Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[marik1]

Just enough fixation (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing. 

I don't think "fixation" is a good term. After all, it is all about not fixation, but relaxation, so mentally you preparing yourself for the wrong goal.

I am not sure how to put it in words (3 minutes at the piano would've been enough to show the concept), but I think there are different groups of muscles involved to hold the hand and keeping everything relaxed.

In any case, if you found the touch when your finger tip pierces the key and then stops right at the keybed, with no ANY sense of push, along with the sensation that every finger works independently, along with with completely relaxed, "hanging" wrist then you will know--that's it! The loose wrist is the key to understanding and achieving that goal. But then, none of that have any value if it does not serve a certain musical purpose.

Check out Ajspiano's thread about Chopin op.10/1 polishing. I think he picked up the idea very well and has a very good demonstration.

To N:

Open J. Lhevinne book (he was one of the greatest masters of keyboard--very few would understand the piano playing as he did). He has a diagram how the finger works--textbook example from one of the greatest piano masters. Also, I'd suggest to find a good teacher, stop arguing, and rather start listening.

After that throw all those ideas about mechanics, take time and think about yourself--who you are, and what would you like to express. Nobody in the world can take you there (especially on a public forum)--only show a path. It is in your hands whether to take that path or just keep wondering around, hitting the wall with your head.

Best, M

[marik1]

P.S. It seems while I was writing you guys have posted quite a bit on the same topic about fixation....

[chopantasy]

but I think there are different groups of muscles involved to hold the hand and keeping everything relaxed.

Notice your use of the word 'hold' - that's fixation, but maybe lets call it 'hold' instead?  So we get 'Just enough hold (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing. '

Funny, I was reading the Lhevinne book yesterday - he was a great treasure.

[p2u_]

Check out Ajspiano's thread about Chopin op.10/1 polishing. I think he picked up the idea very well and has a very good demonstration.

For fast reference: Chopin 10/1 - polishing project? [replies #10 + #18 are by marik1]

Paul

[p2u_]

Notice your use of the word 'hold' - that's fixation, but maybe lets call it 'hold' instead?  So we get 'Just enough hold (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing. '

Word associations are too important not to think about them when you talk to a student.
"Hold" is warm and pleasant; "fixation" is cold and unpleasant, a "painful" idea.

Paul

[marik1]

Notice your use of the word 'hold' - that's fixation, but maybe lets call it 'hold' instead?  So we get 'Just enough hold (or whatever you want to call creating a stable base) is needed for playing. '

Well, maybe... but I'd forget about "hold", either. The stable base is in your legs, spine, and the way you sit. Inevitably, your forearm is held with big muscles, and the arm is holding only straight line with the wrist, but this is not our concern.

Again, the main thing is the wrist, which has "nothing"--completely loose. You take your hand off the keyboard (or raise it) and the wrist drops down because nothing holds it--the reason your fingers always stay on the keys when your arm makes any motion.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

Open J. Lhevinne book (he was one of the greatest masters of keyboard--very few would understand the piano playing as he did). He has a diagram how the finger works--textbook example from one of the greatest piano masters. Also, I'd suggest to find a good teacher, stop arguing, and rather start listening.

I'm more than familiar. I read it years ago. It contains many insights, but like most books, they were too broad and ambiguous to be of major assistance. There is nothing life changing in there, unless you are all already in command of various secrets about effective movement.

After that throw all those ideas about mechanics, take time and think about yourself--who you are, and what would you like to express. Nobody in the world can take you there (especially on a public forum)--only show a path. It is in your hands whether to take that path or just keep wondering around, hitting the wall with your head.

I'm not hitting a wall. I'm improving considerably, right now. If you want to casually dismiss that which you have not personally taken the time to experience, I'm afraid that my immediate reaction is to be equally casual about dismissing your dismissal.

If you want to write off my approach, you might want to take the time to explore this post first:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/action-and-reaction-in-practise-part-i.html

You're welcome to provide your criticisms of these sensory exercises for the thumb. I played through the Mephisto Waltz for the first time in a good few months yesterday. For the first time, I found the l.h. thumb melody projecting through the r.h. repeated notes with ease. The reason? Because some basic analysis of efficiency issues allowed me to train myself to stop shoving my arm through a lifeless thumb and instead start using the thumb to move the key with efficiency.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, maybe... but I'd forget about "hold", either. The stable base is in your legs, spine, and the way you sit. Inevitably, your forearm is held with big muscles, and the arm is holding only straight line with the wrist, but this is not our concern.

Again, the main thing is the wrist, which has "nothing"--completely loose. You take your hand off the keyboard (or raise it) and the wrist drops down because nothing holds it--the reason your fingers always stay on the keys when your arm makes any motion.

Best, M

Sorry, but there's a serious rational problem here. You say it's not a hold, but you also deny what I said about countering collapse via movement. So what are you proposing? Whatever your subjective description, there is an underlying objective reality (unless you sincerely believe in the arcane).

When the hand contacts the keys, it is deformed by relaxation- unless moving in the opposite direction to that in which the hand would give way, or fixated. Whatever approach you use to find something workable, you cannot have your cake and eat it on this one. However subjectively you get there, your hand can only be either holding rigid to fight collapse or moving to match an oncoming force. By denying both movement and holding, all it does is make the solution more elusive and mysterious- seeing as there is no rational solution that lies outside of these two options. The solution is as simple as balancing out two movements in opposite directions, rather than simply locking the hand into generic immovability. If you deny that solution, the only rational alternative is that you are holding it in fixation. There isn't a third way on this.

This is where words are indeed very much inadequate, if you use a tension/relaxation dichotomy. They reveal nothing of what to look for during the moment of depression. All you have to do is change what you look at- and you are left with an act of balancing two movements, that is simplicity itself. The brain knows what it must look for and perceive, if it is to be capable of keeping the hand stable without seizing up muscles. From there, the instincts quickly home in on something workable.

Here's an old film that shows the illusion of "relaxation" as an effective means of transferring energy. My hand alternates between dysfunctionally excessive relaxations and emergency tensions to save the hand from collapsing straight into a cluster. To get beyond this style of movement, I had to throw out the false dichotomy between holding and relaxing and instead learn to use genuine movements to stabilise the reactions from the keys- eliminating the emergency fixations that I was dependent on at the time.

