If you had the fastest fingers of any pianist, how would you use them?

[opus10no2]

A partially hypothetical but interesting talking point..

Would this ability effect your musical interpretations at all?
There would be a line drawn between use and abuse, rushing through pieces that don't sound good at extreme speeds would be silly.

If I had this ability I'd use in pieces that fall into 'the faster the better' category, but actually the main thing I'd do is arrange and adapt suitable pieces to appropriate the ability.
Adding stunning but imaginative cadenzas to Liszt rhapsodies etc. and rewriting textures with double notes, octaves etc.

What would you do?

[p2u_]

If you had the fastest fingers of any pianist, how would you use them?

I would try to beat the Guinness World Record for texting speed. I wouldn't change anything in my approach to music.

Paul

[black_keys]

I would play Alkan works with full speed .

[m1469]

Yeah, it would most likely affect my interpretations, though I hope that my artistic taste and integrity would grow just as much.  I admit that, though I've not been one to think speed itself should be a goal, I myself have a tendency for my muscles to just want to be moving at their top speed.  That physical urge isn't necessarily "interpretation" but rather just my own, personal, physical urge.  At the same time, I can imagine there are beautiful, musical ideas which could be clarified should I become more limitless in any way at the piano, but that's not limited to the skill of just speed alone but pertains to less limitations in any skill at the instrument.

I recently observed an interesting master class with a young man playing the 3rd movement of the Appassionata, and the Teacher explained that the piece has nothing to gain by more speed, but rather to focus on the rhythmic integrity.  Nothing necessarily earth shattering about that in and of itself, if you are a person who already accepts that speed is not the goal in and of itself, but still it somehow brought the idea of musical intent being number one, closer to home for me.  For that piece, if the goal were speed, you could just have races and somebody could be declared the fastest but I see very clearly that it could potentially just miss the entire point of the music completely.  I've always known this, but somehow this was more clear to me as a deeper understanding.

So, yes, breaking the perception of pianistic limitations (including speed) seems to fundamentally always be to our benefit, but so long as it serves a musical purpose.

[p2u_]

At the same time, I can imagine there are beautiful, musical ideas which could be clarified should I become more limitless in any way at the piano, but that's not limited to the skill of just speed alone but pertains to less limitations in any skill at the instrument.

Speed is inborn, m1469; it's already there. The fingers of the average individual can do MUCH, MUCH more in this respect than will ever be required to play the piano, even for the fastest Alkan etudes. Freeing that inborn gift is all about developing the magical fingertips and using the natural ability of the hands, wrists and arms to search for the answer in the music itself.

Paul

[m1469]

Speed is inborn, m1469; it's already there. The fingers of the average individual can do MUCH, MUCH more in this respect than will ever be required to play the piano, even for the fastest Alkan etudes. Freeing that inborn gift is all about developing the magical fingertips and using the natural ability of the hands, wrists and arms to search for the answer in the music itself.

Paul

Yes, thank you for your thoughts.  My perception is that I do have an ability for fundamentally quite fast fingers, and perhaps quick motions in general (for passages that aren't just fingerwork).  But, to do these things clearly, cleanly, with full Musical intent, tension free and complete trust in my apparatus (and my musical ideas) being fully there for me and for all things to work in complete harmony at once (which is, more or less, my bigger concept of what music is on the human level), that is still a challenge for me.  I am just still discovering so much, I think, and still have so much more to discover and demonstrate.

Something that strikes me lately is the idea of having complete trust -to the very core- in one's musical intent, and of this being (and needing to be) ultimately personal or as the essence of one's very being, so that it is something which originates at the core and flows out as the very impetus of movement, and this in conjunction with freedom at the instrument.  I am very aware that trepidation on an emotional, intellectual, spiritual and ultimately musical level, can create/are creating physical trepidation in my playing.  I am becoming aware that, even if it's not heard as such (though it's possible to identify if it's known what to listen for), it is felt by me and causing problems.  I'm not sure how to solve this completely, at the time.  Perhaps it's ultimately a matter of knowing the music more and finding an un-ignorable sense of truth?  Knowing myself better?  I think there is a parallel to life and living, as well.  But, what I feel in my body and what it seems I hear in my playing right now are these kinds of deep question marks and my instincts tell me that it is something which needs to be and can be solved.

[opus10no2]

Speed is inborn, m1469; it's already there. The fingers of the average individual can do MUCH, MUCH more in this respect than will ever be required to play the piano, even for the fastest Alkan etudes. Freeing that inborn gift is all about developing the magical fingertips and using the natural ability of the hands, wrists and arms to search for the answer in the music itself.

