keeping a relaxed wrist in chords and octaves

[p2u_]

@ nyiregyhazi

I know it's a bit off-topic here, but I have a statement by George Kochevitsky I'd like you to react to. If it's really too off-topic, then maybe you could start another one? It's your topic after all...

In the central nervous system, reciprocal relations exist between flexors (bending muscles) and extensors (straightening muscles). The intense excitation of flexors will call forth intense inhibition of extensors, and vice versa. Since the inhibitory process is weaker than the process of excitation, a slight raising of the fingers (intense excitation of extensors) before their descent into the keys appears to be a valuable means for strengthening weak inhibition of flexors. The tendency to rush, to accelerate passages is observed mostly among students who are not used to raising their fingers while practicing. Now we see one more reason for the requirement of raising fingers in slow practicing.

Thank you!

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

@ nyiregyhazi

I know it's a bit off-topic here, but I have a statement by George Kochevitsky I'd like you to react to. If it's really too off-topic, then maybe you could start another one? It's your topic after all...

Thank you!

Paul

This is something I've thought about a great deal. I'm not sure about the inner workings described there. It may or may not be an accurate description of a significant issue- but the thing I've observed myself is possibly rather different. At the least, it's more grounded in practical observations- rather than related to inner anatomical workings. Over and over I've been in situations where I thought I no longer needed finger lifting and was better off playing from the keys. But then little by little (like boiling a frog) my playing would slip- until I'd finally realise that the quality of articulation had become hopeless. I've had this more times than I could possibly list- completely forgetting how many times I've let this issue come about- and then being forced to return to lifting actions to get back on track, once again. The last occasion was just a couple of weeks back- and I'm hoping not to forget about the issue this time.

Anyway, my own theory is a little different. When lifting other fingers, you challenge your stabilising finger. It has to work a little more clearly if you are stabilise. It tests the sense of whether the arm properly hangs loosely back as a relatively taut chain and whether the finger is performing an adequate function to make such a chain possible. I think this both energises the supporting fingers and get them more stable- even when you go on to stop lifting the fingers. This gets them used to creating a better position from which the next finger can perform a quality movement. When I fail to work this way for a while, I think the fingers are much more inclined to relax too soon- hencing causing a less than optimal position from which the next finger can play.

Recently, I've been experimenting with all kinds of finger lifting- not just of the finger that is to play next but of every single finger (other than those at keybeds). I then go on to relax everything in the hand back into wherever it wants to settle- except the supporting finger, which continues to stabilise the arm. Ironically, I find this kind of exercise especially useful for students whose fingers tend to flail around out of control. By making the unwanted movements even more extreme, they actually end up getting better at eradicating them (which I believe is due to getting a better sense of stabilisation from whichever finger is at the keybed).

One thing I'd stress is that I don't generally use lifting as a "run-up" when using this. I lift to test the balancing finger and then slowly let the lifted finger return. Once I've properly got the balancing finger doing it's job, I tend to come back and play from contact- rather than hammer from above.

[keyboardclass]

Nobody called you a liar. Now it's myself you are falsely attributing opinions to. When you quote from someone, you have a moral/intellectual duty to ensure that you do not give a false representation of them. You placed a quote from him about extensors of the KNUCKLE-

So when you're not insulting you're compounding an insult!  How would you know anything about the quote?  You know nothing of Schultz's writings.  Just where oh where does it say the quote's re: the knuckle?  

[pts1]

nyiregyhazi

IMHO, one doesn't need to "work" at finger lifting, since once you pull the finger down with the flexor and then relax, the finger "pops" back up into its original position as a natural result of the hands construction, i.e. the extensors pull the finger back up.

Didn't we all bury the "high finger" school awhile back?

This harkens back to the Hanonites who admonish the pianist to raise the fingers high and bring them down forcefully.

In my experience, having done this obsessively at one time, the few short term benefits are far outweighed by the potential physical harm that can result, as well as the non-musical sounds that are inherent in this type of playing.

I don't think quality of articulation is necessarily a result of finger lifting.

Your own post of you playing the first bit of Bach prelude was all played "from the key" as best I could tell, and seemed quite well articulated, i.e. clear separate even sound.

If one practices "too fast", this I think makes the articulation suffer eventually, and one should, IMHO, practice "in slow motion"... or slower motion than performance. Since playing on the keys, and allowing the extensors to do most of the "spring loaded" work of pulling the fingers back up, makes playing so much easier than the "high finger school" method of "up down" playing, I find for myself a tendency to wish to "play" and sometimes neglect the more disciplined elements necessary in "practice."