[nyiregyhazi]

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

Have you read my thumb post (see the prior post in this thread)? If someone states something in this forum that runs completely contrary to the nature of objective possibility, I might use some colder scientific background to prove the impossibility of what they suggest. In teaching, I use it to clarify movement and perception issues. I only cite that which can clarify what the senses need to to strive for.

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.

I've found that kids get on perfectly well with most of them. If I mention momentum to a person who shoves their whole arm into major impact, simply to depress a finger, it doesn't even matter if they yet understand the concept. I use an exercise where the finger is deliberately allowed to collapse flaccidly, before the arm piles in from on top- considerably later than the moment in which sound occurred. You could show this to a 5 year old. They'll rapidly understand that an inefficient movement sends energy into an "after-shock"- rather than into tone-production. If they understand the term "momentum", all the better. If they don't, it's no loss. They will have understood the practical consequences. From there, I show them how much more efficiently tone is produced when the finger extends out (without the arm falling down), compared to when the finger collapses negatively.

I won't go into the full details, here (I'm writing up my approach at present for my blog) but the above is a good example of how some staggeringly basic objective background serves to educate both the conscious mind and the senses.

Oh, just one more example- with regard to the efficient direct path of key depression. I always insist that students deliberately miss it in both directions. It's never about a theoretical path which they must force to happen synthetically. In my experience, most pianists try to force such a path with arm-clenching. They have never accurately sense the natural motion that allows the arm to stay stable of its own accord. I show them the concept and then ensure that they are exploring the full range of possibility- feeling how the reactions affect the arm. Sometimes that means pulling the finger back to slip across the key (which drags a loose wrist forward), sometimes it means aiming it forwards to the point of sliding in that direction (which allows a loose wrist to ease downwards). From there, it's much easier to perceive the direct path and learn the "feel". If the student is not able to loosen up enough for their wrist to respond naturally, I may use various loosening exercises first- but it's important that a student understands both the natural responses to finger actions and the path of movement that has the least effect on the arm (even when truly loose).

[p2u_]

I'm more than familiar. I read it years ago. It contains many insights, but like most books, they were too broad and ambiguous to be of major assistance. There is nothing life changing in there, unless you are all already in command of various secrets about effective movement.

Isn't that the tragedy of all those self-help how-to books? For the most part, you read or see something that you already know for yourself to affirm it and to discard the rest? Even if some new idea seems interesting, it is mostly only good enough for instant gratification. The examples they provide usually give the I-can-do-it euphoria for just a couple of minutes, but as soon as you have to deal with any real life problem yourself, you're in for failure.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Isn't that the tragedy of all those self-help how-to books? For the most part, you read or see something that you already know for yourself to affirm it and to discard the rest? Even if some idea seems interesting, it is mostly only good enough for instant gratification. The examples they provide usually give the I-can-do-it euphoria for just a couple of minutes, but as soon as you have to deal with any real life problem yourself, you're in for failure.

Paul

Absolutely. For the most part, they either affirm what you already know, or present a superficial sketch of what you don't- that leaves out the real elements needed for success. Incidental features are given prominence, whereas the underlying roots of what makes for effective key movement are described vaguely, if at all. However, I would put Alan Fraser's works down as a notable exception. His new release (all-thumbs) has some extremely useful exercises- including some of the best exercises I've ever encountered for neutralising unwanted stiffness in the hands, before starting on the positive actions to be put in.

Even there, as I said, I didn't truly come to feel I understood his basic legato "walking" until I discovered that I had to change my conception of the balancing act, to an action of extension (rather than merely pulling the knuckle in an arc). However, it's one of few approaches that really can lead to serious changes- unlike all the superficial descriptions that merely remind you to make contact with the keybed (or in some cases not to) or to keep in contact with the surface of the keys etc.

[p2u_]

Absolutely. For the most part, they either affirm what you already know, or present a superficial picture that leaves out the real elements needed for success.

Are you ready for something really good, N.? Try to find a copy of Eugen Herrigel's "Zen in the art of archery". It must be out there in some .pdf version for free. If you have read it already, do not discard this offer; read it again, and you'll understand it on another level. It's the struggle of a European professor who is trying to learn how to shoot without aiming. In the process, he tries to find intellectual ways around what the Master proposes as the way to go; every stage other tricks, but they don't work. There's a happy end anyway. I'd suggest you go back and renew your contacts with Alan. As far as I can judge, he's a genius (you may tell him I told you ), and he's the Master you need.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Are you ready for something really good, N.? Try to find a copy of Eugen Herrigel's "Zen in the art of archery". It must be out there in some .pdf version. If you have read it already, do not discard this offer; read it again, and you'll understand it on another level. It's the struggle of a European professor who is trying to learn how to shoot without aiming. In the process, he tries to find intellectual ways around what the Master proposes as the way to go; every stage other tricks, but they don't work. There's a happy end anyway. I'd suggest you go back and renew your contacts with Alan. He's a genius, and he's the Master you need.

I've heard a little about this one. I'll have to look into it. I'd say though, I've read the inner game and I far from discount this type of approach (although certain aspects in the book are things I have to disagree strongly with). In fact, I have some extraordinarily subjective and outright bizarre things that I use alongside the rational aspects. Please don't think I'm all about objective concepts. While I regard them as an important beginning, I know it's only the beginning.

One such approach is based on refining the feel for quality finger contact, coupled with a loose arm. After the objective background, I have an approach that is based on trying to perceive vibrations up the forearm. If the finger makes poor contact, the wrist is forced to tighten too much for the vibrations to make it that far. If you have the basic feel, for good contact, this simple act of looking for vibrations starts triggering the instincts into just the right combination. I even try to feel it as far up as the shoulder. I'm sure this part is pure imagination, but I think it's objectively possible to feel them quite literally, at least some way into the forearm (possibly even up to the elbow), if you make the right quality of loose yet stable balance. By the way, I had lessons last with Alan Fraser a few months back and certainly intend to go for some masterclasses again in the future. He actually mentions me in a few chapters of his new book (without giving my name). It's been very useful to go back to some of the principles he speaks of in there.

[pts1]

N:

Have you thought of writing your own version of something like Ortmann's work or Riddle of the Pianist's Finger, i.e. a modern day technologically accurate explanation just exactly how the human mechanism works at the instrument?