Paul

Do you perceive a limitation in the speed a finger/fingers can move or do you believe pianists with the greatest techniques can play infinitely fast but choose not to?

[pianoplunker]

A partially hypothetical but interesting talking point..

Would this ability effect your musical interpretations at all?
There would be a line drawn between use and abuse, rushing through pieces that don't sound good at extreme speeds would be silly.

If I had this ability I'd use in pieces that fall into 'the faster the better' category, but actually the main thing I'd do is arrange and adapt suitable pieces to appropriate the ability.
Adding stunning but imaginative cadenzas to Liszt rhapsodies etc. and rewriting textures with double notes, octaves etc.

What would you do?

It would not affect my interpretation, I would not play fast just because I could. but there are many sections where I am hindered by not having enough control at speed. For instance the very last ending section of Chopin's Ballade in Gminor has some very fast scales and right now I would love to be able to do those AND keep it all in rhythm.

[opus10no2]

It's interesting that if I asked people - if you had the fastest legs in the world, would you enter the olympics? - the majority would surely say yes.

Fast fingers are inherently less impressive than fast legs?

[thorn]

Interesting you mention the Olympics. I remember in a masterclass I once participated in with Joanna MacGregor her saying that piano competitions are like Gladiator and she was against them.

I am of the same mind, making music is not the same as entering the Olympics. To me, the Olympics and fast legs are not impressive either but that's another topic.

If I had fast fingers I'd probably tie them together to slow myself down, because chances would be that I'd be letting them run away with me and neglecting the music.

I have never heard a piece in which the fastest interpretation has been the best. In a lot of cases it has been the contrary, on youtube you can hear Pogorelich taking 9 and a half minutes to play Ravel's Ondine and it's gorgeous.

[Bob]

That's easy.   I'd forget about them and be able to focus more on the music and interpretation.

This sounds like one of those devil wishes... Your finger speed will stay the same but everyone else's will slow down.  Or you'll have fast fingers, but fixed wrists.  Something like that.

[ted]

I would search for what the added speed could express in terms of music. If I ended up just sounding like a speeded up version of my present playing then I probably wouldn't bother. I already employ a great deal of very rapid finger work for what might be termed rhythmic orchestral effect in my improvisation. Therefore I would systematically explore ways of using the extra speed to produce effects previously inaccessible. It is impossible to guess how many of these new effects would exist or how I would use them. The main issues, I suspect, would occur with rhythm. Speed is like looking at a beautiful painting from a distance. Much detail is absorbed in a sort of general effect. Things would be lost but perhaps some overall abstract conceptions would be enhanced; hard to say exactly what would happen.

It seems to me that quite often music has two parallel meanings of speed. There is the simple and obvious matter of playing as many notes as possible in a given time interval. But there is also the musical speed, a subjective feeling of progression in time, which may or may not be aligned to the former, as for instance when a simple, slow melody is played against a frenetic, orchestral accompaniment. The fingers are very busy but the mind hears a slow tune against an orchestral background wash.

So I think this interesting question is far more complex than it first appears.

[pianoplunker]

It's interesting that if I asked people - if you had the fastest legs in the world, would you enter the olympics? - the majority would surely say yes.

Fast fingers are inherently less impressive than fast legs?

Fast fingers wont get you away from a man-eating Tiger! So therefore, much less impressive

[m1469]

Fast fingers wont get you away from a man-eating Tiger! So therefore, much less impressive

I simply must interject that I appreciate the humor.  Thanks .

[ahinton]

Fast fingers wont get you away from a man-eating Tiger! So therefore, much less impressive

Why so? You'd not be playing piano to such a tiger, would you?! - and I don't think that the mere existence either of Cowell's Tiger or Tiger Rag - the latter of which certainly drew some pretty fast fingerwork from Art Tatum - supports your contention here. Is there, for that matter, a material and recognisable difference betwen a man-eating tiger and a woman-eating one in any case?

Best,

Alistair

[p2u_]

Do you perceive a limitation in the speed a finger/fingers can move or do you believe pianists with the greatest techniques can play infinitely fast but choose not to?

* I believe fingers cannot become faster than they already were when you were born. Why would they if it's already more than enough?
* I also believe that the problem is not speed itself, but control at speed to give each note (or each note group or sequence) the right musical sound in the right time + certain mechanical laws of reaction forces we'd better not fight against. [If in doubt about the latter, ask N.]
* I also believe that the limitation in speed is what can still be accepted as musical by the audience. If you try to go faster, you will get bad critics the next day. How fast is still OK depends to a certain extent on where you play, size of the hall, echo in the hall, how the instrument interacts, etc.

