Training for faster fingers

[nyiregyhazi]

Paul

I think "N" has moved beyond the "School of Poking"... (I will affectionately refer to him as "N", not unlike the master inventor engineer of spy weaponry in the James Bond movies and books - "Q".)

In reading N's recent ideas, it seems to me he has arrived -- by applying judicious use of Newtonian Physics and Laws of Gravity in addition to a great deal of thought and experimentation -- that the hand/fingers "natural" basic movement is "to grasp", and that "pulling" the key down as opposed to "pushing" it down -- (or "poking" it for such effects as portamento etc) is the "right way" to proceed.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he no longer believes that using the extensors in combination with flexors provides an effective playing mechanism.

What makes you think that? :-) My last post was ENTIRELY about how you can achieve the most effortless balance by connecting yourself to the keyboard with a lengthening action!

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/achieving-effortless-balance-within.html

My posts, however, typically involve reference both to the pure pulling actions and to lengthening ones. Recently, I'd been working almost exclusively with lengthening actions for some time. This was an invaluable experience and set me in vastly better stead compared to when I used to view finger movements as a simple arc from the knuckle. However, upon having lessons with Alan Fraser last week, I became reconvinced about a role the grasping aspect- just in a vasstly more subtle way than I had done it before switching to lengthening actions. Right now, I'm convinced that the key is to approach it from both ends. I'm playing overwhelmingly better with the mere trace of inward grasping that I've put back in with finger lengthening, compared to either with pure lengthening or pure grasping. There's a rather subtle differentiation between either and what I've recently been finding, that depends equally upon both styles of intent, merged into a happy medium. I'm sometimes viewing it more in terms of a lengthening of the finger with a miniscule trace of inward grip for extra stability and other times more in terms of a finger pull with a trace of lengthening to avoid slipping across the line of action (and even flat fingered approaches benefit significantly from that slight sense of unfurling a slight bend in the finger, rather than following a pure arc).

Either way though, I believe following the finger's natural path (without even a trace of adaptation to fit the key's natural path) is the exception rather than the rule- particularly where speed is an issue. Unless you play well with extremely flat fingers (which typically requires a lot of grounding in technique to prepare for that), the finger's natural path is simply too indirect to the path of the key to function well. Without ability to adapt from this inherent problem (whether done consciously or on instinct) there are major blocks in the freedom and ease of motion.

[pts1]

N:

I think what we have is semantic problems from attempting to talk about a very complex subject that does not lend itself well to discussion.

All of the power in playing happens as a result of downward/inward movements as a result of finger/hand/arm in appropriate combination. Largely this is a result of the flexors as the initiators of movement with the various other hand and arm muscles helping.

There is no doubt that the extensors play a role in shaping the hand and reading fingers/hand for playing. But I would say that's their primary role (extensors) since they obviously pull the finger the wrong direction with limited range of motion.

That's just very basic and obvious, is it not?

But they are extremely important, nevertheless, since they provide the shaping of finger and help provide the angle of finger attack with regard to finger lever length, where on the tip the finger plays, etc.

As long as the effort to play is free and with ease producing the sound you want -- which is the ultimate arbiter of "proper technique" I'd say -- then however one produces this is fine

I think watching Valentina Lisitsa serves as a good demonstration of these principles.
First, she has a superior technique, and frequently she plays in sleaveless dresses and you can see all of her piano playing apparatus working in concert.

She does a good deal of "pointing motions" forming the finger/hand demonstrating -- IMO -- use of the extensors, which "I think" is what you're talking about.

Here's La Campanella which well shows full use of arm/hand/fingers with a good deal of "long fingers"

I would imagine you can spot what you're talking about in her playing as a discussion reference if you look closely enough

[nyiregyhazi]

All of the power in playing happens as a result of downward/inward movements as a result of finger/hand/arm in appropriate combination. Largely this is a result of the flexors as the initiators of movement with the various other hand and arm muscles helping.

Sorry, but that's not a given. It depends on whichever muscles generate downward motion of the key. From flat-fingered positions, flexors are able to do that (but straightening a touch still improves the line of force to match the movement of the key better). From typical curved positions, pure flexor action is deeply indirect- wasting energy and demanding greater application of force. Lengthening actions are needed to access the line of motion in a more direct way.  Interosseus action can produce such a lengthening out of a finger-  with little or no use of tendons.

There is no doubt that the extensors play a role in shaping the hand and reading fingers/hand for playing. But I would say that's their primary role (extensors) since they obviously pull the finger the wrong direction with limited range of motion.

That's just very basic and obvious, is it not?

Is it?  Flexors pull in a circle. That means the further you pull, the more horizontal the  path of the force becomes. When I extend, the tip itself can move perfectly through the path that the key takes. I don't follow any logic behind that assertion, sorry. Can you expand on this? There's absolutely no question that they might pull the finger in the wrong direction. They are the specific means that corrects what is the wrong direction about a circular action around the knuckle- sending energy into a MORE direct path, not a less direct path. I'm not talking about actions that raise the finger from the knuckle and have never been doing so when referencing extension-if that's what you're referring to? That doesn't lengthen the finger, it simply lifts it in the air. All of the details about how lengthening actions function are clarified in my blog post specifically about finger actions.

I would imagine you can spot what you're talking about in her playing as a discussion reference if you look closely enough

I believe so, but consider that these are much more subtle when playing with quite flat fingers. There's only the very end of lengthening out to be involved and the path is straight enough to only require a very small lengthening to correct the indirect nature of the arc. I found that it paid to spend a lot of time lengthening out to near vertical positions with vastly more explicit lengthening actions (as seen in the films I link at the end of my recent blog post, featuring Argerich, Nyiregyhazi and Curzon).  

[pts1]

N:

I don't think I can successfully go through this issue with you on a point by point basis.

There is always another wrinkle to explore or disagree with.

There is no doubt, that your approach is considerably more "scientific" than mine, and in a debate I'd offer little challenge to you on this basis. So I'm sure I probably make some errors when attempting to explain piano mechanics beyond a certain basic point.

The only reason I ever became interested in the physiology of piano playing was due to injury I inflicted on myself long ago, due to trying to follow the edicts of one or some of the piano "schools" i.e. weight school, high finger school, etc.

Instead of getting me closer to what I did well and normally when I didn't listen to others -- thinking they knew more about me than I did -- all of the investigation into piano physiology took me much further away and became confusing and overwhelming.

Post #17 gives you a good idea of my approach which is quite different from yours.

So while you find it instructive to have a close relationship with the science of movements involved in piano playing, I really do not beyond a certain level of curiosity that pertains to practical information.

I do not think it is humanly possible to have the awareness of what happens in a literal, scientific way in order to describe, think about, and absorb what happens "on the fly" in the art of piano playing.

And for me, intellectualizing too much, takes me further away from feeling and sensing what I need to do physically to achieve the results I want.

I think this must be an issue of self-trust and a leap of faith to a degree. IOW to trust one's self enough to find one's way by experiment and intuition without having to know the unknowable.

I would bet money, you know more about this topic than probably most concert pianists -- the physiology and mechanics of playing -- and I would further bet that most really don't care.

And I would further wager that many do not want to know too much since they don't want to interfere with what they earned by hard work and intuition and the application of natural skills.

Please don't think I'm saying YOU think too much or are on a wrong path -- you're obviously on the pathway you need to be or else I don't think you'd be there.

[maitea]

Yes, but there are some concert pianists that injured themselves and needed years of recovery (Fleisher), and a millions different cases. Also some concert pianists that maybe didn't know the "how", but when they start mentoring younger pianists, begin a process of re-learning to understand the problems their students go through etc. There are so many cases! One cannot generalize as to saying that concert pianists don't know what they do!

And watching the latests comps, how most of the pianists are uber aware of not missing a note, mind you, what comes acrross is that they really know what they are doing!

