Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[nyiregyhazi]

Another way of explaining? since I think that saying its extension primarily is confusing, maybe it suited you're individual situation but it certainly wont suit all..

within the context of this example -

If the action is flex primarily from the MP joint, AND you relax completely the DIP/PIP you will likely end up with a collapsed DIP joint. You would add only enough concious motion to the DIP/PIP joints to stop the collapse, and to avoid sliding all over the key. The more pressure that is applied from the MP joint, the greater the pressure required at the dip/pip joints to avoid collapse..  not that i'd be arguing for significant and ongoing pressure into the key bed.

So there's a more flex perspective, where as perhaps you needed more extension..

This is why I say its 'balance' because its whatever is required to get to the right feel..  I also think if you test either extreme and search for the balance you learn to find the 'feel' better as you play and the balance points change - because you are familiar with what it 'feels' like to be both on and off balance..  

It has to be feel if you're ever going to do it instinctively - concious analysis may get you started but its not the end of the road.

Sure, but all roads begin somewhere. It's already very much instinctive much of the time. It's just that if I only go with instincts all day long, I gradually lose both the action and the articulation/speed etc that comes with it. I need to do a fair proportion of very conscious work- perceving whether I am "middling" the key or slipping either forwards or backwards. From there, I can let go- and simply let it fly. I've never been able to play scales so fast with so little thought before.

I found the model of the straight line the easiest way to go. It may not feel "normal" at first, but I don't find it at all confusing. Just imagine the line and then move into it. Easy as that. Students usually pick up the feel for it at once (via the imaginary line to move into) although it takes longer to grow fully accustomed, of course. Once at the piano it's a matter of using slow work to make very slight adaptations to ensure that I am neither slipping nor clenching to avoid it. Staccato practise is the quickest way to reveal indirect paths. I'm not saying you must never slip- but the more I train myself to avoid it, the easier it is to play at speed. I at least want to start with the option of knowing the most direct route to depress the key for any given note.

[nyiregyhazi]

If the action is flex primarily from the MP joint, AND you relax completely the DIP/PIP you will likely end up with a collapsed DIP joint. You would add only enough concious motion to the DIP/PIP joints to stop the collapse, and to avoid sliding all over the key. The more pressure that is applied from the MP joint, the greater the pressure required at the dip/pip joints to avoid collapse..

Also, not that the above isn't entirely true- but does it make sense as a conception? I don't consider the movement as being intended to stop an inert joint collapsing. I intend it as something that directs energy in the simplest path into the key. I find it vastly more natural to think in terms of the efficient path- rather than to concern myself with whether the main power comes from knuckle flexion or opening of other joints. It's just a simple line into the heart of the key's path.

I practise the function of the knuckle independently elsewhere, but where is the logic of thinking specifically about closing the knuckles while playing? It runs totally contrary to the simplest line of movement for the key. Surely it makes more sense to consider the line of action that the finger moves into, than it does to concern yourself with individual joints? When you reach your arm out in front of you, do try to perceive the elbow and shoulder separately- or simply choose to move your hand directly forwards? Other the fact that there's only one elbow (not two) it's perfectly analagous to how the finger automatically finds this path. Move the tip through an intended line and the details soon look after themselves (just like the elbow unbends without thought). The brain is extremely good at performing the process of compounding different elements of its own accord. If you just think of the direction in which you wish to move, it's altogether more simple to conceive mentally. I agree entirely with getting beyond conscious analysis- and in that respect I'm entirely done with thinking about the knuckles closing. My subconscious covers that just fine. I think of the action as a single act of moving in a very direct line through a key- not two separate acts of pulling the finger in a wildly indirect path while also using a second action to correct the path. The latter is needlessly complex.

[j_menz]

I think I've finally figured out why this thread makes my head hurt (slow, I know).

I've never actually had any trouble whatsoever playing a piano key. Never. Not once. (cooking and other injuries excepted).

Playing a particular combination of them, sure. Playing a series of them, absolutely. Getting the balance right between several of them, yep again.

But actually getting the key down? Never.

Yet pretty much this whole thread is about just that???