Pianists with the greatest techniques (= the art of musical sound production!) know these laws and obey them.

P.S.: It's a bit out of scope, but I also believe that the fourth and fifth fingers are not physically weaker, but just more sensitive and less intelligent than the others. This is important for how you practice. That's in case your next topic will be "What would you do if you had the strongest fingers?".

Paul

[opus10no2]

I disagree with some of your fundamental points there but instead of arguing over issues neither of us will agree on, I'd like to assert 2 things -

1 -
I've always admired the display of truly exceptional physical prowess, and also loved music.
When I discovered virtuosity, I found that it thrilled me like nothing else; at it's best it combined the highest degree of musical intensity and excitement, with the display of a stunning degree of physical ability.
The marriage of these elements are truly exhilarating.

2 -
The vast majority of the repertoire is designed for the average concert pianist. Therefore if someone with exceptional finger speed played them as fast as possible they would sound silly and downright bad.
However, certain passages and works are designed for an extreme minority of supervirtuosi; and these actually can only be given true musical voice in the hands of such an olympian pianist.

The distinction must be made between pulse tempo and 'note rate'. 
The same tune can be voiced, at the same tempo, with different numbers of 'peripheral' textural non-melodic notes...to dazzling musical and extramusical effect.
An ubervirtuoso would simply fully utilize his additional palette of figurations to colourful musical ends, while at the same time displaying something truly olympian. 

[p2u_]

1 -
I've always admired the display of truly exceptional physical prowess, and also loved music.
When I discovered virtuosity, I found that it thrilled me like nothing else; at it's best it combined the highest degree of musical intensity and excitement, with the display of a stunning degree of physical ability.
The marriage of these elements are truly exhilarating.

I agree, but that does not contradict in any way what I said.

However, certain passages and works are designed for an extreme minority of supervirtuosi; and these actually can only be given true musical voice in the hands of such an olympian pianist.

I agree to a certain extent, although I would add "seem to have been designed", but this does NOT contradict in any way what I said. As a matter of fact, not all pianists think such a game is worth the candle. It does NOT mean they couldn't do it if they wanted to.

The distinction must be made between pulse tempo and 'note rate'.  
The same tune can be voiced, at the same tempo, with different numbers of 'peripheral' textural non-melodic notes...to dazzling musical and extramusical effect.
An ubervirtuoso would simply fully utilize his additional palette of figurations to colourful musical ends, while at the same time displaying something truly olympian.  

I guess you have never played in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw? A very dangerous hall if you want to try such experiments. You will be forced to go slightly slower, otherwise everything will go like whaa-whaa-whaa...

P.S.: As a rule, it's very bad policy to exclude what the ears of the audience can still perceive as musical. Everything they *can* perceive is well within the range of what an average pianist can do. The difference between an average pianist and a super-virtuoso is the latter's craft in the field of sound production, simplicity, ergonomics, not the speed of his/her individual fingers. I don't like criticizing openly, but Martha Argerich, for example, forgot about this principle sometimes and really went faster than anyone could follow/bear. I don't think she does that anymore.

Paul

[pianoplunker]

Why so? You'd not be playing piano to such a tiger, would you?! - and I don't think that the mere existence either of Cowell's Tiger or Tiger Rag - the latter of which certainly drew some pretty fast fingerwork from Art Tatum - supports your contention here. Is there, for that matter, a material and recognisable difference betwen a man-eating tiger and a woman-eating one in any case?

Best,

Alistair

LOL  sorry , I should have said man/woman-eating Tiger.

[m1469]

LOL  sorry , I should have said man/woman-eating Tiger.

I am personally a man-eating tigress  .  But also I eat a lot more than that.  For example, if a regular tiger eats a bunny off of a mountain, I eat the entire mountain in like two chews and immediately drink a river, then I start hunting for more mountains and such.  Sometimes I'll just go ahead and eat an entire mountain range with lakes and rivers and all, and then I'll take a little nap for a few days.  That's my inner pianist, a little bit.

[p2u_]

I disagree with some of your fundamental points

Let's talk about it. Let's also forget about the nasty concert halls that may turn everything into a blur if you go too fast. I'd like to give you some info. Could you please react as to what you think is sound or what is nonsense?

