Training for faster fingers

[p2u_]

I want discussion that is intelligent to me

Could you tell me then in a few words what your point was? I have lost track.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I asked to juxtapose two different schools of piano teaching together by using a specific phrase of music and defining the similarities and differences between the two. This will then highlight that a teacher certainly can learn many different piano methods via applying them to past methods they have learned before because ALL schools are related to each other. This makes DVD lectures very useful for teacher and they will not be fooled as to how to use such information. They then are more prepared to use this info and relate it to the hundreds of different students they have taught and are currently teaching compared to someone who is not a music educator.

Discussing technique requires specific situations otherwise you are not really saying anything at all. Many ineffective books on piano are like this, full of general trash and nothing specific, leaving the reader with a false sense that they have learned something but indeed they have had no hint as to the application of the knowledge as it was never looked at it through context but rather theoretical generalisations.

[p2u_]

Discussing technique requires specific situations otherwise you are not really saying anything at all.

OK. Thank you.

But can you agree then that as soon as the artistic image of a piece changes, that the technique of execution also changes? Let's say you have been through the French school and you take a piece by Rachmaninov to a masterclass (or a couple of masterclasses even) by a Russian.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

To what is written immediately below this is still completely vague I do not see an explanation with references to the notes of the phrase. It is still all general talk.

In response to p2u_ I want two masters of opposing schools colliding not a masterclass example.

[nyiregyhazi]

I asked to juxtapose two different schools of piano teaching together by using a specific phrase of music and defining the similarities and differences between the two. This will then highlight that a teacher certainly can learn many different piano methods via applying them to past methods they have learned before because ALL schools are related to each other. This makes DVD lectures very useful for teacher and they will not be fooled as to how to use such information. They then are more prepared to use this info and relate it to the hundreds of different students they have taught and are currently teaching compared to someone who is not a music educator.

So things that are applied only to a specific phrase are more useful to teachers than concepts that can be reasonably applied to anything (eg. the fact that there is more scope for voicing from finger movement than when fingers only strive to support weight)? Is that how we are supposed to interpret this? It's more useful to speak specifically about a singular phrase (in terms that are specific to that phrase alone) than to give general principles that apply to a wealth of material, with illustrations of how widely applicable the concepts are?

Seeing as you want a whole phrase, take the start of the recap of the C sharp minor prelude- an example I gave earlier and which you ignored. Most teachers preach gravity or arm pressure with merely supportive fingers, I show students how to activate the hand better into movement (rather than shove or drop with more force)- just the same as I do in every other passage that features loud chords. The fact that every passage has its own fine details does not negate such widely applicable background concepts.

[p2u_]

But can you agree then that as soon as the artistic image of a piece changes, that the technique of execution also changes? Let's say you have been through the French school and you take a piece by Rachmaninov to a masterclass (or a couple of masterclasses even) by a Russian.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'll try to explain. The French school is mostly based on "finger work" on the surface of the keys. I would say it's also a bit superficial in its esthetics and it's highly intellectual in its approach to art which has its good sides for certain types of music.

Suppose you have been through that school of piano playing. Now, you've learned a piece by Rachmaninov, a.k.a. Rachmaninoff.

You go to a couple of masterclasses by a Russian professor. The Russian school plays deeper into the key, requires more emotion, fuller chords, generally a more "physical" approach. etc. Don't you think that your technique changes by doing what the Russian requires you to do with the piece?

I'm sorry I must also go now. I will respond when I return.

That's OK.

Paul

[maitea]

I believe, what N was saying was very clear already.. But an example with my copyright. True story by the way.

Chopin Etude op 25 n1. Many years ago, I studied it with arm-weight, lots of arm here and there teacher/technique. She made me rotate and rotate and rotate, forarm, elbow, writst.. I don't know how I didn't propel in the air! haha Anyway, I had very week fingers then, so it all was a bit absurd, but I didn't know enough. All the emphasis of the teacher was in playing with the arm. (Probably arm weight school is misrepresented by this teacher, or not, I don't know, but that is what I had in my lesson). By the way, sounds was thin and airy, very in the surface and uneven.

Now I play the same study, in the complete opposite way (with far more success). The fingers lead, they sing the intervals, and of course there is some sort of arm action behind it, but the hand is the main focus. In fact, even if the arm moves, lead by my fingers, it doesn't rotate as such, it is more of a lateral movement. There might be a slight circular motion, but is really internal. Difficul to explain in words. Sound is even, and has many possibilities as I have the means to shape the music.

Not sure if this is as different as you would have it, but personally for me, the difference in playing is like black and white. The focus is in a completely different place. M

[pts1]

Now I play the same study, in the complete opposite way (with far more success). The fingers lead, they sing the intervals, and of course there is some sort of arm action behind it, but the hand is the main focus. In fact, even if the arm moves, lead by my fingers, it doesn't rotate as such, it is more of a lateral movement. There might be a slight circular motion, but is really internal. Difficul to explain in words. Sound is even, and has many possibilities as I have the means to shape the music.

Exactly correct, IMO!

I basically do the same thing and also had the same unhappy  "weight experience"!

[p2u_]

I don't know how I didn't propel in the air! haha

Lucky for us you didn't fly away...