(Please don't tell me I've missed the point, I'd hate to have to reread the lot)

[marik1]

Do you include Volodos? He has an extremely direct line of motion- no sliding to be seen anywhere in his technique. Richter?

Barenboim makes a hideous sound with this technique- but he bangs very hard with the arms. The key to it is to involve proper finger activity (rather than bang through a fixated hand).

Also, who says it's unnatural? When you push something, you need to use the strength of opening actions- not pure closing actions. A basic press-up uses these muscular actions.

I will try to be as short and concise as I possible could--none of those plays with extension. With some chords for a certain sound effect--probably, but in finger work--no.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

I think I've finally figured out why this thread makes my head hurt (slow, I know).

I've never actually had any trouble whatsoever playing a piano key. Never. Not once. (cooking and other injuries excepted).

Playing a particular combination of them, sure. Playing a series of them, absolutely. Getting the balance right between several of them, yep again.

But actually getting the key down? Never.

Yet pretty much this whole thread is about just that???

(Please don't tell me I've missed the point, I'd hate to have to reread the lot)

It's all very easy to be sarcastic, but playing one key well is both the key to controlling the sound of that depression and to being in a position to control the sound of the next. What has that got to do with the fact that it's easy to get a single key from top to bottom?

Even playing one key well can be hard. How easy is it to finish a piece on a PPPPP note- without complete silence ensuing rather than gentle tone (as I recall once having done with the last note of Scriabin's 9th sonata, in concert)? Simple? Even one note can be hard to control the sound of enough to convey the full sensitivity of a pianists intentions. A little too loud or a little too soft and an well-conceived musical effect dies a death. Nobody ever hears that effect.

[nyiregyhazi]

I will try to be as short and concise as I possible could--none of those plays with extension. With some chords for a certain sound effect--probably, but in finger work--no.

Best, M

How do you account for the keys going down without substantial finger slips on every note then? Perhaps in the case of Barenboim the hand is merely braced (hence the almighty crashes). Do you think Rubinstein's hand is braced- when he lifts it above his head before landing down into the keys? How can a braced hand absorb impact like that? Why no heavy thuds like Barenboim? And if it's not braced- why do his fingers not collapse? The only rational explanation is use of this simple action- which is regularly visible in complete abundance.

I'm all for a variety of possible actions, but I am extremely curious as to the source of your outright dismissal of this one. Why so closed-minded about the very possibility?

[j_menz]

It's all very easy to be sarcastic

None intended.

Even one note can be hard to control the sound of enough to convey the full sensitivity of a pianists intentions. A little too loud or a little too soft and an well-conceived musical effect dies a death. Nobody ever hears that effect.

Agreed, but this has always seemed to me the least of my troubles. If I know what I want to produce, it just happens, unless one of the things I mentioned (with no sarcasm) gets in the way.

[nyiregyhazi]

None intended.

Agreed, but this has always seemed to me the least of my troubles. If I know what I want to produce, it just happens, unless one of the things I mentioned (with no sarcasm) gets in the way.

Well that's fine for you. But do you mind if us mere mortals (who do not experience such magic) discuss ways in which we can go about improving?

[marik1]

How do you account for the keys going down without substantial finger slips on every note then? Perhaps in the case of Barenboim the hand is merely braced (hence the almighty crashes). Do you think Rubinstein's hand is braced- when he lifts it above his head before landing down into the keys? How can a braced hand absorb impact like that? Why no heavy thuds like Barenboim? And if it's not braced- why do his fingers not collapse? The only rational explanation is use of this simple action- which is regularly visible in complete abundance.

I am not sure what do you mean by "finger slips" and what is "braced".
Rubinstein had extremely relaxed and flexible wrist (otherwise he could not play Chopin), which like a shock absorber would take any impact. Barenboim is much stiffer.

I'm all for a variety of possible actions, but I am extremely curious as to the source of your outright dismissal of this one. Why so closed-minded about the very possibility?

I surely was experimenting with this idea quite a long time ago (about 25 years). I dropped it after I started feeling my technique started deteriorated, I started loosing control (especially dynamic), and everyone started noticing my sound started getting worse.