Let's take the Moscow conservatory minimum speed requirements for Hanon, scales, etc. as described by Rachmaninov in his Ten Important Attributes Of Beautiful Pianoforte Playing: MM. 120, 8 notes per beat. Or we can simplify a bit: let's play a C major scale over two octaves in one second. This is already 14 notes a second, which sounds like really fast, even to the trained ear. Now let's look at the speed of each individual finger:

thumb, index finger and third finger - four movements
ring finger - two movements
pinky - one movement

Now measure seconds with your clock or metronome and tap each of your fingers four times per second. Is that really so fast? It's well within the limits of what virtually ANYBODY can do. The problems of playing at max. speed seem to have nothing to do with the speed of each individual finger.

The maximum requirement for finger repetition is in a trill, but since 12 notes per second is somewhat the limit of what the audience still perceives as musically arranged sound, the limit is "only" 6 notes per second per finger, something the average pianist is able to do easily, especially with the "stronger" fingers. As a matter of fact, trills sound more effective if you take them a little slower but with a very regular sound.

One other concern is about the poor ears of our audience: Speeding pieces up over a certain limit leads to the indistinctiveness of very important interpretative components like rhythm, phrasing, dynamics and articulation. Besides, the denser the texture of what we play, the slower the execution has to be for the music to be still perceived as such. Again, the limits are not in the fingers but in the human perception.

Your take?

Paul

[ahinton]

I am personally a man-eating tigress  .  But also I eat a lot more than that.  For example, if a regular tiger eats a bunny off of a mountain, I eat the entire mountain in like two chews and immediately drink a river, then I start hunting for more mountains and such.  Sometimes I'll just go ahead and eat an entire mountain range with lakes and rivers and all, and then I'll take a little nap for a few days.  That's my inner pianist, a little bit.

(...could almost see that one coming) then God help you! (or at least if you meant any of that seriously, that is).

Oh and by the way, "Vienna or Bust" doesn't have to be a choice; you can have both, you know...

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

Your take?

I have no interest in speeding up the musical pulse of any music inappropriately.

I do have interest in
A - pieces that demand very rare levels of finger speed to sound awesome on a musical and technical level -

B - arrangements that employ figurations taxing enough to remain performable at tempo only by a select elite -

[j_menz]

I'd be able to write a longer response in the time.

[p2u_]

I have no interest in speeding up the musical pulse of any music inappropriately.

I do have interest in
A - pieces that demand very rare levels of finger speed to sound awesome on a musical and technical level

B - arrangements that employ figurations taxing enough to remain performable at tempo only by a select elite -

No matter how effective it all looks and sounds, there is nothing there that goes beyond the capacity of any average pianist in terms of MOVEMENT. Their art [Hamelin's and Cziffra's] is in their minds [clever position playing, clever grouping, clever usage of the key's repetition to their advantage, good ears, etc.], not in the "speed" of their fingers. There is nothing there that indicates that it would sound even better if they had faster fingers. One can only say for sure that many, many pianists do not consider practising for or working on this kind of "music" worth while, especially the Alkan, unless it becomes just as popular and mandatory as, let's say, the Chopin etudes, which are even played satisfactorily by some 10/11-year olds.

Paul

[pts1]

There are certainly too slow tempos at which a piece of music basically "falls apart".
Humans have a certain perception of "acceptable tempo" probably linked to heart beat and other human stimulus processing, circadian rhythms, and so on. Who knows?

Most of us would not want to sit through the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata with each note played 2 seconds apart or even 1 second apart.

But after you find a tempo "that works", you have quite a range of tempo choice which expresses the intent of the music.

On the other side, "too fast" and the piece will seem shallow and idiotic.

Virtually everything in piano playing is illusion, with few "absolutes".

Many thought Horowitz had the "fastest fingers" but he surely did not and said so.
The effects he produces, however, often gave this impression, though it was the architecture,
conception and personality he brought to the music which was quite unique.

Argerich probably has among the fastest fingers -- not to mention that foolish kid student of hers who is idiotically even faster.

But a good deal of Argerich's playing seems rushed through, sometimes blurred, with seemingly little care. "Speed" it would seem, is more of a foe for her, since she considers this her weakness... i.e. playing too fast.

As P2U pointed out, the ear can only process so much sound repetition before it becomes confusion, a blur and subsequently just noise.

So, IMO, those obsessed with "speed" is like the handy man who only has one tool in his tool box -- a hammer -- with which her tries to "fix" everything.

Speed is but one tool which by itself will yield little.

[p2u_]

There are certainly too slow tempos at which a piece of music basically "falls apart".
[...]
On the other side, "too fast" and the piece will seem shallow and idiotic.

