Training for faster fingers

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry if you do not give me a specific example to study then it is vague. If it is all open and easy to determine then it should be easy to take one single phrase of specific music and analyze how each does it EXACTLY. My argument is that both are not 100% different with no similarities, this in turn highlights the fact that a teacher may learn many methods of teaching and be able to understand them because there is a connection between all of them.

You are clearly more interested in being argumentative than in that under discussion. Precisely what does it matter in which loud chords the armweight teachers always say the fingers should only support and in which I say that they should generate the movement of the keys? This is a ludicrous basis for argument. You choose any example of loud chords and I'll endorse it for you (via the endorsement I already made for whichever you should choose by stating that I am referring to ANY loud chords). Perhaps you also need a specific example to prove that moving the key more slowly produces a quieter sound? Is that unequivocal statement too "vague" simply because it did not feature a musical example?

The fact that one plays with the hands rather than feet means that there are similarities. Not being 100% different is irrelevant. What is under discussion is the specific areas in which the explanations are explicitly contradictory to each other- and exist in mutually exclusive conflict.

[lostinidlewonder]

All I asked for is that if it is so clear cut that they are totally different then it should be very simple to take a SPECIFIC example, a phrase of music and show how different they are and how they have no connection to each other. If you do not want to give an exact example and rather maintain generalisations then I don't mind at all, it is just very vague.

[nyiregyhazi]

All I asked for is that if it is so clear cut that they are totally different then it should be very simple to take a SPECIFIC example, a phrase of music and show how different they are and how they have no connection to each other. If you do not want to give an exact example and rather maintain generalisations then I don't mind at all, it is just very vague.

I suggest that you look up the definition of vague. Stating that something holds true for EVERYTHING within a clearly defined set (eg. loud chords) is not vague but the polar opposite- ie explicit. I have been specific to the sheer width of applicability.

Given how spectacularly naive a person would have to be to sincerely believe that there are no direct contradictions between different schools of teaching, do you seriously want to keep playing devil's advocate on this ridiculous issue?

Any serious interest in the actual issue clearly fell by the wayside a long time ago and I am not going to spend any further time arguing against arguments that do not stem from genuine topical interest (simple because you cannot accurately distinguish between the concept of vagueness and that of explicit categorisation that includes a plethora of specific cases within the definition)

[p2u_]

All I asked for is that if it is so clear cut that they are totally different then it should be very simple to take a SPECIFIC example, a phrase of music and show how different they are and how they have no connection to each other. If you do not want to give an exact example and rather maintain generalisations then I don't mind at all, it is just very vague.

I haven't been able to locate any pieces in which representatives of two different technical schools of thought discuss one and the same piece in a technical sense. How about YOU? Maybe you could show US such a clip to prove YOUR point?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

My situation is different and requires no exacting proof.

There is no need to prove that they have similarities for several reasons. I know they both are talking about piano, the same instrument. They both are talking about the same physical body that deals with playing the piano. They might have a different spin on how to use their body exactly but each are still talking about the same subject. Thus they unavoidably are related to one another because they are both talking about the same subject.

If they are 100% different it needs to be proven. It is like saying, Geometry and Trigonometry are 100% different from each other, it is not true because they are on the same subject of Mathematics. This is logical. Thus any issue which talks about the same topic naturally is related to one another because of the subject it is talking about, there is no need for any more proof. This in turn echoes my point that a learned teacher may study methods (eg: watch video lectures) of teaching and be totally aware of how to use it because they can relate it to other systems that they already know.

[p2u_]

There is no need to prove that they have similarities for several reasons. I know they both are talking about piano, the same instrument. They both are talking about the same physical body that deals with playing the piano. They might have a different spin on how to use their body exactly but each are still talking about the same subject. Thus they unavoidably are related to one another because they are both talking about the same subject.

The same can be said about what is discussed in the link I gave you a couple of posts earlier (reply # 143), but you rejected it right away.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I suggest that you look up the definition of vague.

Why?

Stating that something holds true for EVERYTHING within a clearly defined set (eg. loud chords) is not vague but the polar opposite- ie explicit. I have been specific to the sheer width of applicability.