Best, M
 

[ajspiano]

Agreed, but this has always seemed to me the least of my troubles. If I know what I want to produce, it just happens, unless one of the things I mentioned (with no sarcasm) gets in the way.

I don't have trouble with this either - N. is right though, it is flat out not the case for everyone. Some people can think (emotionally evoke) soft - and have something quite the opposite come out of the piano, or if they manage soft, it may just be somewhere from pppp to mp and they have little control over where it lands on any given occasion because their technique is severely flawed and they have no instinctive solution.

I'll always argue that eventually a student should just think about music and feel their way. But you can't tell a student that alone and expect them to succeed if they have learnt in technical issues, unless you're hoping for them to just one day fluke it. - in which case you certainly didnt teach or guide the student to a solution ..which is the aim..  though not in your case specifically i guess

..I'm also not really all that for divorcing the fingers action from the arms (or the rest)..  as is being done with these last few examples - there's no big picture, and so ultimately a flawed conclusion.

[j_menz]

I don't have trouble with this either - N. is right though, it is flat out not the case for everyone. Some people can think (emotionally evoke) soft - and have something quite the opposite come out of the piano, or if they manage soft, it may just be somewhere from pppp to mp and they have little control over where it lands on any given occasion because their technique is severely flawed and they have no instinctive solution.

OK, thanks. It had never really occurred to me that this could be a problem. Mind blown!  I always thought that such lack of control was a lack of conception, not of execution.  I guess one of the pros of being a teacher is you get to see such things (or one of the cons, depending on your perspective).

[p2u_]

I'll always argue that eventually a student should just think about music and feel their way.

I'm actually also convinced that the thinking about movements causes more harm than good. Of course, a TEACHER *should* think, but that's at the point when he/she is already VERY good at what he/she is thinking about.

I'm more the type to give tasks that teach certain principles on the subconscious level by doing stuff without using too many descriptions. Here's my description of how I memorize pieces. Note the mindset:
Zen in the art of piano playing. Three repetitions, and the piece is locked in my memory for good.

This is VERY difficult, by the way, and few here will be able to find the strenghth in themselves to really let go. I don't know why it works. I just think it's closest to the nature of the animal we all are. A cat that falls from a tree will always land on its four legs, because it doesn't think; it's instinct. If it thought like we do, it would certainly break everything. Additionally, a cat does extensive stretching in life to be ready ALL THE TIME. According to science, this is all pure BS, but the funny thing is: it works.

Paul

[chopantasy]

There's stuff you can only play using your ears - it's too complicated otherwise.  Also, gradations of tone/dynamics within a hand-span or between the hands I find technically too difficult to do otherwise.  For instance - If I listen to a melody soaring over an accompaniment it's done.

[p2u_]

There's stuff you can only play using your ears - it's too complicated otherwise. 

You probably mean using a movement you have already at your disposal, but without consciously thinking about it?

Paul

[chopantasy]

I don't know.  Maybe it's just called making music?

[p2u_]

I don't know.  Maybe it's just called making music?

That sounds too vague to me, especially to tell to people who want to learn how to play the piano.
Student: Sir, how do I play this piece?
Teacher: Go home and make music. That's 50 dollars. Thanks. See you next time.

Paul

[chopantasy]

That's sounds too vague to me, especially to tell to people who want to learn how to play the piano.
Student: Sir, how do I play this piece?
Teacher: Go home and make music. That's 50 dollars. Thanks. See you next time.

No, you say - "Hear the melody majestically soaring over the accompaniment" - then it happens or better put, that's the only way it will happen.

[p2u_]

No, you say - Hear the melody majestically soaring over the accompaniment - then it happens or better put, that's the only way it will happen.

You don't help a student who is not far enough to actually do anything with that kind of descriptions. Sorry. Try again.

Paul

[j_menz]

There's stuff you can only play using your ears

Hahah, I got completely the wrong reading on that the first time.  Interesting mental picture, though

[chopantasy]

You don't help a student who is not far enough to actually do anything with that kind of descriptions. Sorry. Try again.

Paul

In music lessons we are teaching to listen not operate machinery.

