Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[chopantasy]

I thought it was rather good - though he's sitting a bit low.  Love the pompous git bit!  You sure have a talent for upsetting people.

[marik1]

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?

We have 3 elements here: first--our "inner voice", or ideal sound image, second--physical sensitivity/relationship with a keybed, and third--what we "hear" in reality, with which our brain compares that ideal sound image.

For people with strong first and second elements (which both Cziffra and Rachmaninov undoubtedly were) that 3rd element might be not as important... at least for purpose of practicing.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

I thought it was rather good - though he's sitting a bit low.  Love the pompous git bit!  You sure have a talent for upsetting people.

I'm amazed that you're even bothering to keep up this pathetic pretence (if being the first person ever to declare themself impressed by your playing can be called "keeping up a pretence" of not being the same person).

So, not only did your account appear on the same day keyboardclass was banned but you also happen to share his views about fixation, his fondness for quoting archaic texts out of context, his delusion that he has a fine technique and his rudeness and dismissiveness towards a variety of other posters? Do you seriously think anybody is fooled?

[p2u_]

We have 3 elements here: first--our "inner voice", or ideal sound image, second--physical sensitivity/relationship with a keybed, and third--what we "hear" in reality, with which our brain compares that ideal sound image.

For people with strong first and second elements (which both Cziffra and Rachmaninov undoubtedly were) that 3rd element might be not as important... at least for purpose of practicing.

Makes good sense, thanks.

Paul

[marik1]

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.

As I have already wrote a couple messages earlier, the only measure of "how stiff is too stiff" is an inner feel--whether muscles, tendens, etc. inside your hand are relaxed enough to pass the current, or not, i.e. whether that current from your brain reaches the finger tip, or gets blocked. If you feel everything is relaxed and passes the current, then you don't really care whether outsiders call it "fixated", or whatever else.

In other words, this is rather mental process (but of course, with a strong presence of physical element), while I am afraid, you are too much concerned with mechanics of it. Definitely, there is no "mysterious esoteric vaguery" here. All is very pragmatic. The mystery comes later... when you are on stage.

Makes good sense, thanks.

Welcome  

Best, M  

[nyiregyhazi]

As I have already wrote a couple messages earlier, the only measure of "how stiff is too stiff" is an inner feel--whether muscles, tendens, etc. inside your hand are relaxed enough to pass the current, or not, i.e. whether that current from your brain reaches the finger tip, or gets blocked. If you feel everything is relaxed and passes the current, then you don't really care whether outsiders call it "fixated", or whatever else.

In other words, this is rather mental process (but of course, with a strong presence of physical element), while I am afraid, you are too much concerned with mechanics of it. Definitely, there is no "mysterious esoteric vaguery" here. All is very pragmatic. The mystery comes later... when you are on stage.

Welcome  

Best, M  

Well, I found it astoundingly esoteric- to strive for some kind of special correct level of stiffness. Such an attitude never got me anywhere. I'm not saying some people who think this way don't succeed in flourishing regardless, but why not move on to a more pragmatic explanation? The logic premise in the first path hinges upon success to stand. I found no such success via that approach and neither is it a given for anyone else. You can't start by assuming something will automatically work, in order to explain it. Also, truly relaxed fingers collapse- which is why relaxation as a goal in itself ultimately causes tension, whereas looking at useful movement instead allows great freedom and ease.

As I said, there's no objective reason to approach it in terms of fixation- if you consider the reality of the situation. Seeing as advanced pianists do not conceive it that way either, why even bring fixation in? You didn't comment at all on my explanation of how much more easily it can be understood with recourse to movement. No opinions whatsoever? Does that not strike you as a lot simpler than hoping to figure out some special correct level of moderate fixation (given that it can be objectively illustrated that there is no need whatsoever for even that)?

As for my supposed excessive concern for mechanics- it was specifically the realisation of how objectively simple it is (when you throw out the bogus assumption that even slight fixation is a necessary element) that enabled me to learn Rubinstein's style of easy movement. Neither having no concept whatsoever nor having moderate fixation in my mind got me anywhere- regardless of how strong any musical intentions. This very simple analysis turned an esoteric mystery into a matter of simplicity- in terms of understanding, but above all in terms of actually doing it with effective results. This was what gave me an "inner feel"- not vaguery around the presumptions of some moderate fixation level.