It still doesn't say anything specific, no one plays a loud chord the same way all the time no matter what the context, it needs to have relevance to a passage of music or it is just very general and not very exacting. You need to know what comes before that loud chord and what comes after, this is very important. If you just talk about a single loud chord you are not saying anything at all.

Given how spectacularly naive a person would have to be to sincerely believe that there are no direct contradictions between different schools of teaching, do you seriously want to keep playing devil's advocate on this ridiculous issue?

Arguments that they are totally different are unfounded for because none of them want to actually look into it in detail but rather argue generalized concepts. If you see a master of each school play a piece everyone will come into agreement that both are masterful and the movement is not so different. There might be subtle differences but the overall mechanism is similar. If it is not for specific situations then one has to question is the movement in one school TOTALLY absent from the other for other situations? You will find it is not.

[nyiregyhazi]

If they are 100% different it needs to be proven. It is like saying, Geometry and Trigonometry are 100% different from each other, it is not true because they are on the same subject of Mathematics. y know.

Seeing as you resort to such an appalling strawman argument, I'll make a final response. Nobody said 100% different. For things to exist conceptually alone involves some similarity. Anything man can attempt to categorise conceptually already has some similarity, in that man has attempted to categorise it conceptually. Every concept that can be put into words has a percentage similarity to every other concept.

If you'd care to drop the inclusion of the term "100%" (a basis on which nobody has argued) you might realise that ON SPECIFIC ISSUES, different methods exist in direct opposition.

If you want to carry on spinning away like a Political spin doctor then fire away, but I've lost all interest- in what is clearly more about the argument than the subject matter, to you.

[lostinidlewonder]

The same can be said about what is discussed in the link I gave you a couple of posts earlier (reply # 143), but you rejected it right away.

Paul

I did not reject it, I am just saying it does not satisfy my requirement to see a specific example with the two schools of thought describing how they would exactly do it. They instead only talk generally thus leaves it riddled with argument and not constructive specific observations of each others method or their own with a given contextual example.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'll make a final response. Nobody said 100% different.

Excellent then you realize that teachers may study many different methods and be able to relate it to other methods they have learned. Thus teachers will have the propensity not to be fooled when studying lectures of piano on video.

[nyiregyhazi]

If it is not for specific situations then one has to question is the movement in one school TOTALLY absent from the other for other situations? You will find it is not.

Seeing as we're back on the subject, I just state that it is absent (despite your assumptive tone). I don't ever "only support" with my fingers for loud chords. I always strive to move them- which many arm-weight teachers say not to do. I also regularly avoid any arm pressure whatsoever. That's the thing about opposites- they are mutually exclusive. There's no such thing as doing it both ways in a single situation. And how would you know the two things supposedly will both be involved- in a non-specific situation? It's okay for you to assert something that holds true in general (to the point that you supposedly know what specifics I personally use) after all this nonsense about needing a single example rather than a wide remit of applicability?

(I'll add one final time that the specific situation is for ALL loud chords- where I never strive to only support weight with the fingers and where all armweight teachers advise just that- are you ever going to stop to read this point repeating an obsolete argument that fails to deal with this issue?)

[p2u_]

I did not reject it, I am just saying it does not satisfy my requirement to see a specific example with the two schools of thought describing how they would exactly do it. They instead only talk generally thus leaves it riddled with argument and not constructive specific observations of each others method or their own with a given contextual example.

One thing one should NEVER do in a discussion is assume that one's opponent is stupid. If you had read the debate in the link, you would have known that several pieces are mentioned specifically.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't ever "only support" with my fingers for loud chords. I always strive to move them- which many arm-weight teachers say not to do. I also regularly avoid any arm pressure whatsoever. That's the thing about opposites- they are mutually exclusive. There's no such thing as doing it both ways in a single situation.

There are many different types of pianists and hands types. There is never a single way to do something and thus one may play something in many different ways and produce the same result. What is comfortable and effective for you might not be for someone else as teachers you need to be sensitive to those needs and thus never have the perception that there is only a single way to execute something.

One thing one should NEVER do in a discussion is assume that one's opponent is stupid. If you had read the debate in the link, you would have known that several pieces are mentioned specifically.