Some people are more suited for analytical things than artistic, for instance, the "medical researcher" vs the "physician".

Both are necessary and both contribute to the same end, but both also have very different attributes and focus.

So you may not be "stuck" at all, but have "arrived" at your true destination and simply not realize it.

From the way you talk about it, and the manner in which your present your discussions, you seem quite a bit more interested in the "science" of the piano than the "art" of it, at least to me.

Why not go with your strength, instead of your weakness?

[nyiregyhazi]

N:

Have you thought of writing your own version of something like Ortmann's work or Riddle of the Pianist's Finger, i.e. a modern day technologically accurate explanation just exactly how the human mechanism works at the instrument?

Frankly -- judging by your enthusiasm -- you seem to have more interest for these types of issues than anything else.

Some people are more suited for analytical things than artistic, for instance, the "medical researcher" vs the "physician".

Both are necessary and both contribute to the same end, but both also have very different attributes and focus.

So you may not be "stuck" at all, but have "arrived" at your true destination and simply not realize it.

From the way you talk about it, and the manner in which your present your discussions, you seem quite a bit more interested in the "science" of the piano than the "art" of it, at least to me.

Why not go with your strength, instead of your weakness?

I could also write at tremendous length on issues of musical expression. However, my current focus is on mechanics of controlling sound-production- because that is what currently presents the biggest limitation in my ability to execute the musical results I desire. I'm also particularly interested in using objective analysis to try to recreate old-fashioned styles of sound production- aided by displacements of hands, pacing of dynamics in spread chords etc. (rather than constant square attacks)

You may hate the free style of playing here (before I set about changing my technique in a big way)

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6079034452439041205

But does that sound like someone who is only interested in mechanics and not in musical expression? Obviously you're intent on tarring me with whatever brush is most convenient, but does reality fit the picture you wish to paint of my "weakness"?

I don't like Ortman's approach much at all- as it is very poor at educating the senses. My own interest in using simple objective facts in a way that leads to improved feel for how to play with control and ease. Ortmann failed badly at this- with his nonsense about fixation and reams of theory without illustration of how to transfer it into something practical. However, writing about objective issues with regard to how to educate the senses to work more effectively is what I'm currently doing. I intend very much to publish a book on the matter someday.

[pts1]

Try to find a copy of Eugen Herrigel's "Zen in the art of archery".

Paul, I found it on Amazon.com for $5.00, Kindle or PC Version, bought it and downloaded it.

I love these kind of things, personal quest types of things.

Thanks for the suggestion.... I've of course heard of this book, but haven't ever thought about reading it. Fascinating stuff.. one man's quest to learn something he's very interested in, via a truly "alien" (to him) approach.

[p2u_]

Thanks for the suggestion.... I've of course heard of this book, but haven't ever thought about reading it. Fascinating stuff.. one man's quest to learn something he's very interested in, via a truly "alien" (to him) approach.

You're welcome. I think it's a must on the bookshelf of any performer and teacher of the art of piano playing.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Not everything opponents say is to attack you, N. Edit your post, please.

Paul

The passive-aggressive attack was pretty obvious, if mildly veiled. However, I have no intention of responding to his casual assumptions about my "weaknesses"- other than by illustrating that simply because somebody is interested in practical issues, artistic issues are not therefore outside of their radar. I have no intention of rising to any bait. Anyone watching my old Liszt film can decide for themself whether artistic input is a "weakness" of mine and whether it sounds like cold, emotionally empty/mechanical playing or not. I'd simply prefer that people judge for themself, rather than from an unsubstantiated assumption that a person must necessarily be weak at anything that they have not directly discussed.

[pts1]

But does that sound like someone who is only interested in mechanics and not in musical expression? Obviously you're intent on tarring me with whatever brush is most convenient, but does reality fit the picture you wish to paint of my "weakness"?

You frequently take offense where none is intended, and this is truly tiresome.

As an example, there are many doctor/scientists who love music and play piano for a hobby.

Honestly, you strike me as much more of a scientist than an artist.

If you find that offensive, its your problem -- not mine.

[nyiregyhazi]

You frequently take offense where none is intended, and this is truly tiresome.

As an example, there are many doctor/scientists who love music and play piano for a hobby.

Honestly, you strike me as much more of a scientist than an artist.

If you find that offensive, its your problem -- not mine.

To declare a weakness (on the mere grounding of discussion about a separate issue)  is indeed inherently offensive- but I have no interest in dwelling on that. As I say, anyone watching the Liszt can decide whether I play like a "scientist" or someone who has something to express. If they decide the former that's fine by me. I'd just rather they made up their own mind- rather than read a casual speculative assumption about where my weaknesses lie (based not on my playing but on mere words). I need add nothing more.

[pts1]

I don't think being thought of as a scientist is a weakness.

You strike me as more of a scientist personality than an artistic one.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think being thought of as a scientist is a weakness.

You strike me as more of a scientist personality than an artistic one.

I don't personally like such simple labels. I have a naturally analytical mind as a person. However, I don't consider my approach to music-making to be one that sounds "scientific". What matters is the sound. Some people are naturally introverted yet play with staggering flamboyance. Others are extremely emotional in life, yet play with utter monotony that expresses virtually nothing. Rachmaninoff planned every last detail, yet is widely believed to many to have been an interpretative "improviser"- seeing as the results seem so spontaneous.

What matters about a musician is how they sound. I couldn't care less about a person's manner away from the instrument. Compare Benjamin Grosvenor's manner in interviews with his expressive sound. The problem is that sound is the product not only of what a person intends, but what they are capable of. That is why I analyse.

[nyiregyhazi]

Incidentally, if you want to write a critique of my playing in that film, feel free. I'm fine with that, even if you should absolutely despise it. What bothered me is that you declared art to be a "weakness" of mine, not with reference to my piano playing but with reference to words that I have written. They weren't intended as poetry. Art is to be judged on a person's music making, not on their words about processes behind the scenes. Frankly, I'm a lot more bothered by the irrational nature of your argument, than by the personal insinuation that I have a weakness in matters artistic.

Judge away- but all I ask is that you base it on my playing, please.

[chopantasy]

Again, the main thing is the wrist, which has "nothing"--completely loose. You take your hand off the keyboard (or raise it) and the wrist drops down because nothing holds it--the reason your fingers always stay on the keys when your arm makes any motion.