I agree this is a very subjective process, and everyone feels, plays, studies, absorves.. in a different way. In my personal case, in the practice room, that is the time to analise all corners, understand what I need to do and how, and practice! Ideally, in the concert I only think about music, and the acquired know-how comes with me without having to think of it. Not that these balances are always there, many times I'm too carried away by music in the practice room.. alas!

[p2u_]

Ideally, in the concert I only think about music, and the acquired know-how comes with me without having to think of it.

[Off-topic]
I've listened to some of your recordings on YouTube (I've watched with great interest too ), and I must say that you do a VERY good job.
[/End Off-topic]

Paul

[maitea]

you are waaaaaaay too generous. The videos are so old too! That recital 2009 was the last one I've done.. I've been mostly accompaying/chamber music/repetiteur with the occasional solo piece in the middle of a duo recital. My next recital after such a long time is in 2 months today! Excited!

[nyiregyhazi]

N:

I don't think I can successfully go through this issue with you on a point by point basis.

There is always another wrinkle to explore or disagree with.

There is no doubt, that your approach is considerably more "scientific" than mine, and in a debate I'd offer little challenge to you on this basis. So I'm sure I probably make some errors when attempting to explain piano mechanics beyond a certain basic point.

The only reason I ever became interested in the physiology of piano playing was due to injury I inflicted on myself long ago, due to trying to follow the edicts of one or some of the piano "schools" i.e. weight school, high finger school, etc.

Instead of getting me closer to what I did well and normally when I didn't listen to others -- thinking they knew more about me than I did -- all of the investigation into piano physiology took me much further away and became confusing and overwhelming.

Post #17 gives you a good idea of my approach which is quite different from yours.

So while you find it instructive to have a close relationship with the science of movements involved in piano playing, I really do not beyond a certain level of curiosity that pertains to practical information.

I do not think it is humanly possible to have the awareness of what happens in a literal, scientific way in order to describe, think about, and absorb what happens "on the fly" in the art of piano playing.

And for me, intellectualizing too much, takes me further away from feeling and sensing what I need to do physically to achieve the results I want.

I think this must be an issue of self-trust and a leap of faith to a degree. IOW to trust one's self enough to find one's way by experiment and intuition without having to know the unknowable.

I would bet money, you know more about this topic than probably most concert pianists -- the physiology and mechanics of playing -- and I would further bet that most really don't care.

And I would further wager that many do not want to know too much since they don't want to interfere with what they earned by hard work and intuition and the application of natural skills.

Please don't think I'm saying YOU think too much or are on a wrong path -- you're obviously on the pathway you need to be or else I don't think you'd be there.

You may be surprised, but I agree with much said.The objective side is primarily about wiping the slate clean of casual misconceptions and out and out bullshit.from there, it's what you do to achieve something that works which matters. Objectivity just helps keep you from impossible paths and dead ends, but it's a mere beginning point.

Understanding possibility doesn't magically make all the elements merge in the right balance, but removes major impediments. It's the sensory learning exercises that I give in my recent blog post that create low effort balance- not simply applying an intellectual model. If it was as easy as giving the intellectual model, I'd have been done in a single post. The fact things need to be applied is why I'm not hurrying posts out, but instead exploring practical approaches to getting the results in line with the objective model for efficiency.

[nyiregyhazi]

Indeed, something like "lifting fingers" should be advised with great care and only under supervision of a very experienced teacher. Moreover, somebody like Sokolov just cannot be an example for anybody just because... he doesn't ask how to play piano.

The main reason for lifting fingers is accumulating an energy, which drops straight into the keybed and immediately gets dissipated right there. In other words, all the energy goes into the key and stops right there.

I can't agree with that. my main reason to use finger lifting exercises is to develop balance in students- but I rarely encourage them to produce sound by descending from a great height. Instead, I encourage them to allow the finger back to the key first, most of the time. It's to test the quality and efficiency of balance on whichever note is depressed. This is a radically different issue to lifting for a "run up" and produces radically different results.

In scales my favourite exercise is to get students to lift every finger high in the air when playing the thumb. People may think that would be perceived as more work, but opening this way connects the whole arm to support from the piano-unlocking tensions in the wrist, forearm and shoulder. The movement later gets reduced, but the basic activity that stops you getting slumped down and compressed by gravity never gets eliminated altogether.productive use of lifting as a prompt to balance better is a totally separate issue to lifting to slap the key from a distance. It makes sense of many things if you consider what lifting a finger does to the PREVIOUS finger that creates balance for the arm.

If you stand on one leg and shake the other in the air, you'll likely notice the moving leg more. However, if you turn your attention to the subtle adjustments in the standing leg, to keep balance, it's a lot more interesting. Likewise in legato piano playing.

[pts1]

Yes, but there are some concert pianists that injured themselves and needed years of recovery (Fleisher), and a millions different cases. Also some concert pianists that maybe didn't know the "how", but when they start mentoring younger pianists, begin a process of re-learning to understand the problems their students go through etc. There are so many cases! One cannot generalize as to saying that concert pianists don't know what they do!

Maitea

Perhaps I misspoke. I did not mean that concert pianists do not care about what they do or understand what they are doing in a functional practical way, nor have a basic understanding of piano body mechanics -- I meant they likely do not care to take it to scientific extremes such as encountered in the landmark study "Riddle of the Pianist's Finger" by Arnold Shultz.

Rather, at some point of basic correct functionality they focus on how it feels and sounds, and make adjustments accordingly such as: "a little more/less arm", "a little higher/lower wrist", "a bit more rotation", etc., etc. Sort of a directorial oversight, if you will, as opposed to an anatomical mental dissection with explanation.

I think that type of scientific analysis uses a different part of the brain, and while it can be of utility at times, mostly it isn't about art. This is really what I mean about pianists not caring to "think too much" about the mechanics/anatomy of what is happening in a scientific way.

Its sort of like thinking of music being "the score" as opposed to being "the playing of the score".

I DO think all pianists should have a basic/functional understanding of how their body works, and you are quite correct that Fleisher and many others destroyed themselves. Fleisher was from the "no pain no gain" school.

Certainly had he been from another time with different teachers, he may have well avoided his fate.

[nyiregyhazi]

I DO think all pianists should have a basic/functional understanding of how their body works, and you are quite correct that Fleisher and many others destroyed themselves. Fleisher was from the "no pain no gain" school.

I must say that I find it odd that you feel it's important to to know how the body works but not the basic mechanics of what makes for efficient energy transfer INTO THE PIANO KEY- in order to produce any level of tonal intensity without tension (or wastage of energy that goes into impact rather than sound). Knowledge of the body is pretty meaningless outside of the context of what it needs to do to accelerate a key effectively. Add a piano key and the whole issue of body mechanics is radically altered by the context of the task being performed the body. Equally, knowledge of the pacing of key acceleration that achieves most results is meaningless without knowing how to get your body to make that happen. I'd go as far as to say that many supposedly health based approaches encourage movements that actively decrease efficiency and control of transfer (and hence over levels and shadings of tone) if taken at face value- potentially even increasing impacts on the body, unless you are lucky enough to feel what they don't tell you or are willing to give up musical variety. Anyway, these are inseparable issues. I find it odd that so many methods are concerned with what is healthy for the body yet not with how to use your body to make efficient acceleration. Some methods effectively ask you to do little more than restrain any extreme musical intentions, rather than educate how to expand your range while staying healthy too. If flesher was involved in some schools, he might have given up his musical range too. If it's worth considering anatomy then it's also worth considering the mechanics of how to expand rather than repress your musical range (by considering how to get more sound for less effort).

[wnlqxod]

I'd be very interested to hear some more about the benefits of this approach. Thank you.

Practicing something in staccato seems to be a "classic" method, along with dotted-rhythms, slow practicing, and such. I was just saying what has been said.
 