Paul

I don't know anyone here so I can't say if they are stupid or not.

They do not speak about specific bars, I did a search for it and saw nothing. They talk about general use of elements but put none of it into context with an actual phrase of music.

[p2u_]

They do not speak about specific bars, I did a search for it and saw nothing. They talk about general use of elements but put none of it into context with an actual phrase of music.

Your are merely evading the real subject under discussion because you have no arguments. I'm out.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

There are many different types of pianists and hands types. There is never a single way to do something and thus one may play something in many different ways and produce the same result. What is comfortable and effective for you might not be for someone else as teachers you need to be sensitive to those needs and thus never have the perception that there is only a single way to execute something.

I refer you to the plethora of proceeding posts in which you argued otherwise. This is extremely silly....

[lostinidlewonder]

Your are merely evading the real subject under discussion because you have no arguments. I'm out.

Paul

I wanted specifics this link provided none of that, so it is interesting to read but doesn't satisfy my need. If they where serious about discussing technique they would also video tape their movements, how can you 100% describe technique in words? It is just not possible and extremely clumsy.

[lostinidlewonder]

I refer you to the plethora of proceeding posts in which you argued otherwise. This is extremely silly....

Well lets end it there then shall we?

It does go to show that indeed schools in disagreement with one another do not argue in a precise way and rather discuss generalized concepts without looking at many specific situations. Proper investigation requires application of knowledge not just talking in theory.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well lets end it there then shall we?

It does go to show that indeed schools in disagreement with one another do not argue in a precise way and rather discuss generalized concepts without looking at many specific situations. Proper investigation requires application of knowledge not just talking in theory.

Do you also feel it's necessary to cite a specific chord in a specific piece of music, to prove that the piano is played with the hands rather than the feet? Funnily enough, widely applicable principles tend to be more useful for "application of knowledge" than singular examples from specific pieces.

[nyiregyhazi]

I wanted specifics this link provided none of that, so it is interesting to read but doesn't satisfy my need. If they where serious about discussing technique they would also video tape their movements, how can you 100% describe technique in words? It is just not possible and extremely clumsy.

Well, that sums it all up. I think we've exposed quite how little interest you have in discussing piano technique. Either upload some videos or stop wasting the time of those who DO find it interesting to discuss technique in words- seeing as you have made it abundantly clear that you consider it a total waste of time to discuss what you have ostensibly been discussing in the exact same way they were (unless one assumes that interest in piano technique was never the source of your getting involved here). The hypocrisy involved in that paragraph is off the radar...

[lostinidlewonder]

Do you also feel it's necessary to cite a specific chord in a specific piece of music, to prove that the piano is played with the hands rather than the feet? Funnily enough, widely applicable principles tend to be more useful for "application of knowledge" than singular examples from specific pieces.

Citing a single specific chord is useless, I would like a phrase for context. A single chord on its own tells us nothing.

[nyiregyhazi]

Citing a single specific chord is useless, I would like a phrase for context. A single chord on its own tells us nothing.

Yes, good point. A single chord wouldn't prove that we play the piano best with our hands rather than our feet/by pressing faeces into the keys. You'd require a whole musical phrase to get anything conclusive out of it and how profoundly artistic of you to realise that...

(on a serious note, your argument implies that a single chord can never have an inherent musical character or value? A performer can never create a musical impression from the very first chord of a piece? I severely beg to differ. The very first chord of a great pianist's recital can be extremely revealing. It's all very well trying to sound profound by claiming that anything short of a phrase is meaningless, but the idea that a single chord cannot have it's own profundity actually suggests that you're missing something musically significant. A single voicing has overwhelming meaning in artistic playing.)

[lostinidlewonder]

I think we've exposed quite how little interest you have in discussing piano technique.

I asked for a specific example, I thought I was exhibiting interest. Nevertheless it is not my duty to make you think anything about me personally. Nothing I write is being personal but rather asking for information.

Either upload some videos or stop wasting the time

For serious debate one would want to visually observe the technique being described because words are left too wide to interpretation. Discussion in words is totally fine but if it tries to be complete in its description without visual references it is thinking too much of itself. As you can see how difficult it is to even discuss a single phrase of music in context and juxtapose two schools of thoughts as to how to execute it.

