Teaching students to play with multiple dynamics in same hand

[stevenpn]

Hello folks,

How would you help a student learn to how to play with multiple dynamics in the same hand?  Take for example:

C major triad in root position using the right hand.  Finger 1 is on C, 3 on E, and 5 on G.  We would like the student to be able to play C pianissimo, E forte, and G pianissimo as well.  The forte note might just as easily have been the C or the G.  All the notes are to be play simultaneously, not rolled. 

What would you do to help a student learn to be able to accomplish the above task consistently?  I have them practice each finger separately at the desired dynamic level, then put them back together.  That helps to some degree, but I was hoping you could help me come up with some other strategies.

Thank you all,

Steven 

[pianoplayjl]

Why not instead of triads try 2 notes first? For example get them to play C and E. C: pianissimo E: forte. Again get them to practice them separately. Obviously the force applied should be more emphasized at the E. Once they master this then go towards triads and then even 4 note chords if they master triads really well.

JL

[stevenpn]

That's a great idea--starting them off with only two notes, then moving on to more notes subsequently.  Do you have any ideas on how to help students apply varying degrees of force on different notes?  We can ask them to simply do so, but that can't always.  As I said in my original post, I'll have them play each note individually at the desired dynamic level, but they can't always maintain those dynamic levels when playing the notes together.  I've suggested strategies like "don't actively play the soft note; allow the presence of the finger on the key to suffice as force enough."  That works sometimes.  Do you all have any strategies for helping the students in this matter?  Any technical drills or mental triggers that might help with this?


Thanks again.

[pianoplayjl]

Unfortunately no since I'm only a student who can barely teach himself to play. About 3 note chords-I don't know how to emphasize the middle note but maybe I MIGHT know a minute bit of info on how to emphasize the first and 3rd notes as they are easier. Maybe a student can try tilting their hand more towards their emphasized note? I'm most likey wrong and you'll have to experiment to come up with formulas and ideas. Good luck.

JL

[nyiregyhazi]

 As I said in my original post, I'll have them play each note individually at the desired dynamic level, but they can't always maintain those dynamic levels when playing the notes together.  I've suggested strategies like "don't actively play the soft note; allow the presence of the finger on the key to suffice as force enough."  That works sometimes.

To be honest, I think it's actually a mistake to think along the lines of softer fingers and firmer ones. If every fingers moves positively, there is vastly more control. I used to try to voice based on the idea of a firmer finger, which is what many advanced pianists describe. However, if any fingers are soft and give way, it offers as much control as trying to play a putt in golf with a putter that has a wobbly rubber shaft. Sometimes it may get reasonable results, but it basically means "empty" notes (that may even fail to sound). If every finger moves positively (but some more than others) you can have far more sense of precise control . Ultimately it's actually possible to play even softer on the quieter fingers, than when they are inactive- just as you can get more control when putting slowly but confidently straight through a golf ball, compared to when holding back.

When  pianists talk of softer fingers and firmer ones, I think they're actually describing the sensation of the fingers contacting the keybed with different levels of confidence, due to different intensities of individual movement. Since I realised this, I've had 1000x more control over voicing than when I moved less positively. The fingers provide different levels of addition- not subtraction. I cannot see any other feasible explanation for how a pianist can voice the inner fingers of chords with three notes or more, while retaining genuine control over the quieter parts. The arm can lean to a side, but it certainly can't "lean" towards the middle.

[keypeg]

Niyireghazi, that makes a lot of sense.  This week I was concerned when I discovered I was playing a quiet passage with soft seeming fingers, because quite a while back I had developed "relaxed = limp" and the automatic reflex had been stiff fingers for loud, a soft hand for quiet.  I have gone to square one with playing.  Well, what I had here was a supple finger rather than a limp finger and hand.  The same feeling that gave the quiet note also could give a loud note when the finger moved faster starting from a greater height - there was no limpness.  (I also had disappeared notes way back when). 