Now, it seems that two of the most common roadblcoks to playing "fast" is that:

1. As much as you watch and guide your fingers into the correct keys, you do need some muscle memory, and establishing muscle memory must be done very deliberately and consciously.
2. People don't have enough gripping strength (as much as you thinking about using gravity and letting the mass of the bones help you (yeah, I'm a bone person), let's not forget that your muscles ARE engaged, after all).

Using a big, deliberate motion addresses #1. Trying to get "fat, ugly, jarring sound" out of the instrument addresses #2. How? By trying to get that sound, you will physically exert yourself on the keys... which gives you the much-needed workout.

Now you absolutely should have some curvature in your fingers when you practice this way; driving a rigid, straight finger into a rigid surface like a piano key... OUCH  .  

As always, pain is NOT GOOD. However, particularly if you are a beginner (I suspect the OP is) or you are out of shape, you might feel a lactic acid burn in the forearms, which is okay.

No offense, but you lost me on this one. Why not practice the scales "immaculately articulate" ?

Oops    . Let's settle this once and for all: when struggling with articulation on the Bach pieces (or anything else for that matter), you can absolutely practice them with fat, exaggerated staccato.

[pts1]

I must say that I find it odd that you feel it's important to to know how the body works but not the basic mechanics of what makes for efficient energy transfer INTO THE PIANO KEY- in order to produce any level of tonal intensity without tension (or wastage of energy that goes into impact rather than sound).

Well, I'd find it odd too if that's what I'd meant!

You have a frustrating way of implying someone doesn't think something's important just because they don't say it, or otherwise think one statement is mutually exclusive with another.

Just because I'd say for instance, you have to cross the street to buy snacks at the convenience store on the other side, doesn't mean I'm proposing NOT looking both ways, or walking into oncoming traffic!

Of course the entire issue of piano mechanics desired end is to create the sound as efficiently as possible or necessary, without causing harm to the player.

I think we're beyond the point of having to constantly restate that 2 + 2= 4 when the discussion topic is algebra.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, I'd find it odd too if that's what I'd meant!

You have a frustrating way of implying someone doesn't think something's important just because they don't say it, or otherwise think one statement is mutually exclusive with another.

Just because I'd say for instance, you have to cross the street to buy snacks at the convenience store on the other side, doesn't mean I'm proposing NOT looking both ways, or walking into oncoming traffic!

Of course the entire issue of piano mechanics desired end is to create the sound as efficiently as possible or necessary, without causing harm to the player.

I think we're beyond the point of having to constantly restate that 2 + 2= 4 when the discussion topic is algebra.

I'm going on this:

"Rather, at some point of basic correct functionality they focus on how it feels and sounds, and make adjustments accordingly such as: "a little more/less arm", "a little higher/lower wrist", "a bit more rotation", etc., etc. Sort of a directorial oversight, if you will, as opposed to an anatomical mental dissection with explanation."

A pianist who thrives on something quite so casual as that is very lucky to have a baseline in technique that puts him in a position to make such simplistic adjustments and have the rest sort itself out. You don't acquire technique with such simple experiments. You fine tune what technique you have. I can't see that Fleisher would have fixed himself on such things. If there would have been value in him exploring how the body works, there would have been all the more value in actually relating it to the mechanics of efficiency and what determines how much effort is involved. That is not an issue of either body alone or pianistic mechanics alone. It can only be done as a unified whole (unless hoping for sheer fluke on the other elements).

You may not explicitly state it, but if you don't feel there is value to be had from exploring something as fundamental as how different finger paths lead to different pacing of acceleration, you are omitting the most fundamental mechanical issues from consideration. This single issue relates to impact caused, and to how much tone you get for the input energy (before we even consider what roles the rest of the arm can play). If we leave this entirely to instinct, we're basically praying for God given talent and instincts.

Perhaps you can accuse me of being a pedant, but Fleisher's problem was not based on how his body works. It was based on failure to get to grips with how a piano key can be moved without creating impact. A master of yoga could get that wrong if they were intent on a huge forte, but didn't understand how to create acceleration without also creating impact. He screwed his body up because he didn't know enough about getting the most out of the piano's mechanics and therefore pushed his body too hard in a bid to fulfill musical intentions.

[nyiregyhazi]

Practicing something in staccato seems to be a "classic" method, along with dotted-rhythms, slow practicing, and such. I was just saying what has been said.
 
Now, it seems that two of the most common roadblcoks to playing "fast" is that:

1. As much as you watch and guide your fingers into the correct keys, you do need some muscle memory, and establishing muscle memory must be done very deliberately and consciously.
2. People don't have enough gripping strength (as much as you thinking about using gravity and letting the mass of the bones help you (yeah, I'm a bone person), let's not forget that your muscles ARE engaged, after all).

Using a big, deliberate motion addresses #1. Trying to get "fat, ugly, jarring sound" out of the instrument addresses #2. How? By trying to get that sound, you will physically exert yourself on the keys... which gives you the much-needed workout.

Sorry, but that's horribly simplified. It's like saying a tennis player needs strength and therefore will benefit from spending a few hours beating a racket against a brick wall. Exertion is not a guarantee of acquiring a useful strength or any useful sensitivity, in something that demands freedom of movement and fine coordination.

Also the point about curved fingers is potentially misleading. Impact comes from STATIC fixed structures. A stiffly curved finger could easily fare worse than a lengthened one (which great pianists regularly use). It's by starting slightly curved and lengthening out that you can redirect momentum away from an impact at landing-and roll it harmlessly up and over the top. A curved finger in itself offers no automatic protection and might land far worse if the activity is not judged well at the landing. Thinking that curved is good (rather than UNCURLING a curved finger) easily leads to an action of curling further still, which can potentially be deeply harmful.

[wnlqxod]

Hmph, considering nyiregyhazi's points, let's add a few points:

About practicing "that" way...
1. The fingers should not be "stiff". Now, in my experience, when the word "stiff" is mentioned, people commonly think "straight and rigid". I haven't come across too many people who associate "rigid" with "curved but still stiff". Also, in my experience, talking about "slightly curved" best describes the natural curl that you get when you relax your fingers (i.e. completely straighten the fingers, then relax the fingers- that shape)

2. People who want to learn how to play "fast" like the OP... they seem to "not know where the fingers should move to" and/or "slip" after hitting a key somehow and/or sound seriously "messy" when they play a fast lick (in OP's case, it's the 4th and 5th messing him up). Now, practicing with lighter touches of staccato do not remedy this problem effectively for some reason, whereas practicing with heavier staccato does.

Oh, and another thing: One "workaround" to the 4-5 problem is to not utilize the 4-5 sequence where you can help it. Also, maintaining curvature helps maintain control: even Horowitz the Straight Fingers curved his fingers when he played a fast Mozart lick.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hmph, considering nyiregyhazi's points, let's add a few points:

About practicing "that" way...
1. The fingers should not be "stiff". Now, in my experience, when the word "stiff" is mentioned, people commonly think "straight and rigid". I haven't come across too many people who associate "rigid" with "curved but still stiff". Also, in my experience, talking about "slightly curved" best describes the natural curl that you get when you relax your fingers (i.e. completely straighten the fingers, then relax the fingers- that shape)

2. People who want to learn how to play "fast" like the OP... they seem to "not know where the fingers should move to" and/or "slip" after hitting a key somehow and/or sound seriously "messy" when they play a fast lick (in OP's case, it's the 4th and 5th messing him up). Now, practicing with lighter touches of staccato do not remedy this problem effectively for some reason, whereas practicing with heavier staccato does.

Oh, and another thing: One "workaround" to the 4-5 problem is to not utilize the 4-5 sequence where you can help it. Also, maintaining curvature helps maintain control: even Horowitz the Straight Fingers curved his fingers when he played a fast Mozart lick.

