To the first paragraph I wholeheartedly disagree. Not in the part that musicality or musical thinking is the way, but that lack of musicality is the cause of mechanical problems. In my personal case, that is really far from true.. I've never had problems to understand or feel music. Had no problems singing, have no obstacles conducting either.
However due to misguided teaching, I have been hampered during a huge number of years. Musical intention is not enough when the basic fundamentals of technique are lacking. And believe me it is very frustrating.
Of course I agree that the main focus should not be how to do those things but the music! By ALL means!!! I'm so not a technically orientated person, but of course, there are times when those focuses have to shift to adapt to the needs of each one..
Just a curiosity, are you Russian? Your English is perfect! and another curiosity (sorry, I'm gossiping) you wrote you were self taught, how did you come to where you are now? I mean.. give me some biography to read!
Hello, Guys, HAVE YOU SLEPT AT ALL? It's taken me forever to go through all posts!
I hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across. Which is perhaps in part caused by this common assumption that you can learn everything they have to offer by watching their videos once or twice....and in most cases I suspect, not delving much further than the rotation video which is a whopping 10 percent of what the DVD's offer.For one, (whether correct or not) Edna Golandsky (the presenter) says very plainly in the videos that the fingers are lifted through the support of the forearms action (which is in the end very small), despite the finger lift remaining visually prominent in her technique.In addition to that, she talks about how rotation functions to free the arm, and that initially the taubman school (perhaps just dorothy's private tuition) involved an instruction along the lines of "think from the fingers, allow the forearm to come along" however, this was found to be ineffective in many cases - students remained with the rigid arm and lifted fingers which is the action that leads to severe strain on the fingers/hand. Because this was not working, she adopted a "think from the forearm" approach to teaching students to free up their arm.The larger rotation actions, and the use of double rotations is plainly insane if done wrong.. however, they directly stress that the "preperatory motion" and the "playing motion" must be felt as one overall motion. This is then also adjusted in the "minimising rotation" part of the explanation where they discuss the sense of balance and stability over a key, and the rotation in combination with another movement that they devote an entire lecture video to acts as a way to freely transition between keys, more so that it necessarily is an active playing motion - especially in the case of active/passive rotation.. They focus on being free between notes, and moving with tiny arm/hand/finger motions (ones besides rotation) from key bottom to key bottom to properly reduce this overdone problematic rotation that functions only as part of the technique in the end.The rotation motion (even when minimised) finds itself in quite the pickle if you fail to properly utilise the in/out, walking hand arm, and shaping motions. Failure to do anyone of these will cause significant problems in advanced repertoire.The videos represent a detailed nuts and bolts analysis of what is happening in a pianists technique. It is absolutely not meant for someone who lacks technique to watch and then totally overhaul their technique by themselves. They say this plainly. The videos are not even presented as lessons to the viewer. They are recordings of live lectures that are aimed at teachers, and advanced or injured pianists.. they present a method for diagnosis, how to figure out why you have a problem - if you have a problem - and EVERY person there was getting in person lessons daily for 2 weeks, that address their specific weaknesses. Its possible that many of them did not do the rotation exercise at all because their problems were elsewhere.. after all, she opens with "Don't go adjusting your technique based on this lecture without consulting a teacher"......I might add to this also, that any experienced teacher knows that you can't necessarily solve the same problem with the exact same explanation every time. Each different student needs to be guided and find their method and/or understanding of what works to achieve a desired sound. This is strongly stressed in these videos, that they are GUIDING. - they talk about students who have the wrong idea about how to learn expecting the teacher to tell them if they have got it right based on a visual analysis.. When in reality they are directing you toward a FEELING of how to play. The student will know when its right, because the playing will become easy.. if you're doing something from taubman and you're not experiencing ease of playing then you're not doing what they intended.Either you're interpretation of their intent needs refining, or their explanation is just not right for you at all.
I think they're an invaluable tool.[videos]
Quote from: ajspiano on February 03, 2013, 10:56:06 PMI hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across.I didn't think I deserved the bashing, either.
I hate to sound overly like a cult follower.. but the taubman bashing shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to get across.
