Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[chopantasy]

Either your hand is hovering over the keys as you unfurl your parachute or it's DROPPING into the keys as you unfurl.  Which one is it?

[p2u_]

Either your hand is hovering over the keys as you unfurl your parachute or it's DROPPING into the keys as you unfurl.  Which one is it?

I gave the correct description. I will not repeat. I'm talking about FOCUS OF ATTENTION and you are talking about other, distracting, things. You choose to complicate everything. Your choice.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Does the hand drop or hover as this parachute opens?  Shucks, how simple can a question get?

[p2u_]

Does the hand drop or hover as this parachute opens?  Shucks, how simple can a question get?

How simple can a description get? I'll just copy-paste what I already wrote:
You lift your hand in a loose fist. Then it may hover if you like and as long as you like. As soon as you drop the hand, the parachute opens and causes tone. The movement continues until you reach the keybed.

Paul

[chopantasy]

And I'll copy-paste my answer: In which case you are combining weight release (drop) with articulation (parachute opens) - a very poor coordination for controlling tone.

[p2u_]

And I'll copy-paste my answer: In which case you are combining weight release (drop) with articulation (parachute opens) - a very poor coordination for controlling tone.

The exercise is not aimed at "controlling tone".

Paul

[chopantasy]

The exercise is not aimed at "controlling tone".

Then it's not aimed at piano playing.

[p2u_]

Then it's not aimed at piano playing.

As a matter of fact, it is not even aimed at piano playing. As I already wrote, it is a preparatory exercise for octaves and chords and it is aimed at freeing the body and the mind. Zen in the art of piano playing, the music of silence. It frees the right resources to be able to play without the wish to control everything in an unnatural way.

Paul

[jmanpno]

Good grief!  I've said it once, and I'll say it again:  come to me for a lesson!  One good hour of instruction is much better than 8 pages of debate! 

[chopantasy]

As a matter of fact, it is not even aimed at piano playing. As I already wrote, it is a preparatory exercise for octaves and chords

I think in most people's book a 'preparatory exercise for octaves and chords' would be aimed at piano playing.  Shucks, you're as slippery as your mate!

[p2u_]

I think in most people's book a 'preparatory exercise for octaves and chords' would be aimed at piano playing.  Shucks, you're as slippery as your mate!

You don't seem to know from your own experience what it is to play on the stage, what mindset you need, otherwise you wouldn't be talking like that.

Paull

[jmanpno]

Too much room for error in this parachute debachle....

[p2u_]

Too much room for error in this parachute debachle....

In the description, yes. I said that before; it is impossible to describe exactly in words. Showing the movements is a couple of seconds, and checking that the student does it right (the most important) a little longer.

Paul

[chopantasy]

it is impossible to describe exactly in words.

No.  I think we nailed it.  It's just that it's a bit of a joke as an exercise in technique.

[p2u_]

No.  I think we nailed it.  It's just that it's a bit of a joke as an exercise in technique.

You are worse off with the books by your experts, I can tell you that. Look at how Taubman describes and does something completely different from what she just said. Same with Lister-Sink.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Don't need books - I've had some of the best teachers in the world.

[p2u_]

Don't need books - I've had some of the best teachers in the world.

I suggest you give the topic starter all the answers, then. I'll be happy to do something else in the mean time.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

If you're saying continue the lengthening movement after key contact then that's fundamentally wrong.

Oh, really? That you take such a small-minded and dismissive stance (without even offering evidence for why it is "wrong") is quite pathetic. Especially as objective reality illustrates with 100% certainty that you are the one who is wholly wrong. Your explanation requires the existence of black magic.

A hand that is not perfectly stiff is deformed by contact with the keys- UNLESS it is moving. A collapsing hand wastes energy and passes on acceleration poorly-before piling energy into the keybed. A moving hand can either move enough to keep it's shape or more still- to apply yet more hammer acceleration.
By denying the need to try to move the hand, you guarantee that the hand will be forced to stiffen itself-exactly as we see in your grieg. The results match the implausibility of what you attempt. Seeing as as no hand can turn to stone, ironically, your attempt to fixate achieves less prevention of collapse than simpler, less effortful movements. Your immobilisation attempts fail to achieve what simple extension movements can provide. It would be sad enough for someone to be in denial about such simple objective facts if they were successful with a subjective approach that does not accurately depict reality, and yet aids them as an individual. When somebody has not even achieved modest success, yet believes they know the 'correct' way (and can dismiss other stances without so much as an explanation) it is utterly tragic.