100% in agreement there.

[chopantasy]

Are you ready for something really good, N.? Try to find a copy of Eugen Herrigel's "Zen in the art of archery". It must be out there in some .pdf version for free. If you have read it already, do not discard this offer; read it again, and you'll understand it on another level.

In which case you'll be wanting to read the real story: https://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/The_Myth_of_Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery.pdf

[p2u_]

In which case you'll be wanting to read the real story: thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/The_Myth_of_Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery.pdf

It's quite discouraging that whatever the subject is, you always seem to try to somehow bypass the essence of the lesson someone is trying to teach, losing yourself in insignificant details. Who cares about how it really happened and what was really said? My point was that certain types of students try to be smarter than the Master, and get nowhere. That's what Herrigel's book is about. And your link is about how FORMALLY INCORRECT he wrote down everything. Are you satisfied now?

Paul

[cmg]

I could also write at tremendous length on issues of musical expression. However, my current focus is on mechanics of controlling sound-production- because that is what currently presents the biggest limitation in my ability to execute the musical results I desire. I'm also particularly interested in using objective analysis to try to recreate old-fashioned styles of sound production- aided by displacements of hands, pacing of dynamics in spread chords etc. (rather than constant square attacks)

You may hate the free style of playing here (before I set about changing my technique in a big way)

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6079034452439041205

But does that sound like someone who is only interested in mechanics and not in musical expression? Obviously you're intent on tarring me with whatever brush is most convenient, but does reality fit the picture you wish to paint of my "weakness"?

Just listened to your Liszt and I was really quite moved.  You sustained a singing line (with beautiful tone) throughout this expansive tempo.  (I think I now understand your choice of screen name!)  Your playing is directly and powerfully emotional and you have a distinctive approach.  You're a gifted man, Mr. Andrew Thayer.  

I do admit to getting lost in your prose, however.  You have a powerful intellect, sir, and you express yourself rationally.  Why (I wonder to myself) do I get lost in your writing?  I think it's the complexity of it all, the headlong rush to explain fully in very balanced, cadenced sentences that become, paradoxically, rather hard to understand.  Your style reminds me of Samuel Johnson, to be frank, but the Johnsonian clarity, for me, slips away.  I find myself wandering in the density of your arguments.  The fault, of course, is partly mine and I think you have much to say about the piano.  Perhaps, just for curiosity's sake, you might have an editor go over your writing.  It's a shame it's not clearer.  I, for one, would like your writing to be more accessible.  

[nyiregyhazi]

Just listened to your Liszt and I was really quite moved.  You sustained a singing line (with beautiful tone) throughout this expansive tempo.  (I think I now understand your choice of screen name!)  Your playing is directly and powerfully emotional and you have a distinctive approach.  You're a gifted man, Mr. Andrew Thayer.  

Cheers. I was inspired quite greatly by an unreleased recording of Nyiregyhazi playing the work. It's like nothing I'd ever heard before in that piece. Regarding the writing, I'd just urge you to wait for my next few blog posts and see what you think after that. I've refined things down to some exceedingly simple and concise principles. I think my earlier posts may look more confusing (due to only relating to particular parts of the picture) unless you know about some of the things I have yet to cover regarding the fingers. Once issues about the finger action are clear, I think it will be a lot easier to see how what I have written about in earlier blog posts fits into a big overall picture.

In a sense a lot of what I have written is background preparation for the core practicalities- but at the same time a lot of it will likely be clearer to look at after the precise details of putting the ideas into practise. A lot of it so far is more about casting reasonable doubt on popular myths that can hinder a person's conceptions (due to popular misportrayal as objective reality)- rather than on going deep into the alternatives.

[cherub_rocker1979]

I'm with marik, ajs and p2u.  Not trying to pick on N, but he just needs to stop over-analyzing everything and make some music.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm with marik, ajs and p2u.  Not trying to pick on N, but he just needs to stop over-analyzing everything and make some music.

The thing is, it's a little hard to make music if at as many 1 in every 5 or 6 notes comes out with a radically different quality of sound to that you intended. At that point you either resign yourself to being incapable of making good music and having to settle for sounding like crap, only playing technically simple pieces, or finding a way to improve yourself. The reason I'm analysing is so I can get on with making music, instead of sounds that are painfully distant from those I intend. If I wasn't doing it, I'd be so frustrated with the results of trying to make music, I'd have likely quit by now.

[cmg]

The thing is, it's a little hard to make music if at as many 1 in every 5 or 6 notes comes out with a radically different quality of sound to that you intended. At that point you either resign yourself to being incapable of making good music and having to settle for sounding like crap, only playing technically simple pieces, or finding a way to improve yourself. The reason I'm analysing is so I can get on with making music, instead of sounds that are painfully distant from those I intend. If I wasn't doing it, I'd be so frustrated with the results of trying to make music, I'd have likely quit by now.

Really, I know exactly what you mean.  I've studied ever since I was five and recently returned to formal study here in NYC after a six-year break.  (I'm an amateur with an undergraduate degree in piano.)  I went through two very talented teachers recently, one a Juilliard student of Webster and Reisenberg, another a student of Abbey Whiteside.  The former teachers were excellent, but failed to get me off my plateau. 

The latest, and hopefully final teacher, is a student of Brendel, Weissenberg and Perahia.  He's brilliantly gifted at coaxing me off the plateau and it's difficult to analyze how he did it, except at lessons he encourages complete, even over-the-top freedom in my playing.  He conducts me.  Lessons are like master classes.  He urges singing, singing, singing.  Big, rounded tone that might later need to be scaled back.  But it has liberated me. 

Technical fine-tuning is almost always through demonstration.  I imitate.  He verbalizes the bare minimum.  He describes the physical sensation he wants me to experience.  I reach for it and there it is.  Detailed verbal explanations only serve to confound me with my own over-analysis.  The Whiteside teacher completely hobbled me with intellectualizations and detailed discussions of levers and pulleys.  She was brilliant, but the approach did not work for me.  In theory, I loved it.  In practice, I couldn't get my brain out of the way.  The music suffered. 

For me, a less analytical approach works best, but I truly appreciate the analytic.  It's just not what works for me. 

Continued good luck to you with your writing.