I thought ajspiano was talking about "Taubman bashing" in general (there really wasn't any in this topic as far as I'm concerned)Paul
I haven't seen Taubman videos, but saying that the movement originates in the forearm, sounds like a dangerous notion to me
I was refering to the below quote, and generally as well - there is a bit of a theme here (the forum in general) of ill informed judgement of the taubman videos.
Personally, I HATE that artsy metaphor stuff, e.g.: "the hands should be like little birds flapping their way toward heaven with grace and soaring". Also as bad is the "spiritual alignment with the universe" stuff.
Personally, I HATE that artsy metaphor stuff, e.g.: "the hands should be like little birds flapping their way toward heaven with grace and soaring".
Of course, - I suspect you may find that some of us live in quite different time zones to you.
Ajspiano! Is there less sense of humour as you go along the time zones? just kidding "Bashing" was too strong a word.. since the poster stated having not watched the videos.I was refering to the below quote, and generally as well - there is a bit of a theme here (the forum in general) of ill informed judgement of the taubman videos.Actually, its probably just ill-informed comment on piano technique generally (not taubman specific)
Ajspiano! Is there less sense of humour as you go along the time zones?
The videos represent a detailed nuts and bolts analysis of what is happening in a pianists technique. It is absolutely not meant for someone who lacks technique to watch and then totally overhaul their technique by themselves. They say this plainly. The videos are not even presented as lessons to the viewer. They are recordings of live lectures that are aimed at teachers, and advanced or injured pianists.. they present a method for diagnosis, how to figure out why you have a problem - if you have a problem - and EVERY person there was getting in person lessons daily for 2 weeks, that address their specific weaknesses. Its possible that many of them did not do the rotation exercise at all because their problems were elsewhere.. after all, she opens with "Don't go adjusting your technique based on this lecture without consulting a teacher".
if you're doing something from taubman and you're not experiencing ease of playing then you're not doing what they intended.
This makes very good sense, it completes the picture when working on and discussing technique. It also puts the lecture into perspective and warns observers not to simply agree with it without testing it themselves. You can discuss technique in generalizations but if you do not have a teacher to go through it with your own hands in a given piece then it wont complete the picture. The discussion may open new perspectives but without testing it out in a guided manner which relates to your own personal situation it will prove useless. Since this lecture is aimed at teachers it is assumed that they have experience with many different hands and many different fingers, thus what is discussed will make sense with certain students. If you are not a teacher and are just considering yourself you may find a lot of what is discussed is of no relevance to yourself (unless you are certainly a pianist with injuries from bad technique). With many responses online about technique and the mechanics of playing some think that you can skip the personal assessment part which requires observation of your own two hands and a given piece of music and that elaborate generalized description without specific example is enough. If they notice that this is an essential part to the learning process they might say a lot less because they will realise what they say is useless and irrelevant to most people, especially when attempting to go into details about technique without precise musical example and particular hand.
The description above is inconsistent with itself.
Obviously one on one lessons with a good teacher pay off, but there's a fundamental contradiction here. People teach differently, just as hands are different. Why is it okay to give a teacher lectures and then expect them to know how to put the principles into teaching (regardless of what pianistic schooling they had themself and what approaches they currently use) but it's not okay to learn them and use them on yourself? Arguably, it ought to take even deeper understanding of the techniques to use them on others than on yourself. If a person can't self diagnose by filming themself, how do they have a hope in hell of giving the right diagnosis and advice to a student? It doesn't make any sense at all to me that teachers can use these things with impunity, just because they are already a teacher, whereas students (who may be a good deal more advanced than plenty of teachers) would be expected to misunderstand. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance behind the explanations. Supposedly I might harm myself if I use their methods on myself, yet it's fine if I want to go ahead and use them to rebuild the technique of my students? How is that meant to add up?
I am not saying that having a degree in teaching makes one a better teacher than someone who is naturally gifted in this field. But in general research shows that better educated teachers tend to bring better results. Although arts and math may be a bit different, the teaching and learning processes have similarities.
Yes and no. The problem with the art of piano playing is that there is virtually no objective evidence present for unification. Too many people with different bodies, different coordination, etc.
I don't really disagree with you, but isn't it the same with sports? Still we (well here at least) expect a teacher to have teacher's education to teach sports...then again sports teachers that I had were mostly horrible so I guess you must be right
A lot of money has been invested into sports research. There are also VERY strict rules for who is allowed to teach. Still, there are only a handful of VERY good trainers. If good piano playing were an important asset to win wars, no doubt in my mind governments would start investing hugely and immediately...