I'm going to report your posts to the moderators. You were already banned and should be again. Such a disrespectful and closed-minded attitude, coupled with delusions of authority (coming from an incompetent pissant) should not be permitted- especially seeing as you were already banned for such behaviour.

[nyiregyhazi]

And I'll copy-paste my answer: In which case you are combining weight release (drop) with articulation (parachute opens) - a very poor coordination for controlling tone.

Yes, didn't Rubinstein do badly. Or are you claiming that he played with a rigid hand? What makes you think you have a clue about these things, when none of what you preach made you even a half-decent pianist?

[nyiregyhazi]

My problem with N is his imperious arrogance, in that he discounts those of us who left his "phase of development" behind long ago advancing to the "intuitive or non-thinking" state of music making technique thus being able to use the piano playing mechanism "instinctively" in correct bio-mechanical ways to achieve the "sound pictures" we wish to project.

Actually no. I pointed out how useless such an approach is to those without solid technical foundations. I never said nobody is in a position to succeed via instinct and neither would I. I repeat as I said before- if you would like to attribute a stance to me, please quote me verbatim. I'm really quite tired of having opinion falsely attributed to me. You have been doing so over and over.

Incidentally, am I to take it that you have forgotten telling me how wrong it is for me to analyse- and that I would do better if I returned to an approach that taught me nothing about technique or tonal control? Personally, there's very little I dismiss off-hand. I just belive in being objective- to ensure that subjective approaches are never given to someone they might hinder, under the pretence of being literal reality. If you don't like having something dismissed casually (which I have never done- particularly seeing as I already spent virtually all my years using the approach you told me to use) I'd advise you to start by being open-minded for yourself. Just because I chose not to drop everything and return to a failed approach, it doesn't mean that I fail to acknowledge that for a person in the right situation, instincts and subjective ideas can be effective. I have not even abandoned such things. I just added an alternative.

[pts1]

Incidentally, am I to take it that you have forgotten telling me how wrong it is for me to analyse- and that I would do better if I returned to an approach that taught me nothing about technique or tonal control?

I very much doubt that this is what I said, nor is it what I mean.

It is not "wrong" to analyze, but it may well be unhelpful or unproductive, especially if one's analysis does not reflect the reality of what 's going on, and/or interferes with natural movement.

And it is certainly not better to return to an approach from which you learn nothing, and this could be the fault of the student, the method or both.

I am not a teacher, per se, but have helped a few people over the years with a few piano basics -- adults who wanted to learn, though these particular ones did not have much natural talent, though they did have work ethic and desire.

I learned early on that talking about anatomy in any terms but the most basic with which they were already familiar, was absolutely confusing, frustrating and counter productive!

What did help was to demonstrate for them use of our "levers": first the finger, then the hand, then the forearm, and I left out the upper arm for the time being.

This seemed to make piano playing an attainable goal that "made sense" out of their human machinery. And not only that, but illustrated that there were different choices in how to make sounds at the keyboard.

I'd have them do a healthy movement with one finger at a time, a good little "hit"  on the key with a full finger stroke (NO CURLING), then I'd have them produce sound by playing with the wrist and finger, then with the forearm, wrist and finger, noting that the introduction of each bigger "lever" was slower though more powerful.

The goal was to get them physically familiar through muscle training/memory what it felt like to produce a certain sound, and how they achieved it.

And I was surprised by how difficult this was for them, i.e. to isolate these different basic movements and do them on command.

But eventually, through this "teacher/apprentice" system of demonstration, basic and easily understood information, and immitation, they started to get it and feel more "at ease" at the instrument, and the possibility of actually "playing something" appeared on their horizon.

As learning progresses, more analysis can be introduced, but never undermining or confusing the
reality of "where the rubber meets the road," or in this case, "where the fingers meet the keys."