[marik1]

Sorry, but there's a serious rational problem here. You say it's not a hold, but you also deny what I said about countering collapse via movement. So what are you proposing? Whatever your subjective description, there is an underlying objective reality (unless you sincerely believe in the arcane).

When the hand contacts the keys, it is deformed by relaxation- unless moving in the opposite direction to that in which the hand would give way, or fixated. Whatever approach you use to find something workable, you cannot have your cake and eat it on this one. However subjectively you get there, your hand can only be either holding rigid to fight collapse or moving to match an oncoming force. By denying both movement and holding, all it does is make the solution more elusive and mysterious- seeing as there is no rational solution that lies outside of these two options. The solution is as simple as balancing out two movements in opposite directions, rather than simply locking the hand into generic immovability. If you deny that solution, the only rational alternative is that you are holding it in fixation. There isn't a third way on this.

This is where words are indeed very much inadequate, if you use a tension/relaxation dichotomy. They reveal nothing of what to look for during the moment of depression. All you have to do is change what you look at- and you are left with an act of balancing two movements, that is simplicity itself. The brain knows what it must look for and perceive, if it is to be capable of keeping the hand stable without seizing up muscles. From there, the instincts quickly home in on something workable.

Here's an old film that shows the illusion of "relaxation" as an effective means of transferring energy. My hand alternates between dysfunctionally excessive relaxations and emergency tensions to save the hand from collapsing straight into a cluster. To get beyond this style of movement, I had to throw out the false dichotomy between holding and relaxing and instead learn to use genuine movements to stabilise the reactions from the keys- eliminating the emergency fixations that I was dependent on at the time.

I thought you were asking for help to get "ease and control over tone". I (and many other members) gave you hand offering that help. It seems that in fact, what you want to accomplish is to prove that you know better and all the rest are wrong. I am afraid, I cannot be of help.

Good luck.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

I thought you were asking for help to get "ease and control over tone". I (and many other members) gave you hand offering that help. It seems that in fact, what you want to accomplish is to prove that you know better and all the rest are wrong. I am afraid, I cannot be of help.

All I can say is that the type of advice you outlined is the type of advice I was on in the years when I was not progressing in my control. I've already been through it and it didn't work. While I appreciate good intentions, dropping the kind of work that is creating huge improvement (in favour of that which yielded nothing but aimlessness and frustration at the failure of the results to represent my musical intentions) is not something that I'm currently going to consider.

Regarding relaxation- just look at all the relaxation movements in the Inspector Gadget film. Relaxation as an end in itself was not productive. I suffer far less unwanted tensions since I stopped allowing my hands to flop around like that- and instead learned to generate movement with them. Generally wanting to be relaxed didn't cut it, sorry- and neither did hoping to only be "a bit stiff" (or whatever other term should be used to describe it) instead of rigidly fixated. It's simply a different way of using words to describe the same basic flaw in the mindset that I had to throw out altogether. Immobilisation is inherently more effort and strain than making movements.

You can speculate as you wish, but my goal is both to improve and to help others perceive what holds them back and why.

[nyiregyhazi]

The Whiteside teacher completely hobbled me with intellectualizations and detailed discussions of levers and pulleys.

The complexity of the Whiteside approach is something that bothers me too. I don't think it's either factually accurate or to the point. She uses a lot of scientific terminology, but there are countless objective errors in what she claims to be true. It's a noble attempt, but the idea of thinking about big levers (rather than controlling the small ones in the hand) was nothing but a hindrance to me. It's a classic case of a subjective fantasy, purporting to represent something objective- while incorporating countless errors that will actively hinder many people, should they take it literally.

Basically, it fails to account for the fact that if the fingers are not generating movement, they have to be locked with tension, to transfer energy. I can scarcely overstate what a staggering oversight this is. She mistakes a stabilising arm for a source of energy input- which makes for a colossal misrepresentation of what is physically possible (her premise also hinges on the arm bouncing up and down on every note- and who does that?).

[nyiregyhazi]

Even today, I've been finding myself going back to old instincts, due to inadequate thought and excessive dependence on merely striving for the sounds that I wish. I've been relearning Franck's Prelude Fugue and Variation as well as the Schumann/Liszt Widmung. In both pieces, I've realised that, even now, I'm sending myself back to the old bracing/relaxation dichotomy- rather than simply instigating adequate movement from my 5th finger. Due to only getting the bare minimum of movement, it's been getting squashed down by slight arm pressures (triggered by a desire to get a big dramatic sound)- into a position where it can only brace itself to prevent collapsing down or give way altogether. Even with the intent to move, I wasn't doing anywhere near enough. The fifth was simply too inactive- so it was left with no choice but to resort to a slight degree of unconscious emergency stiffening, to avert disaster.

After a lot of conscious work on activating the finger today, I've been getting to a stage where I can now "let go" and trust the fifth to do what it needs to. However, I shudder to think what an awful state it would have got into- had I simply spent a whole day (never mind the rest of my pianistic future) on pure instinct, rather than identified and dealt with the issue with awareness. The more I let my fifth finger simply relax (rather than go out of its way to create true movement), the more my reflexes veer towards a situation where it has no possibility other than rigidify itself against collapsing. The less it moves, the more it is forced to stiffen. It's literally a case of empty relaxation forcing tensions to occur.

[cmg]

Regarding relaxation- just look at all the relaxation movements in the Inspector Gadget film. Relaxation as an end in itself was not productive. I suffer far less unwanted tensions since I stopped allowing my hands to flop around like that- and instead learned to generate movement with them. Generally wanting to be relaxed didn't cut it, sorry- and neither did hoping to only be "a bit stiff" (or whatever other term should be used to describe it) instead of rigidly fixated. It's simply a different way of using words to describe the same basic flaw in the mindset that I had to throw out altogether. Immobilisation is inherently more effort and strain than making movements.

This describes my breakthrough.  My earlier teacher, the Nadia Reisenberg student, advocated Nadia's "rag doll" approach -- loose arms hanging close to the body.  I found that I was playing too close to the edge/end of the keys and that my shoulders were tensing to compensate.  I don't blame my teacher for this and Lord knows Reisenberg was a consummate pianist and artist, but the enforced "relaxation" created immobilization that hampered every aspect of my playing.