[marik1]

Well, I found it astoundingly esoteric- to strive for some kind of special correct level of stiffness. Such an attitude never got me anywhere. I'm not saying some people who think this way don't succeed in flourishing regardless, but why not move on to a more pragmatic explanation? The logic premise in the first path hinges upon success to stand. I found no such success via that approach and neither is it a given for anyone else. You can't start by assuming something will automatically work, in order to explain it. Also, truly relaxed fingers collapse- which is why excessive relaxation ultimately causes tension, whereas suitable intent at movement allows great freedom and ease.

As I said, there's no objective reason to approach it in terms of fixation- if you consider the reality of the situation. Seeing as advanced pianists do not conceive it that way either, why even bring fixation in? You didn't comment at all on my explanation of how much more easily it can be understood with recourse to movement. No opinions whatsoever? Does that not strike you as a lot simpler than hoping to figure out some special correct level of moderate fixation (given that it can be objectively illustrated that there is no need whatsoever for even that)?

As for my supposed excessive concern for mechanics- it was specifically the realisation of how objectively simple it is that enabled me to learn Rubinstein's style of easy movement. Neither having no concept whatsoever nor having moderate fixation in my mind got me anywhere- regardless of how strong any musical intentions. This very simple analysis turned an esoteric mystery into a matter of simplicity.

Dear Nyiregyhazi,

I just did my best to tell you everything I know about technique (well, I guess ALMOST everything  ) in very short, concise, and as I thought, easily understandable form. If you have any questions you are welcome to ask (please, the least verbose way--the better). Other than that, I am afraid, I do not have any time or desire to argue with you.

Best, M

[p2u_]

As I said, there's no objective reason to approach it in terms of fixation- if you consider the reality of the situation. Seeing as advanced pianists do not conceive it that way either, why even bring fixation in? You didn't comment at all on my explanation of how much more easily it can be understood with recourse to movement. No opinions whatsoever? Does that not strike you as a lot simpler than hoping to figure out some special correct level of moderate fixation (given that it can be objectively illustrated that there is no need whatsoever for even that)?

There is a certain problem with thinking about this stuff the way you do when you are already at a certain level of pianism. You run the risk of falling into the so-called "centipede syndrome". This is when a normally automatic and unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness or by reflection on it. For example: a golfer who thinks too much about his swing will go back in performance; that's a proven fact. Another thing is if HIS COACH thinks about this stuff, and gives the golfer special exercises to improve his movements without specifically explaining the aim. That's why the subject is actually more one methodologists should think about, not accomplished pianists.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Dear Nyiregyhazi,

I just did my best to tell you everything I know about technique (well, I guess ALMOST everything  ) in very short, concise, and as I thought, easily understandable form. If you have any questions you are welcome to ask (please, the least verbose way--the better). Other than that, I am afraid, I do not have any time or desire to argue with you.

Best, M

I'm more interested in your views on the alternative manner of thinking I described, but which you have yet to reference in response. You say yourself that fixation is a dubious mindset- yet your explanation hinges on the concept (whether it be moderate fixation or severe fixation, it's still a fixation mindset). Please understand that I'm not insinuating that you wouldn't be an excellent teacher in person, but the description you gave is exactly the kind of thing that left me clueless for a great many years. Only abandoning the concept of fixation altogether got me anywhere. Given that what you wrote before shows that you are not keen on fixation as an intent, I would be interested to hear your view in the description I gave- of an approach that requires no such thing to exist anywhere in the midset, yet gives a fully objective and accountable means of judging how much activity to employ (ie. learning to move in the opposite direction to the unwanted movement that is caused to an inert, relaxed hand).