Of course, at times it is necessary to lift the finger(s) to prepare and arrive on a key to play it, outside of the natural shape/height that the extensor repositions, the finger.

But mostly, I find the rule to be playing from on the key, not "hitting" it, i.e. playing from a distance above the key.

And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Paul was suggesting anything like conscious finger lifting and playing from above the key as any kind of general guideline.

[keyboardclass]

On the contrary, this is exactly where arm-weight is most counterproductive.

Exactly why I say it's a push from the shoulder, not actual arm-weight.

[keyboardclass]

Didn't we all bury the "high finger" school awhile back?

Quite so.

[p2u_]

And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Paul was suggesting anything like conscious finger lifting and playing from above the key as any kind of general guideline.

No, no, of course not. This has nothing to do with PLAYING. It's taking care of the balance between exitation and inhibition, something Kochevitsky was right about, I assume. It's not training the muscles, but training the  nervous system. On page 30 or so (in the chapter about acquiring speed) he continues this thinking and recommends slight "after-pressure", again from the finger knuckle, of course. Nothing like Schwarzenegger pushing down from the shoulder!
P.S.: It's interesting to note, that 2 famous great teachers Maria Curcio and Adele Marcus also recommended finger lifting (lifting a straight finger from the knuckle, but make it come down curved). Of course, this was only the training of a ballerina, and should not be confused with their ideas about how to draw a beautiful tone out of the instrument, which should, of course, be done from the surface of the key if you want control.

Paul

[marik1]

best stick to nail, middle, knuckle to save confusion.The point being - I start with the distal you, like the vast majority, start with the proximal.   You have little hammers...

No, I don't like to be in some kind of rigid frame. I am actually for one who uses variety and depending on the music goals employes different techniques to create a certain musical effect within the context of certain piece, or style. Sometimes it needs caressing, sometimes "little hammers", sometimes penetration, sometimes "weight", and so forth. That's the point I was trying to make earlier.

[keyboardclass]

No, I don't like to be in some kind of rigid frame. I am actually for one who uses variety and depending on the music goals employes different techniques to create a certain musical effect within the context of certain piece, or style. Sometimes it needs caressing, sometimes "little hammers", sometimes penetration, sometimes "weight", and so forth. That's the point I was trying to make earlier.

Sadly it doesn't work like that.  There's a basic touch which will be your default.  I find the caress to be the most sensitive - why would anyone strive for less sensitivity?

[nyiregyhazi]

So when you're not insulting you're compounding an insult!  How would you know anything about the quote?  You know nothing of Schultz's writings.  Just where oh where does it say the quote's re: the knuckle?  

In the context-setting sentences you omitted. You would sooner portray Schultz as having been so foolish and short-sighted as to have ruled out any pianistic value in the simple (and very widely used) extension action I show in those two films, than admit to having quoted him out of context? This is tiresome and I have no further interest. Either Schulz was a fool, or you placed his quote out of context. I'll trust in the latter.

[p2u_]

This is tiresome and I have no further interest.

Prove it, N. Stick to the topic and ignore. Please.

Paul

[marik1]

This topic, as P2u said, is almost impossible to talk about, and Marik, tired of the hammer speed thing, is not without consideration also.

The entire point of hammer speed is to note that this is all that counts from the "piano's point of view", and for the pianist, the most anatomically efficient way to do this is the best.

This knowledge as a basic "gold standard of understanding" allows the pianist or would be pianist to eliminate all the inefficient and physically harmful methods and focus on basically playing from the key, pulling the key down, and using small and helpful movements of the hand, wrist, and arm to assist in sound production.

Hi PTS1,

I guess, in the end our destination is the same (i.e. efficiency of entire piano performance apparatus), just we go there from different angles. For me the starting point is diction (articulation) and certain music image, which dictates all the means of execution. It is the same as when I drive I don't necessarily think (although I might be very well aware of that) about how for example, drivetrain and axle work--I am thinking about where I have to get today and how to operated the car in order to get to the point of destination in the most efficient way.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

Sadly it doesn't work like that.  There's a basic touch which will be your default.  I find the caress to be the most sensitive - why would anyone strive for less sensitivity?

What a staggeringly solipsistic argument. Are you an accomplished virtuoso? Do you think you get more sensitivity by dragging your fingertips than Volodos does without? What you are personally able to feel more sensitivity from has no bearing whatsoever on technique at large. A plethora of pianists who use the extending action are infinitely more sensitive than anything on display in your videos. To portray anyone who uses this effective action as striving for less sensitivity is mind-bogglingly narrow-minded.