Sure, no disagreement on those. I'd just add that neither stiff nor relaxed is good when the key is in motion. When starting curved leads to an instinctive action of UNCURLING, that motion both creates greater key acceleration and prevents the loss of efficiency that comes with the finger giving way. When a pianist doesn't get that, the only thing that can avoid stiffness or wasteful collapse is if something triggers the movement that cannot be categorised as either stiffness or relaxation. I only learned this movement and the freedom it gives when I understood this totally different point of reference. Instead of immobilising anything, you generate useful movement in the opposite direction to the negative movement of buckling. I don't like simplifying it to curved or flat, as the most productive is one that involves transition from more curled to more extended. Horowitz curved BEFORE the key went down, but the action that moved the key was usually to lengthen that back out- ie the opposite of curving. There are ways to play across the line of the key at times, but I don't think any pianist can excel without that basic path from more curved to more lengthened. It's very limiting without a feel for that- whether learned via direct analysis or an indirect trigger (such as rotation- which can cause it to occur without a pianist having clue they are dependent on what, to them, is an unconscious part of the puzzle) .

[maitea]

slightly off topic, sorry, but i'd like to have your opinion on that!

First of all, apologies if I don't explain myself correctly. The way I've been taught to play (not when I was a child, but later) involved a a lot of listening (obvious) and a lot of "imagination", carrying the sound in my inner ear before the next interval. (Does this makes sense to you?) "judging the interval", "singing it", but obviously this is something that goes on internally, purely speaking the key has been played, and then you have the next. However, I find the sound changes drastically when listening that way, objectively the sound has a different projection.Now my questions is, do you have a "mechanical" way to explain this? Is there something "else" I'm doing that I'm not aware I am?

Thanks!!
M

[pts1]

...but the action that moved the key was usually to lengthen that back out- ie the opposite of curving

If I understand you correctly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If you are saying that from a curved position, the finger "flicks outward" toward the fall board as the action that moves the key DOWNWARD... this makes no sense whatsoever.

This would mean -- as I understand it -- that you'd be using the extensors as the primary finger mover in a very weak non-grasping movement.

Either that, or the finger "splays outward" as you pull the key down with the flexors.

Surely, either of these interpretations cannot be what you mean!

[maitea]

and yes.. "slightly" off topic doesn't make justice. I'm totally off topic.. but I'd like to read what Paul, N, pts1, wlnqxod have to say! and anyone else of course!

[nyiregyhazi]

If I understand you correctly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If you are saying that from a curved position, the finger "flicks outward" toward the fall board as the action that moves the key DOWNWARD... this makes no sense whatsoever.

This would mean -- as I understand it -- that you'd be using the extensors as the primary finger mover in a very weak non-grasping movement.

Either that, or the finger "splays outward" as you pull the key down with the flexors.

Surely, either of these interpretations cannot be what you mean!

Really? I may upload a closeup of a simple trill to illustrate what power can lie in such a motion. I go on sherlock Holmes' premise. I never used to feel extension could be a normal action (thinking closing the hand is more "natural" but it's less natural to the key's path) There are issues of geometry at work here. Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left must be true. If the finger slides neither backwards nor forwards and the knuckle stays at constant height, the laws of geometry cannot give any explanation other than length having been created in the finger.

Regarding the sound image, while it's complex, my basic theory would be that internal listening inspires something in the brain that makes the hand less likely to over relax on the depressed key. Too much sagging reduces control over the next tone. When you feel ongoing sound more actively, the finger tends to create a slightly more secure balance-aiding control of the next sound and greater sense of intent to relate the tones, rather than feel disconnected events. I also feel very strongly that it works in reverse too- that creating a secure but low effort physical connection to a depressed key inspires the brain to listen better to the ongoing sound- whereas if you sag into inactivity and compensatory stiffness, the brain is more inclined to feel it's work is done and stop paying attention to the prolonged sound. Of course, I can't prove any of that, but while it's certainly not science, I think the theory makes rational sense. I certainly feel that I've observed students listen and connect better after sometimes working purely on the physical sense of balance after a key and how to carry that through until the next tone has been sounded (plus physical overlapping is one of the secrets to smoothing over rough edges, which helps too). I don't think it's as barmy as it sounds to some, as physical action and hearing quickly begin to affect each other.

[ajspiano]

If I understand you correctly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Indeed, - I don't honestly expect that N's ideas are wrong.. I suspect he is almost undoubtedly doing what I or you do also.. but that he explains the ideas in a completely different way - a way that I find FAR too detailed and destructive to effective playing/learning..  but I wonder if that is because its written. Perhaps if N was to directly observe my playing in person and offer advice there I would have a totally different perspective.

I rather agree with the idea that if you purely flex your finger will slip on the key, the part extension of the PIP/DIP joints resolves this, which I think N does consciously..  personally I just adjust slightly subconsciously, either by having a certain freedom (or lack of conscious effort) in those joints - and through subtle adjustments of the arm forward and backward.. which is done totally by feel. If it is brought into the conscious calculated realm it completely stops functioning altogether and causes problems... 

For me personally, because I do this naturally, the direct instruction to extend or any concious thought about it results in over doing it, and negative consequences.

I rather don't find the need to explain so mechanically either, with the muscles names etc. or scientific reasoning (though I accept that for some people it makes sense that way) - usually its as simple as "observe the feeling of resistance if you move in this way or that way - find the path where the resistance is less or none" ..and if necessary offer more direct instructions about what to adjust to find that..  and this is only really entered into if there is an obvious problem with creating a desired sound.

The next thing that usually occurs in a student when going through this is collapsed distal joints, which can be resolved with a few balance exercises. So that the student learns to maintain the balanced curve of the finger without necessarily fixing it in place..  Alan Fraser's book was good for ideas on achieving that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Indeed, - I don't honestly expect that N's ideas are wrong.. I suspect he is almost undoubtedly doing what I or you do also.. but that he explains the ideas in a completely different way - a way that I find FAR too detailed and destructive to effective playing/learning..  but I wonder if that is because its written. Perhaps if N was to directly observe my playing in person and offer advice there I would have a totally different perspective.

I rather agree with the idea that if you purely flex your finger will slip on the key, the part extension of the PIP/DIP joints resolves this, which I think N does consciously..  personally I just adjust slightly subconsciously, either by having a certain freedom (or lack of conscious effort) in those joints - and through subtle adjustments of the arm forward and backward.. which is done totally by feel. If it is brought into the conscious calculated realm it completely stops functioning altogether and causes problems...  

I rather don't find the need to explain so mechanically either, with the muscles names etc. or scientific reasoning (though I accept that for some people it makes sense that way) - usually its as simple as "observe the feeling of resistance if you move in this way or that way - find the path where the resistance is less or none" ..and if necessary offer more direct instructions about what to adjust to find that.

The next thing that usually occurs in a student when going through this is collapsed distal joints, which can be resolved with a few balance exercises. So that the student learns to maintain the balanced curve of the finger without necessarily fixing it in place..  Alan Fraser's book was good for ideas on achieving that.

Have you read my post on the two basic finger actions? It's virtually nothing but practical exercises. I'm interested in the background and in proofs (to counter pseudoscientific claims that are widely taken as if fact) but these issues translate really very simply into what to do at the piano. 99 percent of my teaching is on practical applications- with just the odd bit of background. Equally, for my current blog posts virtually everything is about putting the benefits into practise- with background only being their to back up what your average learner might perceive as barmy, compared to traditional advice.

[pts1]

The way I've been taught to play (not when I was a child, but later) involved a a lot of listening (obvious) and a lot of "imagination", carrying the sound in my inner ear before the next interval. (Does this makes sense to you?) "judging the interval", "singing it", but obviously this is something that goes on internally, purely speaking the key has been played, and then you have the next. However, I find the sound changes drastically when listening that way, objectively the sound has a different projection.Now my questions is, do you have a "mechanical" way to explain this? Is there something "else" I'm doing that I'm not aware I am?

This is a good but complicated question, I think!

Everything we do at the piano is ultimately -- if successful -- an illusion.