It is no surprise then, that many accomplished pianists, professional and amateur, really cannot explain how they do what they do, nor do they particularly care to.

[chopantasy]

Yes, didn't Rubinstein do badly. Or are you claiming that he played with a rigid hand? What makes you think you have a clue about these things, when none of what you preach made you even a half-decent pianist?

Rubinstein's hand would have been as 'rigid' as required as it depressed the keys (then it would have relaxed).  He would never have simultaneously articulated his fingers and dropped weight - the result would have been quite poor.  What would you know about my playing?  That comment is just gratuitous slander.

[p2u_]

Rubinstein's hand would have been as 'rigid' as required as it depressed the keys (then it would have relaxed).  He would never have simultaneously articulated his fingers and dropped weight - the result would have been quite poor.

Time for the electronic passport, so people have to really prove who they are and what they have accomplished. This will also give real pianists some protection of their status. Anybody who is not a pianist should not be allowed to give advice here on the "Performance" board.

In the mean time, and in the hope the topic starter returns soon, let's watch the "quite poor" results of Arcadi Volodos live in Vienna
It will be clear for real pianists what is moving, how deep, and how rigid or fixed it is. Start at 1:00:00, the Dante Sonata.

Paul

[chopantasy]

In the mean time, and in the hope the topic starter returns soon, let's watch the "quite poor" results of Arcadi Volodos live in Vienna
It will be clear for real pianists what is moving, how deep, and how rigid or fixed it is. Start at 1:00:00, the Dante Sonata.

I don't know what you see in this video but I see someone who fixates enough when required then relaxes.  I certainly see no parachutes.

[p2u_]

I don't know what you see in this video but I see someone who fixates enough when required then relaxes.

But then you are not a professional performing artist, so how could you see what is really going on? What you say is practically impossible in such virtuoso music, that's why I recommended the Dante Sonata, and not something slow.

I certainly see no parachutes.

Again performing your specialty? Quoting stuff out of context? Of course, A. Volodos would be stupid to do what was claimed here as a preparatory exercise in a live performance.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I fail to see the point in posting this video.

[p2u_]

I fail to see the point in posting this video.

Just an Entr'acte, nothing more. It's meant to 1) give people a chance to relax from the unbelievable heresy that has been posted here by people who are not supposed to be posting, and 2) enjoy good music by a very good PROFESSIONAL pianist, in the hopes that the topic starter returns soon. Besides, it's on-topic, because it proves certain points that PROFESSIONAL pianists on this board have made.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Besides, it's on-topic, because it proves certain points that PROFESSIONAL pianists on this board have made.

But you see, you need to tell us what points.  Or it's a total waste of our time.  Quite why I'm 'not supposed to be posting' is beyond me.

[p2u_]

But you see, you need to tell us what points.

You underestimate the intelligence of the average board reader. They have long determined who the professional pianists are and what points they have made in this thread. Personally, I have no need for ego-boasting; their posts speak for themselves.

Paul

[chopantasy]

So, you post a video of Volodos that speaks for itself?  We can all do that - we're done here.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is not "wrong" to analyze, but it may well be unhelpful or unproductive, especially if one's analysis does not reflect the reality of what 's going on, and/or interferes with natural movement.
 

Perhaps not your exact words. I believe you actually said I'm "wasting" my "time"? And that I'm on a "counterproductive path"? Whatever it was precisely, I'm afraid you're in no position to start hoping to claim moral high ground with regard to the fact that I have disagreed with you about various issues. The fact that the areas I personally focus on are not the same as yours does not permit you to leap to a reasonable conclusion that they are therefore a big waste of time. It's all very easy to decide that whichever particular areas benefitted you as an individual are great but whichever ones you never went through are just pointless. However, if you keep an open mind, you may find that countless things might potentially have saved you a lot of time- but above all that they will save OTHERS a lot of time.