[nyiregyhazi]

There is a certain problem with thinking about this stuff the way you do when you are already at a certain level of pianism. You run the risk of falling into the so-called "centipede syndrome". This is when a normally automatic and unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness or by reflection on it. For example: a golfer who thinks too much about his swing will go back in performance; that's a proven fact. Another thing is if HIS COACH thinks about this stuff, and gives the golfer special exercises to improve his movements without specifically explaining the aim. That's why the subject is actually more one methodologists should think about, not accomplished pianists.

Paul

All I can say that is my experience has been literally the reverse. Teachers never gave me either anything that constituted this mind-set, nor anything that came anywhere near triggering the results I have achieved from it. Realisation that there is a completely different mindset (that has zero requirement for the concept of fixation) has enabled me to come on leaps and bounds. I'm not saying that no teacher could ever have provided me with exercises to fix it- but unless my rational mind dropped the idea that you "need" fixation, I cannot see how I might ever have come to abandon it. Some mindsets are so counterproductive that the very best thing you can do is eradicate them all together- otherwise they will always serve as an impediment. I think it's extremely hard to fix the problems caused by a fixation mindset, if it lies anywhere at all in the conscious, or even less conscious intentions. I think the simplest cure is to prove what bullshit it is that anyone needs to fixate (either fully or the "right" amount) and to illustrate what a simple alternative exists when you match up positive and negative movements. Once the impediment is gone, you can get on with feeling your way through the fine-tuning.

Not that I'd call myself an advanced pianist, exactly, but having played various works of advanced repertoire, it goes to show that there can still be major holes in the very foundation stones- that are caused by specific belief systems. I believe such beliefs are some of the most important things to counter. I had to eradicate a bad belief system altogether, to start fine-tuning with any positive results.

[p2u_]

All I can say that is my experience has been literally the reverse.

True, but that has to do with were you come from. You were never satisfied with what you were taught and were longing for improvement. That is a good starting point for what you are doing, and I support you on your path.

But other people may have a different background, may have had the luck of an excellent teacher and never faced the kind of problems you faced. They would actually harm themselves if they started thinking about this stuff too consciously.

Paul

[pts1]

N:

Including myself with Marik and Paul, you now have 3 people telling you similar things.

Having read a great deal of your posts, I STILL do not understand what your own particular pianistic problem is or if you really have one.

And I mean that in all sincerity.

So can you describe in as few as words as possible, what your CURRENT problem is if you have one. (not past teachers, methods, "fixations", muscle discussions, etc)

I'm pretty certain, that if you have a current pianistic technical problem, someone here can likely be of assistance.

So please tell us, if you will, what your piano problem is in a simple sentence or two.

[marik1]

There is a certain problem with thinking about this stuff the way you do when you are already at a certain level of pianism. You run the risk of falling into the so-called "centipede syndrome". This is when a normally automatic and unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness or by reflection on it. For example: a golfer who thinks too much about his swing will go back in performance; that's a proven fact. Another thing is if HIS COACH thinks about this stuff, and gives the golfer special exercises to improve his movements without specifically explaining the aim. That's why the subject is actually more one methodologists should think about, not accomplished pianists.

Ditto.

I'm more interested in your views on the alternative manner of thinking I described, but which you have yet to reference in response. You say yourself that fixation is a dubious mindset- yet your explanation hinges on the concept (whether it be moderate fixation or severe fixation, it's still a fixation mindset).

I thought I gave my view on the "alternative manner of thinking" two pages ago and gave specific reasons why I had to abandon it...

We might get stuck in semantics again, so to understand this issue better lets put it differently--forget fixation and instead use "relaxation"--something which one whether has, or not. When one has it, one has no doubt--that's it! Anything other than that is dead end.

It is something which takes just a few minutes to explain and show in a private lesson set up. Unfortunately, often impossible to translate in words on the screen.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

N:

Including myself with Marik and Paul, you now have 3 people telling you similar things.

Having read a great deal of your posts, I STILL do not understand what your own particular pianistic problem is or if you really have one.

And I mean that in all sincerity.

So can you describe in as few as words as possible, what your CURRENT problem is if you have one. (not past teachers, methods, "fixations", muscle discussions, etc)

I'm pretty certain, that if you have a current pianistic technical problem, someone here can likely be of assistance.