[keyboardclass]

In the context-setting sentences you omitted.

How bizarre.  You know the context of a piece of text you've never seen before by an author you've never read!  ...and yeh, insult and run why-don't-you!

[keyboardclass]

Do you think you get more sensitivity by dragging your fingertips than Volodos does without?

As I've already stated the fingertips have some of the highest, if not the highest concentration of nerve cells per square mm than anywhere else on the body.

edit: quick google - Skin of fingertips has the highest concentrations of Meissner's and Pacinian corpuscles (https://www.siumed.edu/~dking2/intro/skin.htm)

[marik1]

Sadly it doesn't work like that.  There's a basic touch which will be your default.  I find the caress to be the most sensitive - why would anyone strive for less sensitivity?

First comes music image (not fingers). While indeed, there is some kind of default, the ultimate judge is my ears, which control what is coming from my fingers and make all the necessary adjustments in order to match it in the most efficient way with "ideal music image" in my head.
That is the sensitivity, and not the physical process (having said that, indeed two ARE connected and "feed" each other).

Best, M

[keyboardclass]

I have to disagree a little with that.  I've heard plenty of good interpretations ('music image') accomplished with quite poor (and eventually damaging) technique - mind over matter.  Playing Bach how Bach played, Chopin how Chopin played adds much to the 'image' without requiring brain work.

[pts1]

Hi PTS1,

I guess, in the end our destination is the same (i.e. efficiency of entire piano apparatus), just we go there from different angles. For me the starting point is diction (articulation) and certain music image, which dictates all the means of execution. It is the same as when I drive I don't necessarily think (although I am very aware of that) about how say, drivetrain and axle work--I am thinking about where I have to get today and how to operated the car in order to get to the point of destination in the most efficient way.

Hi Marik!

Thanks for the comments.

I don't think we're as far apart from the "starting point" as you think, or perhaps its the impression I've given.

For me, its what a piece is "saying"... what's the "idea" or "feeling" or the "concept" visual or otherwise. I have to have this or I'm not interested in learning the music.
And some of this is almost completely inexpressible in words, like Rachmaninoff for instance... so many things happening almost at once... so we chop our way through the jungle of metaphor and semantics, inevitably ensnared in the bramble of trying to "describe what this music is about."

My only real technical concern is:

A. not to do anything that is physically harmful and
B: to find the most easily and efficient way of producing the sound I want which carries out "my vision" of the passages/composition I'm attempting to play.

Other than these two elements -- preventing injury, and being efficient and produce the sound -- I don't want to think of these things, because they are best left in the subconcious.

Pianists should approach the instrument somewhat like doctors do their patients with the first and most important rule being:
Do no harm.

There are famous examples of world class pianists really harming themselves.
I read that Horowitz and Glenn Gould had bouts of tendonitis (I think it was) and Leon Fleisher
completely destroyed himself. (much of this was thanks to, I suspect, the "transference of arm weight school" which reigned for years, I think as the REAL way REAL pianists played)

But these famous pianists who "cut their teeth" on the piano, likely had no earthly idea of how they did what they did (nor, I suspect did they really care to).

Like you say, I don't want to think about the transmission or drivetrain in my car, much less the spark plugs, which cylinder is firing right now, the pressure of the oil, the torque, etc., because I'll surely make a wrong turn and maybe have a wreck.

But I do believe from my on past tendencies to "injure" myself, that injury among pianists is extremely common, and a basic knowledge of what to do and what not to do, is of preeminent importance.

Then the music can begin... and continue.

[marik1]

I have to disagree a little with that.  I've heard plenty of good interpretations ('music image') accomplished with quite poor (and eventually damaging) technique - mind over matter.  

Sure, any talented person will somehow deliver the message (s)he wants to say. The same as one eventually will get from New York, NY to Philadelphia, PA taking highway I-95 in a nice Ferrari, or going to the same destination through Paris, France in an old Subaru.

Playing Bach how Bach played, Chopin how Chopin played adds much to the 'image' without requiring brain work.

Not sure how one would know how Bach played Bach, or for that matter, Chopin played Chopin.

Best, M

[keyboardclass]

Not sure how one would know how Bach played Bach, or for that matter, Chopin played Chopin.

There's a good description of Bach through his sons.  Chopin is more problematic.  Hummel himself describes his own touch plus there are some eye witnesses.  And when you think Chopin played a lot of Hummel and Bach...

[marik1]

My only real technical concern is:

A. not to do anything that is physically harmful and
B: to find the most easily and efficient way of producing the sound I want which carries out "my vision" of the passages/composition I'm attempting to play.