Exactly. There are limits on either side where rhythm is no longer perceived. For anyone interested in the subject: How to Talk About Musical Metre
[scroll down to "2. The limits of rhythmic perception"]

My point is that everything we work with to produce music (even virtuoso music) is already conveniently within the limits of what we have in finger capacity, and that the wish to have even faster fingers is vain.

Paul

[opus10no2]

So, IMO, those obsessed with "speed" is like the handy man who only has one tool in his tool box -- a hammer -- with which her tries to "fix" everything.

Speed is but one tool which by itself will yield little.

https://www.facebook.com/usainbolt
Usain Bolt
6,798,316 likes
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beethoven/110664992295466
1,456,204 like this

To achieve Usain's speed requires both incredibly rare natural gifts aswell as immense dedication and hard work.
To be the 'fastest pianist' would require those very same things.

Now, I understand that running is an innately more impressive feat to the majority of people due to a number of factors but parallels can still be drawn.

Would a performance that displays rarefied levels of physical prowess whilst having little musical value impress me? Yes, on that level. Would I choose to listen to it often? No.

BUT

As I see it, Usain's televised performance is similar, wowed by physical prowess but would I watch it over and over? No.

This sporting element and musicality/artistry can and does co-exist, and it's the marriage of these that I'm so passionate about.

[p2u_]

To achieve Usain's speed requires both incredibly rare natural gifts aswell as immense dedication and hard work.

Strange you do not even mention his coaches (the brains behind the success of any athlete), who must have played a major role in the development of Usain's talent. They could have only developed to the max what was already inborn capacity.

To be the 'fastest pianist' would require those very same things.

Sure! Good guidance by a coach who can tell you that your fingers are already fast enough from birth, and that you need to learn the ropes of real piano playing, yes. You are really obsessed with speed (I saw you already had such a topic in 2006 where the quality of replies was considerably lower) but your ideas about what is responsible for speed are incorrect. It's not the fingers that are responsible. I already listed what you need, but you choose to reject that valuable information. Your choice. Fine with me.

This sporting element and musicality/artistry can and does co-exist, and it's the marriage of these that I'm so passionate about.

Nobody denies you that right, opus10no2. I just hope that if you want to reach that goal yourself, that you will remember sometimes what was said here about how to reach it.

Paul

[opus10no2]

Exactly. There are limits on either side where rhythm is no longer perceived. For anyone interested in the subject: How to Talk About Musical Metre
[scroll down to "2. The limits of rhythmic perception"]

My point is that everything we work with to produce music (even virtuoso music) is already conveniently within the limits of what we have in finger capacity, and that the wish to have even faster fingers is vain.

Paul

I've never stated that this is untrue.

Nothing of great musical significance would ever be achieved with faster fingers.

Warping the pulse of music designed for normal fingers would have nothing but novelty effect.

The thing I wish to reiterate is that the art of piano writing is like orchestration - of no deep musical importance but can be very pleasant in the superficial colours it can provide.

You keep returning to rhythm and pulse when I mention finger speed. This isn't my intent at all. When I mention the musical application of finger speed I bring to mind 'pianostration' possibilities ie. playing double notes at the speed of single notes in musical contexts wherein it would add pleasant colour.

Displaying olympian heights of physicality while at the same time being extraordinarily musical is very possible, and in my view a most worthy pursuit.

[p2u_]

The thing I wish to reiterate is that the art of piano writing is like orchestration - of no deep musical importance but can be very pleasant in the superficial colours it can provide.

Even if that is true, what is responsible for that speed is not your fingers (that are more than fast enough from birth); it's your brain, your ears, the instrument itself, etc. and you are bound by certain limits, otherwise the audience will not understand what you're doing. Tell me, what is an artist without his/her public?

Paul

[p2u_]

Displaying olympian heights of physicality while at the same time being extraordinarily musical is very possible, and in my view a most worthy pursuit.

I've got a proposal for one such olympian height of physicality if you're interested.
According to Martienssen in his book on piano playing, Busoni could smash a lump of sugar by the sheer acceleration of his ring finger (fourth finger). He did that once for a joke. Why not repeat that stunt? This will get you 40 million views on YouTube in no time, with most probably a minimum of "dislikes". The advantage is that your musicality won't suffer in any way; Busoni is reported to have been a hell of a pianist.

Paul

[chadbrochill17]

It wouldn't affect my interpretations, although I'd finally be able to play about a million pieces I've been wanting to play.
I guess my interpretation might change out of sheer joy of being able to play anything. Like a kid in a candy shop.

[m1469]

.