[ajspiano]

OK, thanks. It had never really occurred to me that this could be a problem.

I havent seen lots of students in that situation - though I'm sure there are many.. as an example...

I have an adult student who was originally taught (as a child) to effectively 'poke' the keys. The individual finger action that was ground into his muscle memory over 4-5 years of lessons resulted in ALL the other fingers flying up off the keys. As in, as one goes down the others instinctively raise and curl. This was combined with the instruction to play with books balanced on the arms so that arms must remain still and rigid.

On commencement with me he had enormous difficulty producing a soft sound - it took extreme concentration and was hugely inconsistent. Dynamically, his only real option was mf+ but he was more comfortable in the f-ff range - speed was not an option because of the enormous tension he had throughout his fingers and hands (that he was pretty much unaware of I might add, or at least aware, but thought it was normal) and excessive keybedding.

There's no way that it was conceptual - nor was it possible for me to just give a simple instruction to relax certain aspects. His basic technique was causing the spiralling problems and he kind of unaware that you could even consider moving in a different way at the piano..

I feel that this is a student who needed a mechanical explanation - And he certainly gets a different approach and level of explaination to what I'd typically use. Unique student, unique choice of teaching strategy.

I find it odd that anyone could really think that just using musical ideas works in such a situation, this student has no difficulty conceiving musical ideas within his mind. Physically executing them is another thing entirely.

[p2u_]

In music lessons we are teaching to listen not operate machinery.

You have probably read my previous posts in a zig-zag fashion? You give them a movement they should concentrate on that produces the right sounds without you or them playing the role of Einstein. It can even be done on a dumb keyboard, by the way, and the results on a real piano will be more than you ever expected.

Paul

[ajspiano]

You have probably read my previous posts in a zig-zag fashion? You give them a movement they should concentrate on that produces the right sounds without you or them playing the role of Einstein.

Paul

indeed.

That would be my normal approach, specific difficulty addressed in a musical context. Not "this is exactly how to play a key in great detail without reference to music - now lets think about that and music at the same time"

[chopantasy]

Student wise it's 'different strokes for different folks' - some just take longer to get to the music.  If you don't even introduce the music you've sadly lost them from the start!  Can you believe it I've had one student who wouldn't sing?  An adult - maybe says it all.

Off to work.

[p2u_]

Student wise it's 'different strokes for different folks' - some just take longer to get to the music.  If you don't even introduce the music you've sadly lost them from the start!  Can you believe it I've had one student who wouldn't sing?  An adult - maybe says it all.

Listening and singing have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. You've never heard Richter sing when he wanted to tell you how something should sound. And Paul Badura-Skoda. My God! Not only the sound of their voices, but all notes were wrong, off pitch. But as soon as they touch the keyboard, you get the message.
P.S.: The ears are to check whether the results meet the expectations. That's their function, nothing more.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Student wise it's 'different strokes for different folks' - some just take longer to get to the music.  If you don't even introduce the music you've sadly lost them from the start!

Despite some potentially rampant over analysis here in this thread I don't think that anyone is suggesting that technical analysis be divorced from musical intention when actually teaching technique.. 

but I probably shouldn't speak for anyone besides myself..

...

On the singing -  I rather think that having a student sing is a useful tool at times to gauge whether or not they actually have the musical intention going on in their brains. I don't know anyone who doesnt produce exactly the volume and timing they want from their voice - even if their pitch can be a bit dodgy at times.

[j_menz]

On the singing -  I rather think that having a student sing is a useful tool at times to gauge whether or not they actually have the musical intention going on in their brains. I don't know anyone who doesnt produce exactly the volume and timing they want from their voice - even if their pitch can be a bit dodgy at times.

Haha, maybe I should post a vid.   

Then again, that might break several restraining orders.

[p2u_]

On the singing -  I rather think that having a student sing is a useful tool at times to gauge whether or not they actually have the musical intention going on in their brains.