I actually think that if every citizen was expected to play music at some level, not only would they be more intelligent in general but there would be less interest to create havoc and wars...
I don't want to go too far off-topic, but observing the holy wars on the subject of how to move a key on different piano forums would suggest otherwise...
Why is it okay to give a teacher lectures and then expect them to know how to put the principles into teaching (regardless of what pianistic schooling they had themself and what approaches they currently use) but it's not okay to learn them and use them on yourself?
Arguably, it ought to take even deeper understanding of the techniques to use them on others than on yourself.
If a person can't self diagnose by filming themself, how do they have a hope in hell of giving the right diagnosis and advice to a student?
It doesn't make any sense at all to me that teachers can use these things with impunity, just because they are already a teacher, whereas students (who may be a good deal more advanced than plenty of teachers) would be expected to misunderstand.
There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance behind the explanations.
Supposedly I might harm myself if I use their methods on myself, yet it's fine if I want to go ahead and use them to rebuild the technique of my students? How is that meant to add up?
there's way more disparity in teaching schools than human hands
Hands are much the same in all but details.
Teaching approaches are riddled with opposing stances- not basically all the same.
It goes without saying that good teachers should be insightful and competent, but that's both idealism rather than typical reality and not anything that has been brought into question.
If a teacher can learn how to teach unfamiliar techniques to others based on a, mere checklist from a dvd,
why can they not film themself and apply the same means of diagnosis and prescription?
Seeing as the taubman approach bills itself as different and requiring special insights, the fact someone has been teaching piano from another viewpoint does not mean they will know how to use the techniques- or understand when they are likely to be useful/harmful.
Either it's safe for students to teach themself from the dvds, or it's potentially dangerous for teachers to attempt to use the materials on students.
Even a teacher who is widely schooled in diverse approaches will see the ideas from his own point of view- not from the inside knowledge that taubman teachers claim. the deep inner workings and means for fine tuning are no more likely to be appreciated by an experienced teacher than a moderately advanced student- as by nature the method bills itself as being a different way of thinking, compared to regular methods.
If one explores what the "details" are they may see how various hands actually are.Can you please give some SPECIFIC examples of two schools teaching the same issue but with totally different stances with zero similarity?
But at least proper teachers should be able to understand these lectures without confusion. Just because there are lesser teachers who might be confused doesn't reduce the value or usefulness of these lectures.
Liszt was unable to film himself yet he was an exceptional teacher and broke new grounds in piano technique. You do not need to film yourself.
I disagree, with knowledge of many piano teaching techniques they are more capable to understand if they are applying new concepts accurately or not. Experience base is a vital tool not only with learning new pieces but also the area of teaching music itself.
If you have a large experience base of teaching techniques this is unnecessary.
A teacher knows how to teach music to a huge variety of students. A student only knows themselves. Thus a teacher is much better equipped to understand these video lectures.
Of course. Many methods say tone come from dropping the weight of the arm with no finger movement whereas others say the fingers should produce all the movement. Have you hoenstly never encountered such common contradictions? How many hands have the thumbs on the opposite side?
I didn't say you need to film yourself. I said that if a person can supposedly diagnose and prescribe from the mere visual exterior of the student (based on watching a lecture), they can do the very same to themself if they watch the visual exterior of their playing. Both situations are equally useful or equally useless, whichever the case should be.
But as a I stated, the Taubman school presents itself as a outside approach to regular experience.
Again, idealism. If someone knows that much already, they barely need it. It's the ignorant that you need to worry about, not the smaller number of experienced and wise people.
More often than not a teacher is equally clueless about how to teach technique to a variety of hands. Those who need to understand technique the most are most likely to misunderstand it, by thinking that watching a DVD (that contains objectively inaccurate claims) will fix everything.
This is not a specific situation though. I was looking for a particular piece, a particular bar and commentary from both schools on how to execute that particular situation. It is easy to put generalize comments into contrast because there is no real examples to really test them.
How else can you tell if a student is technically capable if you do not visually observe them? What are you trying to say about videoing?
I do not see any evidence of this in the industry. If a teacher is clueless about how to teach a variety of hands then they are not a proper teacher.