So please tell us, if you will, what your piano problem is in a simple sentence or two.

Quite simply ease and control over tone. What exactly would you be expecting? Anyone who cannot breeze thought a Chopin etude with consistent and effortless control has technical problems to resolve.

[p2u_]

So please tell us, if you will, what your piano problem is in a simple sentence or two.

He has none whatsoever, pts1. He's just sharing and other people who haven't been through this misunderstand him.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

We might get stuck in semantics again, so to understand this issue better lets put it differently--forget fixation and instead use "relaxation"--something which one whether has, or not. When one has it, one has no doubt--that's it! Anything other than that is dead end.

It is something which takes just a few minutes to explain and show in a private lesson set up. Unfortunately, often impossible to translate in words on the screen.

My point is that your alternative is vague. How relaxed is too relaxed? How fixated is too fixated? What is the right amount of either and what is the yardstick for judging them. Your explanation remains as esoteric to me now as it ever was, in all the years it left me clueless about what I was supposed to be looking for. Sometimes my hand would collapse in excess relaxation (forcing an abrupt contrary muscular action, to stop the palm piling into the piano). Sometimes I'd stiffen way too much. Then I'd notice and go way too far back in the other direction. It was from one problem to the other. The problem is that there is no correct level of "fixation". That's just not how it truly functions- unless you suppose that a hand can only lock up, rather than try to move.

When you understand that you simply need to counter the unwanted movements by moving in the opposite direction (not by fixing) all these questions evaporate. You just weigh up two very simple factors, in balance with each other. It's so much easier to sense, when you realise how basic the roots are. Before, my movements were far too complex. The analysis allows simplicity.

[counterpoint]

Anyone who cannot breeze thought a Chopin etude with consistent and effortless control has technical problems to resolve.

Now the big question is: what do you mean with "technical" problems...?

Is understanding harmonic or melodic effects and how to create them (using dynamics and agogics) a "technical" problem?  

Some people can play astonishingly fast and loud (or soft) - without understanding anything.
I admit, the contrary may occur also, perhaps THEN you can talk about technical problems, but this is much easier to cure.

[pts1]

He has none whatsoever, pts1. He's just sharing and other people who haven't been through this misunderstand him.

If that's the case, then fine.

I understand his plight in a sense, in that I too was very stuck very long ago in my teen years trying to explain to myself the entire physicality of how one plays the piano -- what a miserable dead end pursuit, I wished I'd never started!

Loved the dummy keyboard with Cziffra. Makes him seem quite human, doesn't it.
Also loved the anecdote about Henselt giving up the "unmusical" use of dummy keyboards, and losing some of his ability to play.

Between you and Marik, there seems to be a wealth of interesting and little known piano information which often presents realities that go against conventional "piano wisdom" in an amusing and curious way.

[ajspiano]

Sometimes my hand would collapse in excess relaxation (forcing an abrupt contrary muscular action, to stop the palm piling into the piano). Sometimes I'd stiffen way too much. Then I'd notice and go way too far back in the other direction.

Are you at all familiar with how Alan Fraser appoaches teaching legato to begginners?

[nyiregyhazi]

Are you at all familiar with how Alan Fraser appoaches teaching legato to begginners?

Sure. I've had lessons with him a few times and got a lot of extremely useful stuff. For myself, however I had to discover the extension concept, to start to fully understand that basic foundation from the inside. Although I can see how the action is strongly implied by the exercise (to the point where it can trigger enough "feel" of the action, for many) it didn't initially go into my instincts- because my prior style of movement was quite so different. I was pulling into that position- rather than feeling the knuckle simply resting lightly over the top, via the extension action. Although the first lessons I had with him were very useful, it didn't altogether change what I was doing. I couldn't simply "feel" exactly what I was needing to strive for.

Since the extension action became clear to me, I feel I have a sense of purpose and an understanding of effective adjustments to make, when things are slipping. Since then, improvement has been much more consistent and ongoing.  Arguably my approach has been almost entirely derived from Alan Fraser's ideas about the foundations of technique- although my personal goal is to identify ways of using a little more conscious thought to guide the process (rather than just performing the exercises and hoping that the brain will take up whatever is useful, via instinct). There are various issues where points of conscious understanding have made all the difference between keeping a "feel" going and potentially going on to lose it, bit by bit. I believe in a good blend between conscious understanding of the basic activities and exercises that train completely inexplicable issues that can only be done by feel.