I'd like to quote a story about "listening". Not so long ago, I saw a girl sitting on the stairs in front of the Gnessin Institute here in Moscow. She was on the brink of a nervous breakdown; her teacher was going to flunk her because she "never listened to herself". I invited her to my home and we practised for four hours in sessions of 15 minutes with breaks and lots of tea (Russians like tea very much) ON MY DUMB KEYBOARD. [My wife was present, so you can safely skip the dirty thoughts. ] Since she was from far away and didn't really have the money to pay, I gave that session for free. The next morning, you know what her teacher said? "Now, you see?! When you listen to yourself, you can do it!" She almost fainted from excitement, but I told her not to tell anyone how she had been able to get the right results. Her teacher has changed his mind about sending her away.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Maybe I misinterpreted..  but thats kind of my point about singing..   

You don't need to listen to yourself so much as have the intention inside you. Playing on a dumb keyboard would force you to create the sound yourself in your mind, which is exactly what singing is. You voice doesn't come out unless you intend it, which is why having a student sing tells me whether or not they are failing to apply musical intention OR are applying intention and having a physical difficulty.

But I rather like your method to be honest, since it forces intention in conjunction with playing the piano - without the sound of your voice getting in the way of the pianos sound.

[p2u_]

You don't need to listen to yourself so much as have the intention inside you.

That's exactly right. The sound image should be expected when you talk about students at a certain level. It's the link to proprioception they have trouble with making.

Paul

[p2u_]

And here's another one to think about: Prodigies (wunderkindy) are normal people. It's we who have lost elementary things, a loss that we try to compensate for with our ideas about science, methods, etc., while we should just imitate them in their simple striving for pleasure without fear, doing the things they like.

Paul

[timothy42b]

No, you say - "Hear the melody majestically soaring over the accompaniment" - then it happens or better put, that's the only way it will happen.

Ah, the inner game of tennis approach, far superior to the analytic approach, for EVERY student?

The people who personally succeed with either approach often fall into the trap of thinking it works for everybody.  Then they teach all their students the same way, one size fits all.  For some it works; the rest drop out. 

I am inclined to think students fall into one or the other learning styles, and many have little to no access to the other style.  Having seen so many struggle with a teacher mismatch, I've come to think it this is essentially hardwired (though of course there are students somewhere in the middle to confuse the issue.)

[pts1]

Paul

What a very nice story about helping the young girl "who wouldn't listen"!

Your English, BTW, is absolutely excellent!

So any understanding or communication problems you have when considering N's posts, is not due to your command of the language.

I think the our American Central Intelligence Agency is missing out on a fantastic asset in that they should immediately recruit him and use him as a chief interrogator. A few hours with N discussing piano physics, and any terrorist in the world would confess everything, and likely beg for more traditional forms of torture as a means of relief.

"Yes Water Board me... Water Board me PLEASE!"

In this thread, we've mostly been talking about "how to play".

But as we all know, to get to "playing" there is "practicing", which, IMO, is a bit different in training the mechanism.

So tell me your opinion, if you don't mind, and any alterations.

What I do in practice is to slow down and exaggerate the movements I'm going to utilize in the playing with a little fuller range of motion and expression i.e., dynamics, than I do at normal tempo.

IOW, instead of practicing on the key with the tiniest of movements, I practice with a "little air and a bit fuller stroke" while keeping the idea of the final product in mind. So all movements are a little freer and a little exaggerated giving the muscles involved a fuller range of motion and exercise than they will encounter when performing. To put it as simply as possible, this is practicing with "raised fingers", though I hesitate to even use that term since it really doesn't explain well and is ripe for misinterpretation.

When a passage or piece I practice is "ready" for performing up to speed -- which I test and correct occasionally during the learning "practice" phase as I described above -- I more or less "know " when I've "arrived" and really don't even seem to need to play up to speed due to the "feeling" of competence, ease, and control I have in the "practice mode", a feeling of being able to do "whatever I like" with the passge/piece in question.  

Hope this is not confusing. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on this practice/training phase and how it difers from what you do.

[p2u_]

So tell me your opinion, if you don't mind, and any alterations.
[...]
Hope this is not confusing. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on this practice/training phase and how it difers from what you do.