The hypocrisy involved in that paragraph is off the radar...

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[lostinidlewonder]

A performer can never create a musical impression from the very first chord of a piece? I severely beg to differ. The very first chord of a great pianist's recital can be extremely revealing.

It is only revealing because of what comes after it, alone it is meaningless.

[nyiregyhazi]

Posted twice.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is only revealing because of what comes after it, alone it is meaningless.

I disagree. A pianist can make a profound effect with the very first chord of the chopin first scherzo. A chord is not nothing on it's own. It both makes or breaks the whole opening and either has a startling effect on it's own merits or fails to register.

Or perhaps you're sincerely saying you could not detect a worthy difference if I used some faeces to depress the chord, with no control over the voicing? It's all very well realising that there's a big picture, but that doesn't nullify the role of detail. Musical intelligence involves both small scale issues and bigger scale ones.

[lostinidlewonder]

A pianist can make a profound effect with the very first chord of the chopin first scherzo. A chord is nothing on it's own.

These two sentences seem to be in contradiction.

Or perhaps you're sincerely saying you could not detect a worthy difference if I used some faeces to depress the chord, with no control over the voicing?

No.

It's all very well realising that there's a big picture, but that doesn't nullify the role of detail. Musical intelligence involves both small scale issues and bigger scale ones.

This is smokes and mirrors I feel. One chord still doesn't tell us anything, thus I also believe that any generalizations of schools of though on technique using a single chord to reveal their stance is also useless. We need musical context to understand what is being said.

[nyiregyhazi]

These two sentences seem to be in contradiction.
No.
This is smokes and mirrors I feel. One chord still doesn't tell us anything, thus I also believe that any generalizations of schools of though on technique using a single chord to reveal their stance is also useless. We need musical context to understand what is being said.

no contradiction. You can shock and have an effect on the listener who doesn't know the piece, with the first chord alone. Nothing more need be said. I know I couldn't create the same instant sense of terror and foreboding by using faeces to sound the chord. it only takes a single chord. if you need a whole phrase to be played by smearing faeces before you smell a rat, clearly you're missing the relevance of detail.

[lostinidlewonder]

Wow ok. I never heard of piano fecal technique.


A single chord is nothing if there is nothing to follow it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Wow ok. I never heard of piano fecal technique.


A single chord is nothing if there is nothing to follow it.

Considering that doing a good job of the first chord of the first scherzo neither eradicates the chance to follow on not eradicates what effect that chord alone has on the listener, it's not nothing.

Do you sincerely believe that different pianists could not have a different effect on the listeners if they really could only play that one chord? if so, you're badly underestimating what scope lies in a single chord. Horowitz and richter could terrify with that one chord.  You're beginning to sound like this is a second hand opinion, rather than one you have thought through with your own mind. Anyway, believe as you wish. I'll continue to consider both short term and long term issues as being part of music.

[lostinidlewonder]

Considering that doing a good job of the first chord of the first scherzo neither eradicates the chance to follow on not eradicates what effect that chord alone has on the listener, it's not nothing.

No performer just plays the first chord and leaves it there. What follows important to finally allow the listener to understand the context and meaning. Without what follows the first chord will leave the person wondering what it is all about no matter how loud or soft it is played.

Do you sincerely believe that different pianists could not have a different effect on the listeners if they really could only play that one chord?

I think it is unintelligent to discuss a single chord I'm afraid.

if so, you're badly underestimating what scope lies in a single chord.

It is fine because that is only your opinion. A single chord is nothing if it has no context to anything else.

Horowitz and richter could terrify with that one chord.  

Do you have any recordings where one chord is all they do? It is because it is a part of an entire piece of music that it effects the listener.

You're beginning to sound like this is a second opinion, rather than one you have thought through with your own mind.

Maybe you should not try to make guess about what other people are thinking and just deal with what is written.

[nyiregyhazi]

So if uploaded a recording of myself playing the chord twice- once  purely with intent to terrify and stop  and the other time played on but edited out the rest- you could hear a difference?