(Probably arm weight school is misrepresented by this teacher, or not, I don't know, but that is what I had in my lesson).

No doubt about that. "Arm weight" applied in an artistic way (on top) has good things to add, but the "intelligence" of playing (voicing, articulation, and motivic shapes) is, of course the work of the fingers as I indicated in reply # 91.

Paul

[pts1]

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".

Hi Paul!

I don't disagree with any of this, which may seem like a contradiction of what I was saying.

I was really speaking in terms of the reproduction of the same sound by different mechanics in a more basic way.

For instance, if a pianist plays a Disklavier, and then the piano plays back the performance, it will be a faithful reproduction.

However, the mechanics are completely different in the "piano's playing" of the music than the "human's playing" of the music.

By means of computer guided optics, sensors, electronics, and so on, the piano reproduces the pianists sound by means of a solenoid beneath the key sending the hammer into the string at precisely the speed and duration as the original performance

They are doing some incredible things now with the Disklavier, for instance, the engineers have digitized Glen Gould's original recording of the Goldberg Variations and have the Disklavier piano play it along side the original recording in unison, and its really as if Gould were there playing it.

I say "as if" because the magic of Gould being there is not "there", so whatever the persona of the performer contributes is totally missing --not to mention the effects the "knowledge" of knowing its not "really" Gould playing,  for which I think a credible argument could be made this is really "outside" of the music, e.g. the presence and emotional/psychological effect of the great artist, the excitement of the audience, the anticipation, the "electric feeling" in the air, etc. (though these elements were missing when Gould recorded the Variations originally in a studio)

And an LP recording or even a modern CD is NOT really the "real" performance, but a highly derivative one that we accept as "real" due to a bit of psychological sleight of hand.

So my point is really a basic one, not having to do with charisma, personality, etc.

A better experiment would be this, I think.

Take nine well known concert pianist, Lang Lang, Sokolov, etc., etc., along with one complete amateur or better yet, someone who has studied piano for 5 minutes!

Their task is to be picked randomly and they are instructed to walk to the piano and play their very best performance of  middle C for approximently 1 second's duration and that is all.

They will do this behind a curtain and a qualified listener will be in the audience.

At some point the rank beginner will also play the middle C for 1 second and he or she has practiced for 5 minutes in order to do this using the index finger. A tiny bulls eye has been drawn on the key so he/she will know exactly where to press the key down.


The task of the "qualified listener" in this blind test will be to identify which player was NOT the professional.

To make it interesting, have ten "qualified listeners" each isolated from one another with their own score cards.

It would be interesting, would it not, to see how many could pick out the person who knows next to nothing about piano playing from the seasoned professionals on the basis of sound alone?

[p2u_]

The task of the "qualified listener" in this blind test will be to identify which player was NOT the professional.

I think the professional can do the job and determine who of the ten is the non-professional by the lack of the latter's timing (that is if he/she had only 5 minutes of training, that is not enough to sound like a professional even in something as simple as playing one tone).

Paul

[p2u_]

I asked to juxtapose two different schools of piano teaching together by using a specific phrase of music and defining the similarities and differences between the two. This will then highlight that a teacher certainly can learn many different piano methods via applying them to past methods they have learned before because ALL schools are related to each other.

Found you a clip. LiiW.

The student is from The Hague Conservatory and was trained in the French finger school. He plays the "presto" from Chopin's second sonata. Fingers, articulation, etc. are all there, but there's no drive, no pulse, no excitement. Now watch how György Sebők solves the problem by giving him a metaphor for the MECHANICS of playing that type of passages:

Play it like an orange. Start at 3:23 and to the end (11:00).

Paul

[maitea]

AAAAHHH! How fantastic he was! Paul, do you know if there are more recorded lectures somewhere apart from the few in youtube?

[p2u_]

AAAAHHH! How fantastic he was! Paul, do you know if there are more recorded lectures somewhere apart from the few in youtube?

Oh, yes. When you know English, French and German, you have more choice...

Google search Gyorgy Sebok video only

Paul

[maitea]

I have seen all those But thank you!

[karen_1704]

I always start with many different rhythms (each rhythm trains different finger) and pulsation (If I'm dealing with trials), next is playing very slowly, and then try playing it as fast as I can. Sometimes I practice with staccato too if needed. That methods work amazingly for me

[okanaganmusician]

Some very interesting thoughts here.

Would like to add perhaps the simplest of solutions to the bunch - be lighter.  It's always easier to go faster when your muscles aren't trying too hard.

Staccato practice works great too.  It's the old medicine-ball training strategy - make things purposely more difficult than they actually are - then the real deal will seem easy in comparison.

[mmm151]

In bar 10 of the 1st movement of Beethoven's Sonata Op 11, does the 2nd mordant have E flat or E natural?

[lelle]

In bar 10 of the 1st movement of Beethoven's Sonata Op 11, does the 2nd mordant have E flat or E natural?

There is no Beethoven sonata op 11. Which sonata do you mean?

[brahms51]

See attachment.

[anacrusis]

See attachment.

Haha that's great! I'm saving that  Mastering an instrument is the antithesis to our society of quick fixes.