Sounds all right to me. I wouldn't change anything. The trick is to bring yourself in a state of full concentration on the RIGHT things, a state of letting it go, not worry what the end-result will be, and the type of movement in itself is not that important. The main problem during practice is that people start worrying, try to control too much what they don't need to control, etc. You have to find a way to get rid of that in the pieces you want to play.

As to my own movements; they are specifically related to my hands, that are huge and VERY strong (think Rubinstein). Trying to do any of my movements may get you into trouble, or may even affect your artistic self. First of all, I do all kinds of gymnastics away from the keyboard. I cannot possible give you a description; this is too personal.

At the piano, and to free myself from the physical and/or psychological limitations in playing:
For finger technique I lift them rather high and let them drop (swing them lightly, just enough to get a Lipatti tone quality) s-l-o-w-l-y, so slowly that nobody in the next room would even guess what I'm doing.
For octave and chord technique, jumps, etc. I lift my hands in the wrists and let them drop (swing them lightly, just enough to get a Lipatti tone quality) s-l-o-w-l-y, so slowly that nobody in the next room would even guess what I'm doing. NOTHING is fixed in the process, and I have all the time of the world. This works for me. As soon as I feel I'm ready, my mechanism carries out virtually anything.

I can imagine that you can reach the same state with movements N. is talking about. It's a kind of awareness without interfering. The movement itself is not that important. Main parameter: The movements should be comfortable for the one using them.

P.S.: How personal practising can be: Richter had a very peculiar way of practising: as loud as possible, and if necessary a hundred times in a row, get back to reading a few pages of "Moby Dick" or any other book he might be in the process of reading, and again one hundred times as loud as possible. This worked for him to free himself from the physical and psychological limits in playing. As you can understand, few could repeat that after him without hurting themselves seriously, because he really had an incredibly strong playing mechanism. Of course, the state of mind is to condition yourself for succes, for confidence in what you're doing.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I think the our American Central Intelligence Agency is missing out on a fantastic asset in that they should immediately recruit him and use him as a chief interrogator. A few hours with N discussing piano physics, and any terrorist in the world would confess everything, and likely beg for more traditional forms of torture as a means of relief.

If he's gone off to read The Riddle of the Pianist's Finger he's liable to be a while.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am not sure what do you mean by "finger slips" and what is "braced".
Rubinstein had extremely relaxed and flexible wrist (otherwise he could not play Chopin), which like a shock absorber would take any impact. Barenboim is much stiffer.
 

Sure-but it's symptom, not underlying cause. I wrote about this in my most recent blog post. Only hand movements can prevent the need for a braced wrist. By slipping I mean sliding back across the key and by braced I mean immobilised. A relaxed hand in Rubinstein's position will give way at the knuckles- unless either fixated or using movement. If he used an indirect knuckle arc, his fingers would slip back along the keys. When he plays from height this is not to be seen. So either he uses a fixated hand (which itself needs a tightened wrist) or he just uses the more direct line of action I illustrate. Can you lift your hand above your head in an already fixated state and land with Rubinstein's loose wrist? I sure as hell can't- and neither can barenboim. His rigid hand makes his wrist stiffen too. However, add a slight hand extension activity at landing and the hand need neither collapse nor be stiffened against collapse. I cannot see any other rational explanation for how Rubinstein could do so such huge dropping movements without hurting himself. Plus, I know from experience that it works. Only hand movement allows me to use Rubinstein's style of movement (with no skidding finger slides) while keeping soft landings. There's a brief demonstration of it on my blog post.


No doubt people will leap to the assumption that it's merely a subjective experience, but I am certain that it's no coincidence that learning the extension movement very quickly permitted me to gain access to Rubinstein's overblown arm drops, without stiffness. The key tries to squash the finger, yet the finger tries to lengthen. They can cancel out in the middle. It's so much easier than locking the hand up.

[jmanpno]

Must I supress this again?

[timothy42b]

And here's another one to think about: Prodigies (wunderkindy) are normal people.

Agreed.  They started early, got good coaching and teaching, practiced their butts off, and seem miraculous to the rest of us, but are really no different.  See Gladwell's outliers, and check out the birthdates of hockey players. 