This is a non starter. Give a single long chord to horowitz and to and average pianist and tell them to scare the listener and the difference will be there. At the moment I play the first chord of the scherzo, there is only intent to scare. Consideration of it's role in the piece as a whole only begins as the sound is already fading away. Thinking about the second early on can only distract from the stark arrival of sound on the first. There is no difference during the moment of sounding, in this instance- and I could either stop or continue without any difference in the chord itself.

There is nothing profound about refusing to  recognise that a lone chord can be given artistic context either in a piece or in isolation.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have already said one chord is useless. I am confident that it is unintelligent to waste time on looking at a single chord out of context to the music.

In fact...

I am so confident I feel a song coming on..

[nyiregyhazi]

I have already said one chord is useless. I am confident that it is unintelligent to waste time on looking at a single chord out of context to the music.

I didn't miss that. Funnily enough, that's why I gave an example of what emotional power can come from even the first chord of the scherzo. It's a shame that you prefer to repeat your assertion, as if giving the voice of god, rather than provide an attempt to counter that powerful example of what a lone chord can do (with or without the rest).

[lostinidlewonder]

Well i am repeating it is useless to talk about one chord as much as your insistence to talk about it. I am afraid you are bias in understanding the emotion of a chord for a given piece because no piece is simply one chord and you know what comes after it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well i am repeating it is useless to talk about one chord as much as your insistence to talk about it. I am afraid you are bias in understanding the emotion of a chord for a given piece because no piece is simply one chord and you know what comes after it.

Circular logic. You're using assumed truth of your premise to prove itself. Not knowing what comes next neither prevents a person being shocked by the stark quality or intensity of the chord when it sounds (or completely indifferent to a weak execution). I already stated that you can shock or have no effect on a listener who never heard the piece before. You deny that?

[lostinidlewonder]

What i say is 100% true because it is my own stance. If you think taking about one chord is intelligent then that is ok. I think it is useless and am very confident in this. I feel that you are however overestimating the power of one chord so far as to say you can fully juxtapose two schools of piano with a single chord out of context with any musical phrase. Again, you are welcome to think this intelligent but I think it is very silly and vague.

[nyiregyhazi]

What i say is 100% true because it is my own stance.

with such an alarming comment, I'll leave it there. Discussion is futile with anyone who has such a egocentric stance, rather than the ability to consider alternative angles. The issue is whether there can be an effect on a LISTENER, not whether your stance creates an absolute truth. As usual, you see it only from an egocentric perspective.

[pts1]

Holy Cow... are you guys arguing about the "arm weight" school again?

And now its down to one chord?

I thought everyone had gotten beyond this.

I am a longtime survivor of the "arm weight" school, which has destroyed many a pianist and would be pianist.

Just so we're all on the same page, the "arm weight" schools basic edict is that the fingers primary use is to carry and transfer the weight of the arm from one note to the next, this being the only way rich singing sororities are produced.

Balderdash.

Its a bit like saying the best way to get around when walking is to train by wearing a 50 pound backpack so that you are constantly well grounded and constantly assured of optimum mobility by fully transferring your weight from one foot to the next. Not a perfect analogy but you get the point.

Either the proponents of this school actually cannot play but only teach to a certain level, or they are doing something quite different during their playing while mistaking it for weight bearing and  transference.

Therefore, FWIW, I have to side with N on this discussion.

BTW -- One note or one chord really proves nothing technically, since you can play it in any number of ways and produce similar sound results, though the mechanics used may or may not be feasible for more complex playing of real piano literature.

[lostinidlewonder]

It is my own stance so unless you are me you cannot know if it is truly what I believe or not. Thus you must admit that my stance is 100% truely mine. Not that hard to understand.

[lostinidlewonder]

Holy Cow... are you guys arguing about the "arm weight" school again?

I'm certainly not.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is my own stance so unless you are me you cannot know if it is truly what I believe or not. Thus you must admit that my stance is 100% truely mine. Not that hard to understand.

Another straw man?please stop falsely portraying my stance. I gave counterexample to disprove the idea that a lone chord cannot contain art. I don't doubt that you believe it, but am simply curious as to why you cannot see that the counter examples disprove it. Or do you believe nobody can hear the difference in voicing of that chord between horowitz and an amateur?

