot of technical problems would best be compared to a lisp. Listening is futile. Such cases are solved with training from an expert- not in "listening" to pronunciation but in the means.

Finnaly at the end. Amen to that. Fix the causes not they symptom. I would argue lack of aural model is the cause of most technical impediments. Of course some people have lost a limb or a finger or have artritis so that is a different. In the beginning you did not diffecite between telling students to listen and saying whether listening was important in general. Most of your argument was based on technique and arguing the lack of importance of listening. If that was not what you meant I am sorry to if is misunderstood you.

Lisp can be physical or it can be solved through speech therapy( like me!). Depends on the person but some deaf people talk with a lisp because they cannot hear models. Some talk because of physical difficulties but most lisps are easily treatable, I am proof by someone who knows the physical actions of speaking, what the sounds are, and more importantly how to teach it. The translation to music is the teacher needs to be technically effiencent , muscially sound and more importantly know how to teach it. My point is being musically defiecient is still decient in some aspect.

Jeez, anyone prepared to wade through all that?

Unfortunatly I will. I like debates. My quest is for wisdom so I like to see if my philosophy is flawed or not.

Not me.

I would complete at least 4 Hanon exercises in the same time.

Thal

Hanon=bad  , Schumann, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach= good 

[keyboardclass]

Sir, you deserve a medal, though if your quest is for wisdom you may find you've found the wrong tree to bark up!
edit: I've done the next best thing - made you a badge! (nothing too pretentious mind)

[pianisten1989]

Sir, you deserve a medal, though if your quest is for wisdom you may find you've found the wrong tree to bark up!

Not to underestimate the greatness you must have to guide a level 6 to full score on a mazurka (I mean, what is this Cleveland everybody's talking about?!), but with your videos on youtube, I would stay at least 5 miles away from the word wisdom.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I have never seen a student who can "execute a rapid pianissimo scale that is executed legato without pedal, and without bumps or holes" who has not done it before. THe student needs to be taught that specific technique, it cannot be acquired while your learning Mary had a little Lamb. "

Of course not. It's acquired in work on scales. With proper technical foundations, it's the natural follow-up from what they've done before. With the wrong technique, they have to go back to square 1 later on. There's a big difference between tightening up and having to become virtually a beginner again in order to progress.


"I would want to be objective, assess their playing, come up with solutions, learn from other sources. The only way to do that is by listening to something, thier playing or someone eles playing. Sorry thats the only way to do it. They should be taught to listen for what is good about their playing and what needs improvement on."

However, you phrase it, if someone teaches them to look for that which must be improved, they need to teach them HOW to do so. Otherwise, the most positive teacher in the world can cause frustration. As I said, take a student with the classic heavy landings on thumbs and only speak of the sound and they will usually compensate with a very badly repressed thumb action. The listening takes them from one poor movement to arguably a worse one. They have no learn how to use it well, before they can use musical thinking to make a healthy adjustment on their own.

"If you feel teaching students to acknowledge there are problems in their own playing will make them critical I cannot help but thing somewhere down the line there was bad music teacher who put you througt that."

However, positively phrased, showing a student the importance of listening and trying to make adjustments will require them to know HOW. Otherwise they will not fail to be frustrated by finding they can hear things but cannot change them. Many technical problems I had over the years were specifically caused by my attempts at musical fixes. For example, striving for real legato is something that can cause a whole lot of strain if you don't know how to do it well. Musical intentions can harm technique, unless you have the right feedback loop to start with. People need to be more aware of this and stop pretending that listening magically creates technique. It just isn't true. It only reveals problems to be solved. You have to know a decent means if you're going to solve them.

"Its say hold your wrist up, sit up straight , its a C#, and often the good stuff is left to way side. Technique is the front door to musician ship and can not be de-empasized but musicality is a real element often lacking."

If that covered all of technique, I would never have experienced the frustration of being in a situation of being extremely self-critical yet incapable of progress. It's taken vastly more than that to solve specific problems.

"You listen to your teacher's demonstrations. The teacher provides the first sound and the student models it. In order for the student to model it they have to listen to sound. I thought that was clear?"

Elsewhere you said that people should not learn only by listeningp- which I totally agree with. What happens elsewhere- when there's nothing to listen to first? Where is 'listening' in that? It's not "listening" but the inner conception of the intention. That comes first. Next you need the means to realise it.