The piano is a percussive instrument.  It is a series of felt hammers that strike strings to produce sounds.

Once the key is played the hammer is catapulted towards the string -- and we only have a very small fraction of a second in which we are in control of the speed with which we send the hammer on its way.

And now we are onto the next note, and the next, and next and so on repeating this basic mechanical task.

How then do we create a smooth crescendo for instance?

We can't. Its not possible like a violinist can or a singer can with a continuous stream of breath across vocal chords.

All we can do is play each note somewhat louder than the next in a measured planned way to create the illusion of a continuous crescendo that "fools" the ear of the listener.

It is much like the idea of "motion pictures".   

If we watch a movie, it is really NOT people on the screen showing emotion, or doing what ever they do.... it is the projection of individual still pictures taken with a camera and shown individually on the screen in quick succession one after the other thus creating an illusion for the audience of "real  people living real lives."

This, for instance, is why playing a Bach Prelude and Fugue musically WITHOUT peddle is so difficult.

A compete illusion must be created from scratch for the listener, complete with crescendo, diminuendo, pulse, rhythm, terracing, voicing, etc., etc.

So I think its a fair analogy to say the pianist with each note is taking a "still musical picture"
visualized in her imagination and mechanically transmitted through the key to the hammer hitting the string, which -- when connected with the other "still musical pictures" of a piece of music, will result in a convincing illusion full of emotion, thought, metaphor and whatever else the artist has intended.

Therefore, I think we start with an artistic idea of a piece of music, be it metaphorical or emotion or sound, and "deconstruct" this image to its parts in order to bring it alive at the keyboard one thought out note at a time.

I don't know if I answered your question or even got close to it, but I hope this helps!

PS

I mentioned Bach because I really enjoyed listening to you on your site!

[pts1]

I rather don't find the need to explain so mechanically either, with the muscles names etc. or scientific reasoning (though I accept that for some people it makes sense that way) - usually its as simple as "observe the feeling of resistance if you move in this way or that way - find the path where the resistance is less or none" ..and if necessary offer more direct instructions about what to adjust to find that..  and this is only really entered into if there is an obvious problem with creating a desired sound.

Right. The whole point of learning mechanics properly is so you DON'T have to constantly be thinking about them but use them as a tool to achieve the results you want.

Its somewhat like walking in that regard. We do not worry about walking mechanics, constantly refining them or changing them or isolating certain muscles, bones, etc... if we did, it would result in disaster.

Playing piano is too complex a task to be "thinking" about the mechanics all the time, especially in a highly scientific/anatomical way.

It IS absolutely imperative that one use correct mechanics and ingrain these habits over time.

But once this is done, its time to get on with the higher goals of piano playing for which mechanics are really just the tools.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is a good but complicated question, I think!

Everything we do at the piano is ultimately -- if successful -- an illusion.

The piano is a percussive instrument.  It is a series of felt hammers that strike strings to produce sounds.

Once the key is played the hammer is catapulted towards the string -- and we only have a very small fraction of a second in which we are in control of the speed with which we send the hammer on its way.

And now we are onto the next note, and the next, and next and so on repeating this basic mechanical task.

How then do we create a smooth crescendo for instance?

We can't. Its not possible like a violinist can or a singer can with a continuous stream of breath across vocal chords.

All we can do is play each note somewhat louder than the next in a measured planned way to create the illusion of a continuous crescendo that "fools" the ear of the listener.

It is much like the idea of "motion pictures".  

If we watch a movie, it is really NOT people on the screen showing emotion, or doing what ever they do.... it is the projection of individual still pictures taken with a camera and shown individually on the screen in quick succession one after the other thus creating an illusion for the audience of "real  people living real lives."

This, for instance, is why playing a Bach Prelude and Fugue musically WITHOUT peddle is so difficult.

A compete illusion must be created from scratch for the listener, complete with crescendo, diminuendo, pulse, rhythm, terracing, voicing, etc., etc.

So I think its a fair analogy to say the pianist with each note is taking a "still musical picture"
visualized in her imagination and mechanically transmitted through the key to the hammer hitting the string, which -- when connected with the other "still musical pictures" of a piece of music, will result in a convincing illusion full of emotion, thought, metaphor and whatever else the artist has intended.

Therefore, I think we start with an artistic idea of a piece of music, be it metaphorical or emotion or sound, and "deconstruct" this image to its parts in order to bring it alive at the keyboard one thought out note at a time.

I don't know if I answered your question or even got close to it, but I hope this helps!

PS

I mentioned Bach because I really enjoyed listening to you on your site!

I agree with everything you say, but what when a pianist plays each note louder but fails to get the desired illusion? Is it necessarily a lack of inner musical conception? Maybe, but not always. I've heard remarkable changes to the illusion follow on without a word on the listening on musical intentions. If the student learns to feel more physically connected between tones, the illusion often comes far better than if I lecture them on phrasing. Sometimes a different physical foundation magically triggers "listening". I have one student who is exceptionally musical and d who listens to various great pianists on youtube. I get far more from him when I show him the physical side of phrasing- so he can control very good intentions that he does not necessarily have the feel for executing. Of course some people have no inner concept but sometimes they do and just need to learn the physical means behind the legato illusion. Paul frequently speaks of similar experiences.

PS above all, what about pianists who sound musical but nowhere near the velvety cantabile of cherkassky? Is the musical intention their only deficiency? It's all too easy to forget that you can sound pretty damned good yet still have colossal room for improvement to means, as much as to intent.

[nyiregyhazi]

Right. The whole point of learning mechanics properly is so you DON'T have to constantly be thinking about them but use them as a tool to achieve the results you want.

Its somewhat like walking in that regard. We do not worry about walking mechanics, constantly refining them or changing them or isolating certain muscles, bones, etc... if we did, it would result in disaster.

No disaster for me. I cannot overstate how much more at ease my unconscious walking is from doing precisely that. Ever tried feldenkrais exercises? There are many free podcasts online. I actually wrote a blog post with walking exercises myself. There are few movements that cannot be improved and made easier- even if we like to assume we already must have got them right.

[pts1]

No disaster for me. I cannot overstate how much more at ease my unconscious walking is from doing precisely that

Well, I'm glad for you, though I wasn't really talking about you.

You truly "walk to a different drummer"! 

[ajspiano]

Can't say I have read your posts - I will probably do so though..  I gradually go through the stuff on your blog every so often... though in no particular order.

I do find the perspective valuable - it provides an additional angle toward explaining these things, which I think matters because obviously while it doesn't work that well for me, it does for you - and therefore its reasonable to assume I may have a student that it would help to be able to explain from a different perspective.

Personally I don't have a lot of students right now that would be able to comprehend such detail (very young ones), or in the case of the older ones they just don't need it because their technical concerns are resolving relatively intuitively with simple movement suggestions and sound image. So its not really something I have a cause to dig into..

Its a bit of a balancing act though right? There are many teaching concerns. And while physical technique obviously matters significantly toward playing ability many during early development its usually enough for them to think about reading/coordination/dynamics - adding high levels of detail to physical aspects before a student is a way down the path usually results in a bit of a mental implosion..   or they can do it HS, and they show real progress on an isolated individual figure but have significant difficulty maintaining it when playing HT. I usually find the use of parallel sets and such FAR more effective at getting it "felt" and working HT, than I do trying to explain physically whats going wrong.

I also find that while I can be interested in conscious evaluation of mechanics in non musical situations (though mine is very 'feel' orientated - with limited technical science compared to yours) a student generally wont be. I can talk to them a lot about feel and how to observe physical sensations and make progress in a lesson, but they don't necessarily replicate that process at home, and so it can be more beneficial to tackle something that they can be excited about and stick at through out the week..  Which may just be getting it smooth HT, not playing an a perfect cresc. with immaculate technique..   These details need to be ironed out over time as the student becomes ready.