I am not working on chord voicing yet, but since my teacher was checking this we explored the idea.  What we came to was remarkably similar to what you just wrote.  One way I could get one of two notes to sound louder was by having the louder finger move with greater velocity.  There were other ways but this was one of them.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niyireghazi, that makes a lot of sense.  This week I was concerned when I discovered I was playing a quiet passage with soft seeming fingers, because quite a while back I had developed "relaxed = limp" and the automatic reflex had been stiff fingers for loud, a soft hand for quiet.  I have gone to square one with playing.  Well, what I had here was a supple finger rather than a limp finger and hand.  

I see what you mean there, but what exactly is a "supple" finger? I think such things make good subjective impressions of the experience of it working, but I'm not sure that thinking "be supple" necessarily offers a very clear guide for the process of working at this. If you chance on the right way of moving it will lead to a very "supple" feeling, but I think that more of an effect than a cause. From my personal standpoint, what I would perceive as a "supple" state is the type that would probably collapse. I think the simplest way of looking at what governs the whole process is movement. A finger that is extending out cannot be collapsing- hence it provides greater control. I think the traditional viewpoint of how "firm" or "soft" the finger is totally misses the most effective solution. A finger that in the act of extending out does not need to be "firm" and cannot be floppy. It's just a very simple act of movement, that eliminates these issues altogether.

I am not working on chord voicing yet, but since my teacher was checking this we explored the idea.  What we came to was remarkably similar to what you just wrote.  One way I could get one of two notes to sound louder was by having the louder finger move with greater velocity.  There were other ways but this was one of them.

Yeah, I think it's the most open to long-term progress. I used to slump all the weight on a dead fifth finger. I could voice melodies well compared to many pianists in my teens, but the scope for improvement was virtually nil. I had nothing but a stronger voice and dead accompaniment- not a true sense of individual levels.

[quantum]

nyiregyhazi, if I understood your explanation correctly, I would summarize it as follows: 
All fingers require support.  Fingers can independently execute varying levels of velocity (or as you describe "intensities of movement"). 

[nyiregyhazi]

nyiregyhazi, if I understood your explanation correctly, I would summarize it as follows: 
All fingers require support.  Fingers can independently execute varying levels of velocity (or as you describe "intensities of movement"). 

Yeah, I'd just add that's it specifically by moving that fingers achieve their support. There's just one single process of moving. It's so much easier than trying to brace different fingers to different levels. There's very little control from that approach.

[keypeg]

Niye., I did not aim for supple.  It was something that was there which I then checked. When I checked I saw that it was not the limp relaxed playing I  once had which is what I had before: there simply suppleness there - mobility, motion, not stiffness, not tension, but firmness and motion.  What I was actually stressing was the coincidence of the other part being similar to what you wrote.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niye., I did not aim for supple.  It was something that was there which I then checked. When I checked I saw that it was not the limp relaxed playing I  once had which is what I had before: there simply suppleness there - mobility, motion, not stiffness, not tension, but firmness and motion.  What I was actually stressing was the coincidence of the other part being similar to what you wrote.

Ah, sorry. I thought you meant that aiming for being supple resulted in similar effect, but I see that I'd misread you.

[keypeg]

Ah, sorry. I thought you meant that aiming for being supple resulted in similar effect, but I see that I'd misread you.

Yes, we missed each other.  What I worried about when I played that passage which called for quiet playing is that what I felt in my hand while sight reading might be the old habit of playing quiet notes by going limp, loud notes by going stiff.    So I checked it.  What I had was a hand that was supple, meaning that there wasn't a rigid tension, but instead something that allowed the finger to move to the key with a slower velocity to produce a quieter sound, coming at a nice angle supporting it, and then the finger was able to lift off again.  Exactly the same feel to the hand in motion could produce a loud note, with faster velocity.  In the old days when I had the limp = quiet = "relaxed" reflex, my quiet notes tended to fade or not sound, and the loud notes would have a different feeling in the hand, true tension and tightness.  I was very relieved to see this, and my teacher confirmed that it looked and sounded right.