You said If you think note x was too loud or note enough legato you corrected it "based on comparison to what you want". The comparision comes as a result of LISTENING TO A MODAL .

When I play a new piece, where is my model? I didn't listen to it before. Does that mean I will have no model. It doesn't have to come from listening alone. It also comes from musical concepts that are not necessarily even in sound at all- eg. suspension to resolution is usually strong to weak. The listening is the assessment- not the cause.


"What is one way you get knowledge and experience? Yes you can get it by doing ( which is really important) but you can get it be the big bad L word."


It's only one way. Intellectual understanding is equally important. It can't be left to listening alone. You have to organise WHY things you hear are done it certain ways- or you have no transferable skills.
 

"Wait a minute so your saying if a student LISTEN to him or herself play incorrectly, a student would grow to accept faults in their playing. Sounds like listening is really important I can agree to that Sounds like we have a what came first the chicken or egg senerio.
 Which fault came first a technical fault or a lack of listening fault?"

Exactly. You seem to think I'm arguing against the opposite, but I'm saying that it's a two way street. I don't think the above aspect is widely acknowledged. In fact, I think it's rarely acknowledged at all. I think a lot of teachers are so caught up in repeating things about "listening"- that they fail to grasp the full picture of what goes on inside. Listening itself is just a part of a more complex whole.

"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."

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.


"You seem to think if you have technical skills you are able to play musically."

I didn't mention that I was talking about the role of elements in a balanced whole- rather than arguing for some ridiculous polarisation? I certainly believe I did.

"Try explaining rubato in technical terms without playing an example."

I often do. I find it very useful. For example, if Chopin writes a rest within a pedal, it often suggest a slight musical comma that goes beyond literal counting. With an explanation, they can learn a transferable skill- not merely to copy me in one instance by listening alone. Listening AND explanation is far more useful. In such cases, I often show how an arm movement will help time the comma. So there's also a specific technical element that contributes to the result. Far more useful than saying "do this" and demonstrating alone.

lesson but early you said "Does saying "listen" have any real value?
I'd say it has scarcely more than zero (except in a few extreme cases)".  I hope you starting to come around to fact listening has more than scarcely more than zero amount of value.

I already responded to this in my last post. Does SAYING listen have any real value? I did not say- does LISTENING have any real value. Totally different statements. You're arguing against something I never argued for.


"My point is being musically defiecient is still decient in some aspect."

Of course it is. The problem is that often that the student is blamed for musical deficiency when their technique is the real problem. Too many teachers allow musical deficiency to develop by not fixing major technical issues- then blame their students listening.

[mcdiddy1]

Of course not. It's acquired in work on scales. With proper technical foundations, it's the natural follow-up from what they've done before. With the wrong technique, they have to go back to square 1 later on. There's a big difference between tightening up and having to become virtually a beginner again in order to progress.
.

My point is you can stress technique all you want to a beginner when they get to that point to where they are learning a new skill they would struggle just because it is new not because they do not have technique. The good technique come from good teaching and listening to the results of good technique from the beginning.

However, you phrase it, if someone teaches them to look for that which must be improved, they need to teach them HOW to do so. Otherwise, the most positive teacher in the world can cause frustration. As I said, take a student with the classic heavy landings on thumbs and only speak of the sound and they will usually compensate with a very badly repressed thumb action. The listening takes them from one poor movement to arguably a worse one. They have no learn how to use it well, before they can use musical thinking to make a healthy adjustment on their own.

Luckily with me and my students we do just that. Before they play a note, we do some analysis on the music , point out trouble spots, key, rhythm, notes, technique before they play anything. They are guided through the process in a way if they imitate they will not fail. I am teaching them to learn countless pieces that are structured the same way. There's no frustration or anger just concise, clear steps of what to do and when. I am not patting myself of the back because others teach exactly like this. Any fault with technique is quickly snuffed out, and the focus is on learning the music with technique supporting the musical results. Why do you keep bringing up the thumb thing? Is there some personal struggle with the thumb for you? People with that trouble I usually play music with accents of the thumb, the anatomy of the thumb, and techniques for using and the problem quickly dissipates and I do not have to say anything more. You seem to think this a chronic disease that destroys piano students. I am not as pessimistic about it about as you, I view it as a slight cough that quickly disappear with me. I think underlying tension in the arm and hand is the cause and the over use of the thumb is a symptom. If you teach them to relax their hand early (lesson one) They will not suddenly add tension unless the repertoire is too difficult.