What you describe with regard to teaching all sounds perfectly reasonable. However, in my experience, it's virtually all about the hand. This is the point through which all energy meets the key. Personally, I have to spend virtually all my time with virtually all students trying to STOP the arm from participating as an active source of energy. As soon as the students actively press the arm, their hands fall to pieces and waste virtually all of the energy that's flying around. The particular area that my own analysis is concerned with is primarily the most basic transfer of energy from finger to key. I've played works such as Liszt's sonata and Mephisto Waltz, yet even now, I realise that this is nowhere near the optimum that it should be at.

The reason I consider analysis so important is that, in the past, I had no understanding of what occasionally causes that "spongy" feeling- where you seemed to put plenty in, yet the key responded in a pathetic and wholly unpredictable way. These days, I have a large feedback loop. Sometimes I feel the hole and then use conscious understanding of a physical movement premise to fix it. At other times, I may not initially feel it, but see it in the mirror or even just hear the hole in the sound. From there, I can come to perceive the poor quality of movement that slipped past my awareness and set about fixing it (in a more sophisticated way than simply thinking that because the sound was not intense enough, I should shove the finger harder). In some cases my ear compensates for what I could not feel, in other cases my feel or sight can compensate for what my ear had grown used to having to forgive (especially in pieces learned long ago). There are many ways to approach these things and I have never once felt poorer for what I now understand. Increasingly, the above processes are becoming possible by instinct- now that my instincts are getting beyond the simplified assumption that a note that comes out too soft must be fixed by throwing more energy into it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Rubinstein's hand would have been as 'rigid' as required as it depressed the keys (then it would have relaxed).  He would never have simultaneously articulated his fingers and dropped weight - the result would have been quite poor.  What would you know about my playing?  That comment is just gratuitous slander.

As required is nil. That which is expanding cannot collapse into contraction. What you are incapable of comprehending is that nothing can ever be truly immobilised anyway, by fixation. Skyscrapers of concrete and steel sway in the wind, despite their stiffness and mass. Yet you think you can immbolise mere flesh and bones by stiffening them?

The only way to counter collapse outright is by moving in the opposite direction. Neither relaxation nor stiffness is effective. Two opposite movements can cancel out, or you can move a little extra (which ensures for definite that no collapse has occurred and actively adds additional acceleration still). Either way, the results are both less effort than attempting to immobilise and they produce less collapse.

Until you open your ears to the bogus pseudo-science that speaks for the necessity of fixation, you will continue to reap the staggeringly incompetent results that are on display in your Grieg film. You said before that one who is still in process of finalising their technique is not permitted to have a stance on technique? But one who failed and gave up on ever furthering himself to a basic standard of competence is supposed to be a in a position to declare that something so amateurish as hand fixation is the only acceptable way to play? You know nothing about good technique and that is precisely why you possess none. All you can do is say "no, you're wrong. You should do this". It's pathetic that you post here simply to argue for that what failed you is the lone correct approach technique. It's not. It's a subjective approach that aids some but fails others- as you serve to prove. If you're not interested in anything but what Grindea told you, what do you hope to gain?

[chopantasy]

You want to try playing the ball rather than this weird scurrilous slander.

[nyiregyhazi]

You want to try playing the ball rather than this weird scurrilous slander.

I am playing the ball. Your personal failure is evidence of the fact that what you portray as the lone "right" way to approach technique is no such thing. Aside from the objective evidence of what tosh it is in principle (seeing as it hinges on supposition that fixation is needed, when no science supports such a supposition) you show that a person who obsesses with fixating comes nowhere near the ease of one who does not.

Until you find something that works for you, you are in no position to give advice- never mind tell others that they are wrong about things (because you once got told something that is different to their approach, yet which never even worked for you. If you are too incompetent to drop on the keys with finger articulation, that does not make it wrong. What is wrong is to be so foolish as to think that a stiff hand would cause anything other than severe impact upon landing. Your advice is plain dangerous.

It's fine for a less accomplished pianist to give well-meant advice with humility and realisation of where they stand. It's not fine for some fool with delusions of expertise to tell more qualified peers that they are "wrong".

[chopantasy]

I am playing the ball.

No, you're playing the man.  It's evidently a reaction to the failure of your ideas.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, you're playing the man.  It's evidently a reaction to the failure of your ideas.