..which leads to why repertoire choice is so important, you need to be able to provide situations where a student will be able to focus on details, and work on more specific coordination without  being bored by it..  and to do that you first have to open them up to the idea that such musical nuances even exist in the first place.

..anyway, enough off topic teaching ranting.

[ajspiano]

In reference to the walking, I did actually find it pretty fascinating the use of the tai chi walking in "the craft of piano" and how it relates to legato playing.

And while I can walk pretty well, and see no need to improve on it..  if I needed to be able to walk in a way that I could accurately regulate the speed at which my feet landed, I may have to consider reworking my strut.

^probably wouldnt look at it from a technical/mechanical perspective though.. I'd still just use feel..   

but 'feel' is something that you develop also, because you have to know what feel to look for. The mechanical break down can help with this when you are really stumped. You need to be able to figure out what it should feel like which can mean mechanically testing a lot of alternatives and deciding on the best one before then working exclusively by feel to maintain it.

Everyone has their journey..  personally I did have to go through that because I havent had a teacher since about 6th grade AMEB (as far as I pursued exams) - so to be frank, as far as tough repertoire I'm effectively self-taught..(excluding books and things ofcourse) and my teacher before then gave limited technical advice anyway.

However, coming out the other side of that (or atleast at some point in the middle perhaps) I am able to help people find what works without them having to do anywhere near the thinking I did, which I guess is mostly because it relates to the "how do you acquire a working technique?" question, as much as the "what is the right technique?" one.

[nyiregyhazi]

In reference to the walking, I did actually find it pretty fascinating the use of the tai chi walking in "the craft of piano" and how it relates to legato playing.

And while I can walk pretty well, and see no need to improve on it..  if I needed to be able to walk in a way that I could accurately regulate the speed at which my feet landed, I may have to consider reworking my strut.

^probably wouldnt look at it from a technical/mechanical perspective though.. I'd still just use feel..    

but 'feel' is something that you develop also, because you have to know what feel to look for. The mechanical break down can help with this when you are really stumped. You need to be able to figure out what it should feel like which can mean mechanically testing a lot of alternatives and deciding on the best one before then working exclusively by feel to maintain it.

Everyone has their journey..  personally I did have to go through that because I havent had a teacher since about 6th grade AMEB (as far as I pursued exams) - so to be frank, as far as tough repertoire I'm effectively self-taught..(excluding books and things ofcourse) and my teacher before then gave limited technical advice anyway.

However, coming out the other side of that (or atleast at some point in the middle perhaps) I am able to help people find what works without them having to do anywhere near the thinking I did, which I guess is mostly because it relates to the "how do you acquire a working technique?" question, as much as the "what is the right technique?" one.

I'd just question whether feel is ever truly independent of mechanics and vice versa- except in randomised experimentation? We may not term it that way, but everything we do is mechanics. If I want to stand with less effort. I can try to feel less effort. Alternatively I can perceive how gravity will to try to collapse the knee, under the understanding that the objectively lowest effort is near verticality but not forced into full length. I can then bob very slowly up and down from the knee with tiny movements to look for the moment I'm only lengthening exactly enough to find balance- not to force it with wasted efforts. It will provide a feel for the most easy position- giving a sense of how to release efforts that do not directly play a role in balancing the knee against collapsing. Likewise, when I explore balance with the finger, I start with rational awareness that the path is not vertical and alternate between collapsing it and extending to full length on a more diagonal path of action. I try to the  trace the natural line of force and then explore where balance is easiest and what does and doesn't contribute to it. Without that starter point I could try random positions and feel what they are like, but by first mapping out a basic idea of what I am exploring and why, I can add a focus to the sensory process. I'm all for random experiments to but experiments that are founded on something to look for can be a lot more productive when things have yet to fall into place. Some of the work is about looking for things that are clearly needed to perform a task, other work can be about introducing a more random element and observing. I could get a student to do this without explanation- but the experience all contributes to an internal picture of the finger's mechanics. And it would work because I put them in a situation which caused them to feel a necessary part of the pianistic mechanics. If someone self learns that without some teaching method that evolved to aid it, they are VERY lucky to stumble on it by unguided exploration.

Ironically, I think the most harmful mechanical issues are based on casual assumptions that we don't even realise the brain made. That's why I seek to involve more accurate mechanical background as a cure for a dubious background mindset. Eg. The arm is strong and the fingers are weaker and the key goes down, so shove the arm down into the key to play loud and avoid overworking the weak fingers by actually moving them. Some part of the brain makes virtually everyone start out on this mechanical model, without even knowing it. By analysing the folly of this model, you can replace it with a better model in which you actually start feeling what you are doing and what works better- freeing the hand up from enforced straining that the subconscious mechanical model ironically will tend to force it into. Even telling a student to stop shoving their arm is part of altering their internal mechanical model (if not likely to be much of a cure in itself). So is showing them how to feel how to avoid shoving the arm. Stepping back and being objective can be the best way of all to start the possibility of a more deep kind of sensory learning, where you can actually feel what you are doing- but it must always be the beginning of exploring feel. It's useless to imagine that taking a mechanical concept will replace that. On some level, we all have a mechanical background to our intentions. The question is whether it's in line with what makes a feel for what works possible, or in conflict with it.

[ajspiano]

Well it is the nature of science that you'll learn more if you start out with a logical hypothesis rather than just stab in the dark..

In regard to piano at least the problems occur when you cling to the hypothesis despite results (though perhaps that's a common flaw in a lot of experimental situations )

..I just don't think that its necessary for everyone to use high detail description of this nature. Not everyone operates with such scientific processes - some people are far better communicated to in different ways. If an adult physicist comes in for piano lessons this kind of thing is going to immediately help them..  If your student is a 6 yr old girl whose current life ambition is be a princess then you need a different approach to communicating this stuff.

In addition, even amongst people who will understand this stuff.. Everyone has there own perception of what if feels like to play, and limits to their perceptive ability (which can ofcourse be expanded). They also think about things in different ways..

One may associate a certain feeling with a certain mechanical description but in reality be doing quite the reverse. The anatomy/physiology is pretty complex, and we are certainly not born with an innate understanding that when the instructor says "flexor" it feels like this. You can explain a movement that is controlled by the flexors, but at first a student may also trigger other muscles that you don't mean, and they do not realise they are doing it.. nor can they isolate them either. This seems particularly evident with interossei - since they tend to be developed in pianists a great deal more than the average person..  so if you ask someone to perform an interossei based movement (such as the extension from triggering both the muscles either side of a finger) it may for some be a lot like trying to learn to walk again from scratch - they've almost never moved their fingers in that way.

..so at this point what do you do? you can't very well say "this is the appropriate path of key decent" - because the person can not move the right way to begin with.. they need to learn to control the hand muscles. - and if you give them an overholding exercise and just teach them how to perform the task without any strain to the hand the "direct path" bit just about resolves itself on the spot by 90%.

Parallel set exercises also fix a lot of this stuff aswell (perhaps overholding has some similarities to these when used in conjuction with the chord attack).. with very little need for excess explanation other than some minor adjustments.

../ends poorly thought out ranting..

[nyiregyhazi]

Well it is the nature of science that you'll learn more if you start out with a logical hypothesis rather than just stab in the dark..

In regard to piano at least the problems occur when you cling to the hypothesis despite results (though perhaps that's a common flaw in a lot of experimental situations )

..I just don't think that its necessary for everyone to use high detail description of this nature. Not everyone operates with such scientific processes - some people are far better communicated to in different ways. If an adult physicist comes in for piano lessons this kind of thing is going to immediately help them..  If your student is a 6 yr old girl whose current life ambition is be a princess then you need a different approach to communicating this stuff.

In addition, even amongst people who will understand this stuff.. Everyone has there own perception of what if feels like to play, and limits to their perceptive ability (which can ofcourse be expanded). They also think about things in different ways..