In response to pts, do you think any old technique can make a terrifying yet rounded tone quality on the first chord of the first scherzo? I certainly doubt.

[lostinidlewonder]

Another straw man? I used a counterexample to disprove the idea that a lone chord cannot contain art. I don't doubt that you believe it, but am simply curious as to why you cannot see that the counter examples disprove it.

I'm sorry my opinion is my opinion and is truly mine. There is no argument about it, I am 100% correct there.

I already told you talking about one chord is useless and unintelligent to me so why would I want to discuss it? Maybe someone else can talk to you about it or better still why don't you create a thread and discuss this amazing topic you find so intriguing?

[p2u_]

BTW -- One note or one chord really proves nothing technically, since you can play it in any number of ways and produce similar sound results, though the mechanics used may or may not be feasible for more complex playing of real piano literature.

Hi there, pts!

Neuhaus would have disagreed with you on the one note - one chord subject. As a matter of fact, his system is based on the following:
1. Artistically valuable playing of one tone;
2. Artistically valuable playing of two, three, four, five tones;
3. Artistically valuable playing of all kinds of scales;
4. Artistically valuable playing of arpeggios and broken chords;
5. Artistically valuable playing of double notes;
6. Artistically valuable playing of all existing chords;
7. Artistically valuable implementation of "jumps" or "leaps".

He made quite a point about actors practising a single sound like "ah" with different intonations and emotions (I'll have to look to find the exact quote) and urges us to do the same at the instrument. There is more to this problem than sheer acceleration of the key. When S. Richter plays the first chord of the first Scherzo, the following notes are not really needed: you know there's trouble ahead and this one chord is the alert that can really frighten people. It really takes quite some practice to get exactly the same effect.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Two out of seven talks about single instance notes. I wonder what that means.

[p2u_]

One out of seven talks about single notes. I wonder what that means.

How can one construct something artistically valuable if one cannot even appreciate a single element of the whole?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

The argument we were having was that from a single chord you can clearly define the contrasts between schools of thought when it comes to learning the piano. In fact a phrase of music is important to understand it. A single chord in a piece is meaningless if it has nothing to follow it, so how that first chord is played must take into consideration the rest that follows. The first chord does not 100% set the entire emotion for the entire piece thus putting a huge amount of attention on a single chord out of context to an entire phrase seems unnecessary and very unintelligent.

[nyiregyhazi]

Two out of seven talks about single instance notes. I wonder what that means.

Then perhaps it's time to stop and consider an alternative viewpoint, rather than repeatedly assert that yours is 100% correct (which really is a quote in this case)?

[lostinidlewonder]

Mine is 100% correct because it expresses my opinion. I am not saying what I say is an axiom of truth that effects every living soul on earth, but for me it is 100% correct and thus you must admit it is 100% truthfully my opinion. And there is nothing you can do about it.

[p2u_]

The argument we were having was that from a single chord you can clearly define the contrasts between schools of thought when it comes to learning the piano. In fact a phrase of music is important to understand it. A snogs chord in a piece is meaningless if it has nothing to follow it, so how that first chord is payed must take into consideration the rest that follows. The first chord does not 100% set the entire emotion for the entire piece thus putting a huge amount of attention on a single chord out of context to an entire phrase seems unnecessary and very unintelligent.

The more you stress the lack of intelligence of your opponents, the more you discredit yourself. You seem to read diagonally and everything selectively and out of context. I tried to immitate Richter's first chord for the fun of it and I had to make certain physical adjustments to get exactly the same effect. How is that meaningless when one is in search of sound?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

The more you stress the lack of intelligence of your opponents, the more you discredit yourself. You seem to read diagonally and everything selectively and out of context. I tried to immitate Richter's first chord for the fun of it and I had to make certain physical adjustments to get exactly the same effect. How is that meaningless when one is in search of sound?

Paul

Ok I'll say it again, talking about one chord to juxtapose two different schools of thought in piano is unintelligent. I am very confident to say this, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. My opinion will not be quashed even if you try to hold my reputation hostage. I don't care about personal issues, I want discussion that is intelligent to me, I will not discuss seriously something that is obviously stupid to me whether you or the queen likes it or not.

Richter has nothing to do about the differences between two schools of piano thought.