This current teacher speaks of "circles," definite rotational gestures with the arms that encompass the entire topography of the keyboard allowing a smooth and, well, "rounded" solution to all technical hurdles.  It just absolutely works for me.  The plateau is a thing of the past and my sound is bigger, plusher.  I also, for the first time, feel secure with bringing off what I want to project musically.  Technical problems are no longer insurmountable.

[nyiregyhazi]

This describes my breakthrough.  My earlier teacher, the Nadia Reisenberg student, advocated Nadia's "rag doll" approach -- loose arms hanging close to the body.  I found that I was playing too close to the edge/end of the keys and that my shoulders were tensing to compensate.  I don't blame my teacher for this and Lord knows Reisenberg was a consummate pianist and artist, but the enforced "relaxation" created immobilization that hampered every aspect of my playing.

Yeah, I can certainly imagine it. I was so caught up in trying to relax that my fingers were not moving. Without doing so, there is no possibility for making keys go down but to use arm presses through a braced hand. The outward appearance is of relaxation but the whole concept depends on violent internal fixations to have any hope of functioning (without causing cluster chords). No matter how brief (and no matter how much relaxation occurs when possible) the intent to relax is utterly futile, if the energy is sourced from the arms- whether by dropping weight (which is only possible at slow speeds) or pressing. The whole premise defeats itself- by forcing violent tensions to save yourself from collapsing.

This current teacher speaks of "circles," definite rotational gestures with the arms that encompass the entire topography of the keyboard allowing a smooth and, well, "rounded" solution to all technical hurdles.  It just absolutely works for me.  The plateau is a thing of the past and my sound is bigger, plusher.  I also, for the first time, feel secure with bringing off what I want to project musically.  Technical problems are no longer insurmountable.

Absolutely. I came back to these issues in a big way recently. I want to explore this issue in a post in future- once I've covered finger movement. If you change direction abruptly, the muscles must first slam on the brakes, before reversing direction. It's like going straight from forwards to reverse in a car. Just the smallest additions of curves allow smoother changes without risk of muscles working against each other. It's rather like if you throw a marble around a u-shaped tube. There's no moment of braking, but simple and smooth redirection of the energy. I've been trying to eliminate all sense of down motion in these curves (to eliminate dead stops altogether)- especially in passages like the Schumann Fantasy leaps. The arm just gets you to the key but the finger moves it- allowing the arm to keep flowing, without a stopping point.

I tried playing through the mephisto just now. Despite not having worked at it for months (other than a little last night) the difference was pretty staggering. Scarcely in a single moment was my wrist getting dragged forwards, in my old problem:

It's as simple as aiming the finger action slightly forwards, rather than using one that closes everything up. The reactions no longer pull anything forwards, but instead lightly encourage the wrist into alignment. I could feel it right back to my shoulder- which has also had a long-standing tendency to get pulled forwards into a poor position. I'm actually pretty stunned by how big a difference has come about from the simple change in concept, without yet having worked at making changes to the piece itself.

I particularly like this "parachute" idea. Thanks to Paul for that. I still need to do plenty of work at the action of every individual finger within various chords, but I think this is an excellent way of integrating more detailed work into a very simple mindset, that can be retained during performance- without any sense of complexity. In the opening repetitions, I always used to get stuck into throwing a braced hand via the arm. With the basic idea of opening the hand for each quaver (rather than either fixing it or pulling back across the line of the keys) the arm basically just "hovers"- without the hand having to strain to transfer impulse. There's just a very simple opening movement, that lightly bounces the hand back off each chord (without tugging anything forwards in the slightest). Evidently, many other posters are intent on believing that I'm lost in analysis for its own sake, but I like nothing better than to find ways to start out with fine details- before finding the simplest possible strategy to trigger reflexes that will be acquired though such work. I'm pleasantly surprised at just how well things are coming together this evening (after I had to exaggerate severely, to get out of a complete slump, earlier in the afternoon).

[cmg]

Yeah, I can certainly imagine it. I was so caught up in trying to relax that my fingers were not moving. Without doing so, there is no possibility for making keys go down but to use arm presses through a braced hand. The outward appearance is of relaxation but the whole concept depends on violent internal fixations to have any hope of functioning (without causing cluster chords).

My teacher got me back to Scarlatti to fix my problem: perfect solution that "Presto" G-major  K. 427.  It begins with a closed hand position for both hands, then. of course, leaps all over the universe like demented fleas.  My old approach with hyper-relaxation turned my hands into mush-paws capable only of chord clusters.  Articulation?  I had to tense to do it, which, of course sounded awful.  

He corrected this by getting me to get the finger curvature back (i.e. strength) with Pischna, then threw in the "circles" approach.  It never occurred to me, playing the old way, that this piece, which seemed so damned "fingery," could actually be so gestural.  He made me sing out lines in a very operatic way, at a very slow tempo, with rounded arm movement.  Voila!  The piece flies now and feels more as if it's coming from my torso than my fingers.  It's presto and I can shape the lines musically (who'd a thunk!?!) with my entire body.  

This stuff works, I tell you.

[nyiregyhazi]

My teacher got me back to Scarlatti to fix my problem: perfect solution that "Presto" G-major  K. 427.  It begins with a closed hand position for both hands, then. of course, leaps all over the universe like demented fleas.  My old approach with hyper-relaxation turned my hands into mush-paws capable only of chord clusters.  Articulation?  I had to tense to do it, which, of course sounded awful.  

He corrected this by getting me to get the finger curvature back (i.e. strength) with Pischna, then threw in the "circles" approach.  It never occurred to me, playing the old way, that this piece, which seemed so damned "fingery," could actually be so gestural.  He made me sing out lines in a very operatic way, at a very slow tempo, with rounded arm movement.  Voila!  The piece flies now and feels more as if it's coming from my torso than my fingers.  It's presto and I can shape the lines musically (who'd a thunk!?!) with my entire body.  

This stuff works, I tell you.

Sounds good. It's a pretty similar path to what I've been working at myself. Arm movements is one thing that I'd fallen rather short on, until some lessons with Alan Fraser, earlier in the year. My old habit was always to press with the arms, so I wilfully tried to cut down big motions. However, he showed me things that actively REDUCE the sense of weight or pressure through the fingers- which frees the fingers up to move much more vigorously, without any heaviness or danger of impact. For me, this is one of the big keys to good arm technique- not merely using the arm for addition to the fingers, but for slight reduction to the force they can apply. The "weight" approach leaves many lost solely in the former.