Many technical problems I had over the years were specifically caused by my attempts at musical fixes. For example, striving for real legato is something that can cause a whole lot of strain if you don't know how to do it well. Musical intentions can harm technique, unless you have the right feedback loop to start with.

Bingo! I knew it. This is more of a personal struggle you have delt with in your past. This is why I always say to self-taught students, go to a teacher first. The foundation is so critically important because of what happens to students like you. I am sorry you were not given the chance to learn from someone who would have guided you in the correct path toward piano technique. I started off self-teaching but had a good background knowledge of violin which emphasized relaxation in the beginning. It is one of the reasons I wanted to be a teacher because I felt my teachers were lacking in their knowledge to teach me and I wanted to give students everything I knew. Everything you said as made sense now but you might want to be careful of over compensation for the lack of technique training you were given as a child to every student because students have different needs. The five year old playing Twinkle Twinkly - does not need to know about the structure of the thumb but should learn their hands should be soft and round. That will at least prevent problems like the one you described happening to your students.

If that covered all of technique, I would never have experienced the frustration of being in a situation of being extremely self-critical yet incapable of progress. It's taken vastly more than that to solve specific problems.

You are right. It is just as example of typical piano lessons. For you, I am sorry to say but if you had started with someone who knew what they're doing then you would have never experienced frustration. I taught a beginner the other day and in our lesson we went over relaxation of the arm, posture and seating positions, the role of the thumb, wrist alignment, hand structure, the use of fingers , staccato, legato, and non-legato notes, finding middle C and some reading. It was teenager so a lot of technique right away. 5 year olds need to increase musical readiness so there would a more exploratory aspect but in the end the student would "discover" the best way to play is with curved fingers , soft hands, and they are not escaping out of the room until the know that. The quest is toward musicality so the technique is laid out in the beginning. I rarely have to have long discussion of technique when it is laid out in the first lesson very clearly. It makes it more understandable from your point of view technique is paramount but it is not an end of its self.

[
Elsewhere you said that people should not learn only by listening- which I totally agree with. What happens elsewhere-when there's nothing to listen to first? Where is 'listening' in that? It's not "listening" but the inner conception of the intention. That comes first. Next you need the means to realize it.

If the student hears and watches the teacher plays  and hears a soft dental melody with right hand and sees fingers touching the keys and depressed very slowly that gives the student a clear idea how to go home and practice. If the student practices( a big if) the student will have the guidance not to go bang on the keyboard because the student remembers how the piece should be played, both aurally and visually. You play soft because the music demands a soft touch. So you learn a soft technique. I would change what you said as inner musical conception . Inner concept is too vague. Oh and yes students should not be given an audio tape of how it goes or just a video with no audio but a really teacher that demonstrates aurally , visually, demonstratively and can explain in words what needs to happen in this music.

When I play a new piece, where is my model? I didn't listen to it before. Does that mean I will have no model. It doesn't have to come from listening alone. It also comes from musical concepts that are not necessarily even in sound at all- eg. suspension to resolution is usually strong to weak. The listening is the assessment- not the cause.

You are talking about sight-reading. This is also why I suggest students should sightread music they already know how it goes. But sight-reading is a different topic altogether. If the student is well taught, the technique will be not be abandoned when a new piece is introduced. I have never seen a student who sight -read a new piece suddenly tense up their hand , and slam on the keys( that would be weird). Sight reading is based learned slowly and progressively to gain experience in it. When you become more experienced and advance player you can hear musical patterns in your mind. When you have enough experience, you can easily identify cadences, suspensions, resolutions just based on sight. That should not be the goal of the beginning sight reader but playing accurately, in time, and not stopping in the middle. Musical experience has to precede this kind of work though and the student's level of achievement should be taken in to consideration. Nobody has never told you this before???

It's only one way. Intellectual understanding is equally important. It can't be left to listening alone. You have to organize WHY things you hear are done it certain ways- or you have no transferable skills.