One may associate a certain feeling with a certain mechanical description but in reality be doing quite the reverse. The anatomy/physiology is pretty complex, and we are certainly not born with an innate understanding that when the instructor says "flexor" it feels like this. You can explain a movement that is controlled by the flexors, but at first a student may also trigger other muscles that you don't mean, and they do not realise they are doing it.. nor can they isolate them either. This seems particularly evident with interossei - since they tend to be developed in pianists a great deal more than the average person..  so if you ask someone to perform an interossei based movement (such as the extension from triggering both the muscles either side of a finger) it may for some be a lot like trying to learn to walk again from scratch - they've almost never moved their fingers in that way.

..so at this point what do you do? you can't very well say "this is the appropriate path of key decent" - because the person can not move the right way to begin with.. they need to learn to control the hand muscles. - and if you give them an overholding exercise and just teach them how to perform the task without any strain to the hand the "direct path" bit just about resolves itself on the spot by 90%.

../ends poorly thought out ranting..

Sure. I never reference muscles. The brain doesn't work that way. I show them a movement in mid air, so they can feel it. I explain briefly why they need it and why an arm shove is so much worse say and then get them to do it on the piano. Sure it's not quite as simple as doing that and then it being perfect, but all the mechanical principles I voice to any one in a lesson are very basic. I don't think anyone is ever poorer for having an objective guide to aid their practise- as feel alone is quickly lost unless you have something to guide it into regular habit. I don't think significant conflict between what you think you do and what you really do is ever necessary- it's just that most methods don't resolve what is often a simple reality. Recently I've found that getting students to compare pure fingers vs pure rotation and a conscious blend, in Alberti bass is usually overwhelming more effective than giving either generic instructions to practise rocking or to move from the fingers more. I don't see how anyone could ever be poorer for realising such a simple necessity as the blend of elements. Awareness that you need fingers to lengthen a little for rotation to function in practise makes overwhelming difference compared to getting them to spend ages rocking for the mere sake of doing so-without awareness that success requires a combination. So many approaches fixate on one part of a puzzle, when it's very easy to show how different elements must converge, rather than leave an important piece out.

Also, you don't have to call it mechanics to teach it. Even a six year old can feel how bad collapse is compared to standing up from the knuckle, if you show them what it's like to experience both and listen to the change in sound and feel. They can feel the objective background if you get them to experience it- and then understand it not via mechanical terms but awareness of a clear difference in results. However without some sort of distinction between extremes they may not know what they are trying to get a feel for in practise or what helps produce it. I like to get a student to know the feel of what not to do by experiencing an extremely poor movement deliberately- not just to feel what is good in a completely abstract sense.

[ajspiano]

Recently I've found that getting students to compare pure fingers vs pure rotation and a conscious blend, in Alberti bass is usually overwhelming more effective than giving either generic instructions to practise rocking or to move from the fingers more

Its obviously situation dependent how you actually apply this - but this is a primary driving factor in correct application of parallel sets, as used for diagnosis of technical concerns.

1. Move from the finger alone
2. Move from the wrist alone
3. Move with arm alone
4. Move with rotation alone..

..conciously experiement with combinations of the movements..

Whether or not you like all his ideas, - I suspect you will identify flaws in the explanation of aspects of it..  Chang's entire description of how to do it is found in this section...  It is infinitely more detailed and useful than the earlier part of his book that explains the use of chord attack and paralell set with a CEGE alberti figure -

https://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.III.7.2

I would've thought you'd read it before, but perhaps a re-read may help solidify something.. You won't like his use of the word fixed (neither do I) ..I rather ignore that part if I use them in a lesson because it just strikes me as a way to generate tension..  I just say something "ok now lets use  fingers" or "think from the arm" ..or whatever is applicable, unless the students clearly requires further explanation and a visual demo is not adequate either.

but all the mechanical principles I voice to any one in a lesson are very basic.

You're posts here do not reflect that. They suggest extreme over use of mechanical detail that would totally knock out most students mentally..  But that is why I said earlier that I suspect I would have a totally different perspective on your thoughts if it was discussed in person at a piano.. I'm perfectly familiar with how easily things are misinterpreted when put in writing. This stuff simply requires demonstration and feedback.

[nyiregyhazi]

Its obviously situation dependent how you actually apply this - but this is a primary driving factor in correct application of parallel sets, as used for diagnosis of technical concerns.

1. Move from the finger alone
2. Move from the wrist alone
3. Move with arm alone
4. Move with rotation alone..

..conciously experiement with combinations of the movements..

Whether or not you like all his ideas, - I suspect you will identify flaws in the explanation of aspects of it..  Chang's entire description of how to do it is found in this section...  It is infinitely more detailed and useful than the earlier part of his book that explains the use of chord attack and paralell set with a CEGE alberti figure -

https://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.III.7.2

I would've thought you'd read it before, but perhaps a re-read may help solidify something.. You won't like his use of the word fixed (neither do I) ..I rather ignore that part if I use them in a lesson because it just strikes me as a way to generate tension..  I just say something "ok now lets use  fingers" or "think from the arm" ..or whatever is applicable, unless the students clearly requires further explanation and a visual demo is not adequate either.

You're posts here do not reflect that. They suggest extreme over use of mechanical detail that would totally knock out most students mentally..  But that is why I said earlier that I suspect I would have a totally different perspective on your thoughts if it was discussed in person at a piano.. I'm perfectly familiar with how easily things are misinterpreted when put in writing. This stuff simply requires demonstration and feedback.

Sure, I'm discussing the background here- not teaching. I like Chang for organisation of practise but I don't really feel he deals with technique, as such. It's rarely enough just to segregate things like that and expect technique to emerge automatically after. The foundation of finger contact and hand position/balance determines whether the results are useful or just disorganised experiments.

[ajspiano]

Sure, I'm discussing the background here- not teaching. I like Chang for organisation of practise but I don't really feel he deals with technique, as such.

Well he doesn't, he references sandor/fink.. saying that the value of his book depends heavily upon the study of one or the other.  (or both)

[lostinidlewonder]

Elaborate description in words for physical movement is just silliness. It can only ever describe isolated situations and falls down as soon as you try to apply it in practice.

You must do things not correct so as you move closer to the correct movement you can FEEL the difference. You do not improve yourself by merely thinking about it. Much of our improvement comes through understanding how our own two hands feel while playing a given situation, not generalization on how you twist, turn, lift blah blah blah. You want to start describing movement in words then you must describe every single situation you come across or you are merely describing a situation which does not occur all the time and thus what you are saying is irrelevant to many people. Good luck, there's thousands of situations to describe and an huge variety of hands to consider.

[nyiregyhazi]

Elaborate description in words for physical movement is just silliness. It can only ever describe isolated situations and falls down as soon as you try to apply it in practice.

You must do things not correct so as you move closer to the correct movement you can FEEL the difference. You do not improve yourself by merely thinking about it. Much of our improvement comes through understanding how our own two hands feel while playing a given situation, not generalization on how you twist, turn, lift blah blah blah. You want to start describing movement in words then you must describe every single situation you come across or you are merely describing a situation which does not occur all the time and thus what you are saying is irrelevant to many people. Good luck, there's thousands of situations to describe and an huge variety of hands to consider.

On exactly these lines though, words help a student experience the bad alternative and a whole range of in between states. The best way to cement something is to feel what it's like to do it or not do it. If you only try to feel something direct and every time you have less awareness of what goes into a useful feel. Describing a subjective sensation is pretty pointless (and I don't recall anyone having done so in this thread) but words guide you between the right places and the wrong places- so the sense of what the good feel is can become cemented deeper down. When feel something clearly enough to continue it or release it, you have a true feel. A good example is to alternate between a grounded key and one that comes up half way- to perceive how the finger balances the springs and what level of activity is involved in that task. Words alone can give something useful- even if prodding helps too.