I've found it very effective with some young students. Traditionally, teaching would get them to help out more with arm pressure, to compensate for weak fingers. However, I've found in many cases that what seemed to be "weak" finger suddenly produce phenomenally clear and precise tone, once the arm merely drifts around behind. The difference has occasionally been startingly- once they realise that (in this situation) if they don't move their fingers with genuine intent, they're not going to get any real sound out. It's like a challenge to the fingers to do more- in a scenario where there is minimal danger of this causing high-impact landings.

[cherub_rocker1979]

Just wanted to post a couple of videos of pianists who seem to have a very natural and healthy approach to technique:

[marik1]

Just wanted to post a couple of videos of pianists who seem to have a very natural and healthy approach to technique:

When I was young I took a few lessons from Vlassenko. He might not be the greatest musician ever, but definitely was a great craftsman, with very economical "straight to the point" approach to the keyboard.

Rudenko's pianistical apparatus is something out this world. The ease of his Chopin Op.10/2 is legendary.

Definitely, neither of those two (as well as 99.9% of great pianists) were using "extension" type of technique.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

When I was young I took a few lessons from Vlassenko. He might not be the greatest musician ever, but definitely was a great craftsman, with very economical "straight to the point" approach to the keyboard.

Rudenko's pianistical apparatus is something out this world. The ease of his Chopin Op.10/2 is legendary.

Definitely, neither of those two (as well as 99.9% of great pianists) were using "extension" type of technique.

Best, M

What makes you so sure? Look at Rudenko's l.h. fifth finger. No evidence of slippage and it visibly starts curved but extends to greater length, on countless occasions. Even in less obvious scenarios, the activity can be present without visible movement. When I was practising the mephisto earlier, the action gave a new ease to the opening repetition. There was no notably visible extension, but the action (cancelled out by contact with the keys) allowed my hand to keep it's shape without fixating. I know that the action was involved- as it bounced my hand straight up- without tugging the wrist forward (as before I began to involve this element). I see the same action in Vlasenko, towards the end of the film- where his hand visibly expands as he plays the big chords.

It comes back to what you said before. If there is neither fixation nor an extension action, what keeps the shape of the hand? Why does it not collapse? What possible explanation do you give as an alternative? Good pianists aren't limited to usage of only a single direction of movement. They involve countless possibilities. I'm all for skepticism, but I'm baffled by your desire to dismiss so casually- and without an alternative explanation.

Also, didn't you speak of direct paths of movement in the op. 10 no. 1 thread? There is no direct path, if you rely solely on a knuckle arc.

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, I liked Rudenko's softer playing a lot, but I wasn't keen on his chords. You can see his "arch" drooping severely on some of the loud chords- which kills the efficiency of energy transfer. I found his sound rather clangorous at higher volumes- too much force and not good enough use of the hand. He fixates enough to save his hand from clusters, rather than create both tone and stability with individual finger movements. I found myself thinking, "where did all the sound go", on a few occasions- where you can see a very forceful movement but no big rounded sound in result. It's a crash into a block of sound, rather than various individual voices resonating deeply together. I found that a real shame- as his voicing is extremely beautiful in lesser dynamics. However, his louder playing is the typical modern Russian banging- nothing like the beautifully resonant old Russian school, in which there was still musical differentiation in the very biggest of sounds.

Vlasenko allows a few of those knuckle droops in softer playing (where it doesn't matter) but starts consistently growing his hand as soon as he plays loud. It's a much more efficient transfer of energy- producing a big resonant tone. Very typical of the old Russian school- where loud playing still involved voicing.

[pts1]

Definitely, neither of those two (as well as 99.9% of great pianists) were using "extension" type of technique.

I agree.

As a natural exception, I think there are times when the fingers naturally "splay" outward a bit as a result of the playing of various large, fully expansive chords (such as often found in Rachmaninoff) as a natural kind of "shock absorbtion".

But this is not a "primary action" but a "reaction".

To use a "finger extending" technique would amount to "poking" the piano key which is a very weak movement as well as an unnatural movement, since the fingers are created to grasp as their primary action.

So any principal action that moves the finger away from the palm, instead of toward the palm is inherently weak and wrong in the sense that it is not a normal human hand action.

It seems to me there is no argument on this point, since it is overwhealmingly supported by human anatomy and piano anatomy and physics.

[nyiregyhazi]

I agree.

As a natural exception, I think there are times when the fingers naturally "splay" outward a bit as a result of the playing of various large, fully expansive chords (such as often found in Rachmaninoff) as a natural kind of "shock absorbtion".

But this is not a "primary action" but a "reaction".

To use a "finger extending" technique would amount to "poking" the piano key which is a very weak movement as well as an unnatural movement, since the fingers are created to grasp as their primary action.

Yeah. To extend uses the grasping action of the knuckle. It's just that an additional factor sends it straight in the useful direction- not in a completely indirect path across the line of action. Grasping via other joints can only serve to make the motion all the more indirect still, whereas slight extension actively channels the strong grasping action into a direct line of movement.

The following quote comes from Marik in the other thread:

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 am truly bemused now. How do you make the shortest path possible, via an indirect arc? The only way to direct the finger straight into the keybed is either to allow the whole arm to fall through each depression- or to extend the finger slightly. Otherwise, the geometry is literally impossible. There is no direct path via an arc- only an indirect one. Why is this so hard to believe? Just because you do not perceive the slight factor that can possibly explain the direct path described, it therefore cannot exist?

A tap to the middle joint of finger could passively cause such extension, but a pure arc movement cannot instigate it. The equivalent of a pure knuckle pull would be a tap to the very top of the finger (not downwards, but to move it in its arc)- which is not very direct at all, when we come to the finger tip. Retraction via the knuckle causes nothing but slippage, not mild extension of the fingertip. Either we're not talking about the shortest path possible, or there is extension going on here.

[pts1]

I am truly bemused now. How do you make the shortest path possible, via an indirect arc? The only way to direct the finger straight into the keybed is either to allow the whole arm to fall through each depression- or to extend the finger slightly. Otherwise, the geometry is literally impossible. There is no direct path via an arc- only an indirect one.

Who says the "shortest possible path" is the most efficient path in human terms?

I think you've confused yourself by trying to force the human hand to fit the "letter of physical laws".