Hopefully by now you have see I of course agree with that. We both agree of a balance of theoretical knowledge and musical concepts are important for students to learn. This has been point from the beginning

Exactly. You seem to think I'm arguing against the opposite, but I'm saying that it's a two way street. I don't think the above aspect is widely acknowledged. In fact, I think it's rarely acknowledged at all. I think a lot of teachers are so caught up in repeating things about "listening"- that they fail to grasp the full picture of what goes on inside. Listening itself is just a part of a more complex whole..

I personally have not seen students with great listening skills. Ask a student to improvise and you will get a blank look. Ask a student to play a song they heard on the radio and you get a blank look. Ask a student to identify where is the leading tone or better yet the dominant of the key and you get a blank look. Try it, I promise you get it. So where is listening over emphasized again? It is not taught because the teacher is the usually has no clue about it also. Listening should be more than a one or two street. You should listen to the teacher, your own playing, music from other time periods, the radio, from all other sources in order to me come more musically educated. Listen should be used as a comparison to the teachers playing and the students playing. You are right listening can be abused in which the student is overly critically about their owns playing or they try to model something they are technically ready to do. Thats were good teachers come in and stop that before it goes to far.
[
quote author=nyiregyhazi link=topic=41719.msg463920#msg463920 date=1309091576]

"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."

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.
[/quote]
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. You need to to achieve musical results from using piano technique, hopefully sequentially. Yes, technique can be explained but you need a musical concept in your mind first and result for assessment afterwards.

"Try explaining rubato in technical terms without playing an example."

I often do. I find it very useful. For example, if Chopin writes a rest within a pedal, it often suggest a slight musical comma that goes beyond literal counting. With an explanation, they can learn a transferable skill- not merely to copy me in one instance by listening alone. Listening AND explanation is far more useful. In such cases, I often show how an arm movement will help time the comma. So there's also a specific technical element that contributes to the result. Far more useful than saying "do this" and demonstrating alone.

Well this answer I was looking forward to but I was disappointed. My point is it is difficult explaining rubato with just words and no musical examples of what it sounds like. You can say "you must rob time, and ebb and flow all you want" and I promise you will get some weird counting. You prove my point yourself that listening is a tool for teaching rubato and I would argue a crucially more important tool than verbal description. All the examples require a musical concept in the mind which is enhanced by a technical action. They would not be doing it wrong if they did not add an arm movement, it would just "help the time of the comma". The musical concept in the mind is more important and the technique just supports it. Where have we heard this before?

"My point is being musically deficient is still decient in some aspect."

Of course it is. The problem is that often that the student is blamed for musical deficiency when their technique is the real problem. Too many teachers allow musical deficiency to develop by not fixing major technical issues- then blame their students listening.

This is a personal experience for you but blaming is such a subjective word. Does the mention the student should listen to their own playing more critically mean they are judging the student and feel the student should sharply criticize their own playing? I would hope not. I listen to my self all the time and I do not feel I beat myself up, nor do I expect my students to feel beat up to. I can happily say I have never had a music teacher who blamed me for not listening, not practicing maybe , not listening, no. I cannot speak for anyone eles here but I did not see anyone take a view where the are blaming the student. If you point it out i will glad admit I was wrong but I didn't see it.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Why do you keep bringing up the thumb thing? Is there some personal struggle with the thumb for you? People with that trouble I usually play music with accents of the thumb, the anatomy of the thumb, and techniques for using and the problem quickly dissipates and I do not have to say anything more. You seem to think this a chronic disease that destroys piano students."

Since a number of recent lessons, I have realised 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 themself 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.


Bingo! I knew it. This is more of a personal struggle you have delt with in your past. This is why I always say to self-taught students, go to a teacher first.

? 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.



"You are talking about sight-reading. This is also why I suggest students should sightread music they already know how it goes. But sight-reading is a different topic altogether."

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.

"I personally have not seen students with great listening skills. Ask a student to improvise and you will get a blank look. Ask a student to play a song they heard on the radio and you get a blank look. Ask a student to identify where is the leading tone or better yet the dominant of the key and you get a blank look. Try it, I promise you get it. So where is listening over emphasized again?"

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.

"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.  

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 realised. 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.