[ajspiano]

rather than just performing the exercises and hoping that the brain will take up whatever is useful, via instinct

The critical element would be performing the exercise under the appropriate guidance. Without guidance it would require more conscious thought and experimentation to ensure the correct result happens.

Which is probably half of marik/p2u/pts ('s) arguement against the over thinking mechanically - that its a outrageously long process that could be learnt by "feel with guidance" much faster than it can by "mechanics and no guidance". Assuming you have a decent teacher, and I really don't know of any teachers in my immediate area that I would trust for such development..

I don't dislike the mechanical explanation of a concept for the right person - I do dislike a focus on it though. I think its possible (as a student) to take a mechanical explanation and aim for what you interpret to be the correct movement (but its actually horribly wrong) and because you are not referencing a good 'feel' in the process you are blindly playing with a poor technique thinking it is right. I don't see how it can ever become what it has to ultimately be (unconcious execution) unless you just instinctively feel it.

Take this for example - something marik wrote in my 10/1 thread earlier - it deals specifically with the idea of "direct path" to the key bed in a "feel" based teaching style.

Work on it with very light staccato--the finger goes straight into the key bed and immediately returns back right on the key surface. No grabbing the keys, no pulling--just the shortest path possible, without dissipation of energy and losing time for unnecessary movements--something what G. Gould relentlessly worked on and called "method of tapping", i.e. put completely relaxed hand on the keyboard and then "tap" the finger with your other hand--it should be very fast and light motion. After that try to emulate exactly the same feeling and touch with only one hand.

^I think this exercise could be explained better as I have tried to use a similar wording for students and they don't always understand and I have to reiterate. When done correctly it is EXTREMELY obvious what the right "feel" is and what you have to emulate without any thought toward what is correct mechanically.

[nyiregyhazi]

The critical element would be performing the exercise under the appropriate guidance. Without guidance it would require more conscious thought and experimentation to ensure the correct result happens.

True, but even under these circumstances- what about your practising? It's the overwhelming majority of what you do. My ideal is a great teacher plus a solid conscious grasp of the simplest conception for performing basic movements and monitoring holes in them. I really don't believe anyone is poorer for that- provided that it gets to the most important issues.

Which is probably half of marik/p2u/pts ('s) arguement against the over thinking mechanically - that its a outrageously long process that could be learnt by "feel with guidance" much faster than it can by "mechanics and no guidance". Assuming you have a decent teacher, and I really don't know of any teachers in my immediate area that I would trust for such development..

Exactly. How may teachers are even vaguely aware of the stuff that someone like Alan Fraser teaches? If Marik's approach is to be the ideal- how the hell are teachers supposed to even know what they are doing, if they only learned an individual and entirely instinctive feel for technique- via  subjective means, rather than via understanding of the concepts behind them? I think basic understanding of simple premises should come in all standard teaching- if for no other reason than to ensure that anyone who teaches knows a little more than a feel that words cannot convey. Even to train feel by feel, you have to know what is going on under the surface. To possess a feel does not make it any easier to train someone else to possess that same feel, whether via words or otherwise. It takes understanding of concepts and insight into why certain things are good or bad. The fact that so little of this is widely passed on is why so many teachers are clueless about teaching technique.

I don't dislike the mechanical explanation of a concept for the right person - I do dislike a focus on it though. I think its possible (as a student) to take a mechanical explanation and aim for what you interpret to be the correct movement (but its actually horribly wrong) and because you are not referencing a good 'feel' in the process you are blindly playing with a poor technique thinking it is right. I don't see how it can ever become what it has to ultimately be (unconcious execution) unless you just instinctively feel it.