Ah, then we are on the same page. I think playing without physical tension (I'd afraid to put here "complete relaxation", as in some sense that would be illusion) is the main key for both. While I greatly admire both Horowitz and Gould you mentioned, I think the physical tension was a source of their problems.

Best, M

[keyboardclass]

Agreed, but how many think their 'system' is tension 'lite' when it isn't?

[p2u_]

There's a good description of Bach through his sons.

If I may, I would say there are several descriptions of what OTHER people thought he was doing. I'm sure he would have been forced to make adjustements if he had been confronted with the concert grand we have now...

Paul

[keyboardclass]

If I may, I would say there are several descriptions of what OTHER people thought he was doing. I'm sure he would have been forced to make adjustements if he had been confronted with the concert grand we have now...

His sons weren't 'other' people!  As for adjustments for today's instruments - that's another issue.

[p2u_]

His sons weren't 'other' people!

Hmmm... interesting position. How could they describe more than what they thought they saw? The only thing we know for sure is that it was a kind of portamento, because legato was considered bad taste...

Paul

[keyboardclass]

Hmmm... interesting position. How could they describe more than what they thought they saw?

Easy, they could describe what they were taught!

[marik1]

There is a good description of a $1000 bottle of good wine. Without actual trying it I still have very hard time of imagining how it tastes like...

Best, M

[p2u_]

Easy, they could describe what they were taught!

I don't think so really. Not exactly related to Bach himself, but many from the later "finger school" (which was not as tense as we think of it nowadays) survived. Many others, who were taught the same thing (!) were hurt. The same can be said about the "arm weight" school. It's not what you are taught - it's what you do with it; it's how you understand it.

Paul

[p2u_]

There is a good description of a $1000 bottle of good wine. Without actual trying it I still have very hard time of imagining how it tastes like...

Very nicely put.
P.S.: If I don't react to your other posts, this does not mean I ignore them. On the contrary - silence = full agreement. Thought I'd let you know...

Paul

[keyboardclass]

That's me, I'm out - heard more sense out of a frog pond!

[p2u_]

That's me, I'm out - heard more sense out of a frog pond!

Are you out of arguments, or what? Don't you find the different descriptions by different people of what someone like Franz Liszt did at the piano, for example, highly contradictory? That's because everybody's perceptions are different. The same can be said about Bach's sons, who mostly wrote after their poor father had already died. They wrote down what they remembered of having been taught or what they remembered to have seen: "1) sounds like pearls and 2) scratches". You cannot even trust people who are alive to give a real acount of what they do themselves. I've talked to many great pianists who told me how they did what they did. And when they started demonstrating, it turned out they were actually doing something quite different.

Paul

[pts1]

If I may, I would say there are several descriptions of what OTHER people thought he [Bach] was doing. I'm sure he would have been forced to make adjustements if he had been confronted with the concert grand we have now...

I think there is little doubt that it takes a great deal more physicality to play the modern piano than those instruments of Bach's day. As I understand it, he had two instruments available, the clavichord and the harpsichord.

Here's an interesting couple of videos of these older instruments, including a piano of Mozart's day, next to a modern day grand.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[keyboardclass]

Are you out of arguments, or what?

No.  It's that discussion is premissed on learning - I see precious little of that in this thread.

learning (n.) (Possession of) knowledge got by study...

[p2u_]

No.  It's that discussion is premissed on learning - I see precious little of that in this thread.

learning (n.) (Possession of) knowledge got by study...

Please elaborate. It sounds too vague for me. What exactly are you referring to?

Paul

[keyboardclass]

Please elaborate. It sounds too vague for me. What exactly are you referring to?

Lack of scholarship.

[p2u_]

Lack of scholarship.

OK. I'll try to add some more of that. Among others, we were talking about how Chopin played Chopin. What do you think of this?
Chopin op. 10/1: too fast to play?
According to scholar Wim Winters from Belgium, Chopin's op 10 no 1 is played twice too fast by the established pianists and he gives some very plausible reasons for it. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable about the way Chopin should be played, would you be so kind as to comment on this point of view?
P.S.: Whatever valuabe arguments you give in favor of this view, there is one problem with this: it won't win you the admiration of the audience, and you surely won't win the Chopin competition if that is among your aspirations. Realizing that is also part of the learning experience, isn't it?

Paul

[keyboardclass]

OK. I'll try to add some more of that. Among others, we were talking about how Chopin played Chopin. What do you think of this?
Chopin op. 10/1: too fast to play?