Since the strongest most natural movement the finger makes is to be flexed in its natural arc, THIS is its most efficient movement and path, eventhough by physics standards it may not be.

P2U posted a short film of Rachmaninoff moving his index finger in this manner, in essence, illustrating this simple principal. (again NO CURLING!)

So, if you hold your fingers straight in the air from a straight upward pointing forearm and upward pointing hand, and then flex the finger starting at 12 O'Clock down to 9 O'Clock, this is about the full range of motion of the finger without curling.

Now to play a piano key, with this same configuration held horizontally resting atop the piano keyboard, the pull or flex would only require a distance -- using the clock again but now "laying on its side" -- for the finger to move from 12 O'Clock to about 11 O'Clock.

This is a very short distance (if even that) for the finger to go in an almost invisible arc since it takes such a small distance to send the finger into the key to the keybed.

So how much distance do you save by doing your extension movement? One millimeter... two...

And for saving that very small distance, extending the finger fails to capitalize on the natural strength and speed inherent in the natural flexing movement in the natural finger arc.

A straight line being the shortest distance between two points, is not necessarily efficient in piano terms.

You mention working on the Mephisto Waltz... Ok, here's an excellent example... you're of course familiar with the famous "jumps" toward the end of the piece... you know... A up to A Octave, A# up to A# Octave... playing the theme.

Many pianists play the lower notes with the thumb, jumping up to play the octave believing that this is the shortest and most efficient path.

But this is not so. If you play the lower note, A, A#, D# etc with the INDEX FINGER, this make your hand and arm move in a slightly elliptical pattern to play the upper octave and then returning completing a somewhat circular movement to play the next single melody note again with the index finger.

This way, you are making slightly rounded movements, highly flexible movements, instead of the stiffer co-contraction encountered in the stopping and starting movements you encounter when using the thumb instead.

Again, not the most direct path in physics terms, but much easier to execute in human/piano terms.

[nyiregyhazi]

Since the strongest most natural movement the finger makes is to be flexed in its natural arc, THIS is its most efficient movement and path, eventhough by physics standards it may not be.

As I pointed out both in my previous post and various others, this movement ALSO occurs in extension. I'm actually wondering if you stopped to read my post- given that I stated this in the most explicit possible terms? The above would only be relevant if it were unique to a pure finger pull.

P2U posted a short film of Rachmaninoff moving his index finger in this manner, in essence, illustrating this simple principal. (again NO CURLING!)

? I practise such a movement too. What is the relevance? Are we also going to use the fact that athletes practise leg raises with extended legs to prove that it's better not to bend your knees when running?

So how much distance do you save by doing your extension movement? One millimeter... two...

In Alkan's comme le vent, we require 16 notes per second. Some pianists come very close to his metronome mark. Do you feel that time wasted on indirect paths is not relevant, at such extremes- where every note is less than 0.08 seconds. There's really no time to hang around. Oh, and it can be as much as a cm or more- depending on the finger's angle.

And for saving that very small distance, extending the finger fails to capitalize on the natural strength and speed inherent in the natural flexing movement in the natural finger arc.

Um no. As I repeatedly pointed out, the extension actions corrects the indirect line of the knuckle pull- which it uses. It adds something. It doesn't remove the knuckle pull. It complements it. Pretending it is not involved adds nothing to your argument- for the simple reason that it is involved.

But this is not so. If you play the lower note, A, A#, D# etc with the INDEX FINGER, this make your hand and arm move in a slightly elliptical pattern to play the upper octave and then returning completing a somewhat circular movement to play the next single melody note again with the index finger.

Sure, I do so myself. It shortens the distance to be spanned. Using the thumb twice makes it bigger, not smaller.

This way, you are making slightly rounded movements, highly flexible movements, instead of the stiffer co-contraction encountered in the stopping and starting movements you encounter when using the thumb instead.

Yes- to increase the speed at which you move FROM one key TO PREPARE another. It has nothing to do with the quickest way to strike a key that the finger lies prepared on. You can't just grab the logic of whatever is most convenient and assume it applies to a different scenario. We don't have to use the muscles to reverse any directions. We can simply use one movement and then let the key return the finger. The issue is how fast that one movement is. The quickest and most concise way to move a key is a direct path- exactly as Marik said. It's just that this path requires an extension of the finger's length.

There are many important movements in piano playing- but the option to find a direct line is invaluable. Why write it off? Your arguments don't stand up the level of scrutiny I'd expect for something to be banned from any pianist's vocabulary of options.

[pts1]

N:

I explained your source of "bemusement" very simply and carefully and well.

But your response didn't indicate that you benefitted in any way.

What you did do was tear everything I said apart... as others have noted as well.

You do not play well with others, and have poor "people" skills, IMO,  at least on line.

And that's fine, but I don't care to play since you only seem interested in some kind of truly odd one-up symbiosis.

You act as if you're confused and need help, but as soon as its given, you attack.


Numerous people have made numerous attempts with you, so I conclude as they have, that I really have nothing to offer you nor do you really seem interested in hearing other opinions in earnest.

 

[nyiregyhazi]

I explained your source of "bemusement" very simply and carefully and well.

But your response didn't indicate that you benefitted in any way.

I'm sorry, but I didn't benefit. I'm not going to lie about that. It didn't bring me a shade closer to seeing why I should write off the extension action as both valid and useful. Note that I never said there are no useful alternatives that can also be incorporated in countless situations. What bemuses me is your outright dismissal.

What you did do was tear everything I said apart... as others have noted as well.

So your post was not trying to tear my points apart? Sorry, but intellectual debate involves responding to points with counterpoints. If you are not interested in it, you are under no obligation to enter- by trying to tear my own points apart (which I have no problem with, and indeed actively welcome, in a debate). I'm not interested in anything personal. I made rational points and I really don't wish to go into anything outside of that level.

You act as if you're confused and need help, but as soon as its given, you attack.

That's debate. I attacked the arguments, not the man- as you have now done, by complaining about my people skills. Sorry, I'm not interested in going down that line and will not reciprocate. I shan't respond to any further points outside of the subject matter.

[cherub_rocker1979]

I just don't get this obsession with every aspect of technique, some which may not even exist in reality.  Maybe we should all quit playing the piano and living our lives until we get all this sorted out.  I don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight.  Who knows how many things we might be doing all wrong still!

Playing the piano is so complicated!