Of course. But how can you feel it in the first place, if your conception is all wrong. My suspicion is that those who would stop feeling simply due to a rational concept would do no better through feel to begin with. I only ever use premises to educate feel. The only conflict is when a premise is plain wrong- as so many subjective approaches (purporting to be an objective statement of reality) sadly are. I think the big problem is fantasy portrayed as fact- not simple premises that are grounded in reality. As I described earlier, understanding the myth of "fixation" (and realising that intent to counter collapse with movement rather than locking) educated my sense of feel more than any vague advice I have ever been given. I had to understand both that fixation is altogether without purpose and that it's specifically a simpler movement that replaces its function, before I could move on from being stuck between locking/collapsing. A complete fiction had limited me. The simplicity of coming to see reality as it is took me straight to a solution.

I think this exercise could be explained better as I have tried to use a similar wording for students and they don't always understand and I have to reiterate. When done correctly it is EXTREMELY obvious what the right "feel" is and what you have to emulate without any thought toward what is correct mechanically.

I'd echo that entirely- except by saying that I could not educate myself on direct paths until I understood the basic concept for my extension action. From there, it's been all about educating an instinctive feel for the fine tuning via trial and improvement. Just because something starts out with a conscious concept, it does not mean that the senses close down. On the contrary, it gave my senses something to start working usefully with. Unless you can guarantee having done something correctly, there can be no "feel" for what is right. Even then, the feel can slide- unless you have a simple means of making sure that you are doing trial and improvement (rather than merely trial and error with random guesswork).

[ajspiano]

sorry I don't have time to reply thoroughly -

I only ever use premises to educate feel.

^this is not the impression that your writing style generally gives.

Perhaps it would be interesting for you to outline how you would actually present this to a student, because right now all the mechanics gives an overly complicated impression to me - that would almost always complicate things for a student. Obviously as teachers we want to instill a good grounding in beginners - how does one approach such a concept with someone who's 11. Because physical laws of motion are not a big winner with someone who hasn't finished primary school.

While I certainly didnt receive this, if someone had given me decent technical instruction as around that age of 11-14 say it would've been extremely benificial to me..  since all I actually got was "practice more" when I was facing certain tensions in various passages throughout grade 6-8 repertoire.

I do give technical advice to young students but its very rarely going to be based in mechanical analysis, so much as "try this way" (gives demonstration) "does that feel better? no? whats wrong with it?, how about this way?" (gives further demonstration) "do you think that way is better?"

[lostinidlewonder]

People MUST do things not completely correct to appreciate a more correct way. There is NO DOING IT CORRECT IMMEDIATELY JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT IT CORRECTLY.

Teachers who constrict a student to play in a certain manner ignoring their current ability and not allowing them to determine an improvement to their current solution are much much lesser teachers imo.

You can't copy paste ideas, you cannot pass on the "golden rod of knowledge", there is no escaping experimentation and hard work, no amount of theoretical thinking will improve you unless you actually FEEL it in your body while you attempt it. Just because you could explain in words how a master does something (single instances in most discussions on pianostreet which are just totally obscure scatter-gun observations) does not mean one iota that you can do it yourself. Just like a music critic who doesn't even have to be able to play an instrument or be a musician!!!

[p2u_]

If Marik's approach is to be the ideal- how the hell are teachers supposed to even know what they are doing, if they only learned an individual and entirely instinctive feel for technique- via  subjective means, rather than via understanding of the concepts behind them?

This is a spiritual question. What I'm going to say now is not intended as a final answer to that question, but maybe they are not supposed to when they want themselves and their students to get through to selfless art? It is my experience that the most difficult students are those that have a very strong will and think that what they do not control themselves does not happen. Hereby they block the road to self-oblivion, which is the secret to the type of performance you like so much. You will have to deal with this before you will be ready to accept what marik1 and pts1 are telling you.

Paul

[ajspiano]

People MUST do things not completely correct to appreciate a more correct way. There is NO DOING IT CORRECT IMMEDIATELY JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT IT CORRECTLY.

Teachers who constrict a student to play in a certain manner ignoring their current ability and not allowing them to determine an improvement to their current solution are much much lesser teachers imo.