"Well this answer I was looking forward to but I was disappointed. My point is it is difficult explaining rubato with just words and no musical examples of what it sounds like. "

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.

"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.

"This is a personal experience for you but blaming is such a subjective word. Does the mention the student should listen to their own playing more critically mean they are judging the student and feel the student should sharply criticize their own playing?"

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 themself. 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.


"If you point it out i will glad admit I was wrong but I didn't see it."

I'm not making any accusations towards you. I'm discussing the topic in general.

[keyboardclass]

Since a number of recent lessons, I have realised 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 themself well.

Just as well the second thing I teach (the first being how to move the fingers) is how to move the thumb.  This is crucial and learnt lesson 1.

The Thumb
Your thumb moves from the wrist.  Many mistakenly add some arm movement as well.  Hold your thumb under your index finger like you're creating a puppet where you draw lips on your thumb and finger.  Open those lips carefully from the corner of the mouth until the tip of the thumb has traveled 3/8ths of an inch - that's all the movement needed (keys only go down 3/8ths of an inch).

[nyiregyhazi]

Just as well the second thing I teach (the first being how to move the fingers) is how to move the thumb.  This is crucial and learnt lesson 1.

(Some of) what you describe is important, although it's not the specific thing I'm referring to. I'm talking about a style of movement that is largely to do with making sure that the arm neither falls when the thumb moves, nor does it press through the thumb against the keybed for even a split second. I recently discovered the sheer value in adding a slight extension of the thumb (which causes a slight rotation in doing so)- rather than simply opposing from the palm. It has made an overwhelming difference- especially in left hand alone repertoire and something like the op. 25 no. 12 etude by Chopin.

I totally disagree with your idea about repressing a full arc of movement. That exactly the type of thing that hinders rapid-fire scales- something that I have never had any reason to believe you are capable of executing, from your videos. Contact with the keybed stops the thumb for you- although it's VERY important the arm as a whole does not press through this. If you prevent the latter, there's just no need to repress the full action with a quick stop. If I was still doing the kind of repression you describe, I'd never have got beyond the speed wall I was at a few years back.

It's all very well talking as if you have mastered and can explain everything anyone need know about the thumb, but the severe limits in your ability illustrate otherwise.

[keyboardclass]

(Some of) what you describe is important, although it's not the specific thing I'm referring to. I'm talking about a style of movement that is largely to do with making sure that the arm neither falls when the thumb moves, nor does it press through the thumb against the keybed for even a split second.

Exactly.  Thumb moves from the wrist, independent of the arm.

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly.  Thumb moves from the wrist, independent of the arm.

Yes, I agree with that. However, there's more to it than that, in order to optimise the thumb's movement in a way that makes control over rapid scales and arpeggios a feasible possibility. A repressed thumb action can be a big problem. This where I find the addition of a slightly straightening thumb reaps amazing benefits- compared to simply imagining you're opening a mouth with a stilted little prod. Try making a big sonorous melody in op. 25 no. 12 with that style of thinking,. Repression cannot even begin to come into it.

[keyboardclass]

This where I find the addition of a slightly straightening thumb reaps amazing benefits- compared to simply imagining you're opening a mouth with a stilted little prod.

You complain about straw men, you're the worst offender!

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, there's a great tip from Seymour Bernstein on the thumb. When playing the thumb after 3/4 in scales, if you feel you aim it ever so slightly sideways, the reaction force throws all of the other fingers into position surprisingly passively. It removes the feeling of "cranking" that virtually all beginners have when moving fingers over the top. At high speeds, this style of action is absolutely invaluable- even if a lot of pianists aren't consciously aware of doing it. The roots of this principle can be put in place very early on- but only with a confidently non-repressed thumb action. Soon the fingers are flying into place by themself, seemingly through the mere act of sounding the thumb confidently into a key.

[nyiregyhazi]

You complain about straw men, you're the worst offender!

You can't move the thumb such a small distance and then have it stop by magic. It adds an act of muscular repression. Try playing the melody in op. 25 no. 12 in the loudest passages and deliberately think of stopping the thumb actively rather than passively. You'll be as stiff as a board. There's no strawman here. I'm following up from what happens if you willfully seek to stop at that point. It causes muscular repression in the action.