It's we who have lost elementary things, a loss that we try to compensate for with our ideas about science, methods,etc., while we should just imitate them in their simple striving for pleasure without fear, doing the things they like.

Paul

Argh!!!  That is a completely unwarranted assumption.  You are claiming that we who did NOT have the early experience of the prodigies can just do it by imitation.  Our brains are formed, and we do not have the same access to learning that they did when young.  See Bertholy's discussion of the difference between teaching children and adults. 

[ajspiano]

Must I supress this again?

Not that I don't agree that the thread is exhausted..

But how is it appropriate for you to decide that it should be buried and other members stop talking about it...?

I wondered if this was the reason for your outrageous posting spree earlier..

[p2u_]

Argh!!!  That is a completely unwarranted assumption.  You are claiming that we who did NOT have the early experience of the prodigies can just do it by imitation.  Our brains are formed, and we do not have the same access to learning that they did when young.  See Bertholy's discussion of the difference between teaching children and adults. 

It *is* possible to find oneself again timothy42b, become the child you were, but it takes lots of courage. Bertholy's theories are based on his own assumptions and fears.

Paul

[jmanpno]

Not that I don't agree that the thread is exhausted..

But how is it appropriate for you to decide that it should be buried and other members stop talking about it...?

I wondered if this was the reason for your outrageous posting spree earlier..

Nothing outrageous about it!  Just a moment of religious ecstacy.  Clearly I am committed to this board, the posts (great and small alike), etc.  But the board needs new blood!  And I'm willing to go to that place again!

[ajspiano]

Nothing outrageous about it!  Just a moment of religious ecstacy.  Clearly I am committed to this board, the posts (great and small alike), etc.  But the board needs new blood!  And I'm willing to go to that place again!

Based on my past experience here I think you will find it very difficult to successfully bury a thread. Rather, you will piss off other members by bumping old threads that are actually dead, and get yourself banned.

[jmanpno]

Dead!  You call these threads dead?!?  How insensitive are you?  One young man fears for his career but gets no answers.  Someone else is intrigued by double thirds!  I start a blog.  People private message me to thank me, and all you can say is dead!  Aborted is more like it!  Some of these posts were never even answered.  Others had tantalizing promise and I wanted to learn what came out.

No sir, there is no bumping.  THIS monstrosity is the real bumping.  I am breathing life into a dead board.  You are dead, and your head is full of cockleroaches!

Have you read any of my posts?  You'll see it's teeming wiht life!

[p2u_]

One young man fears for his career but gets no answers.  Someone else is intrigued by double thirds!  I start a blog.  People private message me to thank me

Do you have a link to your blog, jmanpno? I saw some of your earlier posts and I'm interested.
P.S.: What you are doing now doesn't seem like very productive for your own status here.

Paul

[jmanpno]

Do you have a link to your blog, jmanpno? I saw some of your earlier posts and I'm interested.
P.S.: What you are doing now doesn't seem like very productive for your own status here.

Paul

Might we have a private message to discuss?

[p2u_]

Might we have a private message to discuss?

No offense, but I'd rather not. Because of my position in society, I have to protect my privacy and anonymity to the utmost. It was never even in my intention to become a registered member of this board, but I saw so much nonsense being written sometimes, that I just *had* to do something with it, especially when people are honestly searching for truth.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Have you read any of my posts?  You'll see it's teeming wiht life!

Not many of the recent ones, as the first one I read seemed to be fairly nonsensical - but generally your past posts seem to be reasonable and full of useful knowledge to me despite being a little arrogant at times (this doesn't bother me), - I have no intention of attacking you for giving genuine advice.

Threads that are old, as in questions asked last year or earlier and the member is no longer active are ones that I refer to as dead. Bumping these often serves little purpose for the forum. I'd much rather see you write an article on double thirds and post it as a new thread than bring up an old one..  but then perhaps thats just me.

Stating something usually stirs more interest and debate than answering a question does.

[jmanpno]

I'm sorry.  I just felt so much like Olga....

[ajspiano]

Olga....

Here's an opportunity to learn..  what on earth do you mean by that?

[jmanpno]

Covered in glory.... Sorry if you don't follow the references.