? Take any example you like. How often have you heard those who preach arm-weight say to produce a fortissimo from within the hand (which is what I do for countless situations)? It doesn't need to be specific, when arm-weight methods are quite so consistent with their preaching.
Literally nothing. You have not grasped my point still- which is that IF a teacher can pass on this advice via the mere external appearance of a student
(thanks to a lecture), they are equally equipped do the same via a video of themself.
Either this shows that you can go ahead and do it easily on yourself just fine, or that teaching on the basis of a checklist is going to be very superficial (and hinge more on the teacher's knowledge/lack of, than on the method itself).
If you've never seen evidence of that, then you have a remarkably optimistic view of the ability of average teachers to train technique.
Give exact examples if it is so easy to compare the two different approaches and being totally different with zero similarities.
I still don't understand what you are trying to say. We need to observe the student visually or as you say "external appearance of the student" when making judgement to what needs improvement technically.
You mean make a video of yourself and use that to teach your student? It has already been pointed out that the videos are more suited for teachers, so I still don't understand your point.Who ever talked about teaching from a checklist?
If you add many methods to your awareness of teaching this helps you teach the many various students you may come across. Not all techniques will help everyone equally, certain people react better to things than others. If there was a single method that worked for everyone then it would already be well known as being the only source. The fact is that everyone has their own two hands and mind and personality to deal with. A teacher who teaches many variation of student would find it useful to also know a large variation of teaching methods. If that teacher prefers to specialize with one type then that is ok but there are teachers who are interested in the art of teaching and the many ways in which to approach it.
I am not the kind of teacher who says most teachers are bad because I don't know most teachers but I do know a whole lot of professional ones and none of them are confused about teaching multiple hands.
This is plain silly.
I have not the slightest idea as to what point you are making or where I suggested otherwise.Please reread my point. I've been totally explicit already and see no value in repeating myself further.
We're referring to how the DVD supposedly tells teachers how to diagnose and prescribe. The method does not tell them to improvise their approach or to mix and match with other approaches they learned, with their own wisdom.
Again, who argued otherwise?
I'll agree to differ.
If you cannot give specific examples then its ok, we can leave it there, I am not interested in generalizations which are too open to misinterpretation.
Someone who is mindful with their teaching however will be able to use tools to suit them, not just mindlessly apply them.
Every fortissimo chord in the repertoire is a specific example. What is hard to understand here? Take whatever one from Rachmaninoff's C sharp minor prelude, if that somehow adds something to a statement that encompasses EVERY loud chord already. Do you need know that a green mug is a mug, to know that it is green? To be specific is a tautology.
Ironically, this is the inverse of what Taubman preaches- with it's strict methodology and unwavering stances. They don't encourage teachers to use their own wisdom with ideas that fall outside of their methodology. I don't think you quite appreciate what you are trying to argue against, as you keep presenting points I agree with entirely, in the mistaken belief that they conflict with my view. I'm arguing against Taubman- ON THE TERMS IT SETS OUT, not presenting its arguments as being my personal belief system.
I'm sorry but I do not see two schools of through being applied to a specific bar or phrase situation with explaination how teach would exactly go about challenging the situation. It is important to reference all comments to the actual source of their teaching manuals.
I'm sorry but I do not see two schools of through being applied to a specific bar or phrase situation with explaination how teach would exactly go about challenging the situation. It is important to reference all comments to the actual source of their teaching manuals. Again it doesn't matter what a school of thought says, it can say whatever it likes about its method but a learned teacher will understand how to apply it under their own terms.
I think requiring a specific chord, bar, or fragment in music goes too far. To see what N. means, please have a look at The Arm Weight Debate between Raymond Banning and Alan Fraser[/url].Paul
Personally I do not see it as going too far myself and I have all the right to ask for specifics. If it is not given then I'll end my discussion. I don't deal with vagueness.
Personally I do not see it as going too far myself and I have all the right to ask for specifics. If it is not given then I'll end my discussion. I don't deal with vagueness. The link also provide no specific piece under examination. They throw generalisations at pieces but never take a bar under the microscope. If they do that they may find they are not so different.
Giving details with one specific piece distracts attention from what N. is actually saying.Paul
Giving details with one specific piece, bar or chord distracts attention from what N. is actually saying.Paul
Topic: Training for faster fingers 