That's the observation.  The bottom line is that dynamics came from velocity, and when we then played with playing two notes at the same time, I was using that same velocity to deliberately make one note sound louder than the other.  We didn't go to a  three note chord because in my remediation I'm still at a very basic stage.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's the observation.  The bottom line is that dynamics came from velocity

While this is true, I think the big thing that traditional explanations have missed goes beyond this, though. It's about pacing of velocity. I don't personally like the velocity description greatly- as it suggests to some people it's just about going faster or slower. It's much more than that. It's about directing straight through resistance (whether going fast or slow) and not allowing repression to come in.

If you allow give in the finger, the finger gets slowed by the key's resistance- losing the contact and control that it should be exerting. It's not just about the fact that it results in lesser speed, but about the fact that slowing down in the middle of a movement relinquishes control. If you keep accelerating through something, you continue to impart momentum for longer. If you let something get away from you, the end result is the stems for a shorter period of unpredictable contact- causing a bigger margin of error. This is why all good golfers plays though even the shortest of putts- to maximise the time in which the club is directly manipulating the ball.

It would be difficult to prove this on the piano, but it's likely that certain qualities of repressed movement actually reduce the duration in which you are directly manipulating the hammer. It could feasibly- "run away" from you before the escapement has been reached, just like when a golfer tries to stop the club face dead a millimeter after contact. With the momentum being applied in a shorter space of time (rather than with acceleration right through to escapement) there is a larger margin of error in judging the application of momentum. I'm very confident that simple issues of mechanics provide a solid demonstration of why unconfident movements provide poor control.

[quantum]

nyiregyhazi, this discussion is fascinating.  Through your further explanation, I've come to realize that I was taught the same technique, except it was described differently. 

I would amend my previous post about support by saying there different elements of the action that utilize mechanisms of support. 

Support for the key action is achieved through the fluidity and impartment of momentum by the object in contact with the key.

Support for the hand's skeletal and muscular systems allow for the previously mentioned impartment of momentum. 

[keypeg]

Niereghazi, that was in fact part of it, as it came in the lesson.  I was trying to keep it simple.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niereghazi, that was in fact part of it, as it came in the lesson.  I was trying to keep it simple.

I see what you mean, but is the reality simple enough for it convey what is needed? I'm not personally keen on "velocity, as it says nothing about pacing or how important that is. For some people, moving faster or moving slower conveys a very different idea, unless you reference the idea of very positive sense of acceleration (at the point where finger contacts key) through escapement.

The thing about playing loud is that is need not feel "fast" at all, if the pacing is right. Thinking of speed can give a problematic image of how to make loud sounds. Personally I prefer to focus on how speed is built up, rather on speed itself.

[keypeg]

Personally I prefer to focus on how speed is built up, rather on speed itself.

Would you care to expand on that?

[nyiregyhazi]

Would you care to expand on that?

It's basically just what I described earlier in the thread. First you have to make a sense of connection and then you have to accelerate smoothly through escapement. Otherwise there is a larger margin of error. People who think "fast" tend to jab abruptly, without any quality of pacing to the acceleration. People who think "slow" tend to repress rather than aim through. It doesn't make any more sense to speak about speed than when a sportsman plays golf or tennis. Nobody would regard the idea of swinging the racquet/club "faster" or "slower" as being meaningful advice. The basic level of truth within the premise is already blindingly obvious- and it's too greatly simplified to convey any deep meaning. It can easily convey the wrong impression altogether. Piano is not so different. With an existing feel for good movement, I can see how a pianist could relate it to this issue. Similarly, a good golfer would be able to realise that (while his sense of how to time acceleration is the big issue in his technique) it's also true that he swings the club at a faster average speed for larger distances.

The velocity issue is just the immediately obvious surface, though. It's just about the first thing anyone notices when they play the piano for the first time. For precise control, it's a lot more sophisticated than slower= quieter and faster=louder.