[lostinidlewonder]

The problem is this is on a message board it is not a classroom situation. We do not have specific situation to discuss and a particular hand to investigate. Thus any elaborations are just uselessness.

[nyiregyhazi]

The problem is on a message board this is not a classroom situation. We do not have specific situation to discuss and a particular hand to investigate. Thus any elaborations is just uselessness.

By all means ignore such uselessness and leave it to those who find the issues of interest to them.

[lostinidlewonder]

By all means ignore such uselessness and leave it to those who find the issues of interest to them.

At least you admit it is useless

[p2u_]

The way I've been taught to play (not when I was a child, but later) involved a a lot of listening (obvious) and a lot of "imagination", carrying the sound in my inner ear before the next interval. (Does this makes sense to you?) "judging the interval", "singing it", but obviously this is something that goes on internally, purely speaking the key has been played, and then you have the next. However, I find the sound changes drastically when listening that way, objectively the sound has a different projection.Now my questions is, do you have a "mechanical" way to explain this? Is there something "else" I'm doing that I'm not aware I am?

I'll take a shot at this without pretending that I can guess exactly what YOU go trough in terms of sensations and/or emotions. I'll try to avoid mechanical descriptions.

I think you have a well-developed instinctive feeling for pulse, which is probably one of the hardest things to learn if you don't have it. This part of the coordination controls the underlying elements of music (rhythm, mood, phrasing, etc.). The arm and wrist will generally feel "light" and "bouncy".

When such a coordination is already present in a person, the only thing he/she has to do is line up the bones properly and allow them to just move each other to trigger the detail/surface elements of music (voicing, articulation, and motivic shapes). That's what you are doing already. Thinking of muscles, strength, agility, etc. can only ruin this sensation. I really hope that makes sense. The sensation can only be explained using methaphors: to get the precise tone image you want, your fingers "drop" into the keys, at the same time manipulating them.

P.S.: I think you would do yourself a great disservice by wishing to control consciously any of the things you already do so beautifully. A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!

I love this quote.

[j_menz]

P.S.: I think you would do yourself a great disservice by wishing to control consciously any of the things you already do so beautifully. A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!

Paul

 

Perfectly correct. Part of that, I think is that the centipede, instead of thinking "go over there" - one thought, has to think of every single movement individually - hundred/thousands of thoughts, and it's poor brain simply isn't up to it.

I sometimes wonder if the whole secret is to minimise the thinking.

[ajspiano]

A centipede [ciempiés, miriápodo] who thinks about coordinating all his legs won't be able to walk anymore!

*Considers for a moment the mental capacity that would be required to play an 100 voice fugue.

*faints just thinking about it.

[ajspiano]

I sometimes wonder if the whole secret is to minimise the thinking.

I find that if you have a problem you may need to think..  but once sufficient thinking is done, it is done, and best left behind..  or atleast you move onto a different kind of thinking, which might sometimes be described as not thinking.

I think.

[thalbergmad]

I have always thought the whole point of training your fingers is that you can get to the point where you don't have to think.

Then, you can use all of your brain for the music.

Thal

[maitea]

Hello, Guys, HAVE YOU SLEPT AT ALL? It's taken me forever to go through all posts!

To N, pts1 and Paul who replied to me! Thanks! N, I very much like what you say. I do feel the hand, the fingers are differntly alive when listening that way, albeit we might not have the whole explanation for it. It's what I have found empirically. And also agreed that by purely correcting mechanic effects, and generating good contact with the piano, the pianists begins to have a different approach to his sound! Pst 1, also agreed! We are illusionists! And Paul, no desire to control, but now that I also begun teaching, I wondered if there was another the way to explain this, etc etc.. In order for me to be cear and precise to my students.

Now, on the thread that is being going on. I don't find ignorance is an opinion, and I believe we are devoted to learning through our entire life. I believe knowing more can never be harmful. It only is "dstrubing" to us when it questions older believes or doings and we feel in "limbo", there are 2 solutions, ignore the new knowledge by fear of it's interference, or absorb it and alter our procedures in accordance. Which I agree, might sometimes be difficult, and puts us in a vulnerable position, such is fear and insecurity. From both of them I prefer learning and not be scared about doubting what I know, and being humble to learn more and from my mistakes.

I didn't have a single decent piano teacher in my youth (well.. I'm still young..) that had the faintest idea of how a piano and the pianist work. To the extent that after maybe 7 years of playing I asked myself how I played piano as opposed to forte, not just how but why, why the piano responded differently, and I didn't really now! When I had a different teacher who said that in piano sound, or pp, I needed even more contact with the key.. I, poor me that had never thought or been aware of the velocity of depression, I just had no idea how that could be possible. This is probably a very extreme example, but this only was around 10 years ago.. There are still many teachers who have not a clue of anything from basic to complex,creating indefense students.

Our aim is to create autonomous pianists that use their mind and body in the best service to music, and that have the tools to overcome the difficulties they encounter. knowing how and why is essential. I've had to retrain (and I'm still learning everyday), I see all the knowledge I can have of mechanics, my own body, etc, is stored in my concious, and helps and guides the decisions I make during practice. There is the constant feedback of the sound and the feeling and awareness of the body. That transforms into a plasticity, where it is natural to be playing in a correct way, without necessarily thinking on it. But it is necessary to go through the previous process to really comprehend what we are doing.

Not providing them with all the tools, is like leaving them in the forest to find their way on their own. I prefer to give them a map!

[p2u_]

Our aim is to create autonomous pianists that use their mind and body in the best service to music, and that have the tools to overcome the difficulties they encounter. knowing how and why is essential. I've had to retrain (and I'm still learning everyday), I see all the knowledge I can have of mechanics, my own body, etc, is stored in my concious, and helps and guides the decisions I make during practice. There is the constant feedback of the sound and the feeling and awareness of the body. That transforms into a plasticity, where it is natural to be playing in a correct way, without necessarily thinking on it. But it is necessary to go through the previous process to really comprehend what we are doing.

Not providing them with all the tools, is like leaving them in the forest to find their way on their own. I prefer to give them a map!

Yes and No.

Somewhere deep inside I'm convinced that only lack of musicality and musically oriented thinking is the cause of our "mechanical" problems in piano playing, and only by improving this deficiency can one improve true technique; there is virtually no other way around this. I would say that when you get a student that hasn't been spoiled yet by anybody else, then that's what you should work on. Be like Bach and Chopin, not like Czerny.

On the other hand, when you do get such a student with "mechanical" problems, with fingers that buckle, collapse, etc., what system of bio-mechanics are you going to choose? Unless you are an expert in retraining, probably the one you are using yourself, the one your teacher taught you? But again: this must be linked somehow to your artistic ideas about tone production and projection, otherwise you have no way of checking if it's adequate. Just compare Sviatoslav Richter and Vladimir Horowitz to name two extremes, and how differently they approach the piano. What works for Richter in terms of mechanics would be detrimental for Horowitz (and not only), etc.

Paul

[maitea]

Hi,

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.

I'm very honest, and not greedy with my students. If I ever felt I cannot help this particular person I wouldn't hesitate for a moment into helping him or her find a different teacher. I cannot provide solutions for everyone, I believe by default there isn't a perfect teacher, and the moment I feel it's not working, I assure you I will help them seek guidance somewhere else. However, I can tell you also, I don't believe in "systems". I don't teach the way I have been taught, that is for sure! I do have my own artistic ideas of course, and sometimes I have to make them more obvious when the student is still discovering his own. I was taught in the "it's played like this" way, I avoid being that rigid, though I have my own taste bounderies, that of course, are very subjective too! I have to say, I still don't have a student that has come to me with a vast amount of mechanical problems, to require a "retraining". I believe I could help finding a good balance and aligment at the piano, but ultimately if I would feel it's a case that surpases my means, I'd help the person find help somewhere else. Each case is different, that's why I don't believe in systems, or in rigid ideas, but in efficiency of gestures, tailored to everyone.
Maite