See example 4:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

If you understand how Rubinstein moved, please upload a film showing the same movement, using fixation instead. If you like, I could upload a film of the opening of Chopin's C minor prelude, say- showing that it's possible to drop on every chord from a height- without either losing tonal control or suffering impact. It wouldn't be my preferred approach- but it's an excellent way of showing how important genuine movement of the hand is- if you want to avoid crash landings.

Would you like to do the same, using fixation? We can decide for ourselves whether your approach leads to soft, healthy landings, or whether movement is a better shock absorber.

PS. Regardless of whether you normally use Rubinstein's drops- you attributed your style of fixation to him. So you need to prove that it works in the context of his big drops. Otherwise, you are not in a position to claim an informed opinion on the issue.

[chopantasy]

Look, we're done here - we were done pages ago.  Talk to the hand!

[nyiregyhazi]

Look, we're done here - we were done pages ago.  Talk to the hand!

Indeed, you have contributed nothing of substance for many pages- merely assertions of opinion portrayed in an extremely undignified manner, as if they were fact. What a surprise that your confidence and certainty of expertise suddenly evaporates in the instant that you are asked to back up your assertions by actually doing them (even in the most simplistic and basic of contexts)...

You are a troll and a fraud.

[chopantasy]

Indeed, you have contributed nothing of substance for many pages- merely assertions of opinion portrayed in an extremely undignified manner,

Hmm, now who does that sound like?

[ajspiano]

Am I missing something? ...

Chopantasy = keyboardclass?

[chopantasy]

I think keyboardclass is some kind of Moriarty figure to Nyer....I sense not a little psychosis.  Perhaps eventually they'll end up battling over a precipice?

[nyiregyhazi]

Am I missing something? ...

Chopantasy = keyboardclass?

Who else rants on about the importance of fixation, posts ancient sources as if they serve to "prove" something and posts snide one sentence replies that ignore the topical substance in favour of a cheap quip (previously with Keyboardclass' old trick of using italics to emphasis one word)? Who else in this forum writes such casually dismissive rudeness as

No.  I think we nailed it.  It's just that it's a bit of a joke as an exercise in technique.

?

 Yes, Chopantasy is keyboardclass.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think keyboardclass is some kind of Moriarty figure to Nyer....I sense not a little psychosis.  Perhaps eventually they'll end up battling over a precipice?

You went over the precipice when you were banned. Personally, I'd sooner you stayed at the bottom of that precipice. I have no interest in you whatsoever, but simply in countering bad advice. It's just that you are a fountain of it.

[marik1]

I don't know what you see in this video but I see someone who fixates enough when required then relaxes.  I certainly see no parachutes.

May I suggest (please don't tear me apart) that for a virtuoso of Volodos magnitude there is no such thing as "fixated" in principle. There is much more going on than what we visually see, but clearly, with him everything is nice, relaxed and fluid, with very solid foundation--support from his entire body--everything works as an integral system.

PTS1 has already gave pretty accurate description of the "listening to the sound and then adjusting it on a fly"--our brain sends a signal of correction (or feedback). Should there be ANY fixation, stiffness, bracing, tension, or whatever else you want to call it--that will block that signal of correction. So what happens is our brain wants to "hear" that adjusted sound, but it does not, so it sends another impulse, which again, gets blocked and entire system becomes a mess, losing its "closed loop".

Best, M

[chopantasy]

May I suggest (please don't tear me apart) that for a virtuoso of Volodos magnitude there is no such thing as "fixated" in principle.

Fixated enough.  That means any less and the joint(s) will collapse.

[marik1]

Fixated enough.  That means any less and the joint(s) will collapse.

Don't let semantics overwhelm principle. It's all about inner feel and sensation.

Best, M

[chopantasy]

Don't let semantics overwhelm principle. It's all about inner feel and sensation.

Fixation is certainly not the experience of playing, I agree.

[p2u_]

PTS1 has already gave pretty accurate description of the "listening to the sound and then adjusting it on a fly"--our brain sends a signal of correction (or feedback).