I have to agree with you, hope I didnt give any impression otherwise..  the intent is to guide a student toward to right path so that they don't spend to much time trying to figure it out and failing. Its done when there's a legit problem to solve, not just "right, this is how you play - do it for all notes"

Technique is built gradually, not thought out and immediately executed. The objective is to help the student determine the solution to the particular problem.

[ajspiano]

This is a spiritual question. What I'm going to say now is not intended as a final answer to that question, but maybe they are not supposed to when they want themselves and their students to get through to selfless art? It is my experience that the most difficult students are those that have a very strong will and think that what they do not control themselves does not happen. Hereby they block the road to self-oblivion, which is the secret to the type of performance you like so much. You will have to deal with this before you will be ready to accept what marik1 and pts1 are telling you.

Paul

Yes, I don't feel the need to be able to process the binary code to understand fundamentally how a computer functions, or show someone else how to use one..  ..not the best example but the thinking is kind of similar.

[p2u_]

Yes, I don't feel the need to be able to process the binary code to understand fundamentally how a computer functions, or show someone else how to use one..  ..not the best example but the thinking is kind of similar.

The method by Alan Fraser is called "The Craft of Piano Playing". The book by Heinrich Neuhaus is called "The Art of Piano Playing". Do you feel the difference? Although craft can be quite impressive, it is never art. You need a higher spiritual stance to get there and the means are rather instinctive than thought-out.

Paul

[ajspiano]

The method by Alan Fraser is called "The Craft of Piano Playing". The book by Heinrich Neuhaus is called "The Art of Piano Playing". Do you feel the difference? Although craft can be quite impressive, it is never art. You need a higher spiritual stance to get there and the means are rather instinctive than thought-out.

Paul

I don't disagree with that. The problem here is relating to addressing an actual technical difficulty - the pianist in question must have physical trouble executing a passage with ease, possibly have tried to fix the problem through trial and error instinctively and failed. If that is the case, craft becomes the issue. Once the "craft" is working they can move back on to art.

I consider that one of the role's of any decent teacher, to ensure that the figuring out the craft element doesn't take up the bulk of the students practice time.

[p2u_]

Once the "craft" is working they can move back on to art.

I am not so sure about that. It's the same as saying: I will practise my "technique" (mechanics) now, the music and the expression comes later. With such a stance, the music and the expression never come.

If the instinctive method does not work, then the teacher should think of exercises that make it happen without the student interfering. That is the point of the "parachute" exercise. The only thing you have to do is ... do it. That's octaves and chords. For finger technique, the only thing you have to do is marik1's "tapping" to get the same kind of instinctive freedom.

Paul

[ajspiano]

I will practise my "technique" (mechanics) now, the music and the expression comes later. With such a stance, the music and the expression never come.

Thats not what I mean - I'm usually dealing with a isolated issue, such as the transition between just a few notes that is either to stretchy or the student is instinctively turning the wrist left or right and causing tension. And I VERY often fix it with some kind of exercise as you suggest, or an extremely simple instruction regarding movement.

[p2u_]

Thats not what I mean - I'm usually dealing with a isolated issue, such as the transition between just a few notes that is either to stretchy or the student is instinctively turning the wrist left or right and causing tension. And I VERY often fix it with some kind of exercise as you suggest, or an extremely simple instruction regarding movement.

Ah... OK, I see. Words get in the way sometimes. Sorry.
P.S.: By the way, this may also be the function of Taubman's rotation exercise. Strictly scientifically, it makes no sense, but it may free resources for something else.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Ah... OK, I see. Words get in the way sometimes. Sorry.
P.S.: By the way, this may also be the function of Taubman's rotation exercise. Strictly scientifically, it makes no sense, but it may free resources for something else.

Paul

Words do so often get in way

Your probably right - concious double rotation in isolation from other movements can at times feel bloody awful. But ofcourse they certainly don't intend such large movements to exist generally or ever in isolation from their other primary movements. I don't doubt for a second that the exercise is beneficial in many cases of tension and/or injury. They seem to have a lot of extremely happy students also..

What is your experience with their method?

[chopantasy]

They seem to have a lot of extremely happy students also..

What is your experience with their method?