Why would Streicher say '[Chopin] bade me practice it in the mornings very slowly'? if it's already slow?  

By the way, there are some very interesting Streicher letters out there still to be published - I was read some at a conference in Slovenia in 2010.  

[thalbergmad]

I'm sure he would have been forced to make adjustements if he had been confronted with the concert grand we have now...

No doubt if Bach wanted to play Brahms or Liszt on a modern grand, but would Bach need to make adjustments if he wanted to play Bach??

Thal

[p2u_]

Why would Streicher say '[Chopin] bade me practice it in the mornings very slowly'? if it's already slow?

Is that a valid scholarship argument or just your own judgement ad libitum? What is "very slowly" as compared to just slower than indicated?

would Bach need to make adjustments if he wanted to play Bach??

Yes, I think he would. Have you ever played on a  clavichord or a harpsichord? Our concert grand is much more physical than those fragile instruments. The technique is essentially different if you don't want to beat those instruments up. And as far as I remember, Bach himself found the action of the earliest pianos "rather heavy", again if we are to believe the sources. I can imagine what he would think about a contemporary instrument.

Paul

[keyboardclass]

No doubt if Bach wanted to play Brahms or Liszt on a modern grand, but would Bach need to make adjustments if he wanted to play Bach??

Michael Haydn often played Brahms and Liszt.  I'm sure Bach did on occasion too!

[keyboardclass]

Is that a valid scholarship argument or just your own judgement ad libitum?

Don't know what that means.  Or am I aware of how reliable a witness Striecher was?

Yes, I think he would. Have you ever played on a  clavichord or a harpsichord? Our concert grand is much more physical than those fragile instruments. The technique is essentially different if you don't want to beat those instruments up.

I play Chopin (as well as Bach) on a clavichord, a piano made in 1800 and a concert grand with no change in technique (apart from addition of pedal).

[p2u_]

Don't know what that means.  Or am I aware of how reliable a witness Striecher was?

I added to my question, but you already posted. I'll repeat: What is "very slowly" as compared to just slower than indicated? This does nothing to make Streicher unreliable; just perception again.

I play Chopin (as well as Bach) on a clavichord, a piano made in 1800 and a concert grand with no change in technique (apart from addition of pedal).

Good for you, but without seeing something like the Chopin etude op 10 no 1 a tempo (according to contemporary standards), this does not mean much to me.

Paul

[keyboardclass]

After Filtsch, Streicher was Chopin's top pupil.  Why would he ask her to play op 10 no 1 at some ludicrously slow tempo?  You're not going to get op 10 no 1 on a 5 octave clavichord.

[p2u_]

After Filtsch, Streicher was Chopin's top pupil.  Why would he ask her to play op 10 no 1 at some ludicrously slow tempo?

 
In your previous quote you said "practice", not "play". That's a big difference. According to Rachmaninov, one should practice so slowly that anyone who hears it is unable to guess what you are doing. Again - perception.

You're not going to get op 10 no 1 on a 5 octave clavichord.

No need to either; 2 octaves up and down is already enough to judge about the rest.

Paul

[keyboardclass]

 
In your previous quote you said "practice", not "play". That's a big difference. According to Rachmaninov, one should practice so slowly that anyone who hears it is unable to guess what you are doing. Again - perception.

Why op 10 no 1 out of all his works?

No need to either; 2 octaves up and down is already enough to judge about the rest.

I've practiced a 2 octave arrangement of sections - what of it?

[p2u_]

Why op 10 no 1 out of all his works?

OK. Take something else if you like (by Bach, for example), but something with brilliant allegro fingerpassages. That's where the differences between the instruments will be felt best.

Paul

[vertigo1974]

I play Chopin (as well as Bach) on a clavichord, a piano made in 1800 and a concert grand with no change in technique (apart from addition of pedal).

And judging by your videos you achieve a highly consistent effect - they're all bloody awful.

[keyboardclass]

OK. Take something else if you like (by Bach, for example), but something with brilliant allegro fingerpassages. That's where the differences between the instruments will be felt best.

No.  Why op 10 no 1 out of all his works? would he ask Streicher to play slowly?

[keyboardclass]

And judging by your videos you achieve a highly consistent effect - they're all bloody awful.

Sock puppet!

[p2u_]

No.  Why op 10 no 1 out of all his works? would he ask Streicher to play slowly?

Because it is an essential etude. It is actually an indicator of your whole finger technique at ANY tempo.
P.S.: Is there actually any indication anywhere that Chopin did not require slow practice in the other etudes?

Paul