Pts1 will not be offended, I'm sure, if I correct that description just a tiny bit. The conception of "hearing" and "listening" should be understood correctly: it's actually "expecting with the inner ear", and it's not necessarily a sound image that we perceive with the ears. Science will prove in the near future, that in such skills as playing an instrument at high level, it's not so much a case of hearing, but of proprioception and kinesthesia that determines succes or failure. Deaf drummers like this one prove that. Although he is not the champion of the world (I know a deaf Dutch girl jazz drummer who is MUCH better), many people who can hear cannot even get his level of accomplishment, even if they practice for hours on end. And some of the greatest pianists also practised on dumb keyboards. I already gave the example of Cziffra, who found it indispensible. There was also Rachmaninov, Liszt, Henselt, and others. By the way, it is interesting to note, that someone told Henselt (who suffered severely from performance anxiety, also known as stage fright) that he should stop that "unmusical" kind of practice on the dumb keyboard, and he did so. Clara Schumann noted that Henselt lost his beautiful tone after following this misguided advice. Strange, right?

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

May I suggest (please don't tear me apart) that for a virtuoso of Volodos magnitude there is no such thing as "fixated" in principle. There is much more going on than what we visually see, but clearly, with him everything is nice, relaxed and fluid, with very solid foundation--support from his entire body--everything works as an integral system.

PTS1 has already gave pretty accurate description of the "listening to the sound and then adjusting it on a fly"--our brain sends a signal of correction (or feedback). Should there be ANY fixation, stiffness, bracing, tension, or whatever else you want to call it--that will block that signal of correction. So what happens is our brain wants to "hear" that adjusted sound, but it does not, so it sends another impulse, which again, gets blocked and entire system becomes a mess, losing its "closed loop".

Best, M

While I don't disagree with your explanation, exactly, what explanation does it leave for how fixation is to be avoided? A relaxed hand collapses. A stiff hand is not effective. So what's the alternative? Make a the hand just a little bit stiff? Such a conception is still founded upon the concept of fixation. It might sound less bad- but does it really offer any credible explanation as to what is going on, or provide anything to help a person understand what to look for? What is it like to only be a bit stiff? Whether you narrow it down to tense vs relaxed or portray a sliding scale, it simply doesn't offer any real clues.

Unless you introduce a completely alternative way of looking at the whole issue, you are left with extremely mysterious esoteric vaguery- that seems to imply some kind of black magic. There's a simple objective approach however- that involves nothing baffling. Perceive how a truly relaxed hand is deformed by contacting the keyboard. And then make sure that you move it in the opposite direction (ie. my "extension" or p2u's parachute opening). That way, it cannot be deformed. Yes, that's it. It's nothing more complex than that.

The whole concept of fixation is founded upon immobilisation. If that's the intent, there's no possibility but stiffness (unless the reflexes are slowly trained to do something altogether different, by years of slight adjustments in lessons). It's so much quicker to understand that the true dichotomy is between the negative direction of movement and the productive direction. This simple realisation allowed me to teach myself to use Rubinstein's manner of technique in a matter of mere weeks. There need be no mystery behind how Rubinstein and Volodos can come from such height yet with such ease. They simply learned how to counter unwanted collapse with movement, instead of stiffening. Perfecting it takes a little time, but the concept really is that simple. It's not a tension/relaxation dichotomy but one of balancing movement.

[nyiregyhazi]

Fixation is certainly not the experience of playing, I agree.

If you could find one respectable piano teacher in a thousand who would not regard that as a wild excess of counterproductive fixation, I should be interested in meeting them.

It matters nothing how you use language. Either your sheer reliance on fixation has dulled your senses to the point where your self-awareness is minimal, or you are simply lying to yourself. What matters is that your entire conception of movement is based on generic immobilisation- rather than stabilising your hands by involving movement in a productive direction.

If you do not stabilise the hand by movement (to counter that which will be caused by contact with the piano), there are two rational alternatives. Rigidify it, or allow it collapse through key depression. You've already ruled out movement as a "joke". So whatever you might think you are doing, you are genuinely relying on a concept of fixation. Fixation is neither an objective requirement, nor an effective subjective stance (except for those who are lucky enough to involve necessary movements without realisation).Double-speak (where you say it's necessary one moment but claim not to experience it in the next) changes nothing whatsoever.