Gives off a slight whiff of cult.

[p2u_]

What is your experience with their method?

I have no idea about their method, really. The rotation exercise is actually Matthay, and I use it with some students, depending on what problem and what playing mechanism they have. My philosophy in this: "Question everything; keep what is good" (c).

Paul

[chopantasy]

I have no idea about their method, really. The rotation exercise is actually Matthay,

Yes, Matthay with bells and whistles.

[ajspiano]

I have no idea about their method, really. The rotation exercise is actually Matthay, and I use it with some students, depending on what problem and what playing mechanism they have. My philosophy in this: "Question everything; keep what is good" (c).

Paul

Well they don't deny the link to matthay as far as I'm aware, considering their idea to be a development on his not so much new ground. Not that origins (or cult status) matter if it works...

I never much like getting to in-depth on this because I've never taken taubman lessons - I think the intention of the over done rotation is to free the arm and reduce unnecessary use of extensors. It is also directly linked with "walking hand and arm" which aids good alignment and prevents undue sideways stretching of the fingers. Its atleast in part a model for retraining of those unfortunate enough to have been told to keep their arms rigid and still while building fingerstrenth playing hanon as loudly a possible.

[p2u_]

Well they don't deny the link to matthay as far as I'm aware, considering their idea to be a development on his not so much new ground. Not that origins (or cult status) matter if it works...

The only problem I have with that kind of methods is the marketing: "Virtuosity in a Box" (?!?) for what I think is an exhorbitant price. That kept me from even investigating it because as far as I know, Russian libraries don't have it. They have their own heroes.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I wasn't aware of the "Virtuosity in a Box" thing.  They should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act.

[ajspiano]

I wasn't aware of the "Virtuosity in a Box" thing.  They should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Hahaha well that's fair.

I did get it from a library though. I don't think I'd have paid $600 for it. It did however convince me to purchase a couple of other golandsky items which were worth the ~$40

[chopantasy]

Just enough fixation (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing.  Without that base it's like trying to push a car whilst wearing roller skates - or even running at the car on roller skates!  It's not going to budge.

[marik1]

It's the same as saying: I will practise my "technique" (mechanics) now, the music and the expression comes later.

The most common mistake/dead end. Many even tremendously gifted people were trapped there and got stuck forever, wasting their talent and career. The idea is the same as: First, I learn notes and then add key signature and accidentals.

Best, M

[chopantasy]

Exactly.  everyone wants to know how to play the piano, few how to make music.  I was rehearsing Beethoven's 5th on Saturday - just blew me away!

[p2u_]

Just enough fixation (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing.  Without that base it's like trying to push a car whilst wearing roller skates - or even running at the car on roller skates!  It's not going to budge.

The idea sounds too negative to me to be of any practical use for positive development. It's better to focus on possitive action that takes away the thought of fixation. I hope you don't deliberately fix your hips, knees, or ankles while you walk, run or jump?

Paul

[chopantasy]

I said just enough fixation is needed - I didn't say done deliberately.  It's something the body does pre any conscious realization.

[p2u_]

I said just enough fixation is needed - I didn't say done deliberately.  It's something the body does pre any conscious realization.

If the body does it, as you say, "pre any conscious realization", why even focus attention on it?

Paul

[chopantasy]

If the body does it, as you say, "pre any conscious realization", why even focus attention on it?

You don't focus on doing it, you focus on feeling-it's-been-done (and that you haven't consciously interfered).

[p2u_]

You don't focus on doing it, you focus on feeling-it's-been-done (and that you haven't consciously interfered).

It's been quite a long time since I last worked on Beethoven's fifth. Can't recall such associations. How's it going?

Paul

[chopantasy]

It's been quite a long time since I last worked on Beethoven's fifth. Can't recall such associations. How's it going?

Typically you assume the Emperor Concerto.  No, it's the symphony and my post is about playing music instead of piano.

[p2u_]

Typically you assume the Emperor Concerto.  No, it's the symphony and my post is about playing music instead of piano.

Oops, I'm aging, probably. Can't follow too well when you change focus so fast.

Paul